<p>Perhaps a voucher system is CURRENTLy more popular among inner-city minorities, because CURRENTLY there are such huge disparities in the quality of public schools, and inner-city schools are often awful whereas rich, white people already have access to great public schools. A voucher system would not do as much to further educational equality as would improving and equalizing the public school system. A voucher system has never been created which will cover the most expensive private schools. Not to mention, not everyone can be admitted to the best private schools. Private colleges offer need-based aid, yet about 1/2 of their student bodies is affluent. Why? Because the affluent students have more advantages allowing them to be admitted to private colleges. If all students went to private high schools, it would be the same thing in trickle-down. Education in a democracy should not be a "survival of the fittest" system the way our laissez-faire economic system is. Furthermore, children growing up in poor families are less likely to have parents educated about the system, who will push to send their children to the best private schools. </p>
<p>No, funding is not directly correllated with educational excellence, but it sure as hell can limit it. Richer school systems can attract the best qualified teachers. If funding of public schools was equalized, I believe OVER TIME quality of education at public schools would level out.</p>
<p>Here's an idea on how your disarm aristocratic power, and other forms of control by access denial:</p>
<p>"Throughout human history, as our species has faced the frightening, terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are, or where we are going in this ocean of chaos, it has been the authorities---the political, the religious, the educational authorities---who attempted to comfort us by giving us order, rules, regulations, informing---forming in our minds---their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question authority and learn how to put yourself in a state of vulnerable open-mindedness, chaotic, confused vulnerability to inform yourself." (italics added)</p>
<p>Or just blast "The Wall" by Pink Floyd, and pay attention to the chant:</p>
<p>"We don't need no education, we don't need no false control"</p>
<p>Basically, ignore it and start to realize that it only has as much power over your life as you allow it to. Aristocracy is only a problem for those who pursue it. Educational ideology is only a form of false control. We can overcome lack of access to supposed "bigger and better" by pursuing a different agenda. The U.S. still allows this for the most part, and until otherwise, I won't complain!</p>
<p>311Griff, not that I don't agree with part of your post, but the education I have experienced has help me learn to think critically, to question EVERYTHING including authority. Out of curiosity, are you an adult self-supporting yourself with a job? Because once one starts to go hungry, dancing to the beat of one's own drum becomes less imortant than learning whatever you need to learn to get payed. I'd say it's no surprise that great revolutions, from the Congo, to the French Revolution, to the US, was started by rich intellectuals who had the free time to look at the big picture. Everyone else pretty much needs whatever education a society deems "useful."</p>
<p>My D attended a very large public HS that is both racially and economically integrated. Yet the kids from poor backgrounds and non-english speaking homes and the affluent/educated families' kids have completely different outcomes, even though they all go to the same school.</p>
<p>It is probable that the level of expectation is lower for the disadvantaged kids, and that should be changed. And obviously the feeder elementary schools (that have neighborhood boundaries) are less integrated than the HS district, so preparation up to junior high is somewhat unequal. But throwing cash at the situation is not a real answer.</p>
<p>My kids attended a public grammar school with some of the best test scores in the county. It is located in an affluent neighborhood. I do not kid myself that these scores are achieved by dint of better teaching; they are achieved by incredible demographics that include parents with PHds and masters degrees, stimulating preschool experiences (whether home or not), better nutrition and health care, materials-rich home environments, etc. Once when our principal crowed about some test result being in the 93rd percentile, I said, "well, it's all relative; you've got a 98th percentile demographic." </p>
<p>Even in our very top flight school kids who come in as english learners (and there are always a few disadvantaged kids in our grammar school district) have way worse scores-- and they are getting english immersion, high achieveing peers, great teachers, low class sizes, etc. But they begin at such a profound disadvantage and their home support is so much worse that it simply can't be leveled by the school.</p>
