Posted on 01/18/2006 1:41:16 PM PST by RWR8189
"Stossel is an idiot who should be fired from ABC and sent back to elementary school to learn journalism." "Stossel is a right-wing extremist ideologue." The hate mail is coming in to ABC over a TV special I did Friday (1/13). I suggested that public schools had plenty of money but were squandering it, because that's what government monopolies do. Many such comments came in after the National Education Association (NEA) informed its members about the special and claimed that I have a "documented history of blatant antagonism toward public schools." The NEA says public schools need more money. That's the refrain heard in politicians' speeches, ballot initiatives and maybe even in your child's own classroom. At a union demonstration, teachers carried signs that said schools will only improve "when the schools have all the money they need and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber." Not enough money for education? It's a myth. The truth is, public schools are rolling in money. If you divide the U.S. Department of Education's figure for total spending on K-12 education by the department's count of K-12 students, it works out to about $10,000 per student. Think about that! For a class of 25 kids, that's $250,000 per classroom. This doesn't include capital costs. Couldn't you do much better than government schools with $250,000? You could hire several good teachers; I doubt you'd hire many bureaucrats. Government schools, like most monopolies, squander money. America spends more on schooling than the vast majority of countries that outscore us on the international tests. But the bureaucrats still blame school failure on lack of funds, and demand more money. In 1985, some of them got their wish. Kansas City, Mo., judge Russell Clark said the city's predominately black schools were not "halfway decent," and he ordered the government to spend billions more. Did the billions improve test scores? Did they hire better teachers, provide better books? Did the students learn anything? Well, they learned how to waste lots of money. The bureaucrats renovated school buildings, adding enormous gyms, an Olympic swimming pool, a robotics lab, TV studios, a zoo, a planetarium, and a wildlife sanctuary. They added intense instruction in foreign languages. They spent so much money that when they decided to bring more white kids to the city's schools, they didn't have to resort to busing. Instead, they paid for 120 taxis. Taxis! What did spending billions more accomplish? The schools got worse. In 2000, five years and $2 billion later, the Kansas City school district failed 11 performance standards and lost its academic accreditation for the first time in the district's history. A study by two professors at the Hoover Institution a few years ago compared public and Catholic schools in three of New York City's five boroughs. Parochial education outperformed the nation's largest school system "in every instance," they found -- and it did it at less than half the cost per student.
"Everyone has been conned -- you can give public schools all the money in America, and it will not be enough," says Ben Chavis, a former public school principal who now runs the American Indian Charter School in Oakland, Calif. His school spends thousands less per student than Oakland's government-run schools spend.
Chavis saves money by having students help clean the grounds and set up for lunch. "We don't have a full-time janitor," he told me. "We don't have security guards. We don't have computers. We don't have a cafeteria staff." Since Chavis took over four years ago, his school has gone from being among the worst middle schools in Oakland to the one where the kids get the best test scores. "I see my school as a business," he said. "And my students are the shareholders. And the families are the shareholders. I have to provide them with something."
©2006 JFS Productions, Inc. Distributed by Creators Syndicate
I don't know if it's really a myth. The voters don't seem to agree in any event. It's more like a wish.
If the NEAhates you it is because you have hit right on target.
Let me ed-u-ma-cate dem young'uns. I learn'em plenny for that kind of dough...
or tuition tax credits
I don`t suppose you have a web site with stats, I`d like to bookmark it for future reference.
I'm a teacher, but I started the first 25 years of my adult life in the private sector. Stossel is absolutely on target. The money wasted in schools is astonishing. I could tell story after story about literal millions washed away without any impact at all on student achievement. Stossel understands that the main factors influencing student achievement, in any school, is a focused curriculum, polished lessons, hard work, dedicated teachers, and discipline in the classroom. None of those things require money. Let me add be a complete iconclast and say that my salary and benefits compared to the private sector are quite good. I work about 60 hours a week throughout the school year, and about 30 hours a week during the summer (again, a great schedule) - but if I was a slacker I could get away with much less. I do what I do because I give a damn about my students and my country. Sadly, as Stossel points out, the union that is supposed to represent me actually protects teachers who should have a bootprint on their behind after being kicked out the door.
The NEA destroying children - one classroom at a time.
The education can suffer, but they don't dare pull back spending on the football team!
The NEA indoctrinating young skulls full of mush into neoMarxism. Look into the history of The Frankfurt School for the plan from the mid-1900's.
That would be a major violation of union contracts in most big city public schools. And we're not even talking about teacher's unions here.
