Florida Supreme Court Blocks School Vouchers

Parent Cafe
41

<p>Speaking about facts, I quoted the eminent Catherine Hoxby before. I could point out to several additional works of her, but here is one that extends the scope of discussion:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Conclusion
Reviewing the recent evidence on the effects of school choice leaves us with a few basic conclusions: There is a positive consensus among all eight studies, of five existing choice programs, conducted by four different groups of researchers.</p>

<p>To be sure differences exist among these studies, but all have found important benefits of choice for the families that participate in them. Choice does not appear to “cream” the best students. In all studies of existing choice programs the evidence shows that participants have very low family incomes, predominantly come from single-mother households, and have a prior record of low academic performance.</p>

<p>The existing choice programs are not large enough nor have they operated long enough to reveal much about the effects, positive or negative, on the public school system. However, Hoxby’s work finds that metropolitan areas with more choices available have significantly better outcomes at lower cost. From this examination of the residential choice system that currently exists, we can expect that choice is likely to improve public schools.</p>

<p>Private schools are more likely to be integrated (having a racial composition that resembles the composition of the broader community) and less likely to be segregated (having a racial composition that is almost all white or almost all minority) than are public schools.</p>

<p>Private schools are more likely to promote tolerance, voting, and social involvement than are public schools. </p>

<p>Full report available at <a href="http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/cr_11.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/cr_11.pdf&lt;/a>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Isn't a change to this "The existing choice programs are not large enough nor have they operated long enough to reveal much about the effects, positive or negative, on the public school system." that so frighten the unions? Obviously, an expanding schools' choice system that CONFIRMS the early data would be devastating for the advocates of no-change, leaving their true motives exposed, and this beyond repair. Just as the school system they purport to protect.</p>

42

<p>Apparently, I live in a very similar area to where both ASAP and Kluge live, although we don't have the advantage of a Prop 13 to keep a lid on taxes. I don't disagree that there are very good public schools--I went to one myself--or that much of the back-patting done by such school districts is, in fact, due to the high quality of the students within the districts, and that much of that quality is due to a good home life and parental involvement in the schools. I guess what I find so stunning is the attitude expressed by both ASAP and Kluge--from the the safe distance of the leafy suburbs--that it was appropriate to send these poor families back to their failing schools with the admonition that their parents' evident involvement in their kids' lives makes them a resource that the government must corral within their original school district, so as to precipitate some kind of renaissance. Talk about a "magic wand" approach. It's an easy stance to take, when it's someone else's child. Maybe you should enroll your own kids in a failing district, start a local PTA, and test your theory.</p>

43

<p>My mom taught at the "F" schools that they're talking about.</p>

<p>I'm very much against vouchers. </p>

<p>It just seems more like Jeb's way of increasing the FCAT scores (and letting the "F" students mingle with the "A" students, so their scores don't matter too much.)</p>

<p>Why doesn't all the money from the vouchers go to, say, I don't know....the schools that actually need the money?</p>

<p>By giving the money to a select few, are we just forgetting about the other students left behind?</p>

<p>(Anyone catch those last three words? No pun intended)</p>

44

<p>driver - you make a valid point. I moved from a very nice home in a very nice and scenic neighborhood to the "leafy suburbs" (another sore point, don't start me) in large part because I knew my kids could attend public schools. In my old neighborhood I knew that after elementary school I'd want to send them to private school. I had an option, and I took it. Of course, the public schools in my old neighborhood are unacceptable in large part because people like my kids don't attend anymore. (Oddly, a lot of parents in my new leafy suburb send their kids to private schools, which have similar, or even less impressive overall academic credentials than the local public schools. I have a theory about this. I think that they are "n u t s.") </p>

<p>Which leads me back to Xiggi - the students in the studies referred to aren't selected for wealth or prior academic performance, but has parental involvement been factored out? How do the kids get into the programs? Is it because their parents, single, poor, or whatever, care enough to get them into the programs? Isn't that a significant distinguishing factor?</p>

<p>There's no question that caring parents vote with their feet. But is the answer just to make it easier for more parents to do so? Once all of the kids with parents who give a damn are gone, what is going to happen to the rest? I'm not suggesting it's an easy problem to analyze, or that there's a simple solution. Just the opposite.</p>

45

<p>
[quote]
There's no question that caring parents vote with their feet. But is the answer just to make it easier for more parents to do so? Once all of the kids with parents who give a damn are gone, what is going to happen to the rest? I'm not suggesting it's an easy problem to analyze, or that there's a simple solution. Just the opposite.

