I suppose that if my kid was such a genius that being unchallenged in school resulted in 180 days of a horrible experience, I might feel differently. In that case, I would seek out diverse professional opinions on what to do with them. Perhaps private school or tutors or concurrent enrollment or early graduation would be appropriate in that case.
And no, it’s not “fair”, but I have to be honest and say that yes I’m okay with the public schools not being able to maximally support my hypothetical genius child. If my kid’s mental health was so bad from being unchallenged, I’d consider that to be as much of a mental health issue as an education issue and would have them in psychotherapy as well.
I would still be more worried about the kids that are struggling to get the basic education that they need to be regular citizens.
But it’s okay that we disagree about this. Perhaps I would feel the same as you were I in your shoes. Clearly you have personal experience with such a child and I’m sorry he suffered in school. I am glad he had a parent like you to help him get what he needed – he’s lucky.
“Harrison Bergeron” is a (very) short story, not a book, and you are equating the mere presence of less-accomplished or interested students in a freshman English class with what . . . blasting high-pitched noise in the eardrums and hanging weights from the kneecaps of the smart kids?
Since not everyone can exercise a choice we should not allow choice. Got it.
Sometimes the the better choice school is a different public school a few bocks in the other direction, or maybe it’s a charter school a bus ride away. There are options for most out there - parents should be able to choose.
If you make the school administration/faculty pay/job tenure dependent on outcomes — something carefully structured to account for input quality, this will fix itself. In this case you are making sure the faculty/administration are not earning the monopoly rents.
How about we use the numbers from a school and approach lauded as excellent here in these threads? BASIS Phoenix Central is considered one of the top schools in AZ. In reading, 71% of its students are at or above grade level. At SaMo, the number is 82%. At CC High, the number is 69%. Nearby and famous Beverly Hills High is at 68%. Wealthy Calabasas High is 64%. Palo Alto High is 86%. Cupertino High 82%.
In short, the numbers just do not support your repeated assertion that these two schools are are anywhere near failed schools.
Perhaps we should have alternatives for kids who surpass the basic education standard-no one should be compelled to remain present in a place 8 hours a day if they have already mastered the material being taught.
Oh we do-they are called honors classes.
Locally if you can pass at the 95% level the final exam before the course starts, you are exempt from that class.
I never used the term “failed” with respect to the 2 high schools discussed. One might reasonably question why in an area with few ESL students and what you claim is a popular school, students are not performing better. They do not care? They are not academically oriented? The state tests are too hard? What exactly is the problem with one quarter of the students at CC high?
By the way, you have made a good case that wealth doesnt equal achievement
Just to add to that, here is the full text of “Harrison Bergeron” if anyone wants to read it (I am not sure if it is actually relevant, though): Harrison Bergeron
This seems unnecessarily hostile. Where did I say that choice should be forbidden? I specifically said it was ok as long as you aren’t taking resources away from the one school that some kids have to go to because they don’t actually have a choice.
So basically, if you want to spend your own money on private school, absolutely go ahead.
If you want some sort of school voucher program, it has to be funded by something other than taking money away from the public schools. And it needs to be enough money that it can actually fully fund the locally available private schools… not a partial payment, the full payment.
The challenge of course is the carefully structured to account for input quality… situations are different and accounting for that is challenging.
I’d also say that the job of being a teacher should be made more desirable…
I can use my wallet and vote with my feet for private schools. I’d like those who may not have the money have the same opportunity. To my knowledge, most public schools are funded buy a butts-in-seat funding. So if a parent can move their kid that’s the amount that would move with them. If they go to another public school that’s fine but they should also be able to go to a private that may require added out of pocket money or maybe a scholarship.
So, in some cases money might leave a school or might be added to a school depending on how they serve their market. As it is, these schools have a captive market except of course for the family’s with the funds to afford a choice.
[quote=“Rivet2000, post:506, topic:3629509, full:true”]
I’d like those who may not have the money have the same opportunity.[/quote]
Unfortunately many don’t have that opportunity, and to provide that opportunity would very expensive. It seems more efficient to actually provide a good public option.
[quote=“Rivet2000, post:506, topic:3629509, full:true”]
To my knowledge, most public schools are funded buy a butts-in-seat funding. So if a parent can move their kid that’s the amount that would move with them. [/quote]
I don’t think it works exactly that way… at least not in a direct way. Schools are basically like insurance in that costs are borne by all, but not incurred equally. Special needs students require more resources, your basic average kid requires less. But it gets spread out so you get a per student cost of say $7K. But if kid A’s actual cost to the school is $4K, but he leaves the school and takes $7K with him, then he’s actually pulling more money from the school than his actual cost, and giving to another school more than his actual cost.
So, you could get some charter school that won’t even allow student B to attend for whatever reason, and student B requires $9K because of some disability or whatever. When student A leaves, it creates a deficit.
Schools don’t work exactly this way, but it’s an approximation.
[quote=“Rivet2000, post:506, topic:3629509, full:true”]
If they go to another public school that’s fine but they should also be able to go to a private that may require added out of pocket money or maybe a scholarship. [/quote]
Not everyone can afford that. So if you’re pulling resources away from a school, then you are leaving the kids stuck there in a worse position. This will cost you way more money in the long term, besides being morally questionable.
