If you’ve read my posts here I am not a bleeding heart lefty, but hear me out.
Ban private schools (or pay-for schools) while also banning teachers unions. It sounds horrible and is probably unconstitutional. But I believe it would make for a better future.
If the affluent were forced to use the public school system you could be damn sure it would have unbelievable funding either through taxes or really successful brownie sales. By forcing society to learn together we cut the bullshit and actually create this so called “equity” by ensuring schools are truly funded and more importantly looked after by the people that care. And either see the value in or have the time/resources to see to it the schools are successful.
By banning the unions we remove the politics from it all. Teachers become well paid on a performance basis. Independent, local, citizen committees are in charge of evaluating curriculum and ensuring teachers are not incompetent or activists.
In essence, largely remove government oversight from schools. Let the community make the curriculum. Everyone has to use it.
There’s probably a million problems here. But I think it’s a massive improvement over the current situation.
Palo Alto, one of the wealthiest (and liberal!) places in America is shutting its high school down because everyone is rich enough to send their kids to private school. Insane.
>If the affluent were forced to use the public school system you could be damn sure it would have unbelievable funding either through taxes or really successful brownie sales.
It doesn't work this way. Affluent people congregate together and push up the price of housing in a commmunity to drive out "undesirables", then the "undesirables" all end up living in a poor part of town, with shitty schools. But now it's even harder for the "undesirables" to get a good education for their kids, as renting/buying a house in the affluent communities is even more expensive than private school would be.
Have we considered not tying school funding to property tax? What if all the property tax was (sort of) evenly distributed among schools? Similar to Canada [1] (and I bet other countries).
If that's true then make it so you can't pick the school your children go to, instead they are assigned random one (between reasonable limits, e.g. not farther away than 1 hour conmute)
Some people disagree that busing didn't work [0] as well as there is research showing that and I quote "results show that a higher percentage of Black schoolmates has a strong adverse effect on achievement of Blacks" [1]
> If the affluent were forced to use the public school system you could be damn sure it would have unbelievable funding
That's actually one of the things I value most about the school systems here in semi-rural Iowa.
Nobody is Silicon Valley "affluent", but there are no private schools, so the kids from well-off families are in the same classes as the poor kids.
In most of the bigger suburbs / cities, there are multiple schools that you go to based on where you live. It basically means the schools are income-segregated, which seems like a great disservice to everyone in my opinion.
Most of the kids I met in college who went to those "good schools" had vastly overinflated opinions of themselves.
Never met many kids from the "bad schools" because they were too poorly run for the kids to make it to college anyway.
If the affluent are forced to use the public school system, the schools in their neighborhoods would be awesome and the schools down the road in the less affluent part of town will remain just as bad as they are now.
Look at Saratoga High School and Lynbrook High School, in Silicon Valley not far from Palo Alto. Huge funding. Donations of equipment from local tech companies. Fundraisers run by rich parents. Great facilities.
Yet schools 20 minutes away in the less nice parts of the Bay Area are still terrible.
I'm not affluent by any means, but, if in any case I see my kids' schools are degrading quality wise including seeing his peers as some people that I (or my wife) see as "undesirables" (such a bad word here, but I really mean some kids that would have bad influence on my kids) we'd sacrifice one of career and income and just teach our kids at home.
Not trying to bring race/culture into this discussion, but I believe most Asians will think like this (we are Asians). On the other hand, we value harmony and homogeneity than diversity. It doesn't mean we don't value diversity. It just means we have harmony first as priority and diversity second. As soon as diversity starts to degrade harmony, then we gonna cut the diversity part. So if the school kids are good, we are happy, but if not, we gonna take our kids out of it.
And if this is so offensive, why are you using a throwaway? I'll reply anyway for people to read (because I know you will read anyway, from your safe space, lol)
Notice I didn't say I am against diversity. Diversity is good, even I'd rather see Samba performed by Brazilian than Japanese Brazilians in the streets of Tokyo. Also diversity can mean a lot of things, not just race, but economy as well, actually this was more in line with what in my mind, because of my upbringing in Asia where racial diversity is miniscule but mostly socio-economic diversity.
Priorities, that's the word here. Can I work 80hrs a week? Sure, but my family and mental health takes priority. Do I want diversity? Of course, but harmony takes priority. When I send my kids to school, I want them to be educated in an educative environment, and nothing else. I don't want them to do bad stuffs, I don't want them to skip class. I don't want to go home after work noticing my kids are not getting the education that they get but something else.