[/quote]
I think that's the heart of it. Caring parents <em>who have options</em> vote with their feet. What I found so tragic in the Florida case was that parents who didn't have options were finally given a chance to help their children, and had that taken away. What's going to happen to the rest? Well, I've related this anecdote before, but about 10 years ago I read an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer about a young man who had made good in academia, earned his Ph.D., and returned to Philadelphia as the principal of one of the high schools. One of his goals was to increase parental involvement, and to that end he stopped the policy of mailing report cards home to parents. To get a report card, the parents would have to actually show up for parent-teacher conferences. According to the article, 75% of the report cards went unclaimed that year. I guess my answer would be, help the 25% who actually care enough, and we will have to figure out another way to deal with the pathologies of the 75%, which will go far beyond schooling. But it's awful to deny a chance to those who care enough to try something new, on the basis of "uniformity." Big problems require creativity and innovation, and some things work and some things don't. But try we must.</p>

46

<p>Kluge: “Once all of the kids with parents who give a damn are gone, what is going to happen to the rest?” </p>

<p>Driver: “I guess my answer would be, help the 25% who actually care enough, and we will have to figure out another way to deal with the pathologies of the 75%.”</p>

<p>Consider three children who have nearly identical IQ (assume it could somehow be accurately measured at birth), height, weight, physical attractiveness, athletic and musical aptitudes, etc.</p>

<p>Child A comes from a very poor family, lives in a dangerous neighborhood, has irresponsible parents (who are addicted to drugs and/or alcohol), likely only lives with one parent, has never even met anyone who has had a steady job for years, and has essentially no positive role models.</p>

<p>Child B comes from a very poor family, lives in a dangerous neighborhood, has caring parents (who try very hard to shelter their child from the drugs in the neighborhood), and has parents who, although they never attended college, work steadily at their jobs and are of high moral character and are absolutely willing to sacrifice for their children to get a college education.</p>

<p>Child C comes from a family in the top 20 percent of family incomes, lives in a safe neighborhood, has two very responsible and caring parents, and has many aunts, uncles, and people in his community who are educated, successful and positive role models.</p>

<p>Is it possible to design a public school system (including some “equitable” distribution of state and local funds) that provides the same likelihood of academic and economic success for the three students? In my opinion, the answer to this question is NO. I think (similar to Driver?) that it might be possible for Child B and Child C to have similar outcomes, but Child A is unlikely to fare as well.</p>

<p>What, then, should be done with Child A? In my opinion, this child needs to be taught the following: (1) EVEN IF IT IS TRUE that you are at a significant disadvantage compared to others due to various factors beyond your control (e.g. parents’ income, parents’ irresponsibility, neighborhood you live in, etc.), you can still have a fulfilling life; and (2) it may take more than one generation to make a worthwhile change (i.e. sacrifice for the future).</p>

<p>In the United States, there are numerous examples of immigrants or others who have worked long hours at menial jobs in order to provide the opportunity for their children to have a good life, including an excellent college education. I do not have specific statistics to back up the following statement, but I believe there is a lot of anecdotal evidence for it. For a family in the United States, it ordinarily takes a generation of hard-working and caring parents to get a family kick-started on the college education cycle. After that generation, subsequent generations are much more likely to attend and succeed in college.</p>