Get the government out of the control of education - keep their grubby mitts off the money and let parents do what's best. Will some be foolish - of course after all allot of people voted for Gore. In the long run parents who love their children will make wise decisions, children will be better educated and liberty will prevail.
I agree, but the most important part about getting an education is studying at home. The classroom is where the material is presented, but the material is learned by studying at home. Too many kids don't want to study when they get home, and all the money in the world will not fix that problem. Part of the problem is parents who do not do their part in making sure their kids are doing enough studying.
True, true, true, true.
Back in my elementary school days, we occasionally used our recess period to pull clover from the school grounds.
I personally think there is way too much administration. We have a HUGE building now. God knows what they do there. Dream up new ways to teach math so that no one really learns anything, it seams like.
That's about everything the neoMarxists are working against; you forgot religion.
That's not a problem in my homeschool - but then again we didn't spent $10K either.
I don`t suppose you have a web site with stats, I`d like to bookmark it for future reference.
Try this site (click here) for a list of solutions.
I am convinced that all learning takes place from a worldview perspective and so is inherently religious.
Here's my point. Everyone that went to that school got excellent educations. My classmates became, doctors, nurses, lawyers, engineers, and teachers. The school made the most of the money it had to work with. Today's public educators rail at the idea that they should have to produce any results. Competition is the answer, it always has been. Give people vouchers, and let them select who will teach their children.
A better solution, I think, is to apply 100% pure capitalism to the problem. I'm confident that for-profit private schools financed entirely by tuitions could provide student with an excellent education at far, far lower cost than public schools while remaining affordable to the average family.
Stupid in America
How Lack of Choice Cheats Our Kids Out of a Good Education
By JOHN STOSSEL Jan. 13, 2006 — -
"Stupid in America" is a nasty title for a program about public education, but some nasty things are going on in America's public schools and it's about time we face up to it.
Kids at New York's Abraham Lincoln High School told me their teachers are so dull students fall asleep in class. One student said, "You see kids all the time walking in the school smoking weed, you know. It's a normal thing here."
We tried to bring "20/20" cameras into New York City schools to see for ourselves and show you what's going on in the schools, but officials wouldn't allow it.
Washington, D.C., officials steered us to the best classrooms in their district.
We wanted to tape typical classrooms but were turned down in state after state.
Finally, school officials in Washington, D.C., allowed "20/20" to give cameras to a few students who were handpicked at two schools they'd handpicked. One was Woodrow Wilson High. Newsweek says it's one of the best schools in America. Yet what the students taped didn't inspire confidence.
One teacher didn't have control over the kids. Another "20/20" student cameraman videotaped a boy dancing wildly with his shirt off, in front of his teacher.
If you're like most American parents, you might think "These things don't happen at my kid's school." A Gallup Poll survey showed 76 percent of Americans were completely or somewhat satisfied with their kids' public school.
Education reformers like Kevin Chavous have a message for these parents: If you only knew.
Even though people in the suburbs might think their schools are great, Chavous says, "They're not. That's the thing and the test scores show that."
Chavous and many other education professionals say Americans don't know that their public schools, on the whole, just aren't that good. Because without competition, parents don't know what their kids might have had.
And while many people say, "We need to spend more money on our schools," there actually isn't a link between spending and student achievement.
Jay Greene, author of "Education Myths," points out that "If money were the solution, the problem would already be solved ... We've doubled per pupil spending, adjusting for inflation, over the last 30 years, and yet schools aren't better."
He's absolutely right. National graduation rates and achievement scores are flat, while spending on education has increased more than 100 percent since 1971. More money hasn't helped American kids.
Ben Chavis is a former public school principal who now runs an alternative charter school in Oakland, Calif., that spends thousands of dollars less per student than the surrounding public schools. He laughs at the public schools' complaints about money.
"That is the biggest lie in America. They waste money," he said.
To save money, Chavis asks the students to do things like keep the grounds picked up and set up for their own lunch. For gym class, his students often just run laps around the block. All of this means there's more money left over for teaching.
Even though he spends less money per student than the public schools do, Chavis pays his teachers more than what public school teachers earn. His school also thrives because the principal gets involved. Chavis shows up at every classroom and uses gimmicks like small cash payments for perfect attendance.
Since he took over four years ago, his school has gone from being among the worst in Oakland to being the best. His middle school has the highest test scores in the city.
"It's not about the money," he said.
He's confident that even kids who come from broken families and poor families will do well in his school. "Give me the poor kids, and I will outperform the wealthy kids who live in the hills. And we do it," he said.
