LA TIMES series on high school drop outs

Parents Forum
41

<p>Unless I am missing something, the research you cite consists of only one study based on one city (Milwaukee) that directly involves a voucher program. We need far more than one such case to know whether the results are idiosyncratic or can work in many locations (and under what conditions).</p>

<p>The other experiments -- charter schools and "school choice" -- involve a different kind of financial arrangement. And, to say the least, "the school is out" on charter schooling in my state (MI), with huge problems in oversight, administration, corruption, and the like. In the case of school choice, that seems to be functioning OK, but whether it enhances the quality of the educational product, as opposed to stabilizing the financial base of the more competitive schools and allowing public schools to recruit student athletes from outside their normal boundaries, remains an open question.</p>

<p>Don't confuse vouchers with "school choice" and charter schools.</p>

42

<p>

Of course you are right about the need for more studies. We DO know, however, that the public school model is failing miserably in many areas of this country -- we don't need more studies to prove that fact.</p>

43

<p>Mackinaw, I think you asked for an example. However, there were more stories buried in the links: </p>

<p>See <a href="http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ewp_02.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ewp_02.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
The results demonstrate the following:</p>

<p>Florida’s low-performing schools are improving in direct proportion to the challenge they face from voucher competition. These improvements are real, not the result of test gaming, demographic shifts, or the statistical phenomenon of “regression to the mean.” </p>

<p>Schools already facing competition from vouchers showed the greatest improvements of all five categories of low-performing schools, improving by 9.3 scale score points on the FCAT math test, 10.1 points on the FCAT reading test, and 5.1 percentile points on the Stanford-9 math test relative to Florida public schools that were not in any low-performing category. </p>

<p>Schools threatened with the prospect of vouchers showed the second greatest improvements, making relative gains of 6.7 scale points on the FCAT math test, 8.2 points on the FCAT reading test, and 3.0 percentile points on the Stanford-9 math test. </p>

<p>Low-performing schools that have never received any grade other than a D, or that have received at least one D since FCAT grading began, produced small and indistinguishable gains, respectively, relative to Florida public schools that were not low-performing. While these schools were similar to schools facing voucher competition, they failed to make similar gains in the absence of competitive incentives. </p>

<p>Some researchers theorize that failing schools improve because of the stigma of a failing grade rather than the threat of voucher competition. The results of this study contradict this thesis. Schools that received one F in 1998-99 but none since are no longer exposed to the potential of voucher competition. These schools actually lost ground relative to non-low-performing Florida public schools, supporting the conclusion that once the threat of vouchers goes away, so does the incentive for failing schools to improve.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oops, almost forgot. This is an link from an interestingly named Mackinac Center for Public Policy. What is a C when you have a W. :)</p>

<p><a href="http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=6840%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=6840&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

44

<p>But if you want to use that logic, then I suppose there are many failing charter schools and private schools as well.</p>

<p>I do think the hyper-large school districts such as LA need to be decentralized at least. But I think they've been vastly underfunded as well as confronted with issues such as a dramatic change in the ethnic/racial composition of the student body (partly because of "white flight") that is not necessarily a response to the schools' performance but perhaps at least as much a cause of it.</p>

<p>Xiggi, except for the Harvard study, the links that you provided were rather more glosses of alleged findings presented by advocates of particular reforms. I'd like to see more fundamental and objective studies and fewer advocacy statements.</p>

45

<p>Well, I tried ...</p>

46

<p>From this link: <a href="http://www.nysun.com/article/11068%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nysun.com/article/11068&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
Still, most other cities spend much less overall than New York. Chicago spends $7,967 a pupil. Philadelphia spends $7,554. Baltimore spends $9,639. Miami spends $6,956. Los Angeles Unified School District, the second-largest district in the country, spends $8,447.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm sure it's hard to pin down the exact dollars, but where is the underfunding that you see? My kids attended Catholic elementary schools where the tuition was typically around $3000 per year. Fund raising and donations covered the remaining portion of the costs to educate each child. We were always told that tuition did not cover the total costs, so there was an implicit scholarship of around $1500 per child. At the high school level, many religious based schools charge less than the $8000-9000 that the LAUSD spends. Why can't they do a better job with the money they have? I don't agree that they are underfunded. I think there is excessive overhead and administration in public ed that you don't find in private schools.</p>

