NCLB causing 86% of Florida schools to fail to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

Of course that does not mean they are failing schools. It just means that the NCLB goal is becoming reality. Not the stated goal, which is to make schools better....but the realistic picture of what happens when you require all children to take the same test and keep upping the standards every time they succeed at one level.

They have been "reforming" public education since Bush took office. It is now 10 years later, and the percentage of schools not making adequate progress is in the 80% range. They are continuing to barrel ahead with the same changes that did not work for 10 years.

Failure happens when you keep changing the goal. Once there is success at one level, they quietly move the goal posts.

From a Palm Beach Post editorial:

Fix law that flunks Florida



The WP Answer Sheet has more on the percentages, which differ a little from the PBP editorial.

School restructuring and AYP



The WP is speaking of the 2008-2009 school year, and I do not know the year to which the PBP is referring.

It's a good thing Arne Duncan is not in denial about the failures to meet AYP. In fact he recently used the 82% figure referring to nationwide.

Arne having to change tune since NCLB is causing 82% of schools to fail.



The Orlando Sentinel via the Education Matters blog shows different failure percentages, but points out that charter schools fared more badly than public schools.

I wonder how they got their figures?

Florida risks future with charter schools



There is a bill being shoved through in Florida to make charter schools even less accountable than they are now.



The reformers have been planning this a very long time. Democratic think tanks have pushed for charter schools for a decade or so.

They intended public schools to fail, and the charters would be there to rescue the students...making a pretty profit along the way. NCLB was a vehicle for that failure.

Howard Dean said it correctly in 2003, yet even he is not speaking out now. Not a word. There is pretty much silence as public schools and their teachers are bombarded with negativity.



Unfortunately that was not just the goal of President Bush. His goals for education have flourished under our own party's leaders.

And now we are at the 82% mark in failure, so called.

Florida will be more accustomed to failure by then.

The key to shifting to new education schemes is to demonstrate that the existing scheme is failing.

Create support for vouchers (etc) by convincing a majority of parents that their kids can't get a good education without them.

I think most parents want the best for their kids, and will strive to find it.

I don't have faith in monopolies, and accordingly don't think it wise to entrust D.C. with education policy.

Has the establishment of the federal Department of Education resulted in a better educated population?

I'm NOT in favor of gaming the system so that one choice looks unacceptable so that you can artificially gin up support for taxpayers to fund other options.

It is the destruction of public education in this country so parents can say they had a choice.

There can be choices without destroying the public schools.

If your child takes my tax money to a charter or private school, it is being taken from others who are in public schools.

The goal of "choice" is to make people feel superior for being in private or charter schools and get them to look down their noses at students and teachers in public schools...which OUTPERFORM charters.

In Florida private schools are not held accountable, and they do not have to hire certified teachers.

Do you agree with that?

"If your child takes my tax money to a charter or private school, it is being taken from others who are in public schools."

We're spending, what, ~$9,000 per pupil, per year, in public education in FL, right?
If the student and the $9,000 go to another school, the first school doesn't have to deal with them, so what is the 'loss'?
By that reckoning parents could remove 99% of their kids from a public school, but it should get funding as though 100% attended it?!


"The goal of "choice" is to make people feel superior for being in private or charter schools and get them to look down their noses at students and teachers in public schools...which OUTPERFORM charters."

Not all of them. Leon county has schools that span the spectrum. Some are absolutely awful, some are great. My wife is a children's therapist (LCSW), and sees kids at their homes and at their schools. She deals with the teachers and the administrations, and we made the decision earlier this year about where to buy our house based in large part on the quality of the school we would be able to send our kids to.


"In Florida private schools are not held accountable, and they do not have to hire certified teachers. Do you agree with that?"

I'll be honest, I'm not too hung up on 'certifications' (maybe it stems from working in IT and seeing people with lots of certs and no real world experience or knowledge flounder next to folks with experience and understanding, but no certs). 'Certifications' more often than not are a method of restricting the pool of labor to increase the cost of labor.

We need to give the consumers of education (that would be the parents and their children) the opportunity to 'vote' with the funds the State allocates for the education of our children. That's how you development 'accountability' in the education system.

Look at it another way. Do you think poor people are better served with food stamps and the opportunity to shop at the store of their choice, or should they be herded into government a run cafeterias with no choice to go somewhere else if they're not satisfied?
Some people don't need the food stamps, and will buy even more expensive food, but I think we realized a long time ago that having the government run the grocery store wasn't really in the best interest of the poor. Instead we provide them the money to spend as they see fit in their own interest.

Would you be ok with parents of all school age children being given a voucher equivalent to the per pupil education expenditure, and letting parents decide where to send their children? A classroom of 20 students would be worth ~$180,000! That's a lot of money for paying a teacher, buying supplies, and covering overhead. I would expect in such an environment that a countless variety of schools would arise. From small boutiques, with just a handful of rooms and teachers, to large mega-schools, catering to various demands of parents who finally be genuinely empowered.

and institutions.

You presented every argument used by the "reformers". The most specious one is that if you take the money from the public schools it's okay because there won't be as many kids. If you take the time to figure that out....it is the inevitable destruction of the public schools. Follow it to its obvious conclusion.

You sound like you are right on board with what Rick Scott is doing.

You said:

"We need to give the consumers of education (that would be the parents and their children) the opportunity to 'vote' with the funds the State allocates for the education of our children. That's how you development 'accountability' in the education system."
(That is Rick Scott's goal)

This paragraph says so much about your attitude that I don't even know how to address it.

You said:

"Look at it another way. Do you think poor people are better served with food stamps and the opportunity to shop at the store of their choice, or should they be herded into government a run cafeterias with no choice to go somewhere else if they're not satisfied?
Some people don't need the food stamps, and will buy even more expensive food, but I think we realized a long time ago that having the government run the grocery store wasn't really in the best interest of the poor. Instead we provide them the money to spend as they see fit in their own interest."

You are equating food stamps with the dismantling of public education.

I don't even know how to respond to that.

Come to Florida, you would love Rick Scott as your governor.

OOPs...you are in Florida. You must be happy.

I think that is a very good example and it certainly blends taxpayer money and private companies. One could say that the Medicare and Medicaid programs allowing you to choose a private doctor is no different.

I just love it when that happens. :sarcasm: Who else is coming to weigh in on food stamps?

I don't think I am going to fit in very well here. I try to be open minded about everything and if the rest of the participants are as closed minded as you, it doesn't allow for much discussion on topics.

I am especially so about public education.

Just make sure you wear your alligator skin in some of these threads, it can get contentious at times...:hi:

in this country. I get called close-minded.

I just wonder quite frankly if you are considering me the contentious one.

I just wonder if that is the consensus of opinion around here?

I believe in public education.

Also here is what he said below. He thinks that 100% of children can pass such tests. It's an impossible dream.

The quote:

"Should we as a nation be satisfied with less than 100% literacy?"

I gather I am in the definite minority here, and that is frankly too bad.

Never will any nation achieve 100% success in anything at all. I source what I write, and I stand up for myself.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

advice for how it can around here at times.

It is wrong to be passionate about what you consider important for the people of this country.

It is how it is. :cry:

winger talking points.

The most specious one is that if you take the money from the public schools it's okay because there won't be as many kids. If you take the time to figure that out....it is the inevitable destruction of the public schools. Follow it to its obvious conclusion.

Only 'inevitable' if parents didn't want to send their kids to them. Do you think that all parents will decide that? Why would they decide that? Furthermore, if they decide to not send their kids there, why should we send the per pupil funds? Is it about the best interests of the kids, or the best interests of those who have a job at the public schools for you?


We need to give the consumers of education (that would be the parents and their children) the opportunity to 'vote' with the funds the State allocates for the education of our children. That's how you development 'accountability' in the education system."

This paragraph says so much about your attitude that I don't even know how to address it.

You could start by suggesting how you would add 'accountability' to the public school system as it exists now. If parents/students are limited in how they can choose another school to better suit their needs, where is the 'accountability'?
If I couldn't choose another grocery store, what incentive would the grocer have in meeting my needs? If he got my money no matter how rotten the vegetables, would I be better off? Wouldn't I be better off if I could take my money to someone trying harder to earn it? Why should I rely entirely on the monopoly grocer's goodwill? Isn't his own well being (earning my money) a better incentive for him?