Monopoly Kills Innovation and Cheats Kids Chavis's charter school is an example of how a little innovation can create a school that can change kids' lives. You don't get innovation without competition.
To give you an idea of how competitive American schools are and how U.S. students performed compared with their European counterparts, we gave parts of an international test to some high school students in Belgium and in New Jersey.
Belgian kids cleaned the American kids' clocks, and called them "stupid."
We didn't pick smart kids to test in Europe and dumb kids in the United States. The American students attend an above-average school in New Jersey, and New Jersey's kids have test scores that are above average for America.
Lov Patel, the boy who got the highest score among the American students, told me, "I'm shocked, because it just shows how advanced they are compared to us."
The Belgian students didn't perform better because they're smarter than American students. They performed better because their schools are better. At age 10, American students take an international test and score well above the international average. But by age 15, when students from 40 countries are tested, the Americans place 25th.
American schools don't teach as well as schools in other countries because they are government monopolies, and monopolies don't have much incentive to compete. In Belgium, by contrast, the money is attached to the kids -- it's a kind of voucher system. Government funds education -- at many different kinds of schools -- but if a school can't attract students, it goes out of business.
Belgian school principal Kaat Vandensavel told us she works hard to impress parents.
She told us, "If we don't offer them what they want for their child, they won't come to our school." She constantly improves the teaching, saying, "You can't afford 10 teachers out of 160 that don't do their work, because the clients will know, and won't come to you again."
"That's normal in Western Europe," Harvard economist Caroline Hoxby told me. "If schools don't perform well, a parent would never be trapped in that school in the same way you could be trapped in the U.S."
Last week Florida's Supreme Court shut down "opportunity scholarships," Florida's small attempt at competition. Public money can't be spent on private schools, said the court, because the state constitution commands the funding only of "uniform . . . high-quality" schools. Government schools are neither uniform nor high-quality, and without competition, no new teaching plan or No Child Left Behind law will get the monopoly to serve its customers well.
The longer kids stay in American schools, the worse they do in international competition. They do worse than kids from poorer countries that spend much less money on education, ranking behind not only Belgium but also Poland, the Czech Republic and South Korea.
This should come as no surprise if you remember that public education in the United States is a government monopoly. Don't like your public school? Tough. The school is terrible? Tough. Your taxes fund that school regardless of whether it's good or bad. That's why government monopolies routinely fail their customers. Union-dominated monopolies are even worse.
In New York City, it's "just about impossible" to fire a bad teacher, says Schools Chancellor Joel Klein. The new union contract offers some relief, but it's still about 200 pages of bureaucracy. "We tolerate mediocrity," said Klein, because "people get paid the same, whether they're outstanding, average or way below average."
Here's just one example from New York City: It took years to fire a teacher who sent sexually oriented e-mails to "Cutie 101," a 16-year-old student. Klein said, "He hasn't taught, but we have had to pay him, because that's what's required under the contract."
Only after six years of litigation were they able to fire him. In the meantime, they paid the teacher more than $300,000. Klein said he employs dozens of teachers who he's afraid to let near the kids, so he has them sit in what are called rubber rooms. This year he will spend $20 million dollars to warehouse teachers in five rubber rooms. It's an alternative to firing them. In the last four years, only two teachers out of 80,000 were fired for incompetence. Klein's office says the new contract will make it easier to get rid of sex offenders, but it will still be difficult to fire incompetent teachers.
When I confronted Randi Weingarten, president of the United Federation of Teachers, she said, "They [the NYC school board] just don't want to do the work that's entailed." But the "work that's entailed" is so onerous that most principals just have just given up, or gotten bad teachers to transfer to another school. They even have a name for it: "the dance of the lemons."
Zoned Out of a Good Education I talked with 18-year-old Dorian Cain in South Carolina, who was still struggling to read a single sentence in a first-grade level book when I met him. Although his public schools had spent nearly $100,000 on him over 12 years, he still couldn't read.
So "20/20" sent Dorian to a private learning center, Sylvan, to see if teachers there could teach Dorian to read when the South Carolina public schools failed to.
Using computers and workbooks, Dorian's reading went up two grade levels -- after just 72 hours of instruction.
His mother, Gena Cain, is thrilled with Dorian's progress but disappointed with his public schools. "With Sylvan, it's a huge improvement. And they're doing what they're supposed to do. They're on point. But I can't say the same for the public schools," she said.
Lying to Beat the System Gena Cain, like most parents, doesn't have a choice which public school her kids attend. She followed the rules, and her son paid the price.
