Michigan Votes Forum

I swear,

Most of our Demorcat 'public servants' spend a lot of time thinking of more ways to 'dumb down' our Public Schools and collect more money for them from the taxpayers rather then how to increase the dismal scores of our students.

The senate just passed having highschool last another 2 years and they want to relax math requirements??? And have teachers make that decision  not the parents... why make everything easier and easier?

 i think that a better question is why send your kids to public schools in the first place? you know the educational standards are falling rapidly, and will continue to fall. you know that billions of dollars are being dumped into those do nothing schools in the hope of sprouting some miraculous results, but there have been none. so, why do we put up with it?

if we all chose a quality private school to send our children to, the private school would prosper and the state school would be empty. soon enough, there would be no need to dump billions into the system, as the system would be effectively shut down.

 An even better question would be, "Why do you continue to spout off about that which you obviously are not informed?". You claim "you know the educational standards are falling and continue to fall". It is obvious from that statement that you have not taken a look at any curriculum in a long while if ever. My elementary (K-5) language arts curriculum is 2 inches thick, 10 point type, double sided. That's only language arts. Add in math, science and social studies and the topics that are required to be covered occupy an entire bookshelf. You also have obviously bought into the myth that private schools are better than public schools only by virtue of their being private. That is not so. Some private schools are fantastic, some are average and some are terrible. That is exactly the same as with public schools -- some are fantastic, some are average and some are terrible.

However, it is obvious from your posting history that you have no interest in having a real discussion about how to improve education -- both public and private. Perhaps some Michigan Votes readers out there would be.

 i've not only looked at the curriculum, i've looked at the results. it's not how much you have to teach, it's how much you can make stick. you may be a fabulous teacher, but the quality of education in general has fallen. whether this is the fault of the falling standards mandated by the legislators coming back to bite us or the fault of the parents for not instilling the respect for education that they should, i'm not sure, but the facts support the observation that education is failing michigan as fast as michiganders are failing at education.

my preference for private education stems from my belief that parents who directly pay for an education show a much greater respect for education than parents that simply perceive it as 'free education'. yes, there are poor private schools, but they usually don't last long, as they are constantly in competition for incoming dollars, and are constantly being judged by their performance. public schools have no such pressure, and poor schools continue as long as the bureaucracy, and the apathy of the people will allow it.

my belief in private education also stems from the proof that private schools, properly supported, performs better for less dollars than public schools. this is simple economics, i'm always in favor of 'more bang for the buck'. my other problem with public school is that it has a union involved in all negotiations, adding an extra cost factor, as well as taking liberties with the public money that the public never intended. any group that uses money taken from others to directly influence the political process in it's own favor stands in conflict with the constitution and the law. i hear you rally constantly against republican lobbyists, yet hear you constantly support democrat lobbyists in the form of unions. where are your principles on the matter?  either you are for lobbyists, or against them.

now, taken as a whole, the entire school system would be better off without the unions involved. teachers would have to compete for jobs, which is a good thing. take away the coddling of the students, and they will also have to compete for graduation, and that is a good thing. we should not drop our expectations whenever the students fail to meet them, that is the time to keep our standards high and make the students work that much harder to meet them. giving in only gives them permission to fail. and that we must never give.

uber-liberal:

 "i've not only looked at the curriculum, i've looked at the results. it's not how much you have to teach, it's how much you can make stick. you may be a fabulous teacher, but the quality of education in general has fallen. whether this is the fault of the falling standards mandated by the legislators coming back to bite us or the fault of the parents for not instilling the respect for education that they should, i'm not sure, but the facts support the observation that education is failing michigan as fast as michiganders are failing at education."

How much you can "make stick" is directly related to how much you have to teach. Teachers are less able to teach to mastery when the curriculum is a mile wide and an inch deep. It is a direct result of legislators adding more and more for schools to be responsible for handling as well as parents abdicating their responsibilities.