<p>If you want to know about the true history of public, compulsory schooling check out this website (<a href="http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/index.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/index.htm</a> ). The author won awards for best New York City and New York State teacher - and he's on the warpath against public schools. Public schooling started off in Prussia to provide pliable fodder for the Prussian military. It then morphed into a tool for social engineering (there are some scary quotes from top figures in the schooling movement). Gatto thinks it was done to provide a pliable workforce for mass production - explaining the massive amounts of money donated by industrial families to advance public schooling (ever hear of the CARNEGIE endowment, or the ROCKEFELLER Foundation?).</p>
<p>It sounds like a crazy conspiracy, but the quotes from top schooling figures belie that suspicion.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Out of curiosity, are you an adult self-supporting yourself with a job?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am at work when I am on this site. I live on my own in a one bedroom apartment, pay for my own car, go to school on sholarships, buy my own food, do my own laundry, wash my own dishes, and beat my own drum...</p>
<p>I'm also not one to succumb to all the USNWR crud, the BCS (The University of Utah could have beaten any team in the country last season (2004) and NOBODY can prove otherwise), or any other form of supposed ranking that uses political strength rather than face to face performance as its biggest measuring tool.</p>
<p>They are not getting their money's worth then. Having a decent HS education benefits all of society and just because it makes you more job worthy does not mean it is bad. Jobs are good you know.</p>
<p>Most studies of public schools find little correlation between funding and outcomes. Most of the highest achieving states on SAT/ACTs are the more rural states with low school funding, but homogeneous populations--Utah, Wisconsin, Oregon etc..</p>
<p>"Most studies of public schools find little correlation between funding and outcomes."</p>
<p>Just tell it to the folks who send their kids to Exeter. (Try 30k a kid over a 50-year period, and see what happens.) Don't like the results of the public schools? Voucher the kids to Groton.</p>
<p>(Why would we deny what every really wealthy person knows to be true? Somehow I don't see the sons and daughters of Bailey, Banks, and Biddle running to be enrolled at East L.A. High. Why not? Are they stupid or somethun?)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Most of the highest achieving states on SAT/ACTs are the more rural states with low school funding, but homogeneous populations--Utah, Wisconsin, Oregon etc..
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In Utah, the LDS religion is very large and in charge...the church has its own educational system that begins at a very young age...2 or 3. Thus, roughly 55-60% of the pupils in Utah are essentially receiving two educations at the same time. My buddy went to the most mediocre high school in the land, and got a 5 on 12 AP tests, and scored a 35 on the ACT...ofcourse, he went to BYU, but he could have schooled any Harvard admit on most subjects. The ACT was laughable for him.</p>
<p>Ken Jennings, the Jeopardy phenom? went to BYU, is LDS. They teach their members how to study hard, and learn well. It's very much highly encouraged.</p>
<p>Of course you can find exceptions to the rule, and geniuses coming from all sorts of backgrounds. However, I think overall it's hard to dispute that any child is better off being able to go to a well-funded school that has good teachers, new textbooks, small class sizes, from the time they are in kindergarten. And any high school student is better off having AP or honors classes available in all subjects. What should be done about the disparities in home environment, I'm not sure. But I think our government definitely has a duty to improve/equalize public schools. With regards to the idea of students performing best when they are in environments with people similar to them where they feel comfortable, there is some evidence to support that concept. I recently read a good book about segregation in the US written by a prominent professor at UChicago, that suggested forced integration would not solve any problems. That is why I support equalization of the public education system over vouchers or another system requiring students to leave their communities.</p>