In San Jose, Calif., some parents break the rules to get their kids into Fremont Union schools. They're so much better than neighboring schools that parents sometimes cheat to get their kids in by pretending to live in the school district.
"We have maybe hundreds of kids who are here illegally, under false pretenses," said District Superintendent Steve Rowley.
Inspector John Lozano works for the district going door-to-door to check if kids really live where they say they live. And even seeing that a child is present at a particular address isn't enough. Lozano says he needs to look inside the house to make sure the student really lives there.
Think about what he's doing. The school district police send him into your daughter's bedroom. He even goes through drawers and closets if he has to.
At one house he found a computer and some teen magazines and pictures of a student with her friends. He decided that student passed the residency test.
But a grandmother who listed an address in his district is caught. The people who answered the door when Lozano visited told him she didn't live there.
Two days later, I talked with the grandmother who tried to get her grandson into the Fremont schools.
"I was actually crying. I was crying in front of this 14-year-old. Why can't they just let parents to get in the school of their choice?" she asked.
Why can't she make a choice? It's sad that school officials force her to go to the black market to get her grandson a better education. After we started calling the school, the school did decide to let him stay in the district.
School-Choice Proponents Meet Resistance When the Sanford family moved from Charleston to Columbia, S.C., the family had a big concern: Where would the kids go to school? In most places, you must attend the public school in the zone where you live, but the middle school near the Sanford's new home was rated below average.
It turned out, however, that this didn't pose a problem for this family, because the reason the Sanfords moved to Columbia was that Mark Sanford had been elected governor. He and his wife were invited to send their kids to schools in better districts.
Sanford realized how unfair the system was. "If you can buy a $250,000 or $300,000 house, you're gonna get some great public education," Gov. Sanford said. Or if you have political connections.
The Sanfords decided it was unfair to take advantage of their position as "first family" and ended up sending their kids to private school. "It's too important to me to sacrifice their education. I get one shot at it. If I don't pay very close attention to how my boys get educated then I've lost an opportunity to make them the best they can be in this world," Jenny Sanford said.
The governor then proposed giving every parent in South Carolina that kind of choice, regardless of where they lived or whether they made a lot of money. He said state tax credits should help parents pay for private schools. Then they would have a choice.
"The public has to know that there's an alternative there. It's just like, do you get a Sprint phone or an AT&T phone," Chavous said.
He's right. When monopolies rule, there is little choice, and little gets done. In America the phone company was once a government-supported monopoly. All the phones were black, and all the calls expensive. With competition, things have changed -- for the better. We pay less for phone calls. If we're unhappy with our phone service, we switch companies.
Why can't kids benefit from similar competition in education?
"People expect and demand choice in every other area of their life," Sanford said.
The governor announced his plan last year and many parents cheered the idea, but school boards, teachers unions and politicians objected. PTAs even sent kids home with a letter saying, "Contact your legislator. How can we spend state money on something that hasn't been proven?"
A lot of people say education tax credits and vouchers are a terrible idea, that they'll drain money from public schools and give it to private ones.
Last week's Florida court ruling against vouchers came after teacher Ruth Holmes Cameron and advocacy groups brought a suit to block the program.
"To say that competition is going to improve education? It's just not gonna work. You know competition is not for children. It's not for human beings. It's not for public education. It never has been, it never will be," Holmes said.
Why not? Would you keep going back to a restaurant that served you a bad meal? Or a barber that gave you a bad haircut? What if the government assigned you to "your" grocery store. The store wouldn't have to compete for your business, and it would soon sell spoiled milk or stock only high profit items. Real estate agencies would sell houses advertising "neighborhood with a good grocery store." That's insane, and yet that's what America does with public schools.
Chavous, who has worked to get more school choice in Washington, D.C., said, "Choice to me is the only way. I believe that we can force the system from an external vantage point to change itself. It will never change itself from within. ... Unless there is some competition infused in the equation, unless that occurs, then they know they have a captive monopoly that they can continue to dominate."
Competition inspires people to do what we didn't think we could do. If people got to choose their kids' school, education options would be endless. There could soon be technology schools, science schools, virtual schools where you learn at home on your computer, sports schools, music schools, schools that go all year, schools with uniforms, schools that open early and keep kids later, and, who knows what else. If there were competition, all kinds of new ideas would bloom.
Voucher BTTT...
I agree that vouchers are not the best solution. With the evidence that homeschoolers continue to do as well or better than public schools on average, without the resources, let the market work.
As a former administrator of a Parochial School pre - 8th grade, most kids from public schools were one or two yrs behind the parochial school. They were not admitted or in
some cases we tested and some ended up in special ed.