"my preference for private education stems from my belief that parents who directly pay for an education show a much greater respect for education than parents that simply perceive it as 'free education'. yes, there are poor private schools, but they usually don't last long, as they are constantly in competition for incoming dollars, and are constantly being judged by their performance. public schools have no such pressure, and poor schools continue as long as the bureaucracy, and the apathy of the people will allow it."

I hate to break it to you but poor private schools tend to stick around. You see, these private schools have one very interesting trick up their sleeves. The poorly performing students, the ones more in need of academic or behavioral support, the ones who have no interest in school are simply invited not to return. I have had many students who were in private schools, not getting any support, who were told they could not return.

"my belief in private education also stems from the proof that private schools, properly supported, performs better for less dollars than public schools. this is simple economics, i'm always in favor of 'more bang for the buck'. my other problem with public school is that it has a union involved in all negotiations, adding an extra cost factor, as well as taking liberties with the public money that the public never intended. any group that uses money taken from others to directly influence the political process in it's own favor stands in conflict with the constitution and the law. i hear you rally constantly against republican lobbyists, yet hear you constantly support democrat lobbyists in the form of unions. where are your principles on the matter?  either you are for lobbyists, or against them."

When private schools are required to take and keep any kid who shows up at their door regardless of academic, behavior, social, emotional, attendance or family issues then you'll be able to make claims about performance vs cost.

"now, taken as a whole, the entire school system would be better off without the unions involved. teachers would have to compete for jobs, which is a good thing. take away the coddling of the students, and they will also have to compete for graduation, and that is a good thing. we should not drop our expectations whenever the students fail to meet them, that is the time to keep our standards high and make the students work that much harder to meet them. giving in only gives them permission to fail. and that we must never give"

Prior to unionization, teachers were treated like servants. It was not uncommon for the teacher to be responsible for cleaning the classroom. Fast forward to today and my friend who teaches at a private school. She has no union and therefore no rights. She was informed one day that starting the following day, she was going to be supervising after school child care until 6:30 pm every day. Too bad that her own kids would then be in day care even longer costing her more money out of pocket. Unions are certainly not perfect but they are better than nothing.

 teachers are expected to be the do all and end all and be all of the educational system. you knew, or should have known that when you signed up, and you accepted those conditions when you signed all those union contracts. you knew you were working for the public education system, warts and all, when you signed up.  your union has done less for the conditions of your job than it has to gain jobs for the democrats in the legislature you blame for the current situation. to boil this down to it's essence, you knew it was a crappy job before you signed up.

our options are to take the responsibility for our children's education out of the hands of those even you admit are screwing it up royally, or to take our children out of the screwed up educational system.

as i don't see the unions giving up their decisions of supporting democrats, and the democrats giving up control of the educational system, the only option left is private schooling.

uber-liberal:

my other problem with public school is that it has a union

Therein lies the complete argument of the alter egos silence and uber. Unions, their hated nemesis. Those evil organisations making businesses and taxpayers provide appropriate compensation for it's members. They just use the feinted concern for our childrens education as a tool to argue against unions. Private schools, private roads, private clubs, private police forces, private armies, etc. That is their dream. Shrink government, give more power to business. Make money the measure of everything. Unions stand in their way. Unions give the voiceless voices, the powerless power. That scares them, terribly.

jmangan:

uber-liberal:

my other problem with public school is that it has a union

Therein lies the complete argument of the alter egos silence and uber. Unions, their hated nemesis. Those evil organisations making businesses and taxpayers provide appropriate compensation for it's members.

(yet miserably failing to make the teachers really teach, the students really learn and the legislature leave the teaching to the teachers.)

They just use the feinted concern for our childrens education as a tool to argue against unions.

(the arguement against unions is self explanitory. our schools are not performing. unions are part of the reason why.)

 Private schools, private roads, private clubs, private police forces, private armies, etc. That is their dream. Shrink government, give more power to business. Make money the measure of everything. Unions stand in their way. Unions give the voiceless voices, the powerless power. That scares them, terribly.