Simple.
EDIT: I guess you mistaken the race/culture into a thing where you assume I think race/culture are closely associated to economic performance? Lol you are mistaken, but I see why you would assume that based on my grammar?
What I meant was, as Asian (this is the race/culture that I meant), we inclined to think in harmony first, because in our culture, harmony is more important. Do you get it? If not, I don't know how to properly explain it, English is not my first language, sorry.
There are many reasons someone may wish to remain anonymous on the internet. Sorry if my anonymity triggers you.
I didn't say you were against diversity, I said you created an inverse relationship between diversity and harmony. You could have had that whole discussion about optimizing for harmony without discussing diversity at all (there are many things that might affect your harmony including curriculum changes or standardized testing). The fact that you placed diversity in opposition to harmony is why I said what I said.
Perhaps it's just the fact that you're not a native english speaker, but the fact that you're now making assumptions about economics (who said anything about that?) and brought up diversity in the context of a comment about "undesirables" affecting your kids lead me to believe that you just don't like diversity.
Oh yes, as if just using a random account, not being labelled "throwaway" is not anonymous enough :) There are many reasons, of course, one of them is trolling without having to get the repercussions of having your background inspected for inconsistencies in your belief while teaching people on how they should be :)
Alright anonymous stranger with throwaway account who are so wise in the ways of diversity, can you help me, a gullible peasant to like more diversity, according to your definition of liking diversity? Or is it better for me to go back to my country? Or my country has too much diversity maybe I should go back to my city? Or maybe even that is too much diversity I should just go back to my family? That's also too much, maybe I should just be in my own room with myself.
Most states top up funding for poorer districts from state funds. Federal funding then comes in on top to pay for programs that directly target poor students. I think the issue is similar to college funding: There’s money, but it’s not reaching the instructional budget.
I’m not sure it’s about the money 100% here. I think my main point is what happens if wealthy people who can afford to take very good care of their kids have to mix with everyone else? Can we get their values and ethics imbued? You can be assured they wouldn’t let the place rot.
My question is: are the upper middle class which are statistically very liberal willing to agree to send their kids to the same schools as the kids they claim to fight for?
I think not but if so I do think our society would be better as they’d make sure the schools are good.
Busing is used to desegregate schools in some areas. Turns out people don't like that. Wouldn't want little Jimmy to mix with the wrong crowd, getting in fights or scoring drugs:
"If you’ve read my posts here I am not a bleeding heart lefty, but hear me out."
Even if you are one, it's not a bad or anything. Putting the community before individual and looking out for one another isn't a bad thing. Being in community, as a social animal that we are, is what keeps us going.
Myself being a left leaning person, just for the sake of argument or as a thought experiment, if every man is for himself, let the families that can afford education, be it offline or online, send their kids to study. When food and a roof over the head is not a right, then why should education be looked at any different?
You also need to disconnect school funding from local taxes. Currently schools in the US are primarily funded by local property tax, which means there are rich districts where the people are well-off, the property is valuable, and the schools are well-funded. Then there are poor districts where the people are poor, the property not worth much, and the schools badly funded. To get equity that funding setup has to change.
Also you need to address poverty. Public schools are challenged with educating every child, but for the poorest the biggest barriers to education have nothing to do with what happens in the classroom. Without adequate food, good sleep, consistent home environment for study, school outcomes for the poor will always lag far behind. In many international measures where it appears the US has a schooling problem the underlying truth is the US has a poverty problem.
> Teachers become well paid on a performance basis. Independent, local, citizen committees are in charge of evaluating curriculum and ensuring teachers are not incompetent or activists.
I've had the opportunity to lend my software/IT skills to my local school district during COVID for the past 6 months to help with virtual learning.
What I have learned is:
1. Lesson planning to meet the various requirements from the local district, the government (like a state-level education agency) and any other pertinent requirements from various disability related laws is difficult. I doubt as you say "local, citizen committees" being in charge would have any benefit. Many parents I have observed over Zoom are clueless about subject matter we are teaching. So no I would not have citizen committees evaluating curriculum. That is not something the public can do.