<p>I recall seeing a television program in which some organization went into an inner city neighborhood with very high unemployment and tried to expose kids to have higher ambitions. After this program was completed, one kid who was interviewed said that when he grew up he wanted to be either a pediatrician or a professional basketball player. I remember thinking that this MIGHT be possible for that kid, but how about something half-way in between being a doctor and being unemployed, like working at a trade or getting a financially useful undergraduate degree like in accounting or engineering? What about being a plumber, taxi driver, UPS driver, restaurant worker, sales clerk, or some other steady but non-glorious work that requires long hours and steady work? What about taking a job as a data entry person at a company and trying to take some night courses to become a computer technician? For those so politically inclined, what about making a career in the armed forces? These are not, in my opinion, fates worse than death.</p>

<p>You may reply that my suggestion is not “fair” because a child from a “better” home can go to college in this generation, whereas a child from a “worse” home may not be able to. In my opinion, “fair” is irrelevant. Dwelling on the unfairness of life never put food on the table, paid for college, or allowed one to make his children’s lives better than his own. In that regard, only character comes into play.</p>

<p>My own father only had a tenth grade education, and my mother only finished high school and had 5 kids by the time she was 22 (albeit different from many poor “families” nowadays, because all of the children were from my father and all were born after they were married). But, despite their lack of college educations, my parents instilled in us a sense of hard work, dedication, and value of an education. </p>

<p>These parents in Florida who have opted to use the school “choice” option to remove their kids from failing schools are only trying to do what likely all of the CC parents are trying to do: PROVIDE THE VERY BEST EDUCATION THEY CAN FOR THEIR CHILDREN, EVEN IF IT TAKES SOME SACRIFICE.</p>

<p>Why take this opportunity away from some parents in a failing school district, just to appease your conscience so you can feel good that theoretically the average child in that school is better off?</p>

47

<p>Some of us oppose vouchers because we don't want to see the families with involved parents leaving the low performing schools, but we would move neighborhoods and even to other states to increase our own kids choices and chances.</p>

<p>Some of us oppose vouchers because we don't want to see public money spent on private schools, particularly parochial schools, but we support pell grants and other public financial aid to private colleges and universities.</p>

<p>Some blame the teachers who voluntarily chose to pick a profession dedicated to helping these kids, but when it is convenient to their argument they change the blame to the parents.</p>

<p>Some think that any solution that costs money is simply "throwing money at the problem" but they think it is okay for private schools to get $25,000 for tuition.</p>

<p>We all need to recognize that there is a problem, that the solution is not more of the same, but that it could cost money. I think Unions need to reconsider their opposition to charter schools, that incentives and mechanisms to promote better parenting are needed, and that issues like hunger and health care, housing and the availability of educational opportunities should not be a child's responsibility. It should be the parent's first and if they are incapable, then we, as a nation, need to help to remove barriers to their success. </p>

<p>We should not be building lifeboats for the few when there is an opportunity to save the ship for everyone.</p>

48

<p>patholigies of th3 75%-</p>

<p>well, lets see, some parents are single
some are working two three jobs at minimum wage
some don't have insurance, so have to work more
some don't have transportation
some are grandparents who are doing their best, but can't drive or can't drive at night
some really do not care
but
to think that privatizing what our country had pride in its history, which was an example to the world, which educated our leaders, our workers, our doctors, etc, to say ,well, lets to the private route cause we want to give our public money to corporations, to churches, to whomever, cause we don't have the fortitude as the leader of the free world to educate the masses, as was done for decades</p>

<p>After spending billions on prisons, to corp for war profiteering, to have people talk about taxes and education in the same breath makes me ill</p>

49

<p>CGM:
Your post leaves me feeling as if I have just read a translated instruction manual from a foreign manufacturer. However, based on what I think I have gleaned from your commentary, I would only point out that universal public education as we know it in the US is a relatively modern invention. Most of our "leaders," historically, have been either home-schooled, educated in private schools, or both.</p>

50

<p>"We should not be building lifeboats for the few when there is an opportunity to save the ship for everyone."</p>

<p>Mr.B, the current system as viewed by the opponents to any kind of changes -vouchers, charters, tax deduction for private schools- is to burn ALL the lifeboats, allow for a good percentage of passengers to drown every year, and let the rats slowly take over the ship. </p>