(i'm all for private schools, private clubs (the ones that have proper signage) but not private police forces. and certainly not for private armies. (militias, yes, but private armies, no). not once have i mentioned money as a measure of the success or failure of our school system. money is a thing thrown at a problem by big government. that strategy hasn't worked, and it never will. our educational system will be much better served if government took up the job of governing, and gave up the job of educating. they're not good at it, and it isn't their job in the first place. how can you say that teachers are voiceless. they have the ear of every concerned parent in the state. the problem here is that there aren't enough concerned parents, so they have to fall in with the unions. unions don't give power to the powerless, they give jobs to democrats. they lobby, they legislate, and they mandate.)

 

now, as for the 'scares them terribly' comment. nothing could be further from the truth. the democrats in office were elected by the unions, that means that they are 'bought and paid for'. their actions are predictable and certain. nothing scary there. what is scary is the strangle hold they seem to have on the politicians, and those who would elect them. let's call them, for lack of a better term, the 'gimmee' brigade. you seem to think that rights can be voted away by a majority. you are also perfectly willing to do so at a moment's notice. this makes you not only dangerous to the rights and liberties of those on the right, but those on the left as well. the fact that you are willing to 'cut off your own nose despite your face' is quite frightening to me. if you are willing to hurt yourself at the ballot box, you will be more than willing to hurt me.

 

MichL1:

I hate to break it to you but poor private schools tend to stick around. You see, these private schools have one very interesting trick up their sleeves. The poorly performing students, the ones more in need of academic or behavioral support, the ones who have no interest in school are simply invited not to return. I have had many students who were in private schools, not getting any support, who were told they could not return.

sorry, mich, but i don't see how this interesting trick allows poor schools to last in a competitive field. if the students are performing poorly, the teachers, if they want the parents to keep on paying the tuition, will spend the extra time and effort to tutor the student as necessary. if they keep asking poor students to leave, they will soon have no students. if they DO keep asking poor students to leave then the other parents soon find out and realize that the poor students may not be the root of the problem. thus shortening the length of time they keep their children in the school. public schools can only expell students for 'good reasons', not for poor academic performance. private schools can be much more selective. those in search of excellence will often flock to schools that only accept excellent students. those that are searching for a place to put a disciplinary problem will often flock to schools that discipline sternly.  neither can be done at public schools.

 Ok, Uber-liberal, let's test your theory that private schools are automatically superior. Let's let parents send their kids to any school they want. Two years should be enough time for a good test. However, there are some rules that the private schools have to follow if they want public money.

1. They have to take everyone who shows up. They must take the academically challenged, behaviorally challenged, emotionally impaired, autistic, attendance problems, special ed certified, parentally impaired and the just plain lazy. They must take the transient kids who are here one month, gone the next and back again. No one may be denied admission or tossed out except for severe cases such as bringing a weapon to school.

2. They must provide transportation.

3. They must provide free breakfast and lunch.

4. They must provide social work services.

5. They must provide enrichment classes -- art, music, gym, etc. within their own facility. No using the public schools for these classes.

6. They must provide free tutoring to kids who are struggling.

7. They must cover all the same curriculum that the public schools provide.

MichL1:

 Ok, Uber-liberal, let's test your theory that private schools are automatically superior.

[no one ever said that private schools are automatically superior, except you. i did say that poor private schools disappear quickly for lack of paying customers.]

 Let's let parents send their kids to any school they want. Two years should be enough time for a good test. However, there are some rules that the private schools have to follow if they want public money.

[now why on earth would they need public money? private schools currently succeed without public money. giving them public money only makes them public schools. when your schools show that they can 'live up' to your private school expectations, then we can talk.] 

1. They have to take everyone who shows up.

[no, they mustn't. like any business, they must take who can pay. give parents the ability to pay through either vouchers or a tax credit and they can choose for themselves. the 'everybody gets in' rule is YOURS, as you promised EVERYONE a good education. you currently complain about the students you have to take. change your policy on discipline and that little problem goes away. make parents responsible, or take their responsibility away. you're the state, you can do that. we are private schools, we can educate, and charge a fair price for the service.]