Look at it another way. Do you think poor people are better served with food stamps and the opportunity to shop at the store of their choice, or should they be herded into government a run cafeterias with no choice to go somewhere else if they're not satisfied?
Some people don't need the food stamps, and will buy even more expensive food, but I think we realized a long time ago that having the government run the grocery store wasn't really in the best interest of the poor. Instead we provide them the money to spend as they see fit in their own interest.

You are equating food stamps with the dismantling of public education.
I don't even know how to respond to that.

Why do you assume that, if given a choice, no one would want to send their kids to public schools? If no one wants to send their kids there (your assumption), why are you hellbent on forcing them to go?


OOPs...you are in Florida. You must be happy.

I am happy. I choose to live here. I've lived here since I was 10 years old. I chose to buy a house in the part of Leon County with the best schools. I think it is a shame that the kids whose parents live south of the tracks go to much worse schools. I would like to see those parents have better choices. Why wouldn't you?

for students to go to private or charter schools.

I think it is perfectly fine for parents to choose to put their children wherever they please. I just believe it is their responsibility to pay for it themselves.

Why do you think my taxpayer money should go to schools that are not held accountable?

I think the word "choice" is a code word for dismantling public education.

Remember the words of Frank Luntz? He is the one the GOP turns to for how to word things to fool people. The Democrats, lacking a Luntz, fall for his terminology.

Are the words "school choice" public code words for the movement to privatize public education?



And as to our dear education leader:



Why do you think I should pay for students to attend schools with no accountability? I would like an answer.

I'm not. I just don't want to pay... for students to go to private or charter schools.

Why? You seem more interested in the type of the school than the results for the students.
If a government run school has a horrible graduation rate and low proficiency among those who do graduate, why do you want tax money to go there instead the schools where the parents/students want to go? Why is it more about what you want than the parent/student receiving the education?


Why do you think I should pay for students to attend schools with no accountability? I would like an answer.

I did answer. Parental/student choice contains an inherent accountability - if they are not satisfied they can take their money elsewhere.
Your turn to address my questions:

it is the inevitable destruction of the public schools. Follow it to its obvious conclusion.

Only 'inevitable' if parents didn't want to send their kids to them. Do you think that all parents will decide that? Why would they decide that? Furthermore, if they decide to not send their kids there, why should we send the per pupil funds? Is it about the best interests of the kids, or the best interests of those who have a job at the public schools for you?

You could start by suggesting how you would add 'accountability' to the public school system as it exists now. If parents/students are limited in how they can choose another school to better suit their needs, where is the 'accountability'?
If I couldn't choose another grocery store, what incentive would the grocer have in meeting my needs? If he got my money no matter how rotten the vegetables, would I be better off? Wouldn't I be better off if I could take my money to someone trying harder to earn it? Why should I rely entirely on the monopoly grocer's goodwill? Isn't his own well being (earning my money) a better incentive for him?

Why do you assume that, if given a choice, no one would want to send their kids to public schools?

I chose to buy a house in the part of Leon County with the best schools. I think it is a shame that the kids whose parents live south of the tracks go to much worse schools. I would like to see those parents have better choices. Why wouldn't you?

Actually you are starting from a very odd premise. Charter and private schools do NOT have to keep kids who don't perform up to their standards. So soon if they keep taking away public school taxpayer money, there won't be public schools left.

Then where will the kids go when the private and charter schools "counsel them out."?

I think people should send their kids to schools they can afford, and they should not expect me to pay for them at private and charter schools which can teach what they like.

If a government run school has a horrible graduation rate and low proficiency among those who do graduate, why do you want tax money to go there instead the schools where the parents/students want to go? Why is it more about what you want than the parent/student receiving the education?


Why do you think I should pay for students to attend schools with no accountability? I would like an answer.

I did answer. Parental/student choice contains an inherent accountability - if they are not satisfied they can take their money elsewhere.
Your turn to address my questions:

it is the inevitable destruction of the public schools. Follow it to its obvious conclusion.

Only 'inevitable' if parents didn't want to send their kids to them. Do you think that all parents will decide that? Why would they decide that? Furthermore, if they decide to not send their kids there, why should we send the per pupil funds? Is it about the best interests of the kids, or the best interests of those who have a job at the public schools for you?

You could start by suggesting how you would add 'accountability' to the public school system as it exists now. If parents/students are limited in how they can choose another school to better suit their needs, where is the 'accountability'?
If I couldn't choose another grocery store, what incentive would the grocer have in meeting my needs? If he got my money no matter how rotten the vegetables, would I be better off? Wouldn't I be better off if I could take my money to someone trying harder to earn it? Why should I rely entirely on the monopoly grocer's goodwill? Isn't his own well being (earning my money) a better incentive for him?

Why do you assume that, if given a choice, no one would want to send their kids to public schools?

I chose to buy a house in the part of Leon County with the best schools. I think it is a shame that the kids whose parents live south of the tracks go to much worse schools. I would like to see those parents have better choices. Why wouldn't you?

Another interesting comment

We need to give the consumers of education...

That small statement right there summed up most of everything wrong with how education is viewed in the U.S.

Education IS NOT like buying an ice cream cone, nor is it like making something in a factory. You are not paying for a service for the teacher to deliver. This train of thought gives birth to the idea that if a student doesn't understand something, it's the school's fault since they are viewed as a producer of a defective product.

First off, learning isn't something you consume, and teachers don't produce learned students. Likewise, you cannot run a school like a factory where their job is to pump out successful students. Second, that model drastically oversimplifies how complex environmental, social, cultural, behavioral and cognitive processes that make up education. It would be nice if education boiled down to one variable, but rarely are things actually that nice and simple, and although teacher efficacy is a large portion of student success, it is not the largest. That honor goes to family income. Actually, if you look at the studies behind student success, you'll find the majority of what makes a student successful is completely beyond the control of the school itself. The second most influential factor in student success is student behavior (which is shaped primarily by parental influence, home environment, and intrinsic motivation). Letting students and parents act like consumers of education takes the focus off of them, where the majority of student success comes from, and puts on teachers. It reinforces an external locus of control towards education, where they see their learning as primarily in the hands of the teacher. Sadly, they create some pipe-dream, where the students create a narrative don't do the work themselves, and instead attribute their lack of success to the teacher, and think that if only they change schools then suddenly they will start to learn. When they do transfer schools, the cycle repeats itself. I myself am a teacher, and I have seen it happen several times.

and puts it only on the teacher.

Before I retired they announced that the parents and students were our customers, and we were to make them happy. If I had any doubt about retiring early, that did it.

Good points you make. Thanks.

When district spending is compared between school districts, it is always listed as "per pupil spending". When a student leaves for a charter/private school and takes his/her money spent "per pupil", how does it damage the remaining students? The answer to that is the "per pupil spending" figure actually means nothing, but it is a convenient way to compare spending between districts. In theory, there is no harm in a student taking their allotment of money and going somewhere else if that money is actually spent on that pupil. The problem is that is not the case, but saying so exposes the myth of "per pupil spending".

and will not harm it. That has got to be the most amazing talking point ever.

That is only true in the world of folks like Bill Gates, Eli Broad and Arne Duncan.

But hey, I know the battle has already been won by them...I just post about it a reminder of the time when our country took pride in its education system.

....is there any chance of you addressing my comment about "per pupil spending" and the resulting impact of a pupil leaving the public system and taking that money with them? If the money were actually dedicated to that pupil, there is no harm.

Is publicly funded education about educating our children or funding a government run/controlled school system? My opinion is that it is far more important to educate the children that fund a government program. Just my opinion.

How do you feel about college students taking their taxpayer funded grants and going to private colleges? Is it really any different?

Unlike public school districts, however, they can kick students out quite easily. If they do so after that certain date, the money for the student they kick out stays with the school. It doesn't move with the student.

I don't know what you're talking about when you say "per pupil spending" is a "myth".

I don't think you know either.

Most people are products of public schools.

If you are, do you think you're parents paid for it?
Of course they didn't, because everyone paid for it out of their taxes.

The reason schools are failing is that they are not being funded.