<p>I would gladly that your list of reasons to oppose vouchers represents legitimate concerns. If your concerns were entirely off the wall, the dialogue would be short. On the other hand, it is disingenuous to refuse to acknowledge the results of multiple studies that debunk some of the strongest arguments. </p>

<p>In the end, the dispute can be condensed to a very simple argument: citizens are afraid to see an erosion of the Constitution which stands for a separation of Church and State. In so many words, what they truly oppose is to see a penny of public possibly enriching a Church. Obviously, the fear is similar to the curent political fear of the growing Evangicals playing defining roles in politics and society. Conveniently forgotten is that without the education provided by the various churches throughout our history, we may still be talking about a flat world. Religious-based educators may not be better than secular educators, but sure can educate for a LOT less than public eductaors. Oh yes, I forgot, money is NOT the central issue. Well, as long as religious educators toil in self-imposed poverty, all is well at the NEA. </p>

<p>However, that would be too crude for the PC crowd to admit. So, it is more convenient to move the debate to issues that are more debatable. For instance, despite that the evidence shows that school choice DOES lift the quality of BOTH systems, the best way to combat that argument is to make sure the samples remain small. Hence, mercenary actions and protracted legal battes are daily fodder. </p>

<p>The fear about ALL that money flowing away is genuine. Even if ALL that money -as as one math challenged person mentioned in this thread- represents a minimal fraction of the 360 billions spent on education, it is easier to discuss a potential collapse of the public education. Indeed, 300 students receiving less than $4,000 is a clear indication of imminent collapse of the system! Indeed, even if $4,000 represents between 30% and 50% of what public schools routinely spend per pupil. </p>

<p>In the meantime, we should also consider that vouchers are not seen as boons by private schools and the families of students attending private school. They can do the REAL math. If it were true that the move by public students depleted the coffers of the district, the result would be swift! The districts balance their books by raising tax rates or property value, so the same families who see a number of voucher-armed students will face a larger tax bill as well as an increase in tuition to compensate the schoalrships offered to the voucher kids. Yes, this indeed wonderful news for the families which were seeking -and willing to pay for- exclusivity. A similar discussion could center on middle class families with vouchers. The increase in taxes on their property might render the voucher worth a lot less and for a time much longer than the k-12 years. They'll pay at their life! </p>

<p>At the end of the day, someone may see that supporting voucher requires a lot more unselfishness than opposing it.</p>

51

<p>"cause we don't have the fortitude as the leader of the free world to educate the masses, as was done for decades"</p>

<p>This is absolutely wrong on many counts. We have the ability to educate ALL our citizens, Our failure is to provide it equally to all and do it cheaper. There are many countries that are able to provide a better education for a lot less per pupil. Just take a look at what happens to worldwide statistics from kindergarten to high school. We stumble for the pinnacle to almost the cellar in middle school. </p>

<p>What we have to do is realign our values. </p>

<p>Do we really need to have high schools designed as country clubs? Do we really have to give such importance to EC that students spend less than 5 hours a day on "real" subjects and an equal amount of time on fluff and fun? Can't we reasonably expect teachers and officials to work as many hours and days as the average worker in the US, or have a full career to 60 or 65? Would it be that hard to design a system that compensate good teachers better and eliminates absenteeism and laziness? Would it be that hard to eliminate 50% of administrators and limit their pay to the level of say ... Congressmen? Would it be that hard to save 50% on our book purchases by fighting the crooked book publishers? Would it be that hard to prohibit teachers conferences in Hawaii or other beach resorts? </p>

<p>Our problem is that we spend way too much money on avoidable expenses and dead weight. There is plenty of money available for education but too much of it lines the pockets of non-educators and leeches. </p>

<p>No wonder why "they" fight new ideas!</p>

52

<p>Here's a list of Texan school officials who earned more than $200,000 in BASE PAY in 2003. The added benefits are very substantial. The last column shows the enrollment.</p>