Schools fall under the natural monopoly category. High barriers to entry, inelastic demand. You will never get enough schools to create true competition in a cost effective manner.
Butts in seat funding is still in play which is why many schools are loath to expel a student. In any case, this is easily remedied- just come up with a funding model and allow parents to choose. Why all the roadblocks? If there are no options to move to or no desire to nothing will change, but if there are options why isn’t that a good thing?
Here on CC it’s common to criticize parents who do extra things to expand their kids academic horizons while at the same time blocking the ability of parents with less means the opportunity of doing the same. It’s actually kind of funny.
Not really. This topic is much broader than just the example classes in the WSJ article. It’s turned into a general discussion on whether students ready for more advanced material should instead be put into classes that won’t challenge them for the greater good of the student collective and raised examples of other school districts that did away with advanced classes altogether. The story seems topical. I didn’t imply a position, just pointed out the parallels. Seems silly to compare the literal measures taken in a story not meant to be taken literally, rather than the questions being articulated about individualism, exceptionalism and equality.
FWIW, my kids public high school, which has has its share of high achievers, doesn’t have any honors (or equivalent) English in 9th or 10th grade and doesn’t let kids take AP English until 11th. They don’t allow any honors and AP history/social science until 10th – everyone is mixed in one level for those two subject areas in those grades. Math, Science and Foreign Language on the other hand has honors-equivalent and exceptional students can be placed AP’s earlier by various means (teacher recommendation, completing placement tests, completing college courses over the summer, etc). No one is locked into tracks and some kids drift in or out of the most rigorous classes depending on the grade or subject, though it is much harder to get into the most rigorous classes if you were not already in their predecessors. In exceptional cases there are kids who are in AP Calc BC or their AP foreign language by Freshman year (they don’t allow that in science until Sophomore year). Except for English, AP (and post-AP) classes have a mix of students from various grades.
Don’t worry. Thousands already do. And now pay double. I don’t see a tax rebate anywhere that my kid won’t be attending a less than satisfactory public school.
For the price? Kids deserve better. And I’m going to lay it on teachers. Dumbing down classes does not raise the level of those around them.
Kids rise to the bar given them. To argue that kids can’t meet that bar or is “a fact of life” or “just depends on their culture” or “I need to feel sorry for them” is a true diservice to all of them. You meet kids where they are at–I get that. But I can not for the life of me understand that for all the money spent on public education that the needs can’t be met for most.
I sent my kid to private school which dollar wise is equal to public school spending. In those terms every kid should be getting that same education. The only differences I see is that my private school could fire bad teachers and could enforce discipline as necessary.
Everyone has responsibility when a child is not learning at an acceptable level. The admins, teachers and definitely the parents. Parents send kids to school that don’t know how to act in public. Then when called out on it they take the side of the kid way too often.
My wife is on some committee at the HS. They had over 2000 calls to parents about discipline go not returned. Kids have to learn that their actions can have consequences.
Parents need to get their butts to parent teacher conferences. They need to be looking at grades online.
I knew as a kid if I got in trouble at school I was dead at home. My kids knew the same thing.
Also parents need to stop spending so much time and money on their kids youth sports. Guess what most likely Johnnie or Susie isn’t going to get a scholarship. And if they do by some miracle usually it isn’t a full scholarship. Oh and then they have a job at college which comes with 5:30AM wake ups and a crazy amount of time traveling while in college. USC is about to be in the Big Ten. The volleyball team is going to have to travel to Rutgers on a Tuesday to play a game and then get back home.
If you a parent focus on the academics and make sure your kid is doing well. Because when things go smoother in class then the kids can learn more.
I volunteered at my D’s school from k-8. Every single week. My biggest wake up call was when she was in 1st grade. A little girl would fall asleep at her desk nearly every day and one day I was asked to walk her to the nurses office. She started sobbing that she couldn’t go to the nurse because they would call her mom and she would get fired from her job. Over the course of a few months, it came out that the mom was a single parent, worked two jobs, and the kids (oldest was 9) were on their own until 2 am when she came off shift. The 1st grader was afraid to go to sleep until her mom got home, hence the falling asleep every day. Same kid was terrified of summer because there wasn’t going to be breakfast or lunch.
Poverty, food insecurity, unsafe living situations are all issues that follow kids to school. Those parents are trying to meet their kids very basic needs, not parent teacher conferences, etc…
I absolutely don’t have the answers here but there are much bigger issues at play beyond parent involvement.
.
The schools mentioned in the WSJ article didn’t cite the lack of resource as an issue in their decisions to eliminate honors classes. The reason for the elimination was the perceived inequity.
No one on this thread has suggested the schools should eliminate the regular non-honors classes in favor of the honors classes, shifting resources in the other direction. So, where is the bias “to optimize for high achievers because the demographics of this board skew that way”?
I didn’t say that any specific school has a right to exist, I said that a public option needs to be fully funded so that every kid can go to a public option without paying anything more than existing tax dollars. And that public option needs to meet a minimum standard and be funded appropriately.
And that means public schools. You aren’t going to get that with a bunch of private schools.