47

<p>I see it in class sizes and school sizes. Read the "discussion" on the LATimes series as well as the articles.</p>

48

<p>SJMom, you're comparing apples to pipe wrenches. Without thinking for even ten seconds, I can think of three essential differences: parochial schools don't have to deal, in all dimensions, with special ed students; they don't have to deal with discipline problems, one strike or maybe two and you're out; and, most importantly, enrollment in a parochial school automatically filters for one of the most important criteria (on <em>my</em> list) for student success: parental involvement.</p>

<p>You give me a public school with similar attributes and I guarantee I can drive the costs down significantly.</p>

49

<p>no parochial schools dont have to deal with sped students- however many do- the structure that parochial schools can offer can be very helpful for students who need clear boundaries to perform
Instead of just saying we can't do it that way- why can't we look at what is successful and adapt what we can- rather than trying to reinvent piecemeal every couple years- that hasn't worked too well</p>

50

<p>

TD, I'm really quite familiar with the differences between parochial and public schools, especially with the self-selection factor. My point was that if parents had a CHOICE to use the funding that is already set aside for their child's education via the 'per pupil spending' of the public schools, then perhaps they could find a better use of the educational dollars set aside for that child's education. I just see money thrown at problems, which somehow never filters down to the individual student level. When you read about the kids in this series of articles, especially the 11 that started HS together, you can't tell me that the money is well-spent on those boys. They'd be better off in some alternative setting -- charter school, vocational training, private tutors, something -- because the public school has simply failed them. Whatever was spent on them in the 2 or 3 years they managed to endure of high school is money down the drain.</p>

51

<p>choice is so important-
the public schools system tries to make all the schools "the same" but they are never going to be the same-
the communities are different- the amount of support the families give is different-the expectations are different.
Now we ahve some people- like my brother for example- for whom it is all about test scores <insert eye="" roll="" here="">
he is looking an area to move to- and the only thing he is considering- is the test scores.
Not the livability- which for me would include parks-shops- entertainment within walking distance as well as do they support the schools, are there jobs for varying levels, is there a place my dog can swim?
Ijust attended a community forum with members of the larger community who often are not heard. The people who place their kids in private schools. It is easy to paint them as elitist and rich.
Believe me- they aren't.It is true- they are not the poorest of the poor- they are usually reasonably educated at least enough to know that the public school system isn't giving them a choice.
We chose to live in the city- but we were forced to put our oldest daughter in private school because she had learning disabilties the public school system told us- they would not address.
at least they were honest.
If there had been an opening at the only public school that we felt would have supported her- we would have enrolled her.
But there wasn't for several years- it was a very popular program with the community- but you think that the district would support it or even try and replicate it- ha-hah-ha
So she attended private school- something that was a choice and a sacrifice I admit- even with financial aid- it was difficult- but aside from moving to the suburbs, which we didn't want to do- there weren't a lot of options.
But she was lucky that it was there- there aren't a lot of places in private schools, I know lots of families who have similar backgrounds who are trying to make public schools work, because they don't have any choice and that is the problem.
Why can't we have arts schools- immersion schools- schools that are ungraded and you move to the pace that you make for yourself instead of artifically pushing kids ahead whether they are ready or not? Teachers could teach where they are suited, not where they are sent. The districts could do any of those things- but they refuse.
The Gates foundations pulled millions of dollars from the Seattle district because they didn't do what the money was given to them for.
Which was to look at what was working and expand it.
Instead- we did what we always do- which was talk about why the things that weren't working , weren't working.
We talked about it alot- but nothing changes that way.
meanwhile, these kids are leaving high school- and we are still decieving ourselves that with a few minor tweaks the schools will be wonderful.</insert></p>

52

<p>My thoughts exactly, EmeraldKity. I just hate to see all the handwringing and studies and reports and more Power Point presentations about how difficult it is for public schools. With all the money spent on this stuff, you could place these kids in better situations, as EK describes. More bureaucracy just wastes money - I'd rather see communities run the schools, instead of large school districts. If the figures I saw for the LAUSD were correct, then somewhere between $20K and $30K was spent on the kids who DROPPED OUT of high school.</p>

<p>By the way, I ran into plenty of kids with learning disabilities in Catholic schools. It usually took extra effort for the parents to address some specific needs, but the parents typically felt it was still a better situation for their children.</p>