If Florida is paying $9000 per student, do you believe you're paying $9000 per
child (assuming you have children in public schools)? It's pretty easy to tell,
all you have to do is look at your property tax form, and it tells you how much
tax is going to public education. (At least they do in California). And believe
me, your portion is nowhere near $9000.

So, if you decide to "CHOOSE" a charter school over a public school you should
only be allow to take that portion of the money that you paid into the system.
You should not be able to take the public's money with you. For example, if you
only paid $1000 into the system, then you should be allowed to use that $1000
to a charter school and the public school should keep the remaining $8000.
Otherwise, you're getting tax-free money that doesn't belong to you, but rather
the public.

And the public would be better off investing money in that child whose parents
"CHOOSE" to have their child attend public schools.

Is there waste in public schools systems? Of course there is.
But I'll be willing to bet that charter schools will be 10x more wasteful, because
1) They have a profit motive. Wait till your neighborhood charter school decides
to close the doors because their not making enough profit on your child, without
public money. I certainly did not pay my taxes so that a private entity can make
a profit, on an education that supposed to be supplied by the public.
2) They'll have no accountability
3) Oh, did I mention "THEY HAVE A PROFIT MOTIVE !!!"

If Florida is paying $9000 per student, do you believe you're paying $9000 per child (assuming you have children in public schools)?

No, and never stated as much. I understand that all landowners (even businesses) in the county pay taxes, a portion of which is devoted to education of the county residents.


It's pretty easy to tell, all you have to do is look at your property tax form, and it tells you how much tax is going to public education. (At least they do in California). And believe me, your portion is nowhere near $9000.

COUNTY COUNTY GENERAL FUND 1,354.25
LEON COUNTY HEALTH MSTU 0.00
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE 86.26
CITY CITY OF TALLAHASSEE 638.31
SCHOOL SCHOOL- LOCAL REQUIREMENT 955.05
SCHOOL BOND 0.00
SCHOOL CAPITAL OUTLAY 258.77
SCHOOL DISCRETIONARY 172.17
NWFWM NW FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMT 7.76

I'll pay ~$1386 in taxes toward the schools in my district (~40% of my property taxes). I realize that I'll pay that amount even though I don't have kids in school, and even after my kids have graduated. I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing against using tax dollars to fund education. My issue is whether those funds are allocated by a bureaucracy that cuts parents/students out of the loop in deciding where those funds should go, or if we'll assign the dollars to the parents/students to make their own choices about where they are spent.
Right now the best chance I have to put my kids in the best performing public schools and avoid the bad ones is to make sure I buy my house in the 'right' part of town. Is that equitable?


So, if you decide to "CHOOSE" a charter school over a public school you should only be allow to take that portion of the money that you paid into the system.

Why? What if other people paying property taxes want my kids to have that choice? Can I take their money too? Seems simpler and more equitable to provide the funds to parents/students and let them choose.


For example, if you only paid $1000 into the system, then you should be allowed to use that $1000 to a charter school and the public school should keep the remaining $8000.
Otherwise, you're getting tax-free money that doesn't belong to you, but rather the public.

The public wants the money spent to education children. Why should the school that people don't want to go to get more money per pupil than the school that people do want to go to?


And the public would be better off investing money in that child whose parents "CHOOSE" to have their child attend public schools.

Why, especially when you admit 'there is waste in public schools systems'? How does rewarding waste and poor results constitute a better investment of tax dollars?


They have a profit motive. Wait till your neighborhood charter school decides to close the doors because their not making enough profit on your child, without public money.

Why would they not have access to the $9000 per pupil if that is what Floridians approve to be spent for the education of children? Why shouldn't the money be tied to the student?


I certainly did not pay my taxes so that a private entity can make a profit, on an education that supposed to be supplied by the public.

Do you think the people who work at schools don't consider themselves profiting from the exchange of their time for a paycheck? If they're just there because they care so much for the well being on the students, then they wouldn't mind a pay cut would they? They do? Maybe there's more to this profit motive in the world than you give credit...

They'll have no accountability

If parents/students have a choice, the school will be accountable to them. What accountability exists in a system where parents/students don't have a choice? I really don't understand the use of this word in this context.

The owner of a restaurant is accountable to his customers. If they choose to take their money somewhere else, he will be forced to close his doors, but so long as he pleases his customers, he will gain more and more business, enabling him to expand his operations and please even more customers. This is how accountability works in the 'real world'. Can you explain how accountability works in the public school system?

So...sounds like you are snarfing the corporatists' red herrings big time. You need to push away from the corporatists' table, and do a wee bit of research. The current assault on public education is NOT about choice, and it's NOT about accountability. If this was about accountability, then--by definition--the overall performance of charter schools would measurably exceed the overall performance of public schools.

Google can be your friend. You should get busy.

btw, are you aware that florida charter schools actually perform *worse* than florida public schools?

that all public schools nor all charter/private schools perform the same. Consequently, statements that charter schools perform *worse* is misleading at best. It's as silly as saying Japanese cars perform better than American cars, so don't ever buy an American car. Some individual American cars get great marks, as do some Japanese, while some of both get terrible reviews. Making a decision on which car to get by only examining the data in aggregate is a mistake.

Some public schools are excellent (like the elementary and middle schools in my neighborhood). Some public schools are horrible.

Likewise, I have every expectation that some charter/private schools do excellent, and some charter/private schools are horrible. Competition for students is what will move resources from the schools doing it wrong to the schools doing it right (whether they are charter, private, or public).

I simply want parents/students to be given a choice with respect to where their children are schooled. I want them to have the opportunity to escape horrible schools that present system does not allow.

I have no idea what you mean by "accountability". Please define that.

If you went to a restaurant and had a horrible experience, fights breaking out, food was cold or rotten, and the waiter had 10 other tables, would you keep going back, maybe give them more money next time? Or would you seek out the restaurant with better service, better atmosphere, and better food? Over time what would happen to the 'bad' restaurant without monopoly access to your wallet, or your family? If they started picketing your house demanding you come to their restaurant, would that sway you? Do you understand in what respect the restaurant owner, the chef, and the waiter are accountable to the customer?

Choice reforms the world around us constantly, in ways it appears you don't even recognize yet (given your hostility to individual choice). It needs to be unleashed in the realm of education.

given the choice, people most often pick the neighborhood school regardless of performance measures. They then demand that the administrators work to fix it. This is the choice people want, specifically the choice to send their kids to a high quality free public school in their neighborhood. It is the one choice that the edu-political-industrial-complex will not deliver, because that would cost real money.

All the rest of your talking points are the propoganda lines spread to avoid the simple truth. Businesses want to tell us they can deliver more for less money, but it has never been true, and has never been what the people actually want. The motivation is to duck political responsibility, save money to cut taxes, gut the teachers unions, get prayer and segregation back into schools, and get the teaching of evolution out.

It has never been the teachers fault, the student's fault, or the parent's fault. The bottom line is that we elect these people to deliver services to the public, which is why we call them "public servants". The service we want delivered is a universal high quality system of free public schools, they in turn refuse to raise the taxes and spend the funds to deliver it, say "you can't just throw money at the problem", then proceed to blame everyone but themselves for the results.

Actually, this is a problem you can throw money at. In fact, virtually all competent research indicates that on average, the amount of money you throw at it is the one clearest predictor of the success you will achieve.

Sorry, the facts are that we actually can afford it, and more than that, it is actually stupid not to.

The fascinating thing is given the choice, people most often pick the neighborhood school regardless of performance measures.

Then why does Madfloridian (and others) perceive giving parents/students the choice of where to send their child as such a threat to the establishment schools?


They then demand that the administrators work to fix it.

And when those demands are not met, then what?


This is the choice people want, specifically the choice to send their kids to a high quality free public school in their neighborhood.

I don't consider the observation that people want something high quality, free, and convenient to be particularly profound. The question is what to do when they're getting low quality.


It is the one choice that the edu-political-industrial-complex will not deliver, because that would cost real money. All the rest of your talking points are the propoganda lines spread to avoid the simple truth. Businesses want to tell us they can deliver more for less money, but it has never been true, and has never been what the people actually want.

