Los Angeles approves plan to turn over 250 public schools to private operators

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The examples of so many school districts receiving more money yet still performing poorly speaks for itself. Look at all the hundreds of millions DC schools receive yet are ranked the worst in the country.

At some point, responsibility to learn must fall on the parents and ultimately the student, rather than everyone else. When kids are surrounded by other kids who don't want to or care about learning, they're not going to learn. it's as simple as that. I have a number of cousins whose folks sent them to best private schools, spent in excess of $80K for their k7 to 12 education, yet these kids barely passed. Yet other cousins went to public schools in the 70's and 80's, when not even $1k was spent per student, yet ended up doctors, lawyers, scientist and engineers.

Granted. But school buildings literally crumbling apart ...or teachers having to spend their own money on supplies - that to me is an indication that there isn't enough money being spent.

If anyone's interested:

SCHOOL FUNDING

To understand the problems of education in America, it is necessary to look at the way public schools are financed. The disparate funding for public schools and between states and within metropolitan areas has turned some public schools into meccas for affluent students and others into decaying infrastructures with overcrowded classrooms and soaring drop-out rates.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/backgrounders/...ol_funding.html

Edited August 28, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[Heracles 417]

There's the typical talking point repeated here - that you can't simply throw money at the problem, however, the problem isn't that simple. Just in terms of building upkeep, and adequate supplies for the teachers and students, there should be no blatantly visible discrepancy between public schools in affluent communities and public schools in poorer areas. I wonder if the per student cost is really a good way to measure adequacy of funding when each school will have it's own unique costs incurred?

You also have to factor in the sudden growth of esol. California has made huge cuts to their school budgets, however, not a single dollar has been cut from this sector. It's American kids and their teachers who have to bear the brunt of this crisis. Business as usual for the ESOL sector.

How many kids in CA are of illegal immigrants or are a anchor baby? Extremely conservative guess 50,000; but you know it's more considering there are over 15,000,000 illegal immigrants.

Even at 50,000 * $10K per student = $500,000,000. So $500 million is being spent annually to educated the kids of illegal immigrant or Anchor babies. Money that could be going to American citizens who should have a right to a fair education. Paying for these kids in such a crisis is lunacy. Especially when American kids and teachers are going without. I am not saying don't educated them, however their parents should have to pay for it rather than everyone else. There are not too many countries out there that put others before their own and erroneous confuse this as being compassionate. Ironically most social democracies don't offer free lunch, per say, to anyone not legally permitted to be there.

When compared to other OECD nations, the US was ranked almost last in Math, science and literacy; and that was before the crisis and during the boom years. Where will it end up next year?

Edited August 28, 2009 by haza

[Heracles 417]

The examples of so many school districts receiving more money yet still performing poorly speaks for itself. Look at all the hundreds of millions DC schools receive yet are ranked the worst in the country.

At some point, responsibility to learn must fall on the parents and ultimately the student, rather than everyone else. When kids are surrounded by other kids who don't want to or care about learning, they're not going to learn. it's as simple as that. I have a number of cousins whose folks sent them to best private schools, spent in excess of $80K for their k7 to 12 education, yet these kids barely passed. Yet other cousins went to public schools in the 70's and 80's, when not even $1k was spent per student, yet ended up doctors, lawyers, scientist and engineers.

Granted. But school buildings literally crumbling apart ...or teachers having to spend their own money on supplies - that to me is an indication that there isn't enough money being spent.

If anyone's interested:

SCHOOL FUNDING

To understand the problems of education in America, it is necessary to look at the way public schools are financed. The disparate funding for public schools and between states and within metropolitan areas has turned some public schools into meccas for affluent students and others into decaying infrastructures with overcrowded classrooms and soaring drop-out rates.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/backgrounders/...ol_funding.html

I have discussed numerous times before the inefficiency of allowing every county and city to running their own mini school system.