2. Curriculum is often developed by teachers in a collaborative manner (within the school, cross grade level, within the school system/district, and across the state), and consultants are paid to help design curriculum. While I have seen some consultants more akin to snake oil salesmen many have PhD's and >30 years of experience teaching. They know the pitfalls involved in curriculum design.
3. Teachers are put under a lot of stress- again from regulatory/compliance within the public school system, their state and federal requirements, along with teaching, lesson planning, dealing with parents. They are already severely underpaid. Many teachers I know in my district are working >80 hours week and making around 50-60k. So you should be careful what you say.
4. "Well paid on performance basis" With what money? Performance currently (right or wrong) is defined as growth in test scores on the same subject matter over time usually as checkpoints throughout the year with state-level testing at the end. I don't think this is an accurate method of determining a teachers worth. I've observed really good teachers (give clear engaging lessons) but student performance on quizzes/homework is bad- simply because the support structure at home is not there. So tying an already underpaid teacher to "performance" reviews is an antipattern. Teachers are already stressed- and I know- they stress on these checkpoint growth tests- and while they are stressing they are not able to do good work in terms of teaching and lesson planning.
5. Teaching is very difficult- you need to be able to manage students behavioral issues, be knowledgeable on the subject and able to present the subject in a digestible manner that keeps students engaged.
6. "ensuring teachers are not incompetent or activists." This is an HR problem, that can be solved with good hiring practices. Perhaps whiteboarding teacher interviews? Just kidding. Many schools recruit graduates as "student teachers" where teaching ability can be judged but also taught. Student teachers have an opportunity to learn what the job really entails and can be mentored. Kind of like residency for nurses/doctors. I don't think the public is educated enough to be a good judge of that. I think you live (Palo Alto?) in a bubble of other highly educated people so your definition of the "public" is just that, but in many other places this is not the case. Now I do agree there are internal politics (I've witnessed a lot of this good and bad), but again the public is not equipped to handle that.
> In essence, largely remove government oversight from schools.
I do agree somewhat with this. I have observed teachers to spend 5-10h/week on government imposed regulatory activities such as moving paperwork around on arcane poorly built state-purchased or internally developed IT tools. Other than paperwork I don't think there is a lot of government oversight on schools as you seem to think there is.
> Curriculum is often developed by teachers in a collaborative manner
Which has the hilarious (in a sad sort of way) effect of meaning you can move 5mi, cross a state line, still be living among similar people and yet have totally different history/science curriculum because the state on average is very politically different so the committee agrees on a different subset of history/science that need not be taught.
It wouldn't be Constitutional to prohibit voluntary associations of teachers. However there is no Constitutional requirement to allow collective bargaining.
Or heavily tax private schools and eliminate the local housing development vetoes that allow wealthy enclaves to form and persist. Without housing reform, public schools in wealthy areas become pseudo private schools. Optionally, also mandate open enrollment for public schools.
I'm not sure if this is a funding problem. US public schools spend almost the same amount per student ~10k. I find it more likely that there's a difference in how resources are allocated in public vs private institutions.
Palo Alto has two high schools, and I have not heard that either is being shut down due to low enrollment. Instead, they are so overenrolled that interdistrict transfers into the district are denied.
My biggest issue with that is I don’t think it helps. Putting people in places they can’t compete doesn’t work.
I’d even claim it a national security threat in that its vital our smartest kids get the best advanced training as it should benefit us all. Letting average or above average kids into places meant for the best of the best doesn’t help.
Ban private schools (or pay-for schools) while also banning teachers unions. It sounds horrible and is probably unconstitutional. But I believe it would make for a better future.
If the affluent were forced to use the public school system you could be damn sure it would have unbelievable funding either through taxes or really successful brownie sales. By forcing society to learn together we cut the bullshit and actually create this so called “equity” by ensuring schools are truly funded and more importantly looked after by the people that care. And either see the value in or have the time/resources to see to it the schools are successful.
By banning the unions we remove the politics from it all. Teachers become well paid on a performance basis. Independent, local, citizen committees are in charge of evaluating curriculum and ensuring teachers are not incompetent or activists.
In essence, largely remove government oversight from schools. Let the community make the curriculum. Everyone has to use it.
There’s probably a million problems here. But I think it’s a massive improvement over the current situation.
Palo Alto, one of the wealthiest (and liberal!) places in America is shutting its high school down because everyone is rich enough to send their kids to private school. Insane.