Union Busting or Sound Financial Management?

[SeattlePioneer]

There are plenty of people who will make no prgress in even a community college that admits everyone if they fail to study or have no aptitude for study. If you get a string of "F"s in the classes you sign up for, the world is sending you a message.

 

Probably such students would be kicked out if they can't do the work.

 

The same should be true in public swchools, but instead they are retained, year after year after year despite stupefyingly low standards.

 

 

The simple fact is that quite a few children aren't interested in an academic education or are unable to benefit from one. Trying to keep them in school inevitably results in severe compromises with thae standards needed for an academic program.

 

At it's worst, you have $50,000-100,000 or more being spent per year providing services to disabled children who plainly can't benefit from an academic program.

 

Keepibng junior thugs and criminals in schools to be drug dealers and criminal enforcers is worse yet.

[Beavah]

Yah, hmmm...

 

Ok, I'm goin' to be charitable here. I think yeh can in a few cases make an argument that a Section 504 kid with a truly severe handicap gettin' school services with full nursing care is just goin' through the motions. It's not necessarily a good public policy choice, though it does at least relieve their primary caregiver for a bit.

 

And I reckon we can all sympathize with a parent who realizes their child's academic experience is negatively impacted by having disruptive students monopolize a teacher's time. There really are classrooms out there that are more like "holding pens". I can even see an argument for paying for a free public education only once... Yeh fail the first time, second try is on your own dime. Heck, maybe it should be like college and the family should have some financial skin in the game the first time around.

 

But beyond that, SP, I think yeh jumped da shark. Like as not, the lad who failed a round of classes did so because mom and dad were getting divorced, or he was strugglin' with a round of depression, or last year's math teacher didn't teach him a thing and now he's just lost. All kinds of reasons, eh? And none of 'em amount to "uneducable".

 

And if yeh just shuffle these kids out the door, then what? What do yeh suppose da social costs of that are? Of a large, uneducated young populace with no opportunity? I'll give yeh a hint. Think Palestine. Throwin' rocks, looting, or even strapping a bomb to your chest starts to look pretty good. A year of prison costs a heck of a lot more than a year of school.

 

Now I don't know what da answer to lack of school motivation is, eh? I'll leave that to Lisabob and folks who know more than I do. But if I were a betting man, I'd say it's stability and support at home, and high quality teaching at school, starting early in life. The first doesn't exist for some kids, eh? Da second has to do with whether or not we resource it.

 

Beavah

[packsaddle]

Yep, you were REALLY charitable.

SeattlePioneer, Beavah touched on some of the other aspects of your view on this. But you still haven't been specific about the criteria for determining who is uneducable and then as Beavah mentions, what to do about it.

If the criteria are, as you say, only presence or absence of failing grades, do you propose to sweep all of the failing children out or would you distinguish between the children who wanted to learn but were LD or had other problems, perhaps as Beavah mentioned, and others whose distinctions I'll have to rely on you for description.

I have to say that I feel like time has been rolled back several decades, maybe a century, reading your words...I'm from the South and I lived through some of the roughest of those times, but this, today, is just....wow.

[Lisabob]

Don't really want to jump on you mate, but think carefully about what you're saying. There are probably some of those failing kids in your neighborhood scout troop. They're the ones who we often say "really need scouting" because so many other aspects of their life are troubled. We reach out a little more, not less, and often it makes all the difference for a kid.

 

 

Since this thread is about "sound financial management," let's just note the findings of this study, which indicates that the 1 in 33 adults were in the correction system in 2008, more than double what it was in 1982. In Georgia, 1 in 13 adults is in the system (yikes).

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/03/02/us-usa-prisons-idUSTRE5215TW20090302

 

The article also finds that the average cost of a year of incarceration in a state prison is about $29,000.