Here in Tallahassee we have a school known as Maclay School. It was founded by parents, and is non-sectarian. They have an exceptionally low teacher/student ratio, exceptional performance (85% of children passing the AP English test, 100% college enrollment!), and yet the tuition is in line with the FL public school per pupil funding levels ($9,950).

The folks running Maclay are getting something right. I'd like to empower more parents/students to attend a school that is getting it right than keep them in schools getting it wrong.
Allow me another analogy: If Church's chicken isn't making my meal to my satisfaction, but KFC can and does, why should I have to keep complaining to the manager at Church's instead of being allowed to just go to KFC? With my money KFC can expand. The defenders of the status quo want to keep Church's in business even when the customers don't. What sense does that make?
Which begs the question, does the school exist to serve the well being of the staff, or the students?


Sorry, the facts are that we actually can afford it, and more than that, it is actually stupid not to.

As I pointed out, the folks at Maclay are showing it can be done with the resources we already allocate per pupil. The question is why do some folks not want to let parents/students allocate those resources individually and have the opportunity to go to a school like Maclay?

"They have figured it out here, so if everyone does the same, schools will be great."

What do they do when the demands are not met? They continue to send their kids to the neighborhood schools and protest when administrators attempt to close it. Read the news.

This is not about empowering parents. Studies indicate that most parents do not want to be empowered, they want decent public schools in their neighborhood.

Why is it that you assume that parents, if so empowered, will make good and reasonable choices? Some, no doubt will make good choices, others won't. Foster care is full of kids from parents that have made poor choices. If you have taught, you will run into kids still at home, where parents are actively making poor choices daily. Why should a poor choice exist, anywhere?

Citing a pet school, where all the parents have one thing in common, a desire to make good choices for their kids, you have by definition selected a heavily biased sample for comparison. The fact that 100 percent become college enrolled is further evidence of bias in the sample. Frankly, 100 percent of our kids are not and never were college material, and nothing you can do to education can or will ever change this.

Parents have always had choices, in most places, a strong private school system exists. They cost extra, but it is a choice parents can make. For a time, I made that choice. I drove a really old car and lived in a really cheap house to make the payments, but it seemed worth it. It eventually became clear that a better and more affordable choice was to spend the extra tuition funds moving to a neighborhood where the free public schools were great, actually better than the best private schools, regardless of cost. Why are there neighborhoods where the free public schools are poor? Why do we tolerate this poor performance on the part of our elected officials, and in turn allow them to pass the blame off on educators and parents?

This, being a democracy, means that what people actually want is in fact profound, it is by definition the most profound thing. I would like to live in a society where government collects taxes and delivers quality services, why can I not have the freedom to do this? In fact I did have this choice and moved to a place that has higher taxes and supports better free public schools. Why can't the rest of us have this choice as well? When a politician tells you about the services you can't have, fire the politician and elect someone who will deliver.

Charter schools and voucher programs are just a politician's approach to ducking responsibility for failed performance. Why do you want to let them off the hook?

I'd really appreciate you not putting words my mouth. If you have a question, ask it, I'm happy to explain, but don't make up arguments, attribute them to me, and then waste your time trying to knock them down.


"They have figured it out here, so if everyone does the same, schools will be great."

I actually don't believe that at all. I think there exists enormous diversity in the population that 'one size fits all' approaches can't address. That's why I want to empower individuals instead of relying on bureaucracies.


What do they do when the demands are not met? They continue to send their kids to the neighborhood schools and protest when administrators attempt to close it.

So they just have to suck it up? That's your solution?!
Let me ask, if a restaurant fails to meet your needs, do you protest to the management and then just keep going there and giving them your money even when they don't satisfy you? Or do you take your money somewhere else and let them reap what they've sown?


This is not about empowering parents. Studies indicate that most parents do not want to be empowered, they want decent public schools in their neighborhood.

Nothing would stop parents from choosing to send their kid to the school in their neighborhood. If that is what most want, that is what they would get. Giving them a choice doesn't preclude a choice. You're the one who is saying they shouldn't be allowed to choose.


Why is it that you assume that parents, if so empowered, will make good and reasonable choices? Some, no doubt will make good choices, others won't. Foster care is full of kids from parents that have made poor choices. If you have taught, you will run into kids still at home, where parents are actively making poor choices daily. Why should a poor choice exist, anywhere?

I have no doubt some parents will make bad choices, but others will make good choices. I think the vast majority of parents want what is best for their children, and will go to great lengths to pursue it. As I explained, my wife does her therapy in home and in school. My best friend is a middle school teacher, and I'm well aware the most important aspect in a child's ability and commitment to learn is going to come from home. That having been said, if no choice is provided, how can we tell if it is good or bad?
You start with the premise that people can't be trusted with their children, and so the bureaucracy should be empowered to make these decisions for them. I reject your authoritarian view.
"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? The organizers maintain that society, when left undirected, rushes headlong to its inevitable destruction because the instincts of the people are so perverse. The legislators claim to stop this suicidal course and to give it a saner direction. Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind; if so, let them show their titles to this superiority."


Citing a pet school, where all the parents have one thing in common, a desire to make good choices for their kids, you have by definition selected a heavily biased sample for comparison.

The main thing I wanted to point out was that for the same amount of money as spent in public schools Maclay has shown enormous success. I would prefer an education system that empowered parents from the south side of Tallahassee to be able to afford to send their kids to a school like Maclay. Too often 'voucher' systems offer parents 1/2 or 1/3 the money that is spent on a student in the public school system. It's almost as if they were trying to set it up to fail...


Parents have always had choices, in most places, a strong private school system exists. They cost extra, but it is a choice parents can make.

As I pointed out, this is a red herring. Maclay's costs are in line with per pupil funding at public schools, and much lower than abysmal public systems like Washington D.C.


It eventually became clear that a better and more affordable choice was to spend the extra tuition funds moving to a neighborhood where the free public schools were great, actually better than the best private schools, regardless of cost.

And for the parents who (unlike you and me) can't afford to move to the better part of town with better schools? There's no reason that schools like Maclay couldn't expand to the south side of town, if those parents were provided same per pupil funds being spent on the schools in their neighborhoods with worse results.


Why are there neighborhoods where the free public schools are poor?

I believe that a degree of it stems from the households that remain and end up poor are too often conducting themselves in manner that isn't conducive to changing their outcomes. When my friend was still a substitute he once took a class at Pryor, the middle school in the 'ghetto' part of Fort Walton Beach. One of the activities he did was asking the kids what they wanted to be when they grew up. One kids response, "I want to be a rapper, I want to go to jail." That kid's neighborhood and household are inculcating that, not the school. And I don't think a voucher will save that kid. But I suspect there are kids in that class with better dreams, who wish they didn't have to go to schools with punks like that. I want to see those kids given an opportunity to escape that atmosphere.


Why do we tolerate this poor performance on the part of our elected officials, and in turn allow them to pass the blame off on educators and parents?

I think the educators, parents and students have the vast majority of responsibility in these situations. Politicians didn't provide that kid's role models. Politicians don't manage the classroom, assign the homework, or make sure the homework is done each night. Politicians can't check the kid's report card, or meet with the teacher. Ultimately, the politician can't do much more than institute/manage a system to collect taxes from the public, and spend them.


This, being a democracy, means that what people actually want is in fact profound, it is by definition the most profound thing.

But earlier you wanted to deny people what they want (a choice as to which school to take the money the public has appropriated for the education of their child). I'm glad you're coming around!


I would like to live in a society where government collects taxes and delivers quality services, why can I not have the freedom to do this?

Governments are pretty good at collecting taxes (that's why they keep all those guns and jails), but they're not as effective as the market at delivering quality services. The short answer is that socialism can't calculate. When bureaucrats are presented a bloc of resources and given a mandate, they cannot effectively measure what people want because the people have been denied the ability to 'vote' for what they want with those resources.
"The capitalist system of production is an economic democracy in which every penny gives a right to vote. The consumers are the sovereign people. The capitalists, the entrepreneurs, and the farmers are the people's mandatories. If they do not obey, if they fail to produce, at the lowest possible cost, what the consumers are asking for, they lose their office. Their task is service to the consumer. Profit and loss are the instruments by means of which the consumers keep a tight rein on all business activities" - Bureaucracy (1945), Ludwig von Mises"

In fact I did have this choice and moved to a place that has higher taxes and supports better free public schools. Why can't the rest of us have this choice as well?

