Chicago Public School Boycott

[farmteam]

I'm not exactly sure where I stand on this. I agree something has to be done, but I honestly have no idea what. One reason New Trier and other wealthy districts have so much funding is because of the property taxes, and I could not agree with someone telling a district, "No, you're not allowed to spend more in taxes so your child can get a better education."

[lostfan]

I went to high school on 61st and Wolcott, not really in the greatest of neighborhoods. As unimpressive as it was (prior to the multi-million dollar renovations after I graduated) and as ghetto of a neighborhood it was in there was no vandalism issue.

[DrunkBomber]

If kids from poor areas want to go to New Trier than their parents can get better jobs, move into that district, pay the ridiculous taxes that fund the schools and go. Nobody is stopping them.

[NorthSideSox72]

OK, as this topic bounced around in my head today, I came up with a possible idea. Let me know what you think...

 

When you look at higher end districts with greater funding, the money doesn't just go to higher teacher salaries or newer books. A lot goes to "extras" - music, sports, high end facilities and technology, etc.

 

Seperately, I think we can all agree that the key thing we should be trying to guarantee for all youth in the public school systems is a strong, complete core education. Basic academics, but STRONG basic academics.

 

We all want our children to OPPORTUNITY to excel and enhance their education through whatever non-core activities they choose - a certain sport, math club, fancy elective classes (I took Aeronautics in high school, for example). But that solid core education, the basis for future learning (college and in the real world), is a NECESSITY.

 

So let's have a tiered funding system in public schools. Each state determines what if feels are core competencies that are necessary to achieve. Each county or city or district figures out, in their environment, how much it will cost to provide that, all-in. This number is the tax level needed (funding) in order to give ALL students a strong, complete core education. The number should be LESS than the current taxes, which provide other plus-ones, as noted earlier.

 

What you have done here is put more money in people's pockets, but equalized the system (as much as that is possible) so that everyone gets at least that basic education. Now, what to do with that extra money? All those electives, extracurriculars, etc., become "features" at each school district. Students who choose to participate can pay for those extras, or they can not do that at all. The ball is in the court of parents, and their kids, to decide what is important and worthwhile.

 

What this does is, it allows for parents who work hard to provide for their kids' education to pay more for more services, if they want to. So you aren't ripping off the parents in a district like New Trier. But it also lowers taxes and stabilizes core education for poorer students. I think this type of plan embodies what Republicans want out of a voucher system - competition-created strength, consumer choice, and the right to earn educational rewards - without bankrupting poorer schools as vouchers would.

 

Now, this idea is not perfect. But... any thoughts?

 

[DrunkBomber]

OK, as this topic bounced around in my head today, I came up with a possible idea. Let me know what you think...

 

When you look at higher end districts with greater funding, the money doesn't just go to higher teacher salaries or newer books. A lot goes to "extras" - music, sports, high end facilities and technology, etc.

 

Seperately, I think we can all agree that the key thing we should be trying to guarantee for all youth in the public school systems is a strong, complete core education. Basic academics, but STRONG basic academics.

 

We all want our children to OPPORTUNITY to excel and enhance their education through whatever non-core activities they choose - a certain sport, math club, fancy elective classes (I took Aeronautics in high school, for example). But that solid core education, the basis for future learning (college and in the real world), is a NECESSITY.

 

So let's have a tiered funding system in public schools. Each state determines what if feels are core competencies that are necessary to achieve. Each county or city or district figures out, in their environment, how much it will cost to provide that, all-in. This number is the tax level needed (funding) in order to give ALL students a strong, complete core education. The number should be LESS than the current taxes, which provide other plus-ones, as noted earlier.

 

What you have done here is put more money in people's pockets, but equalized the system (as much as that is possible) so that everyone gets at least that basic education. Now, what to do with that extra money? All those electives, extracurriculars, etc., become "features" at each school district. Students who choose to participate can pay for those extras, or they can not do that at all. The ball is in the court of parents, and their kids, to decide what is important and worthwhile.

 

What this does is, it allows for parents who work hard to provide for their kids' education to pay more for more services, if they want to. So you aren't ripping off the parents in a district like New Trier. But it also lowers taxes and stabilizes core education for poorer students. I think this type of plan embodies what Republicans want out of a voucher system - competition-created strength, consumer choice, and the right to earn educational rewards - without bankrupting poorer schools as vouchers would.

 

Now, this idea is not perfect. But... any thoughts?

Even I think this is a solid idea and Im about as unreasonable a person as there is on this stuff.

[EvilMonkey]

OK, as this topic bounced around in my head today, I came up with a possible idea. Let me know what you think...

 

When you look at higher end districts with greater funding, the money doesn't just go to higher teacher salaries or newer books. A lot goes to "extras" - music, sports, high end facilities and technology, etc.

 

Seperately, I think we can all agree that the key thing we should be trying to guarantee for all youth in the public school systems is a strong, complete core education. Basic academics, but STRONG basic academics.

 

We all want our children to OPPORTUNITY to excel and enhance their education through whatever non-core activities they choose - a certain sport, math club, fancy elective classes (I took Aeronautics in high school, for example). But that solid core education, the basis for future learning (college and in the real world), is a NECESSITY.