 

In my state the basic outlay of state funding per pupil in K-12 each year is about $7100 (the "foundation allowance"). A well-regarded, fiscally conservative think tank, the Mackinac Center, estimates that the total per pupil spending is, on average, $12,825/year. (and that's a contested figure that many say is on the high side) http://www.mackinac.org/12615

 

So let's see: we can spend $12,825 educating the little rascals, or $29,000 throwing them in prison where they'll have no futures. Which of these options makes more financial sense?

 

 

 

[BrentAllen]

Lisa,

Your solution is not an "either/or" it is an "and." Think about it - those who are already incarcerated have already gone through the public school system. We spent that money, and now we are also incarcerating.

 

The only way to get to an "either/ or" is to do what Seattle suggests - then you at least save the educational funds.

 

Please note that I am not agreeing with Seattle - I'm not sure if I understand exactly what he means. I was just making a point about Lisa's choices for spending the money.

[Lucky_scouter]

I believe that what Lisabob is saying is that spending the money early (education) is far cheaper than spending it later (prisons). The line here seems to be that the money is more important than the life. Teachers are given responsibilities via a little clause in the law called "in loco parentis" which loosely translated means "in place of the parent"... in other words teachers are expected to be the parents at school and act on behalf of the parents for the benefit of students including supervision. I can say that I would rather spend 29,000 per student on education and implementing programs to keep students on the right track with supportive teachers (who don't mind being "in loco parentis") than to spend one dime on a prison/prisoner. Simple economics will tell you that the small continuous deposits made early are going to earn more and cost less to get the same end product than a load of cash dropped into an investment late... not to mention the risks.

 

I've had blind musicians ( no deaf ones yet...), kids with adhd, bd, ld, md, ms, and a bunch of other acronyms and every one of them was educable. I've had kids who were oppositional-defiant and still made progress with them albeit slow until we reached an understanding that I wasn't going to budge on behavior no matter what and they needed to know that I was on their side. I just can't agree with many of the opinions expressed in this forum.

 

It might be that there are kids who are trying to follow the "dream" of a college education who may really want to be/do something else and that is where education should probably change course... If education is failing, it is because we seem to push everyone towards college as a measure of success. I do believe we count trade school as part of the formula but there is more to the formula than that.

 

 

[SeattlePioneer]

If you have a significant percentage of your student population that can't meet reasonable standards for education, that corruptes the whole education process. Those children act out and prevent others from getting an education. The education system must adapt to warehouse and appeal to such children, corrupting academic standards.

 

By tolerating such behavior, you enable it.

 

It's not a choice of keeping them in school or keeping them in prison.

 

Kicking such children out places the burden of adapting to standards on the children and families. A child who is kicked out should probably have conditions explained to him and their parents on the terms on which he will be readmitted.

 

When failure and expulsion is a reality, you are going to have a lot more children and parents who are going to make a point of getting with the program.

 

And yes, it's irresponsible to place so many of a college track they are not equipped or interested in pursuing. The public education value of "an equal education for all" is absurd. Children are different and those not interested in an academic track shouldn't be forced into one because of the prejudices of teachers and school systems.

[Lisabob]

Now I really have to ask: SP, have you ever been a teacher? If so, what did you teach? Did you teach in a public or private school?

 

We might actually have some common ground on some aspects (I agree that not everyone wants to go to college, and that we ought to have better educational options for those who want to pursue a vocational or trade education). But on the whole, what you are describing is pretty far off from any reality I've ever encountered at the 3 public universities where I have taught (one open-enrollment, one top tier flagship, one with relatively lax admission standards but still with a cut-off).

 

I'm in a hurry this morning but later today I'll tell you about a college-prep program I worked in for several years, that targeted students who barely graduated from some of the country's worst public schools. It was fascinating, and forever changed my ideas about who could do college-level work.

 

But I don't have time to do that right now because instead, I'm on my way to a senior research presentation by one of my former students, who is the first in their family to attend college and who is about to start grad school. Lots of people were betting against her success, too.