Should only those who can afford it have the choice to go to the best schools? That seems to be your argument, whereas I argue that all parents/students should be provided the public resources to seek out the best schools for themselves.
I further recognize that not all kids are destined for college, and shouldn't be inappropriately tracked through education as though they were. It was clear to my family that my older brother wasn't headed to college from high school. He went into blue collar labor, and after attaining experience eventually opened his own glass business which he ran successfully for eight years and then sold. At this point he is going to college to further his education, but he's doing so after some much needed time learning 'on the job'. He might well have been better served earlier in life with a vo-tech track that would have put him on his eventual path of owning a business much sooner. Absent the ability of the parents/students to choose, we don't even get to know what all is possible. I guess it boils down to the fact I have less fear of freedom for the individual, and less sense of superiority over the public than you, and so we reach different conclusions about the discrete roles of government.

First on the notion of school failure. There are better and poorer performing schools, no doubt. However, at no time in US history has the population had a higher percentage of high school graduates, bachelors, and advanced degrees. The schools on average are not doing as poorly as marketed.

"Should only those who can afford it have the choice to go to the best schools?"

My argument is precisely not that. There should be no failing schools. The neighborhood public school should be successful, regardless of neighborhood.

"The capitalist system of production is an economic democracy in which every penny gives a right to vote. The consumers are the sovereign people. The capitalists, the entrepreneurs, and the farmers are the people's mandatories. If they do not obey, if they fail to produce, at the lowest possible cost, what the consumers are asking for, they lose their office. Their task is service to the consumer. Profit and loss are the instruments by means of which the consumers keep a tight rein on all business activities" - Bureaucracy (1945), Ludwig von Mises"


A very nice classical capitalist economics argument. If only it were true. Classical capitalist economics comes forward from Adam Smith's
"The Wealth of Nations". Great stuff, but you need to understand the philosophical framework from which it arises to understand its flaws. Adam Smith practiced and wrote during the "Age of Reason", where the basic assumption was that humans are, when left to their own devices, "reasonable". From this comes the "magic hand" of the market system of thought, in that everyone acting reasonably in a free market system will invariably produce the highest and best result. People have proven over and over again ever since, that the assumption of reasonability is flawed.

In a rational and reasonable market, tech bubbles, Enron, Worldcom, sub-prime mortagages, and the current crash in metals prices, do not exist. But they do exist and always have. The word "Ponzi Scheme" was invented long ago, coined to capture the scam Albert Ponzi pulled off. The "Great Depression" was only "Great" because it was larger than the previous depressions.

Modern economists have studied the phenomena and have sorted one thing out with considerable precision, we humans are not rational. We cannot be expected to behave in a rational manner, because all of history point out that we don't on a regular and repeated basis. To assume to the point of near certainty, as you apparently do, that a free market will produce the best possible result, ignores 200+ years of history that point in another direction. Further, the notion that when people are given that freedom to choose, they will choose in the same manner that you might is intellectual arrogance, plain and simple.

Another place you are shooting blanks is the notion that government is poor at delivering services. Every attempt to privitize government services has cost more and produced less. Governments do not operate at a profit, so that 15 to 20 percent margin is not skimmed off to pay for the CEO's second lakefront home. Secondly the notion that governments can't calculate is cold war era nonsense. The Soviet Socialist system did have a hard time, but "just in time inventory" had not been invented and they were not exactly computing in the cloud, more like paper double entry ledgers and green eyeshades. Wal Mart runs a bigger economy just fine these days, and I have never been to one that was out of toilet paper. This is the current standard for "central planning", and they make toast and dine for breakfast on small "free market" competition.

I am not "superior" to anyone. They make their choices and I make mine. But when you are talking about social engineering on the scale of redesigning the public education system, it is actually good to pay attention to the choices people really make, and not go off on broad based assumptions that they will behave as you expect and desire.

Having worked in child abuse prevention, I can assure you that people are not rational and on more than just occasion, do not put their children's wellbeing at the sort of priority you and I might.

Get your head out of classical economics and join the 21st century.

if we were, then there wouldn't be programs for the poor, since the 'average' household income is ~$50,000. What we're concerned with is the poorly performing schools, or more importantly, the students stuck in them.


First on the notion of school failure. There are better and poorer performing schools, no doubt. However, at no time in US history has the population had a higher percentage of high school graduates, bachelors, and advanced degrees. The schools on average are not doing as poorly as marketed.

But we have high school graduates who can't read. Calling them 'graduates' might make them feel better, but in too many cases we're not getting what we're paying for.


In a rational and reasonable market, tech bubbles, Enron, Worldcom, sub-prime mortagages, and the current crash in metals prices, do not exist.

A 'rational and reasonable market' doesn't have a central bank authorized to print dollars (claims on goods created from thin air with no corresponding production of goods). Greenspan's interference in the market rate of interest spawned and made possible the bubbles you mention.


But they do exist and always have.

No, not always, but if you look at the times governments have been authorized to manipulate the money supply such distortions have resulted. It's what is truly frightening about Bernanke's latest experiment of juicing the monetary base. But we're going far afield here from the question of school choice for parents/teachers.


The word "Ponzi Scheme" was invented long ago, coined to capture the scam Albert Ponzi pulled off. The "Great Depression" was only "Great" because it was larger than the previous depressions.

Ponzi scheme refers to Ponzi's method of taking 'investors' deposits, spending them, and promising returns that could only be paid by finding more suckers to 'invest'. Ponzi was a piker compared to the same scam our government has run in the name of providing social security.
It was 'Great' because it had the most government intervention in the economy since the founding of the Republic. Please don't buy into the myth of a laissez faire Hoover administration. If you're interested in resources on the matter I can provide them, but again, we're moving far away from the question of whether or not parents/students should be able to choose what school to go to.


Modern economists have studied the phenomena and have sorted one thing out with considerable precision, we humans are not rational.

Speak for yourself. Although I'd bet you do act rationally if you take a moment to examine it.


We cannot be expected to behave in a rational manner, because all of history point out that we don't on a regular and repeated basis.

I encourage you to take a closer look. The bubbles you speak of occur when the public, en masse, is mislead as to the true capital stock in the economy. This is done by manipulations of the interest rate and the money stock, which in a free economy transmit to all producers and consumers the relative scarcity and value of goods and services. It's only by government intervention (like cramming down interest rates or exploding the monetary base) that the public is mislead as to what value to ascribe savings, and whether capital can and should be consumed rather than invested.


Another place you are shooting blanks is the notion that government is poor at delivering services. Every attempt to privitize government services has cost more and produced less. Governments do not operate at a profit, so that 15 to 20 percent margin is not skimmed off to pay for the CEO's second lakefront home.

Do you understand the role that profits play in a market economy? They signal producers to the discrepancy between production and demand, and thereby encourage expansion of production and/or entry into that market by other producers to meet the demonstrated demand. Profits aren't 'skimmed off', they're left over after analyzing costs and sales. As more producers enter the market to earn profits higher supply leads to declining prices, and profits. If you were to eliminate profits investors wouldn't know in which fields to increase production.


Secondly the notion that governments can't calculate is cold war era nonsense. The Soviet Socialist system did have a hard time, but "just in time inventory" had not been invented and they were not exactly computing in the cloud, more like paper double entry ledgers and green eyeshades. Wal Mart runs a bigger economy just fine these days, and I have never been to one that was out of toilet paper. This is the current standard for "central planning", and they make toast and dine for breakfast on small "free market" competition.

Wal-mart isn't a central planner! Their prices are not set arbitrarily by GOSPLANners diktat, their prices are set by supply and demand. 'Just in time' inventory controls and the hyper-vigilance of their supply chain management are the products of capitalist investment. They don't issue orders in January for the number of rolls of toilet paper they expect to sell in 2011. Instead they respond immediately and decisively to a plethora of inputs. Incidentally, Wal-mart's profit margin has bounced between 2.5-5% over the last 10 years, spending most of its time between 3-4%. They make so much money because they serve so many millions of people effectively.
CNBC actually did a documentary on Wal-marts supply chain management. At their Arkansas HQ they actually observe weather patterns, and stock their stores in accordance with day to day changes. They mentioned on the show that areas under a hurricane watch experience an eight-fold increase in demand for strawberry pop-tarts, so they make sure that the trucks are appropriately loaded to meet the change in demand that a 'central planner' could never predict. Compare their response to FEMA's 'ice follies' and try to tell me that government management of resources is more reasonable and rational than the markets.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9665434/ns/nightly_news-nbc_news_investigates/


I am not "superior" to anyone. They make their choices and I make mine.

