The Observation Deck

It's never to early to start thinking about the next school levy.

John Stossel says it all in this article:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commen ... 06_JS.html

Bill,

I read your linked story by John Stossel. He said, "Many such comments came in after the National Education Association (NEA) informed its members about the special and claimed that I have a "documented history of blatant antagonism toward public schools.""

I HAVE noticed his "blatant antagonism toward public schools" for many years, and I'm not an NEA member or school employee. I know you don't really want John Stossel speaking for you on education issues.

You and I should have a beer to discuss education, both public and private. I attended both. My impression is that you don't quite understand the role that each plays in a community, what their mandated requirements are, or how they are financed. Maybe we can even find some experts to help us reach greater understandings.

I know you like to use inflammatory topic names to get people to read your stuff (Hey, it worked on me.), but I advise you to use some caution. On complex issues, I would prefer informed public dialog to irrational fighting that is spurred by innuendo, prejudice, and ignorance. Because you are an Observer, I'm sure you agree.

Steve

Steve:

I think John Stassel said it very well.

It is no more inflammatory to say the schools are drowning in money than it is to say the sun rises in the East. It is just a statement of fact.

Many people who do not question how school dollars are spent don't want to even discuss the issue.

I am going to start another thread asking that question. How would you spend the money? I am going to give a 30 dollar gift certificate to the winning entry. I hope you participate.

Bill

I think participation will be heavily dependent on where the gift certificate is from.

Jeff

Bill Call wrote:It is no more inflammatory to say the schools are drowning in money than it is to say the sun rises in the East. It is just a statement of fact.

One is fact. One is not fact.

Where do you want to go with this?

Steve

I hate to use the word "stupid" But "schools are drowning in money" is as stupid a statement as "people are too fat" or "people are too rich"
I may be the former, and Paris Hilton may be the latter. But any generalization along that line borders on ridiculous.
If one school spends $15,000 a year per student and another spend $5,000. the "average" is $10,000. But is it a "fact" that the $5,000 a year school "drowning in money."?
I like a lot of Stossel's work. This garBAGE is not worthy of him. I'm chalking it up to bad biorythms.

I just want make sure I am clear on the premise of this discussion: Lakewood City Schools (since this is a site to discuss Lakewood) has too much money and is in some way worse off because of that fact. Is the implication that if the city spent less money per pupil it would do better? Or that if the school just stopped asking for money and did (insert magical solution here) then all would be better? Be clear on that because Stossel certainly isn't.

Stossel compares apples to oranges. Private and Public education are two different beasts in many ways. As noted, they are funded differently and play different roles in the community. They also have very different marching orders. Private schools serve the kids they choose to serve. Some specialize in special needs children but those are far more rare than the typical private school that simply doesn't accept children with special needs (which could be cognitive or physical needs or both). Public schools serve everyone whereas private serves those who bring the money, be it their own or some sort of grant or loan.

I do agree that there are a lot of problems in public schools in general but I don't think "too much money" is one of them. I think maybe this discussion would be a bit more useful if it focused on real solutions to real problems. Is there mismanagement with public school monies? Probably at some schools or in some districts. I can also find examples of that with Charter schools and even private institutions. That doesn't get us anywhere.

I am posting a link to a great story done on NPR in the mid-90's. It highlights what I think is the bigger issue in education that has nothing to do with money. It even supports some of what Stossel was saying; Stossel makes his point about money poorly but does show examples where individual leadership and local control of a school can do more than money ever can. This is a story about a Chicago school that against all odds began huge improvements but only after a program had time to grow and it isn't quick. The culture of election cycles don't allow for changes that take more than 2 years so it gets scrapped and all the improvements that were seen go down the drain. It is a sad story but I think one that does a better job of illustrating what could work in American schools but what doesn't due to what I think is a bigger problem: Too many cooks in the kitchen. Too many people putting their fingers all over it (State and Federal involvement) that takes a short view of what is really a long view problem. Check it out:

http://www.thislife.org/pdf/irving.pdf

Phil Florian wrote: Private schools serve the kids they choose to serve. Some specialize in special needs children but those are far more rare than the typical private school that simply doesn't accept children with special needs (which could be cognitive or physical needs or both). f

And of course, according to federal law, if parents choose to enroll their child in a private special-needs facility, their PUBLIC school district gets the bill.