 They must take the academically challenged,

[again, you believe that the academically challenged aren't worth teaching. who do you think gets the academically challenged now? most are taken out of the public school system and properly educated in some private school. by the way, what do you do with your academically challenged? ]

 behaviorally challenged,

[you mean the plain old 'bad kid'? i'll take him, and teach his parents a real lesson in discipline. if his kid can't behave as expected, he can't go to school, and the parent's can't have a refund. then the kid can go back to public school. this lesson has kept the discipline high at private schools since the days of george washington.]

 emotionally impaired, autistic, attendance problems, special ed certified, parentally impaired and the just plain lazy.

[i'll take them all, same lesson works for them.]

 They must take the transient kids who are here one month, gone the next and back again. No one may be denied admission or tossed out except for severe cases such as bringing a weapon to school.

[again, those are YOUR rules, not mine. my discipline will be much more severe. ]

2. They must provide transportation.

[most parents provide their own transportation, thank you very much, if not, we are happy to rent a bus to serve our needs. we already do this, so this is nothing new.]

3. They must provide free breakfast and lunch.

[been and done. we even provide some dinner options for special cases. we can even handle 'special dietary needs' such as kosher meals.]

4. They must provide social work services.

[why on earth would a school want to involve itself with social services? that is for the church, which is usually right next door. we let the church do the social work, we keep our focus on education.]

5. They must provide enrichment classes -- art, music, gym, etc. within their own facility. No using the public schools for these classes.

[why not provide enrichment schools? we have done that in the past as well. juliard is one such example. why aren't there 'enrichment schools' paid for with public money to educate the truly gifted? ]

6. They must provide free tutoring to kids who are struggling.

[no, we provide the 'one on one' education in the classroom, peer tutoring, professional at home tutoring if necessary, and professional services for those who don't respond to the added attention. all this for the cost of a good education.]

7. They must cover all the same curriculum that the public schools provide.

[why stop there? we already cover that, and more often than not, a full religious or military education as well. you keep forgetting that our students, as a rule, can graduate at the 11th grade level. our failure rate is less than one tenth of yours, and our successes are much more numerous. why don't you try stuffing another four or five hours of instruction on a religion (pick one) or military studies? then you could meet the same challenges we face every day.]

 

 the problem you seem to have is distinguishing between trying what we know works, and making us do what we know doesn't work. you may call it 'leveling the playing field' but we call it ruining our children's one chance at a good education. private schools are not asking for public money. the public is asking for their money to allow them to spend it as they wish, not on what you mandate.

if you cannot see the difference, perhaps you need to sit in on an ethics and morals class someday.

You obviously have missed the point entirely. You made the following claim in a previous post.

"my belief in private education also stems from the proof that private schools, properly supported, performs better for less dollars than public schools." (sic)

You claim that private schools perform much better than public schools. You must have missed the lessons in both statistics and scientific method that would have taught you about how to properly compare two things. In order to provide a proper comparison, all other variables must be held constant. In your case, the only difference allowed should be public vs private. Yet, when I suggest that very thing, you automatically want to start excluding kids from the mix. Therefore, since you missed it, I will spell out my point very clearly for you. Here it comes: If people want to claim that private schools are superior to public schools, then the private schools need to admit any and every kid who shows up just like the public schools. They must keep whomever shows up just like the public schools. Then, and only then, can a true comparison of effectiveness be done.