<p>$340,485 BERRY, RICHARD E CYPRESS-FAIRBANKS ISD 74,877
$337,500 MOSES, MICHAEL A DALLAS ISD 160,584
$299,250 TOCCO, THOMAS S FORT WORTH ISD 80,335
$289,741 THOMAS, CARROL A BEAUMONT ISD 20,732
$271,288 STRIPLING, KATHRYN E HOUSTON ISD 211,499
$255,000 SCHNEIDER, FREDERICK H PASADENA ISD 46,142
$254,237 OLIVAREZ, RUBEN D SAN ANTONIO ISD 56,914
$252,630 MIDDLETON, RICHARD A NORTH EAST ISD 56,298
$250,000 GRIFFIN, CAROL A CARROLLTON-FARMERS BRANCH ISD 25,638
$249,384 FORGIONE, PASCAL DOMINIC AUSTIN ISD 79,007
$244,999 STOERNER, LOUIS B ALIEF ISD 45,344
$232,031 KATZ, YVONNE D SPRING BRANCH ISD 33,005
$225,025 MERRELL, LEONARD E KATY ISD 42,116
$224,900 SURRATT, JAMES KLEIN ISD 35,558
$220,000 FOLKS, JOHN M NORTHSIDE ISD 71,798
$213,709 BERND, C MCKINLEY ARLINGTON ISD 62,454
$213,304 BRYCE, CATHY E HIGHLAND PARK ISD 6,074
$211,456 ROY, JERRY W LEWISVILLE ISD 44,024
$210,125 OTTO, DOUGLAS PLANO ISD 51,869
$208,000 TERRY, JAMES P MESQUITE ISD 34,414
$207,000 CULWELL, LEONARD C GARLAND ISD 55,114
$206,000 BAITLAND, BETTY F FORT BEND ISD 61,248
$203,015 SOCKWELL, VERNON K NORTHWEST ISD 6,917</p>

53

<p>They probably would have earned more as superintendents of multi-branched "outlets" in the private sector, but that's neither here nor there. Might be more interesting to list those at the bottom of the totem pole, but the server likely doesn't have enough space.</p>

<p>I'd be even more interested in finding out what the profits are for the real estate industry (both those who serve the school industry itself, and those who lobby for new schools so they can profit off new subdivisions), the publishing industry, the testing industry, the builders...oh, and those who sell "industrial chemicals" to the schools. (I've got a cousin who does that, and he has GREAT stories!)</p>

54

<p>okay, lets look at a list of the defense contractors and how much money they are making on this war </p>

<p>lets reallign our priorities, shall we:</p>

<p>Prisons
War profiteers
Tax breaks for companies</p>

<p>etc</p>

<p>So in the past the elite were our leaders, and guess you awant to keep it that way</p>

55

<p>"They probably would have earned more as superintendents of multi-branched "outlets" in the private sector, but that's neither here nor there. Might be more interesting to list those at the bottom of the totem pole, but
he server likely doesn't have enough space."</p>

<p>I really, really doubt that! The pay for superintendent has skyrocketed in recent years because the districts are involved in bidding wars for a handful of qualified ones and then slotting takes care of the rest. However, I would not have as many problems with this group if they were satisfied to pocket their obscene salaries and not insist on a slew of benefits. For instance, the superintendent of Ysleta -one of the poorest districts- makes well over 200,000 but you have to add 100,000 to 140,000 in benefits that include blanket-no question asked expenses account and travel reimbursement for ... his wife. In addition, despite being in the desert, one item of package are 12 days of SKI vacation (+1 for each year of service.) However, that IS not enough as the last three of four super were fired for corruption, embezzlement and theft. </p>

<p>A few years back, the Dallas ISD probably broke a record when their new super embezzled money in HER first week at the job. One of the other finalist was the fired super from Ysleta. Wonder how this is possible: firing one of hese clowns is so hard that they offer severance packages that includes non-disclosure of the reasons they were fired. What do they do: they simply move to another district and repeat the same pattern of thievery. Hard to believe but true. Don't believe? I'll send you the links from local papers in Dallas, El Paso, and Albuquerque ... or San Francisco where a certain Bill Rojas came from to replace the Dallas ISD crook. You can guess how his saga ended a few months later. </p>