You guys seem to assume that funding alone is the problem with schools here. It is not. Do you believe that if we bus a class of kids to a wealthy district and they were educated in those schools from k7 to 12 they would turn out better simple because of the facilities? I do not agree with that; however, I will say this. I actually believe that if the kids that did not drop out in such a scenario did stay they would do better. Why? Because the kids would be surrounded by kids and parents who actually care about learning; people who actually put education on a pedestal. Kids who want to learn and have more ambitions in life than being cool or being some sort of entertainer. They would be surrounded with parents who proactively care and actively participate in their kids’ education.

I would like to know what percentage of parents are actively involved in schools in poor areas. I have friends here in the states who teach in poor areas. One thing they say is so disappointing there is the sheer number of parents who couldn't care less about there kids progress. No amount of money cannot fix that.

Edited August 28, 2009 by haza

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I have discussed numerous times before the inefficiency of allowing every county and city to running their own mini school system.

You guys seem to assume that funding alone is the problem with schools here. It is not.

This might explain this issue better.

Funding of Public Education

The different manners in which the US and British governments fund their public schools are the roots for some of the major differences in their educational systems. Where funding of US public schools is a core reason for the inequality that exists in US public education from school to school and from state to state, the British method of funding is geared towards creating equitable educational opportunity.

In America, almost 90% of the students attend “free” schools or public schools, which are open to any school age child who lives within the school district (A Diverse Educational System, n.d.). Public schools receive funding on three levels: federal, state and local governments, but not in equal quantities. According to Slavin (2006), only 7 percent of the total funding for schools is provided by the federal government. The rest of the funding comes from the collection of property taxes in the school district. Everyone who lives within a district is required to pay these taxes, regardless if they have a child attending the school or not. Thus the resources available to each school range with the socioeconomic status of the people who live within the district.

Property taxes are highest in upper middle class neighborhoods and their schools largely reflect this source of funding. Differences can be seen between States as well as within states. In 1998 the average student from New Jersey received more than twice the per pupil spending than the same student in Utah (Berliner & Biddle, 2002).The disparity in funding can even be greater between two neighboring districts. The unequal funding of American public schools results in a small number of well funded schools made up of students from affluent areas and families, and a large number of poorly funded schools composed largely of students living in poverty. (Berliner & Biddle,2002). The amount of funding received by the schools effects almost every aspect of the education received, which includes: quality of the school building, the teachers’ experiences and qualifications, and the educational supplies. (Berliner & Biddle, 2002). Thus poorly funded schools are unable to provide the resources and opportunities that other schools supply, which results in the great disparity that is seen in the quality of public school educations provided in the US.

British public schools, known in England as state sector schools, which are attended by 94% of the population, receive their funding from general tax revenues collected by the government (Introduction to Education in England, 2006). The amount of funds provided to rich and poor school districts are equal and depending on the number of students who attend the school. In many cases extra funds are provided when their are a lot of students who live in poverty or are from an ethnic minority group (Berliner & Biddle, 2002). Contrary to the US system, the British actual subsidize the impoverished or socially disadvantaged students to try to alleviated inequality in educational opportunity.

In comparing US and British methods of funding public schools and the effects of these methods, the inadequacy and inequality of the US method is clear. Not only does the US system provide extreme inequality in funding of public education from state to state and district to district, but this inequality is aligned along socio-economic lines. The gap between the rich and poor is magnified by the inequity in educational opportunity available to the lower class. The system works to increasing the social stratification and provide further barriers to those attempting to get out of the poverty cycle. In analyzing the effect of the funding methods on the school systems and their ability to provide quality education, there is no argument that can be made in favor of the US system. The only argument that can be made for the property tax system is from a tax perspective, that people deserve to benefit from taxes in proportion to what they paid. So the children of the wealthy deserve better public education, because their parents paid more for it. However, this argument is in complete contradiction with the rest of US tax policy.

http://sitemaker.umich.edu/allen.356/pubic...ica_and_england

[Heracles 417]

I see your point on funding but in terms of the Education Index, the UK ranks worse than the US. Australian schools receive funds in a similar manner, however, a greater number of students in metro areas attend private schools. The state allocates similar funds, per student, to whatever school they attend; the results speaks for itself. However, that would never happen here, as many hate the notion of private. Furthermore, the notion of money going to religious oriented private schools would not be accepted.