<p>ecape - your socialist vision sounds nice in theory, but it doesn't work in fact. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't spend money on troubled schools, but the most important factor in education is an appreciation for, and a culture that inculcates, a love of learning. This is of course disturbing to many - who would like to believe in the simple shibboleth of more money equals better outcomes. By way of anecdotal example, the District of Columbia spends far more per pupil and over the years has received far more money per pupil than its suburban counterparts in Fairfax and Montgomery counties, among the best systems in the nation. Yet their performance is abysmal - the schools are not run for the children but rather are a kind of employment agency of last resort. That is a cultural factor, and a disturbing one. Add more teachers to get the teacher/student ratio down? Sounds nice, doesn't it? Try that in DC (as they have in California) and you get worse results? Why? These school districts can't attract enough teachers to pass teacher cert exams (typically, thanks to your friendly teachers unions and the civil rights lobby, set at an 8th grade level of competence) as it is, and they have to go hire more? Throwing more unqualified teachers at kids doesn't help. Education isn't at one level any different than business, medicine, and other fields, those who are more competent and skilled help others learn better. So massively increase the pay scale so qualified teachers come to these districts? Please, the culture of non-learning and parental neglect and academic indifference and physical and security threats is so dismal they aren't going to attract bright people, even with double the salary. The answer lies in changing the culture, and to do that, by gosh, to the utter disdain of the NEA and we can't be judgmental liberals, we are going to have to stigmatize the deadening cultural wasteland that is causing these problems. And this might offend some groups, including some minority groups. Don't get me wrong, lets spend the money where it makes sense, but lets realize the real elephant in the room - it is a cultural problem of the highest order.</p>
<p>Escape, I've been reading this thread for awhile and thought I would chime in now. </p>
<p>I live in a socialist country- Germany, as you can see from my user info. Do you think these problems of education are alone in the US. Germany provides "free", well subsidized education for all, from preschool to graduate school. And even though these are well paid for and generally attended and provide a good education and college education. There are still wealthy families who want more. Yes, even in socialist countries there are very very wealthy individuals, CEO's, bankers, royalty, etc. Most of them do not send their children to public schools. They go to the private religious schools or the international schools. They want more for their children.</p>
<p>Second this is a way around the system. I'll give you a quick rundown. You have your Kindergarten, then in primary school you go to Grundschule. Then after that students are tested and divided between 3 other types of schools: Gymnasium, Realschule and Hauptschule. The last two are less educational and more vocational, for the students who weren't "smart" enough or not able to get into Gymnasium. If you don't get into Gymnasium you generally cannot get into German university. So parents with money send their children to private schools, like international schools, where they then can achieve admittance to then university of their choice, a better choice than they had when they were at public school. </p>
<p>So what does this little anecdote prove. Even with socialism and equal educational funding you still get this "inequality". It will always be there when you have free enterprise and some shreds of freedom. Some people work very hard to provide the best for their families and will not settle for anything less than the best.</p>
<p>I am not talking about socialism. I am not particularly in favor of systems that sort kids out for different treatment at a young age, as I mentioned in my previous post. Many non-socialist countries have equal educational funding. Nor have I said equalizing educational funding would solve all problems. mam's evidence only supports that equalizing educational funding doesn't solve all problems, which I never claimed. All I said was that it would IMPROVE things. The US is unique in that school funding in many states relies on property taxes. There really is no reason it has to be that way. Vermont signed the equal educational opportunity act in 1997 (<a href="http://www.state.vt.us/educ/new/html/laws/act60.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.state.vt.us/educ/new/html/laws/act60.html</a>) So far the act has seen a GRADUAL closing in the disparities of achievement among the poorest and richest students in vermont, whereas disparities in many other states are growing.</p>
<p>MOST capitilist countries fund public educatioin equally. And as far as your comment about good teachers not choosing to go to impovershed neighborhoods even if they would be paid well by the school, I would like to see your evidence supporting that assumption? Teachers are usually in the profession because they like to teach. I know teachers who take pride in being someplace they are needed.</p>
<p>Yes, culture can be a hindrance to education. I know intimitely that this is the case. But also from experience I can say at every school where the general culture is not academically-focused, there are students who care about education, and are hurt by a school's lack of resources. Which came first: education or pro-education culture? It's a bit of a chicken and the egg situation, but changing one HAS to affect the other.</p>