<p>PS I am not sure why it would interesting to list the employees from the bottom level. Wanna know what a janitor or bus driver makes? Multiply minimum wages by number of worked hours per month. Only the priviledged and protected ones are paid regardless of work hours or performance. That starts at the superintendent and goes down about 5 levels.</p>

56

<p>"okay, lets look at a list of the defense contractors and how much money they are making on this war </p>

<p>lets reallign our priorities, shall we:</p>

<p>Prisons
War profiteers
Tax breaks for companies"</p>

<p>CGM, why don't YOU start doing that and show how much you understand about balance sheets and income statements. Why don't you start with your most hated Halliburton, the mother of all evils. </p>

<p>Oh wait, been there and done that. KBR's war-profiteering unit of Halliburton has been for sale for a while because it drags down the earnings of the other units. </p>

<p>"So in the past the elite were our leaders, and guess you awant to keep it that way"</p>

<p>It beats to be led by the mediocre and the moron. From my vantage point, I rather follow people described as </p>

<p>1, A group or class of persons or a member of such a group or class, enjoying superior intellectual, social, or economic status.</p>

<ol>
<li>The best or most skilled members of a group.</li>
</ol>

57

<p>CGM,
Regarding your Post #19:
Interesting that you become so inflamed about supposed insults to your mother, yet have no problem insulting us current teachers (that would be <em>credentialed</em>, Ma'am) who teach in charter schools. I don't know which "California" you think you're talking about, but I know of no CA charter school which allows non-credentialed folks to hold formal teaching positions. Every one of our teachers has at least one credential, most of have at least two, several of us have an additional specialty credential or specialty training. We must <em>register</em> those credentials in person with our district offices in order to sign employment papers and receive paychecks.</p>

<p>I work with about 45 amazing, dignified, learned, competent, ethical colleagues. Their professionalism is nothing less than what one would observe among medical professionals in a fine teaching hospital. When we see massive failure in the public school system (& we do, which I'll address below), the last thing we would consider an effective solution is shrieking on a picket line. (The shared expectation is professionalism both in standard of delivery and in personal behavior.)</p>

<p>Now, I will say that the current huge, geographically disperse, & massively diverse school population is not well-served by a centralized bureaucracy piling on complex requirements over & above daily lessons. Responding to political pressures, bureaucrats & legislators have created a system so administratively complex that it sabotages the academics themselves. That is one problem. The second problem has to do with more recent credentialing than my colleagues and I were subject to. Some recent credential programs have been driven more by fads & social expectations than by classic, coherent philosophy. The result is poor teaching technique & poor classroom management in the self-contained classroom -- including in many <em>site</em> charter schools. (We are a public charter homeschooling program.) My very current observations of public classroom teaching, including in many (not all!) site charter schools, is that about 50% of a teacher's time is devoted to teaching tasks (including preparation), about 50% to administrative-related duties. If one then can observe that the classroom time is further eroded by ineffective teacher training (letting first-graders "organize themselves" as if they were 5th-6th graders, for example), it is my assessment that students are actually receiving about one-quarter of what they should expect to receive. And that would be in a well-run charter site school. </p>

<p>I will also say that a few of the problems plaguing public schools are also observable in private schools, including secular, independent ones. That is, misguided teacher training and/or societal expectations of classroom atmosphere (that it should always be "fun," that children should always work in groups, that student choice is more important than teacher prerogative, that periods of imposed silence are bad, that a grade of "A" should be assumed unless the work is D-level) have also sabotaged academics to some degree in excellent, expensive private schools. Having observed at length this last fall in a private school, the classrooms of which are highly homogeneous & the administrative tasks few, I could see that in more than one classroom, ineffective teacher style was resulting in about 50% of learning occurring.</p>