The US generally spends a lot more, per student, than other countries but does not deliver the result. The figures I quote earlier, which compares the richest county to the poorest in the DC area, are based on money actually allocated to students and exclude money spent on infrastructure or administration. I do not know why it is so hard to believe that so many kids here are just not interested nor pushed by their parents to learn. DC spends one of the highest amounts per student yet ranks last in terms of education performance and quality. The second but nonetheless huge challenge facing education here involves teachers. Regardless of money, which teachers would want to put their life on the line to teach in poor areas?

Money alone never fixes any issues.

Edited August 28, 2009 by haza

[HAL 9000 96]

Tenure is the problem, the whole concept is utter garbage.

Lets give a person a job, pay them for 12 months, make them work 9. After 2 years make them immune to discplinery action of any kind.

Eliminate tenure system and actually expect teachers to perform in their jobs, you would see marked improvement in the education system. Buildings do not teach students, Teachers do. We constantly throw money at the building and infrastructure but as long as tenure exists the education system will continue to do poorly.

I have yet to see tenure in the public K-12 system. Maybe someone that is still teaching can confirm for their district.

[HAL 9000 96]

Ok, the data is easier to find than I thought.

Newark. POS District. Overrun by gangs. Doesn't get much worse than this. Spending per pupil is $18,580. State average is $12,776.

Bernards. Very wealthy. High achieving. Blue Ribbon and all that jazz. Spending per pupil is $11,082.

Source: http://php.app.com/rc_finances_all/search.php

Well, just from what I seen around LA, the inner city schools are a stark contrast to the schools where I live in OC. I know that is anecdotal, but I've also read in the local papers about how many of the schools are literally falling apart due to lack of sufficient funds. It appears that it is more complicated problem than just about funding, but funding does play a factor.

Not to mention the actual 'cost' of running things in urban areas is inflated above the 'cost' of doing things in suburbia, plus classroom overcrowding, and all the other obvious social issues that do not stay out of the classroom.

There's the typical talking point repeated here - that you can't simply throw money at the problem, however, the problem isn't that simple. Just in terms of building upkeep, and adequate supplies for the teachers and students, there should be no blatantly visible discrepancy between public schools in affluent communities and public schools in poorer areas. I wonder if the per student cost is really a good way to measure adequacy of funding when each school will have it's own unique costs incurred?

In a society where geographical location dictates non-instructional curricular costs, no... per pupil cost is not a good way to compare investment vs return (achievement).

I give credit to the attitude argument- but until people can put their money where their mouth is in terms of actively investing in community improvement efforts, these arguments tend to side more on the drive-by complaints department of things.

[Heracles 417]

In a society where geographical location dictates non-instructional curricular costs, no... per pupil cost is not a good way to compare investment vs return (achievement).

I give credit to the attitude argument- but until people can put their money where their mouth is in terms of actively investing in community improvement efforts, these arguments tend to side more on the drive-by complaints department of things.

Hal come on. No one can go into a poor area and simply reprogram ideology and attitude; especially not without being ###### up.

Ghetto is no longer isolated to race or ethnicity, furthermore, it has become a culture; a way of life for many. How can I convince anyone about the merits of learning when I cannot even convince people of the benefits of putting trash in a bin and actually taking care of their areas; that is, rather than destroying it. Or that rather than earning $3k a week selling drugs, they should hit the books. When I cannot enter an area without a legitimate fear for my life. When the parents of those kids are out doing their own thing or in jail. Seriously, how? You think money will fix that?

If anyone has a solution to all of that, I am all ears.