My point is, you're denying others the opportunity to make a choice, and trying to sell it to me on the basis that they won't make the 'right' choice in your view.


But when you are talking about social engineering on the scale of redesigning the public education system, it is actually good to pay attention to the choices people really make,

I say let's see what choices they make when we provide them the resources. You say they can't be trusted with that decision.


and not go off on broad based assumptions that they will behave as you expect and desire.

I don't have a 'desire' for them, except that they be given the opportunity to choose. You desire to keep them in bureaucratically controlled schools with no choice. I just want to let them choose whether they want that, or something different. I don't presume to anticipate all their choices.


Having worked in child abuse prevention, I can assure you that people are not rational and on more than just occasion, do not put their children's wellbeing at the sort of priority you and I might.

I worked for the DOH Child Protection Teams HQ from 2000-2002, and have provided support work for the Tallahassee Child Protection Team at 1801 Miccosukee Rd from 2003 to present. Incidentally, that service is contracted out to Children's Home Society, a charity that operates in our region. What percentage of people do you suppose abuse their children? Is your argument really that because a tiny percentage of the population is abusive that no one can be trusted?
"We can't let parents choose schools because some people are child molesters." Are you serious?! Should we even let parents take kids home from government schools, given the clear and present danger you've identified!?

Those restaurants are not receiving PUBLIC MONEY!!!
We are not asking them to provide PUBLIC FOOD.
They're in it for profit.

If you want to send your child to Maclay, who's stopping you?
They're charging $9,950, pay it.
They're in it for profit. They should not receive my tax $$$'s
just like your restaurants aren't receiving my tax $$$'s !!!

The grocery stores are in the business of delivering food from producers to consumers for a profit.
They're getting your tax dollars too.
Does it bother you that they provide such an abundance of food choices, in a plethora of settings, yet still make a profit?
Is profit a dirty word to you?

I've been to East Berlin (father was stationed in Frankfurt '83-85)), and I got to go into the government run stores. They were pathetic in comparison to the cornucopia of goods available in the stores in West Berlin that were run for profit. I don't see why profit is a dirty word to some people. It's a sign that a producer has provided an output that society values higher than the inputs that went into creating it (be it a good or a service).

The people I've met at Maclay are there because they want to educate children.
Are teachers or administrators who work at public schools 'profiting' since they take home a paycheck for their services?
What distinguishes them in your mind from a teacher at Maclay?

Why would you be willing to spend tax dollars on a teacher at one school, but not at another? Is your primary concern the education outcome for the students, or the employer of the teachers?

Why are you afraid to let parents/students decide where to spend the resources our society has allocated for education of our children?

I'll pay ~$1386 in taxes toward the schools in my district (~40% of my property taxes). I realize that I'll pay that amount even though I don't have kids in school, and even after my kids have graduated. I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing against using tax dollars to fund education. My issue is whether those funds are allocated by a bureaucracy that cuts parents/students out of the loop in deciding where those funds should go, or if we'll assign the dollars to the parents/students to make their own choices about where they are spent.
Right now the best chance I have to put my kids in the best performing public schools and avoid the bad ones is to make sure I buy my house in the 'right' part of town. Is that equitable?
Since you only pay $1386 in taxes towards education, then you should only be allowed $1386. The remaining money $7614 should remain with the public schools.
If you leave with $9000, you should be taxed on the extra income that you receive (i.e. $7614)
And since it appears that you are a product of the public schools system, then it's your turn to pony up, whether you have kids in the system or not. You got to benefit from others money, now it's time for others to benefit from your money.
Why is it now that parents are complaining about the public schools system? My parents put 8 of us through the system. I don't remember a community ever complaining how the money was spent and yet 7 of us got college degrees, along with plenty of my neighborhood friends. Believe me we didn't come from a wealthy community. My dad probably never made more than $30K per year.
Companies use as one of the benefits of attracting people to an area is the schools systems. When I moved to San Diego, believe me I looked for where the best community where I could afford to buy a house. Knowing that those communities usually have pretty good schools. I'm sure your not going to intentionally move into an area that has poor performing schools.

Why? What if other people paying property taxes want my kids to have that choice? Can I take their money too? Seems simpler and more equitable to provide the funds to parents/students and let them choose.
Sure, pay taxes on the extra $7614 that you get. Otherwise you're walking off with an extra $7614 per student of tax free $$$'s.

The public wants the money spent to education children. Why should the school that people don't want to go to get more money per pupil than the school that people do want to go to?
Right! and that's where it will be spent. Believe me if more money is pumped into the "'public' school that people don't want to go to" they will be able to pay for better teachers, and services. If people want to send their child to the "'charter/private' school that people do want to go to", nobody is stopping them. They just can't use our public dollars to do it.

Why, especially when you admit 'there is waste in public schools systems'? How does rewarding waste and poor results constitute a better investment of tax dollars?
Because the waste doesn't come close to what the public will be charged when PROFIT is involved. When the Army privatized serving their meals to soldiers, (Chaney did this when he was Sec. of Def. under Papa Bush), Halliburton got the contract (Surprised?). It was later determined that they were charging the Army almost $30 per meal, when it only cost the Army about $2 per meal when they did it themselves.
Look at Healthcare. The overhead on Medicare is only 3% while insurance companies charge over 30% overhead. Even with the waste, Medicare wouldn't come close to 30%.
Last but not least, try mailing a letter to a neighbor across the street without using the USPS. I'll guarantee you that it's going to cost you about $10 using Fedex, UPS or any other privatized delivery service, while only costing you about $0.45 using USPS.
You want to send your child to a privatized charter school, be my guest. But don't complain when they close the school your child is attending because they aren't making enough profit on your child.

Why would they not have access to the $9000 per pupil if that is what Floridians approve to be spent for the education of children? Why shouldn't the money be tied to the student?
Because the $9000 belongs to the public schools system not the student!
I'm sure if you told them that it was going to a Charter school, they wouldn't agree to let that money go. Look at Detroit. They are going to privatize the complete Detroit Public School system. But guess what. While the DPS, supplied a school for every child to go to a school in their neighborhood, they're having problems selling the schools in poor neighborhoods. So, those students will either go without schools, or they will have to attend a school that is not in their neighborhood, and may not even be in their immediate community. And the Charter school is not even obligated to accept them if there are too many students in class for fire code reasons, or that the Charter school can't make a profit on that student.

Do you think the people who work at schools don't consider themselves profiting from the exchange of their time for a paycheck? If they're just there because they care so much for the well being on the students, then they wouldn't mind a pay cut would they? They do? Maybe there's more to this profit motive in the world than you give credit...
Talk about Apples and Oranges. Those people work for the public school system. They're not privatize entities. Pay cut? They should be paid even more. Talk about a race to the bottom. These people didn't choose to work for a public school system for profit. They have a calling, and they should be rewarded for it. Paying them less is causing this system to deteriorate, to the detriment of the student. This is really the most ridiculous statement of all.

The owner of a restaurant is accountable to his customers. If they choose to take their money somewhere else, he will be forced to close his doors, but so long as he pleases his customers, he will gain more and more business, enabling him to expand his operations and please even more customers. This is how accountability works in the 'real world'. Can you explain how accountability works in the public school system?
Yes, by having students get an education. Charter schools are not obligated to hire accredited teachers, and accredited teachers are not allowed to collectively bargain. So, they will hire the cheapest teacher, not feed your child, and not supply services like libraries, computers, after school care, or any athletics. Why? BECAUSE IT WILL EAT INTO THEIR PROFITS!!!

:applause:

Good response! :)

is that they want the whole $9000, so they can send their child to that
private school Maclay, that is mentioned, using our tax dollars.

The minute you tell them that they have to pay out of their pocket to
attend that private school, they'll send their kids to the public school.