<p>The existing deficiencies in particular private schools are correctable. The problems in sprawling public school systems with highly heterogeneous populations, controlled by centralized administrations, God himself cannot fix within the current status-quo.</p>

<p>And in my own edit, I will add that these observations of mine neglect the additional obstacles of public <em>non</em>-charter schools, which have discipline concerns that overall do not hamstring charter schools, which are freer to control behavior situations than non-charter schools are. Add that factor in, & a whole other level of challenge presents itself. In one non-charter public school in our district, the majority student population in each class is emotionally disturbed, even though the school is not designated for "Special" or emotionally disturbed children. I hesitate to predict the percentage of academics that are being actually delivered & received in those classrooms, but surely it is below even 25%.</p>

58

<br>


<br>

<p>Yes, and they do it in public schools with a nationalized curriculum -- not exactly the model the voucher fans want to follow.</p>

<p>I'm also mystified by the idea that vouchers somehow remedy the inequity that I as a citizen must pay for the education of children in public schools, even if I don't use the services myself. I'll be paying for the vouchers, too, and I'm childless. This doesn't bother me, of course, because I benefit enormously from the education provided to other people's children, but the imposition on me is the same whether I'm paying for public schools or for vouchers. (The fee-for-service model is pretty questionable when it comes to government, anyway -- is it an outrageous imposition that I have to pay for the state mental hospital, even though, hopefully, I will never be committed?)</p>

59

<p>
[quote]
">There are many countries that are able to provide a better education for a lot less per pupil. </p>

<p>Yes, and they do it in public schools with a nationalized curriculum -- not exactly the model the voucher fans want to follow."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>While I cannot speak about many different countries, I am familiar with the system in Mexico and Belgium. When I visited my cousins in Belgium, I spent time at their schools. They did NOT attend public schools, but schools owned and controlled by the Catholic Church. The school is private but the majority of the teachers are considered public teachers and are supported by the government. There is no tuition for the "private" school, only small contributions are expected from the parents for activities. Remember that is a country where college does not cost more than a few hundreds a year.</p>

<p>Hybrid systems of education work, even in countries where separation of State and Church exists. This said, this work because various taxes are funding schools. Confiscatory level of taxes on gasoline plays a large role in funding schools and hospitals. However, the total anount per pupil is a fraction of the levels we have in the US. </p>

<p>FWIW, schools that are run by the state are considered to be lower level schools as they attract mostly the students who were about average in years 1 through 6. Children who fail in grades 1-6 are directed towards technical or professional schools. Some people view this system of early selection as inhumane, but it contributes to keep the level of 7-12 at a higher level. Students repeating grades is not unusual as the teaching remains on level and does target the lowest students in classes.</p>

60

<p>
[quote]
"private schools are not the ones causing the abandonment of schools in urban areas</p>

<p>That's correct -- the flight of whites to suburban districts was/is caused in large part by their racism, which hasn't come up much on this thread, but which has a great deal to do with struggling urban schools.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That is one contributing factor. However, I believe that a deeper problem is the economic decay of many urban cities. Industrial and commercial activities are slowly disappearing from the cities yielding ghost town images. The vicious circle of lesser economic activity prompts even more businesses to leave impoverished areas resulting in fewer jobs. The lower property values leave the schools poorer and unable to reverse the tide. This is a very visible indictment that our current system of local taxation for schools might be a najor contributor to segregation, both racial and socio-economic.</p>

<p>However, this should NOT direct the debate about quality of schools. In Washington, DC, the expenses per pupil are the some of the highest in the nation and they school still perform at the lowest levels. I have always felt that our Senators and Congressmen should have manadatory WEEKLY visits to their local schools. Well, not THEIR local schools, as their favorite "home" must be in the neighboring states. Our country should allocate sufficient funds to address the urban schools problems with DESIGNATED funding and APPROPRIATE programs, but not try to let the "system" take care of it. Let's asceratin the extent of the problem and separate this from the issues that plague the rest of the countries. The issues we have in El Paso have nothing to do with Flint, Michigan.</p>