Illogical Hillary demands all schools be above average!!!!

If you live in a poor area with low income levels all the caring in the world isn't going to help. I think it's false to say that parents are okay with mediocrity. People who don't have kids and still have to pay school taxes are the ones who aren't complaining. By this I don't mean all don't complain. Read some of the anti-tax posts on this forum for an explanation.

I'm talking about making schools the best they can be. If there is no level of competition then a school can continue to perform poorly with no repercussions. An element of competition forces schools to continue to have to upgrade and work to get the best teachers, administrators etc. that they can.
 
I'm talking about making schools the best they can be. If there is no level of competition then a school can continue to perform poorly with no repercussions. An element of competition forces schools to continue to have to upgrade and work to get the best teachers, administrators etc. that they can.

How do you make a poor school better without money?
 
It's been demonstrated time and again that throwing money at schools does nothing.
If you want to have better student outcomes, improve the parent (s).
 
It's been demonstrated time and again that throwing money at schools does nothing.
If you want to have better student outcomes, improve the parent (s).

I'm not arguing that parents aren't the prime influence in their kids' schooling. But I find it hard to believe that sub par districts are all full of bad parents. Money does count for something.
 
How do you make a poor school better without money?

Money is important but it's not the only issue. We have numerous examples of schools that have been given large sums of money and nothing changes.

For starters there is a huge education bureaucracy that sucks up large sums of money before it can reach the class room. That needs to change. On my phone so I can't grab examples but there are numerous inner city schools for example that have changed to charter schools where we'll over 90% of the almost all poor students go to college.

But people are so afraid of any change from the status quo that American creativity cannot be put to use in our classrooms.
 
No, it doesn't. Equal doesn't mean everyone is failing. What a Negative Ned you are.
Not you personally but your mindset is why schools don't change. Instead of emphasis on improving them the emphasis is on equality and essentially lowering the bar.
 
Money is important but it's not the only issue. We have numerous examples of schools that have been given large sums of money and nothing changes.

For starters there is a huge education bureaucracy that sucks up large sums of money before it can reach the class room. That needs to change. On my phone so I can't grab examples but there are numerous inner city schools for example that have changed to charter schools where we'll over 90% of the almost all poor students go to college.

But people are so afraid of any change from the status quo that American creativity cannot be put to use in our classrooms.

One can google the pros and cons of charter schools just like any other schools. I think they're an alternative, not a solution.
 
One can google the pros and cons of charter schools just like any other schools. I think they're an alternative, not a solution.

Let me be clear charter schools are no panacea. They are a good option. But the education bureaucracy is real and they are the ones who suck up new money before it reaches the kids.
 
It's been demonstrated time and again that throwing money at schools does nothing.
If you want to have better student outcomes, improve the parent (s).

More money is not a bad thing if it is used effectively. Most times it is not. Parents do play a huge role but it's bigger than just them
 
More money is not a bad thing if it is used effectively. Most times it is not. Parents do play a huge role but it's bigger than just them

Yes, and we can do little to change parents, if we try to start with the parents. We must start with the parents of the future if we seek to change the parents' mindset towards education.
 
Charter schools are a godsend for involved parents in inner city areas as it allows their kids to be segregated from kids of uninvolved parent (s) which allows teachers to teach to a higher common denominator. Vouchers can produce the same effect.
It doesn't fix the problem of lousy parent (s) but there is no fixing that short of involuntary sterilization and that is,.of course, a non starter.
 
Charter schools are a godsend for involved parents in inner city areas as it allows their kids to be segregated from kids of uninvolved parent (s) which allows teachers to teach to a higher common denominator. Vouchers can produce the same effect.
It doesn't fix the problem of lousy parent (s) but there is no fixing that short of involuntary sterilization and that is,.of course, a non starter.
 
In your professional opinion could educational bureaucracy be reduced and schools perform better?

Absolutely. Especially at the state and national level. The salaries of our state Superintendant and state board of education shave millions off of educational dollars before they ever reach local schools. Same nationally. At the local level, while there are places where one school Superintendant could oversee a couple of districts it would still be necessary to have an administrator at every school site. I'm not sure how much savings could be found there.
 
More money is not a bad thing if it is used effectively. Most times it is not. Parents do play a huge role but it's bigger than just them

Agreed that corruption and institutional incompetence are giant albatross around the neck
Another somewhat recent matter is special needs requirements. I'm not against this, just pointing out the financial impact. School budgets went up dramatically due to the personal intensive costs associated with it. In some cases, you have one to one educator to kid ratios.
Look into it if you are not familiar with how it works.
 
Back
Top