[HAL 9000 96]

Its a bit more complicated than mere money. We're talking about community improvement- education, rezoning, replanning... things many areas prefer to let real estate developers tackle as they tax people out of these areas to later redevelop via gentrification. The ghetto just moves out to outlying areas in that case.

Community renewal costs, IMO, less than hard-lining people into jail as a predominant model of community clean-up. I don't know why many realize this- perhaps they'd rather not see people from the inner cities achieve more to out-compete them for their 'livelihood' in a limited resources model of capital acquisition?

Attitudes must therefore change across the board- not just in the ghetto.

[zqt3344 21]

HAL 2.0.0.9 you realize you did not say anything here that really makes a whole lot of sense, it is just conjecture.

Its a bit more complicated than mere money. We're talking about community improvement- education, rezoning, replanning... things many areas prefer to let real estate developers tackle as they tax people out of these areas to later redevelop via gentrification. The ghetto just moves out to outlying areas in that case.

Community renewal costs, IMO, less than hard-lining people into jail as a predominant model of community clean-up. I don't know why many realize this- perhaps they'd rather not see people from the inner cities achieve more to out-compete them for their 'livelihood' in a limited resources model of capital acquisition?

Attitudes must therefore change across the board- not just in the ghetto.

[GabiandVi 34]

Tenure is the problem, the whole concept is utter garbage.

Lets give a person a job, pay them for 12 months, make them work 9. After 2 years make them immune to discplinery action of any kind.

Eliminate tenure system and actually expect teachers to perform in their jobs, you would see marked improvement in the education system. Buildings do not teach students, Teachers do. We constantly throw money at the building and infrastructure but as long as tenure exists the education system will continue to do poorly.

I have yet to see tenure in the public K-12 system. Maybe someone that is still teaching can confirm for their district.

There is tenure in my district, but it does not prevent you from being fired. It "guarantees" you a job in the next year if there is a reduction in force. There are other benefits that come from being tenured, but none of them protect anyone from being fired. Still, it requires a good bit of documentation to fire a teacher. What usually happens is that a teacher is moved into a position he or she does not want so that he or she quits. If that does not work, they are made administration. (Just kidding.)

There are certainly ineffective teachers, but this is not why our system of education is in the state it is in. There are many, many problems that cause our schools to fail. Bad teachers contribute about as much to this problem as lost change to bankruptcy. Money isn't the issue either. Private and parochial schools spend much less per student than public schools do and yet they get better results, even when they are side-by-side and serve the same general population. Many of the reasons our schools fail are currently, and perhaps totally, out of the control of teachers, admin, schools, district admin, and school boards. They are attitudinal.

One problem with our system, at least the one where I work, that is within our control is the mission of our system. In my system, our curriculum is college prep. This is a totally elitist goal. The truth is that the vast majority of the population of our (my district's) schools will NEVER go to college, and another percentage who do go to college will fail. It would be better if we prepared our students to go to trade schools or other post-secondary training, or if we returned to an apprenticeship system. There should be no shame in not going to college. The shame should be in not having a good work ethic. A complete overhaul of the curriculum with a different perspective of our goals is what we need IMO. And it needs to start in preschool.

We need to recognize that it is impossible to prepare every student for their specific futures with the same system. We need to identify the universal skills that everyone needs and focus on those. My suggestion includes clear and evaluative communication skills including all the aspects of communication. As an English teacher who went into teaching to inspire students with by reading the classics, after 17 years of experience, I now say for most students the classics are a wasted effort and soul-destroying for both teacher and student.

[HAL 9000 96]

I think that adopting a single-goal oriented model for whole districts- or even schools for that matter... is a bit dangerous. IMO curricula need to allow flexibility to allow students the power to take their learning and their creativity toward the particular career level they wish to take. Problem with that is that most products of the system- public and private... is that most do not have an idea of what they want in life. Imagine that and its variations up and down the socioeconomic ladder.