 

So let's have a tiered funding system in public schools. Each state determines what if feels are core competencies that are necessary to achieve. Each county or city or district figures out, in their environment, how much it will cost to provide that, all-in. This number is the tax level needed (funding) in order to give ALL students a strong, complete core education. The number should be LESS than the current taxes, which provide other plus-ones, as noted earlier.

 

What you have done here is put more money in people's pockets, but equalized the system (as much as that is possible) so that everyone gets at least that basic education. Now, what to do with that extra money? All those electives, extracurriculars, etc., become "features" at each school district. Students who choose to participate can pay for those extras, or they can not do that at all. The ball is in the court of parents, and their kids, to decide what is important and worthwhile.

 

What this does is, it allows for parents who work hard to provide for their kids' education to pay more for more services, if they want to. So you aren't ripping off the parents in a district like New Trier. But it also lowers taxes and stabilizes core education for poorer students. I think this type of plan embodies what Republicans want out of a voucher system - competition-created strength, consumer choice, and the right to earn educational rewards - without bankrupting poorer schools as vouchers would.

 

Now, this idea is not perfect. But... any thoughts?

The big problem would be that those core services would cost more in some district than others due to staffing. Each distric negotiates thier own contracts, teachers living around Northbrook need to make more to live near there than teachers in Ford Heights. That is a massive variable. I think your idea is fine, but teacher pay needs to be addressed. If you put a standard payscale in based on years and/or educational level, the unions will scream as this cuts down the amount of money they can mile from the richer teachers, and the teachers will scream (at least those on the higher end) because I am sure that under any equilization plan, those on the upper end would probably get cuts. I'll have to thihnk about that one for a bit.

[NorthSideSox72]

The big problem would be that those core services would cost more in some district than others due to staffing. Each distric negotiates thier own contracts, teachers living around Northbrook need to make more to live near there than teachers in Ford Heights. That is a massive variable. I think your idea is fine, but teacher pay needs to be addressed. If you put a standard payscale in based on years and/or educational level, the unions will scream as this cuts down the amount of money they can mile from the richer teachers, and the teachers will scream (at least those on the higher end) because I am sure that under any equilization plan, those on the upper end would probably get cuts. I'll have to thihnk about that one for a bit.

That's why I said that the district or locality level determines cost structure, not the state. That give you your basic, regional tax level.

 

[EvilMonkey]

That's why I said that the district or locality level determines cost structure, not the state. That give you your basic, regional tax level.

But what is covered by that? The building? And each district would have different needs because each one has differing student body sizes.

[Texsox]

NSS, Your ideas are a step in the right direction, but IMHO still miss the mark. The basic premise is should we accept fundamental and extreme differences in the *public* education opportunities between any two children? Richard Rodriguez in his autobiography Hunger of Memory, The Education of Richard Rodriguez makes a powerful argument against affirmative action in education which resulted in quotes and admitting less qualified minorities over better qualified Anglos as some leveling attempt at fairness. His principle pbjection is these quotas come at the end and adjust the finish line, what needs to happen is adjust the starting lines so everyone has the same opportunity. Then what they make of that opportunity will determine who is admitted to Universities, gets hired, etc. Of course "his community" was outraged, but it made sense to me. Having a child start at a typical middle class elemetary school versus a child starting out at a poor school and the gaps start widening. Then in 12 years we attempt to close those gaps with preferential treatment, then wonder when these kids fail at a higher rate then their peer group.

[WCSox]

Wow, I'm glad I don't live around there anymore.

 

Both of my parents taught in public schools in the South Suburbs. I realize that this doesn't apply to all public schools, but my mother said that the overwhelming problem in hers was a serious lack of discipline and a lack of desire to learn on the part of the students. Unfortunately, politicians aren't in the business of holding negligent parents accountable.

Edited September 3, 2008 by WCSox

[EvilMonkey]

NSS, Your ideas are a step in the right direction, but IMHO still miss the mark. The basic premise is should we accept fundamental and extreme differences in the *public* education opportunities between any two children? Richard Rodriguez in his autobiography Hunger of Memory, The Education of Richard Rodriguez makes a powerful argument against affirmative action in education which resulted in quotes and admitting less qualified minorities over better qualified Anglos as some leveling attempt at fairness. His principle pbjection is these quotas come at the end and adjust the finish line, what needs to happen is adjust the starting lines so everyone has the same opportunity. Then what they make of that opportunity will determine who is admitted to Universities, gets hired, etc. Of course "his community" was outraged, but it made sense to me. Having a child start at a typical middle class elemetary school versus a child starting out at a poor school and the gaps start widening. Then in 12 years we attempt to close those gaps with preferential treatment, then wonder when these kids fail at a higher rate then their peer group.

Yes, the best place for any 'leveling out' would be in the early years where they can develop good habots that will help them succeed. Plus, the extra needs at that age are usually limited to things like speech teachers. Where the budgets get messed up is when the district has to import spanish speaking teahcers because a small percentage of the kids have no grasp of English. Or when they have to hire a teacher just to take care of one or two mentally challenged kids, because the law says they have to. You can spend $70,000 just to educate 2 or 3 kids. That raises the per kid average alot.