True... but in many instances it is because the public school in incapable of providing the necessary services. In the long run there is often a cost benefit to the school in paying a private school to meet the needs of the SE student compared to the cost of hiring and maintaining the personnel that would be required to meet those needs in the public school system

As close to win/win as there can be in those instances.

Peace,
~Charyn

Charyn Varkonyi wrote:True... but in many instances it is because the public school in incapable of providing the necessary services. In the long run there is often a cost benefit to the school in paying a private school to meet the needs of the SE student compared to the cost of hiring and maintaining the personnel that would be required to meet those needs in the public school system

As close to win/win as there can be in those instances.

Peace,
~Charyn

Charyn

From every study I have seen. It is like using leeches to cure someone of disease. All it ever really does is give the illusion of helping all. In the end of the day, the school loses, the city looses, the community looses, and the only one that gets fat is the leech(the people that own the school).


.

Ohhh... well, I would be a liar if I didn't say that I recognize that there are problems throughout any public educational system. I suppose the thing we would really need to acknowledge to fully discuss the effects of special education is *what* we are really discussing when we refer to special ed.

There are children that are autistic and there are children that suffer from lack of discipline. Very different situations... but each may end up in special education of some type. For the record, I had the first type of special needs student in mind when I posted. The students that truly require the teachers, administrators and assistants with special training and education that may not be available in an average public school.

Peace,
~Charyn

My purpose in posting the subject on education was to get people to read the John Stossel article. He said a lot in very few words.

I have noticed that people opposed to education reform always fall back and that foul lie that public school students are dumber, lazier and sicker than private school students. Well, they are not.

Parma spends about $9,000 per student and gets better results than Cleveland Heights which spends about $15,000 per student. Anyone curious as to why? They are both public schools.

In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, some public school students who were failing were given the opportunity to attend private schools. Most did much better. The response of the education establishment was to spend time and money in an attempt to close down the private schools and drag the students, kicking and screaming, back into the fold.

The public school establishment is the new Bull Connors, standing in front of the school house door screaming, "This school is not for you".

I find it telling that no one has taken me up on my offer to answer the question: How would you spend the money?

Charyn Varkonyi wrote:True... but in many instances it is because the public school in incapable of providing the necessary services. In the long run there is often a cost benefit to the school in paying a private school to meet the needs of the SE student compared to the cost of hiring and maintaining the personnel that would be required to meet those needs in the public school system

As close to win/win as there can be in those instances.

No doubt, and only the coldest among us would argue that kids with special needs shouldn't get the help they require. What I'm saying is that all of those services, be they rendered in or out of the local public schools, show up on the public schools' ledger. Every child with an IEP (and there are easily 1,000 or more in Lakewood) jacks up that "average" cost. So when someone talks about a second-grade class costing $250,000 or whatever, it's a useful tool to get an argument started, but not a realistic picture of what the schools are doing.

Mr. Call.

This is where your premise breaks down. John Stossel didn't say "Cleveland Heights is doing a lousy job, but Parma's doing OK." He tarred
all public schools with the same brush.
Half the students in the CH/UH district are economically disadvantaged. In Parma, it's less than half that. Lakewood is in the middle of the two and surprise! it's in between the two in school performance. Saying that affluent kids do better than poor ones IS, as you might say, like saying the sun rises in the east. Do you want to pit Tri-C against Harvard?
I can't speak for other participants, but the reason I haven't accepted your premise/challenge is that, frankly, I have no technical understanding of what goes into running a school district. I don't know what it takes to run a hospital or an auto plant, either. And, I would respectfully and kindly submit, that unless you have some experience I'm not aware of, neither do you. I refuse to be an armchair administrator. I think we can all be well served with a little bit of listening, and not just to John Stossel.
I have a bit of news. The affluent couple whose kid goes to an elementary
school in Westlake don't particularly care if their second-grade kid's teacher makes $50,000 with good benefits. In fact, they LIKE it that way. If the teacher were making $20,000, they'd be screaming that the schcols weren't making enough of an investment. You have one perspective, but there are clearly others.

It always amazes me how the people that most want to hold public schools accountable are so willing to funnel it to private schools.

Voters elect school boards to manage their money and the educational "product" in public schools.

Giving taxpayer money to private schools that have no open books or elected parties accountable, to me, is taxation without representation.