This is why they keep fighting for that voucher system. I don't mind the
voucher system as long it is only the portion they paid into the system.
In this case, they only paid around $1300, but they want the full $9000.
Sorry, but the rest of the money belongs to the public school system.

Sure, pay taxes on the extra $7614 that you get. Otherwise you're walking off with an extra $7614 per student of tax free $$$'s.

I'm not 'getting it', it is being used as allocated by the government, for the education of a pupil.


Because the waste doesn't come close to what the public will be charged when PROFIT is involved. When the Army privatized serving their meals to soldiers, (Chaney did this when he was Sec. of Def. under Papa Bush), Halliburton got the contract (Surprised?). It was later determined that they were charging the Army almost $30 per meal, when it only cost the Army about $2 per meal when they did it themselves.

Ok, you're confusing a few things here. First, the government assigning of contracts isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about letting parents decide where to allocate the resources that the public has appropriated for the education of their children on a per pupil basis.
The issue with Halliburton is a reference to billing the Pentagon much more than the subcontractors cost:
"The Pentagon's Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) completed a comprehensive review of Halliburton's system for billing the government for work in Iraq. The DCAA said Halliburton billed the government for 36 percent more meals than was actually served to the troops while an internal KBR report said it had overcharged by 19 percent...
In a related development, the Los Angeles Times reported that "the Army recently renegotiated a contract that Halliburton had with a Kuwaiti company to provide meals. By contracting directly with the Kuwaiti company instead of going through Halliburton, the Army knocked 40 percent off the cost of the contract." Once the Pentagon dealt directly with the Kuwaiti-owned company, known as Timimi Co., the cost per-meal dropped from about $5 to about $3, according to GAO Comptroller David Walker."

This type of 'outsourcing' of formerly DoD functions is a direct result of the downsizing of the military. I know, because my first job at 16 was in the mess hall at Eglin AFB and Duke Field. As the military started downsizing they emphasized keeping military staff for the 'point of the spear' functions, and outsourcing as many non-combat functions as they could. I took that job because the pay was significantly higher than other summer jobs available (but it did mean getting up at 5am to be at Duke Field on weekends for the Guard). In the mess hall were a handful of enlisted and an NCO overseeing food prep, but the bulk of 'grunt work' (washing dishes, putting food on trays, cleaning tables, etc.) was done by contract staff like me.

That having been clarified, this kind of government assignment of 'cost plus' contracts isn't what I'm advocating. I'm advocating letting parents/students be empowered with the funds the public appropriates for education to pursue the education venue of their choice.


Last but not least, try mailing a letter to a neighbor across the street without using the USPS.

Irrelevant, but that's actually been made illegal, please see: Private Express Statutes
The government outlaws competition in the field of first class mail so it can overcharge customers in densely populated areas and undercharge customers in sparsely populated areas. This is done to create universal costs (mailing a letter from Maine to California costs the same as mailing a letter across town).
I would be fine with ending that monopoly, but the Constitution empowers the Congress to regulate postal service as they see fit and you have plenty of Congressmen from rural districts where people wouldn't want to bear the true costs of postal service to their area. The USPS monopoly lets them 'free ride' on overcharged people in more dense settings. But really, this has nothing to do with parent/student choice in education.


Because the $9000 belongs to the public schools system not the student!

Here's our difference: You think people fund education in Florida to provide income to government run schools, whereas as others (like me) think that people fund education in Florida in order to educate students. You're more concerned with the means (is this a vested interest on your part?) than the ends.


Talk about Apples and Oranges. Those people work for the public school system. They're not privatize entities. Pay cut? They should be paid even more. Talk about a race to the bottom. These people didn't choose to work for a public school system for profit.

But they do 'profit' (advantage; benefit; gain). If they didn't do it to their economic benefit they would be doing it for free. Last time I checked the volunteers didn't outnumber the paid staff.


They have a calling, and they should be rewarded for it.

Is being a teacher at a government school a calling while being a teacher at a private/parochial/charter school isn't?


Yes, by having students get an education. Charter schools are not obligated to hire accredited teachers, and accredited teachers are not allowed to collectively bargain. So, they will hire the cheapest teacher, not feed your child, and not supply services like libraries, computers, after school care, or any athletics. Why? BECAUSE IT WILL EAT INTO THEIR PROFITS!!!

And yet your suppositions are wrong, and I have an example in my community that is private and supplies those things at cost in line with per pupil public school spending, and outstanding educational outcomes. You can't insist it isn't possible when I see it with my own eyes.

I'm not 'getting it', it is being used as allocated by the government, for the education of a pupil.
There is no way I would allow you to take more money out of the public system then you put into it!!!
But you are 'getting it', because they are giving YOU the voucher. So let say you want your kid to go to Maclay school
which is in line with the amount allocated per student. But they're overcrowded. So you send you kids to a
school that's cheaper, and only charge $5000 per student. What happens to the remain $4000? Since YOU got
the voucher, you get the taxpayers money tax free.

This type of 'outsourcing' of formerly DoD functions is a direct result of the downsizing of the military. I know, because my first job at 16 was in the mess hall at Eglin AFB and Duke Field. As the military started downsizing they emphasized keeping military staff for the 'point of the spear' functions, and outsourcing as many non-combat functions as they could. I took that job because the pay was significantly higher than other summer jobs available (but it did mean getting up at 5am to be at Duke Field on weekends for the Guard). In the mess hall were a handful of enlisted and an NCO overseeing food prep, but the bulk of 'grunt work' (washing dishes, putting food on trays, cleaning tables, etc.) was done by contract staff like me.
But this is exactly what is going to happen. Because of the PROFIT motive, the first couple of years they'll do what they need to do to acquire the students. They may lose money just to attract the student to their school. Once they have the numbers they want, you'll see the price start to go up. They'll start charging the parents for the students computer use, library use, Lunch will be more expensive to buy, gym class will be more expensive. They won't pay the workers more, just charge more. Eventually some parents will complain and remove their students to a more affordable charter school or even back to a public school, that the current school will not be able to maintain they profit so they start losing money, and then close the school because they can't get the parents to pay the price needed to make a profit.
OR They stay open because they are making so much profit because the price they spend on the student is only about 33% of what they charge the parents for that education. Otherwise overcharging to me is the same as WASTE. And, I believe you'll see more WASTE/Overcharging at a Charter/Private school.

Last but not least, try mailing a letter to a neighbor across the street without using the USPS.
I don't care what the law say, my point is that nobody can do it as cheap as the public system. Why? Because there is power in numbers.
The more that put into it, the cheaper per person it gets. The waste will not be anywhere near what a private company will charge us
for the profit they want to make. Example after example has already proven that.

The government outlaws competition in the field of first class mail so it can overcharge customers in densely populated areas and undercharge customers in sparsely populated areas. This is done to create universal costs (mailing a letter from Maine to California costs the same as mailing a letter across town).
I would be fine with ending that monopoly, but the Constitution empowers the Congress to regulate postal service as they see fit and you have plenty of Congressmen from rural districts where people wouldn't want to bear the true costs of postal service to their area. The USPS monopoly lets them 'free ride' on overcharged people in more dense settings. But really, this has nothing to do with parent/student choice in education.
Why are you even a Democrat? You just repeat the Reagan mantra "Less government is better".
Repeat after me "Less government is better", "Less government is better" ...

But they do 'profit' (advantage; benefit; gain). If they didn't do it to their economic benefit they would be doing it for free. Last time I checked the volunteers didn't outnumber the paid staff. But they do 'profit' (advantage; benefit; gain). If they didn't do it to their economic benefit they would be doing it for free. Last time I checked the volunteers didn't outnumber the paid staff.
Again, THEY ARE EMPLOYEES. They can't charge the system extra because they want to make more 'PROFIT'. They get evaluated by their supervisors and are given pay raises based on their performance. The fact that you think a salary is profit speaks volumes.

Is being a teacher at a government school a calling while being a teacher at a private/parochial/charter school isn't?
It's a calling either way, but the charter school doesn't have to hire certified or accredited teachers. So they can't collectively bargain for a better wage or benefits. This allows the Private Entity to make even profit on their labor.

