NYTimes Editorial Board Calls for Education Reform

Yes, they are rewarded -- presumably with more college and scholarship opportunities. My kids' school is very upfront with parents from day one about the help available, and the rewards that could be available.

Also, what is a lousy school district? Is it objectively bad because of the schools and teachers? Or does it score "lousy" because it has a lot of poor people in it? One of the ways to improve education for all is to have more mixed-income schools (which traditionally mine have been, until the bottom dropped out for many), but people with money generally are not keen on being around people who don't have it, looking at general population patterns.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765615965/How-mixed-income-neighborhoods-could-save-schools.html?pg=all

And that contract you talk about? That's a joke. A private school can do that because it doesn't have to take all comers. A public school could try that, but what is it going to do to parents who don't participate?

 

Parents and students disinterested 180 school days are not going to grow more interested by day 210.

 

By the way, that 50 percent low-income number I talk about for my kids' high school? In Illinois, that makes it AVERAGE.

 

As for cost, the Times editorial show us where we can find $144 million a year:

And, yes, we could save money by firing older, higher paid -- and under performing -- teachers in favor of younger, cheaper teachers.

You also might find people more willing to spend money on schools if they thought their money was being spent wisely.

 

So you're attempting to postulate that there's not a single public school in America operating a year-round calendar?

Even you're not normally this obtuse.

http://www.nea.org/tools/17057.htm
http://dpsnc.net/about-dps/departments/student-assignment/year-round-schools-faqs
http://board.milwaukee.k12.wi.us/attachments/25afd156-9591-4cbd-9c0e-bf9892f631a8.pdf
http://www.yourcharlotteschools.net/documents/schools/2013-14YRSCalendar.pdf

But among the many, many issues with your pay all the good teachers to teach summer school plan is that the summer is when most teachers fulfill the numerous continuing education requirements imposed upon them by people like you who want to make sure that teachers are appropriately qualified.

 

These would have to be magnet schools, free of the geographical boundaries most schools operate under.

If the parent (and child) doesn't participate, the child cannot remain at the school.

 

OK, great. Then for the kids, what, because you're poor and your parents aren't involved, we're just going to warehouse you until you're 18?

And you know and I know that given the ability to fire "poor performing" older, more expensive teachers, suddenly every older, more expensive teacher is going to be "poor performing" so a district can always cycle through with younger, cheaper teachers.

Oh, by the way, that Microsoft "stack-ranking" system that Bill Gates said was so awesome, and is the basis for his ideas in education reform? Microsoft just killed it because it was so toxic to the company.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/12/5094864/microsoft-kills-stack-ranking-internal-structure

 

Nice try, but these people believe that because the government is running schools, by definition they must not be spending the money wisely.

 

Methodology changes from one to another - but the three studies I found haven't found better charter school performance, on average.

The one that studied the same kids in different locations found no change (well, they found that students performed worse in charter schools if the school was in its first 3 years of existence. After that learning curve - and presumably some really bad charter schools folding in that time, the differences became not statistically significant.)

One looked at charter schools that held random lotteries to select kids and compared those who got into the charter school via random lotto with those who didn't get in and remained in public schools. It found no statistically significant difference (Among the key findings were that, on average, charter middle schools that held lotteries were neither more nor less successful than traditional public schools in improving math or reading test scores, attendance, grade promotion, or student conduct within or outside of school.)

One looked at Colorado kids in charter schools and not in charter schools. It looked only at student getting free lunches, to try and control for socioeconomic differences between the two groups. It found: The scores of students who were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, as well as the scores of
students who were not, were lower in charter schools than in regular public schools both in grades 4
and 8 and both for math and reading. Among lunch-eligible students, the statistically significant
difference was nearly six scale points in grade 4 math and seven points in reading. These differences
translate into a little more than a half year of schooling. In grade 8, the difference between charter and
regular public schools was nearly seven scale points in math and four points in reading, but only the
math result was statistically significant.

 

YF has to be trolling with that.

 

When do we get to orphanages?

 

Unlike, say, many in the extended Ochs-Sulzberger clan.