BTW these were A & B students in public school.
...reading.
On average on standardized tests they do 30-40 percentile points better.
Study found here http://www.nheri.org/
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
I also watched the 20/20 report, and it was indeed excellent.
Here's my two step program to improve government schools:
1.) In each school, and in each school system, eliminate one administrative position. At the state level, eliminate five administrative positions. (And by administrative, I do not mean secretarial or custodial staff.) Use part of the money thus saved to increase teachers' salaries, and the rest to buy needed classroom supplies.
2.) If, at the end of the year, student achievement, as measured by randomly chosen standardized tests (so teachers can't "teach to the test") has not significantly improved, repeat step 1.). Administration will get the message very quickly, and do what needs to be done, whether it be getting rid of bad teachers, or straightening out the curriculum, or whatever.
Of course, a better option would be to get the government out of the education providing business totally. I can see an argument for government (read taxpayer) funded education, but no arguement at all for government provided education.
Money isnt the solution but its not the problem either. You cant budget cut your way to a better school system, many have tried. I'm all for trying new things and letting parents have choice but dont overlook the obvious - good communities make good schools. A lot of kids arent getting what they need at home and dont look to government regulation to change that. My Mom's been teaching blind kids in the public school system since LBJ was President, she's still at it today. Some genius decided she could do better with less. So instead of having all the blind kids come to her special classroom with its brailers, magnifiers and computers she spends a few hours each day criss-crossing a county the size of RI. Instead of giving the kids the attention they need to keep up she turns in a mileage voucher and has the county pay for her gas.
Is that figure $10,000.00 per student PER YEAR? I've got four kids in school and would take that dough in a heartbeat just to pull them out and teach them at home myself.
Cripes! You could build them their own little schoolhouse with that kind of scratch.
A Few Humble Suggestions For Improving Public Schools I began teaching in 1968, and I retired in 2000. I have taught both in public and private schools. Here is my short list of ways to improve schools.
1. Small school districts with a maximum of one high school and five elementary schools (K-8).
2. Limited tenure
3. School board members elected (not selected) for two year term.
4. Standardized tests at start and end of school year.
5. Teachers evaluated on individual child's progress from the first test to the second test.
6. Pay scale of teacher in part based upon the effectiveness of the teacher in prior years.
7. Core subjects have priority over philosophical or social subjects. Topics as sex education, driver’s education, recycling, any kinds of studies based on only one category of people (womyn, African-American, migrant farm workers), and should be only offered in optional classes later in the school day.
In elementary school all the core subjects could be taught between 8:30 AM and 1:00 PM. Then parents could choose to enroll their children in various afternoon classes on the school campus, or to leave campus to attend youth activities such as Blue Birds, Good News Clubs or Hebrew classes.
In high school all the core subjects could be taught between 8:00 AM to 2:00 PM in a six period day . The core classes should include English, History/Geography, Math, Science, PE and an Arts class (music, art, drama) each semester.
But what about foreign languages, driver’s education, home economics, auto mechanics and other non-core classes? They should be available as two-hour block classes after 2:00 PM or on Saturday mornings. Both home school and private school students would be encouraged to participate in what the public school has to offer.
8. Principals and other non-teaching staff should not be able to earn more than 5% above that of a classroom teacher with the same experience and education.
9. Cameras in the classrooms. Parents could then decide for themselves if their children's educational needs are met.
10. Vouchers. Real choice and competition drives businesses to constantly improve their products. Real competition would be the best thing for schools since the invention of the typewriter.
"Here's just one example from New York City: It took years to fire a teacher who sent sexually oriented e-mails to "Cutie 101," a 16-year-old student. Klein said, "He hasn't taught, but we have had to pay him, because that's what's required under the contract."Only after six years of litigation were they able to fire him. In the meantime, they paid the teacher more than $300,000. Klein said he employs dozens of teachers who he's afraid to let near the kids, so he has them sit in what are called rubber rooms. This year he will spend $20 million dollars to warehouse teachers in five rubber rooms. It's an alternative to firing them. In the last four years, only two teachers out of 80,000 were fired for incompetence. Klein's office says the new contract will make it easier to get rid of sex offenders, but it will still be difficult to fire incompetent teachers."
Bump to beat Hillary!
BM
If parents could choose,very few would send their kids to a "heathe has two mommies" indoctrination center.that is why libs will fight to the death to prevent school choice.
Isn't it funny that they use "choice" only when it benefits them?-
bump
More money for schools will never improve things by itself. Kids and their parents need to make education more of a priority than watching "American Idol" or the latest sitcom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.