I have an example in my community that is private and supplies those things at cost in line with per pupil public school spending, and outstanding educational outcomes. You can't insist it isn't possible when I see it with my own eyes.
I didn't say it wasn't possible. I said that you shouldn't be able to take our tax dollars to that school.
If you want your kids to attend that school, nobody is stopping you. Stop asking for OUR tax dollars to do it.
Take your kids out of public school and send your kids to the school you really want them to attend. I would have liked to have gone
to a private Catholic high school in my neighborhood, but I knew my parents couldn't afford it. You want to be able to send
your kids to private school on the taxpayers back, and I'm not willing to go along with it. Show me you're willing to send them
on your own dime, then I'll be willing to give you your property taxes back ($1386). Talk about being selfish. Unbelievable!

especially the minority parents. He made them think they could not get a good education in public schools. He made them feel special if they were in a charter school. He was blatant about it.

Very manipulative.

knew that from the very beginning NCLB was designed so that by 2012 or thereabouts almost every school in the country would become a failing school. It's interesting that only now are people fully understanding this.

Unfortunately the reformers have the money and can afford the propaganda.

there are even a number of Democrats dumb enough to fall for that propaganda. And unfortunately, our president is one.

From WP Answer Sheet:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/when-will-the-testing-bubble-burst/2011/04/30/AFMjA9VF_blog.html

Who benefits..

"Billionaire philanthropists and political leaders want poverty off the table as an issue needing attention. So instead of recognizing the crisis created by one in four children living in poverty, they have relocated our schools as the cause of the crisis, and accountability for test scores as the cure.

Politicians who wish to destroy teacher unions have also seized on this as a means of attacking them. Teacher unions must be resisting the removal of due process protections and seniority because they are trying to protect the “bad teachers” responsible for low test scores. Get rid of the unions, and then we can get rid of these lousy teachers and the scores will rise. At least that is the justification. And once the unions are weakened, pensions, benefits and salaries can be cut. Then there will be more money for tax cuts for the big corporations that provide the campaign dollars for the next election.

...."Test publishers are big winners. Though the use of low quality multiple choice tests discredited No Child Left Behind, the test makers have come up with a way to keep the bubble full, by promising vastly improved tests. These new tests will, of course, cost billions of dollars more, but their value will be inflated even more, because now they will supposedly measure critical thinking and creativity."

..."And recent news announcing the partnership between the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Pearson, a huge education company, reveals that any line separating philanthropists from profit-making test and curriculum publishers has been wiped out."

leading to 100% proficiency for literacy, we set ourselves up to fail.


Even countries with 100% literacy rates don't have 100% literacy rates. You're telling me, there's not some little handicapped kid that can't even hold a book, let alone read it.. somewhere?!?

You are right, there is no such thing. It's such an obvious ploy to make failure happen, and then send in the corporations to take over the schools. A power grab.

Not to mention the psychological harm done to kids of all abilities...esp. those who simply are unable to pass such tests. No longer a goal of "learning", but of memorization and skill filling in bubbles.

they would have to start asking why such a law was passed in the first place.

and then they would understand a bit more about our rulers & how stage-managed their "choices" actually are.

Madfloridian I would be interested in knowing if there are any studies concerning boards being hijacked by the Christian Right. It appears to me that the national goal is to destroy Public Education in favor of public financing of religious schools. I also wonder if people could sue since their taxes are being diverted to financially support religious indoctrination. Why should I be forced to pay for religious indoctrination that I absolutely am opposed to. A?t the extreme,l should I have to support radical Islamists for example that are indoctrinating kids to convert me at the point of a sword.

Consider that the majority of people who have "graduated' from our system of public education in the last twenty years have been suckered into believing that at least three quarters of us have average or below average intellects (a deliberate corporatist-driven deceit). Consider that we've been trained AWAY from critical thinking skills and toward rote memorization, so that we can perform like trained monkeys on ridiculously expensive and pedantic standardized tests. Consider that almost half of our adult population is functionally illiterate (perhaps we can READ the words on this page, but many of us would be hard pressed to explain the gist of what we've read). Consider that our nation ranks in the fourth quartile with regards to our high school students' ability to demonstrate competitive academic skills in math and science--almost every other industrialized nation ranks ahead of the US with regards to educating their children.

Our system of public education has been broken for decades! Many of our brave teachers have had to be subversive in their classrooms in order to be true advocates for their students! AND, these are the teachers that students remember for the rest of their lives--I know, I had several in a small, rural school that didn't even RANK in the federal government's assessment paradigm.

Our entire system of public education needs our help, and our children deserve our advocacy to insure that they receive the education they deserve. One contemporary advocate for improving our system is Sir Ken Robinson. In my humble opinion, our madfloridian is also an important contemporary advocate for our children. We MUST make this issue a priority, just as we MUST make eliminating poverty a priority.

Ain't that the truth.

They have said for so long that schools are failing that there is no one left to fight back. :shrug:

i think this is yet another illusion created by the ed deformers.

the same with those international comparisons.

understand that my assertion about adult illiteracy is NOT a slam. I find it unconscionable that so many adults in the US have been deprived of a rigorous exposure to literature--not to mention composition, grammar and spelling. Also, please review the definition of functional illiteracy.

Speaking of illusions: in the early 70s, researchers were looking closely at this issue. At that time, adult illiteracy rates of 42 to 63% were commonly cited in published studies. Before the turn of the decade, however, you'd be hard pressed to find articles about adult illiteracy. A recent NAAL study (2008) found that only 15% of adults surveyed had prose, document, and quantitative skills that were equivalent to a university undergraduate level. "University undergraduate level" is an academic achievement level one might hope would be prevalent among our high school graduates.

Please consider watching Sir Ken Robinson.

I neglected to respond to your denigration of "those international comparisons." Let me give you a 'real life' example, with the codicil that such an example is not generalizable. Nevertheless:

During my last year of teaching 7th grade and Pre-AP math, I wanted at least one of my classes (not necessarily just my AP kids, though) to participate in an international 'competition,' wherein students in similar grade levels across the globe were challenged to solve incredibly difficult math problems. As I recall, there were scholarship prizes awarded for the 'winners.' (I felt that all students who were given the chance to play math at that level would be winners.) Not a single one of my students would entertain the notion of entering this competition. Furthermore, when I reviewed the list of schools represented in this competition, the United States was significantly UNDER-represented.

(FYI, I did NOT say 'half of our adult population is functionally illiterate' and you might consider sharing your opinions without denigrating a fellow DUer's post.)

I went back in my archives to find the resource I used the first time I discussed adult illiteracy on DU. While I could not find the exact study I used, this one comes close. I said 'almost half' in my comment hereinabove, because I couldn't remember the exact percentage.

Please, consider using your energy and activism to help insure our citizenry has EVERY opportunity to be fully educated, and to help eliminate the radical income inequity which relegates the vast majority of us into servitude to the uber wealthy.

Sayeth Neil Bush.

....I am not saying NLCB is perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but the goal should always be to get better. How is a mandate to continually improve a bad thing for our children? Should we as a nation be satisfied with less than 100% literacy?

:eyes:

You seriously think 100% success is achievable?

As a goal, of course. But if you're going to close down any school that does not achieve 100% success, then you are going to shut down every school in the country.

Which is what this is about. They are using a similar playbook to that used by the British in the decades leading up to the American Revolutionary War. The Brits repeatedly claimed that public education in the colonies was failing and should be shut down.

Decades later, private correspondence became public detailing the truth: public education was working too well. The people were starting to think for themselves instead of just listening to "their betters".

The 1960s forced the Rightists to face a horrible reality: when people get educated, they turn away from the Right.

Special-Ed kids are being tested with the SAME TESTS.

MOREOVER, it is not one group of students that is being tested, taught, and re-tested to check improvement; EACH TESTED GROUP IS DISCRETE from year to year.

THAT MEANS THAT CHILDREN IN 2014 WILL PRESUMABLY HAVE EVOLVED IN INTELLIGENCE FROM CHILDREN IN 2011.

THIS IS NIT-WITTY THINKING.

nt

and our 'great' state of Texas ranks, what, 47th in the nation with regards to educating our children?

Just look at Dubyah--he exemplifies the level of education one might expect in an easily manipulated, anti-intellectual corporate shill.

nt

set by the program.

It's like a self-melting ice cream cone.