By the way, the one who should be sitting in on an ethics and morals class is you as you are the one who wishes to deny children what you deem a "good education" (see your reply to point #1). I take everyone and get them to grade level.

 no, sir, i didn't miss your point, but you have apparently missed mine. i simply compared the performance of public versus private schools in today's world. no fantasy football thing, no evening out the playing field. all that would do is prove that under the conditions that public schools have chosen to operate, private schools couldn't succeed either.

perhaps it's time to take a look at our public schools, tweak what we can, eliminate what we must, and bring in what we have to in order to bring our success rate up from the basement. the private school model is much more successful for far fewer dollars than our public schools. that is due to several factors. competition, school choice, being the school that gets chosen, the availability of an alternative teaching model, and sometimes, the very fact that the school is mirroring what the church you choose to attend is attempting to teach.

your insistence on maintaining the 'restraints' of public education is part and parcel of the problem of public education versus private education. you believe that your way works. the 'pudding' says otherwise. perhaps you should remove some of the restraints that you have shackled yourself with and at least allow the citizens the choice of where they want to send their children. if your system is as superior as you think it is, there won't be a problem with attendance or performance, as every parent will be kicking their kids out the door every morning to go get that superior education.

you don't have that perception of superiority by the public as you would like to believe, you missed that by a mile. the people you think are sending their children to your superior school by choice actually have no other choice.  i believe that, given the choice, a goodly percentage of the people would choose a private school. that of course leaves the rest to you, to educate as you will, but take heart, the students there will at least have the choice of their parents to send them there, not the lack of choice.

Our family is one of those families that didnt have a choice.. private school is very desireable but too expensive for us - I could get a job but prefer to stay home w/my kids. So we decided to homeschool and havent  looked back since. We live in a lovely neighborhood w/a great public school - according to the test scores... but the constant problems I hear of from friends/family arent worth the 'risk'.  I know there are many dedicated, hard working teachers out there who love the kids and are trying to make a difference.. but they dont seem to be even close to the majority anymore. Combine that w/parents that just dont care - who are more interested in getting 'ahead' and try to parent between 6-8pm and weekends.. it just spells disaster for our children. With all that being said, both my kids are easily 2 years ahead of the public school kids in our neighborhood.. math, science- you name it. Is it because we spend hours and hours on 'school' - no.. is it because we own every bell and whistle available to teach with - hardly.. I really believe after 5 yrs of HS its the relationship between teacher/student. The regular (and sincere) encouragement that they can do it.. AND the constant challenge to push ahead. They get used to trying harder and harder. The self esteem goes through the roof and desire to learn is a constant. Relaxing math requirements for graduation, in my opinion, sends a message that the teachers cant do it but more importantly that the kids cant do it. That's sad.

This has nothing to do with "can't"  It has to do with "should." If you are instructing children at home, then you must be familiar with the theory of multiple intelligences.  A person does not have to be brilliant in all things to be brilliant.  Students need to be challenged, of course, but to suggest that every student take advanced math in order to deserve a diploma is ridiculous.  Further, the fact that Gov. Granholm and the Michigan Legislature raised the bar higher than any other state at a time when we are in the most financial trouble is mind boggling.  Maybe someone should demand class sizes are significantly reduced and learning styles are identified and respected first.  The horse pulls the cart, not the other way around.

What we have is a classic case of starving the beast.  Republicans want to privatize, so they do all they can to make public education fail.  Since I earned my degree, I've been waiting for the promise of smaller class sizes and the freedom to teach to the individual needs of students. 

Regarding Algebra ll:  Forcing all students to abandon their personal ambitions to complete a curriculum designed to save our state and nation from economic disaster is intellectually indefensible.  There isn't a speck of data that can speak to it since no state has ever done it.

Students are human beings with individual aptitudes and interests.  A student is not a commodity to be bought and sold on the so-called "free market."  

Krgenaw:

...  Relaxing math requirements for graduation, in my opinion, sends a message that the teachers cant do it but more importantly that the kids cant do it. That's sad.

I think that about sums it up, and makes a resounding argument for rejecting this legislation.  This is especially so when the revised graduation requirements haven't even yet been in effect long enough to be fully tested by experience.

One should not experiment without the proper equipment, in this case smaller class sizes and the ability to teach to the individual needs of the student.  It seems you are not familiar with common pedagogical theory.