Correct... some folks use the term tenure as a form of academic residence where a form of immunity from active firing is nearly impossible. In the K-12 world that, to the best of my knowledge, is pretty much nonexistent. Now incentivized/grandfathering... is something else and usually those individuals are what... like Step 20 and up in most districts right?

How I despised science (specifically biology) teachers that laminated their lesson plans!!! When I headed my department I made sure that the biology curriculum was as current as could be with actual research to at least give the kids the ability to enter high school biology with a foot forward. This was middle school in an inner city , low-income charter program. My eldest students are now college-age and MOST are in college.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

HAL 2.0.0.9 you realize you did not say anything here that really makes a whole lot of sense, it is just conjecture.

Conjecture's a mighty big word for someone who supposedly took ESL classes to learn English.

[GabiandVi 34]

There are currently opportunities within the curriculum for students to take electives, but I'm proposing that the ONLY required courses, from PK-12, focus on those universal skills I mentioned above and allow exposure to experiences and disciplines that expand thinking, such as the arts. There can still be opportunity for students to study Shakespeare, for example, if they want, but it should not be required. I'll bet it is currently required in just about every system in the US in English III or IV.

Certainly, students should have the opportunity to study courses that are required for whatever post-secondary training they elect to pursue. I agree that this becomes an issue with making such a choice at an early age, but the alternative is to choose for every student and that is a disaster, IMO.

A lot of school districts count their success by how many students go on to college, but I think that is part of the problem. I would not discourage anyone from going to college, but for a school to hold their college-bound students as evidence of success is to suggest that students who become plumbers, hair dressers, daycare workers, med techs, or janitors, are the failures, or at least not as great of a success. That is the elitist attitude I'm talking about. Without people who are proud of their choices to pursue these sorts of jobs, we really are up sh*t creek. And why does someone who is happy to become a janitor and will be good at the job need to learn to evaluate literature if he doesn't want to? It often just makes him bitter and makes him feel like a failure. And that is reinforced when we consider his job something we don't want our students to end up doing.

[Heracles 417]

Its a bit more complicated than mere money. We're talking about community improvement- education, rezoning, replanning... things many areas prefer to let real estate developers tackle as they tax people out of these areas to later redevelop via gentrification. The ghetto just moves out to outlying areas in that case.

Community renewal costs, IMO, less than hard-lining people into jail as a predominant model of community clean-up. I don't know why many realize this- perhaps they'd rather not see people from the inner cities achieve more to out-compete them for their 'livelihood' in a limited resources model of capital acquisition?

Attitudes must therefore change across the board- not just in the ghetto.

I'm not disagreeing. Coming from overseas, it clear that there are people who don't give a ####### about others let alone their misfortune. In particular, those who are doing well and live around large cities or metro areas. For some reason they don't seem to get the value of improving other areas. As long as they have their mansion and gated community, they're set. This third world like, this line of reasoning is totally alien to me.

I also think that it's in everyone's interest to get people out of the ghetto and poverty; have them turn into tax paying citizens. We all win really. However, there does come a point where those that are poor have to meet us half way. I have been to areas where it's quite obvious that the younger generation view being ghetto as being cool. Therefore, how do I explain to that guy that it's not? This applies to all races equally might I add. Uncivilized is the new cool. Denial is also quite common. How many people here alone argue with me about Australia? As if I am lying about their success and prosperity. The difference between a blue collar worker there to one here is huuuge. How do I go to someone that is white trash and say, hey you should push your kids to learn? Seriously how?

The middle class cannot agree on issues such as health care. So how the heck is someone who may not even view living in poverty as a problem to see it otherwise? To the contrary this popularity in being ghetto is also gaining traction overseas, in places like AUS. People there receive more in welfare than some earn on minimum wage here. So once again, money is not the issues. In my opinion, if we ever want to fix the poverty in the US we need to attack it at the heart. That is make sure people view being ghetto, white trash, gang banging or a freagin redneck is not cool but moronic.

Edited August 28, 2009 by haza