"Indeed, it's long been my view that the more promising school choice is public school choice."

Okay. They have it in NYC. Why don't you go see how well it works there? I think they have it in Boston, too.

Usually these things end up being competitive lotteries, necessarily leading to crushing disappointment, discrimination/ reverse discrimination lawsuits (that sometimes end up undermining sacrosanct civil rights legislation, irregardless of whether or not it's still doing any work in the real world), and the withdrawal of rich people from the public school system entirely, which they then try to defund via their local (usually Republican) politicians by attacking property tax rates.

In fact, it seems to work pretty much the way Obama says private school choice works, which stands to reason because it's effectively the same mechanism, no?

I can see herding like students with like students for the purpose of instruction (smart kids here, lagging behind kids there), which is one of the hard realities of such a system, but that's hardly parental *choice.* In which case, why try to obfuscate and hide what's going on?

It always seems to me like everyone tries to find examples that support their preferred system and examples that refute other systems. I'm a product of public choice in Milwaukee, and I think it was wonderful. I attended one of the magnet schools in Milwaukee that was situated in the inner city, and had the opportunity to go to classes with both lower-income students from the nearby area and also affluent students who came all the way from places such as Brookfield (which isn't even technically a suburb of Milwaukee, much less in the same county). The focus of the magnet school was also one that I was very interested in (arts) and served to engage me better than a typical curriculum might. That said, the school has had a lot of funding issues in the recent past. I think that is a problem with any possible "solution". That said, I don't think that there is a true silver bullet... different programs work best for different people, and on top of that, the programs have to be run properly. I think that a lot of the problems that exist in the current system is with people trying to develop programs that work for everyone, and wind up either being better for some and worse for others. Probably the hallmark of a good educational policy should begin with the ability to engage the parents as well as the students. Unfortunately, that often brings into play a lot of other factors not directly related to education (i.e., if a parent is working long hours to support the family, they don't exactly have a lot of time to spend being engaged with the educational system).

Bottom line, you can always point out bad examples and good examples of virtually any system. That just tells us that no system is perfect.

Forgot to add at the end:

...but that doesn't mean that the system is worthless.

Any politician who sends his/her own children to elite private schools and campaigns against school choice for the rest of us is a hypocrite of the first order.

"I think that a lot of the problems that exist in the current system is with people trying to develop programs that work for everyone, and wind up either being better for some and worse for others."

Maybe, but the point of the public school system-- and of having tax payers foot the bill-- is that it *is* supposed to reasonably "work for everyone." The "choice" based systems *do* seem to work the way Obama says they do-- by creaming off some students and offering them a better education than other students in the same school system.

Which means they actually *add* to dissatisfaction with public schools. So what do you do with that dissatisfaction? You can use it as a motivator to continue to work on the school system, but resources (including competent and experienced teachers) are finite and it's too easy for angered or cynical parents to opt out, and retaliate against the system.

It also seems to me that the real purpose these days *is* to merely placate and pander to the upper middle class in the face of concerted politicized efforts to defund public school systems, an effort they can afford to join.

This, it seems to me, is a deal with the devil. If such an effort were introduced in my local school system, I would probably oppose it. I *do not* pay for that.

Well, I can't speak for other people's experience, but the Milwaukee school system is a lottery-based system, so everyone has an equal chance of getting into the school that they want. This was all about 15 years ago (when I was going through the process of filing my application for what public high school I wanted to go to), but there were (iirc) four schools in the inner city established as "all-city" schools and the rest were all neighborhood schools. However, every school had an area of speciality. The basic thinking was that you could select up to three high schools in order of preference, and they would fill schools via a lottery system with second choices becoming first choices and so on (as the schools filled up). No matter what, you were always guaranteed of a spot in your neighborhood school. Obviously, that meant that some people don't get into the school they most want to get into, but it was a randomized process. So there would be people that would be displeased because they didn't get into the specific school they wanted, but the odds were high that they would be able to get into one of their three choices. There was also the Chapter 220 program that exchanged suburban and urban students, broadening the base for choice. I thought it was a fair, if imperfect, system to allocate students. Furthermore, the four inner city schools were intentionally set up to be attractive candidates for city-wide students because these schools were the ones that were struggling the most. If more motivated students (with parents of resources) attended these schools, there would be more political incentive to improve these schools in addition to the neighborhood schools in areas with higher average incomes.

Small correction: Clinton has been endorsed by one of the two teachers' unions - the AFT. NEA hasn't chosen between them and probably won't until one emerges victorious.

Obama says he wants a national teacher certification exam, there is one, ist called Praxis and most states use it. However some states have their own exams. Personally, I think this shoudl and must be left to states as it has in the past. The problem is not with teacher certification. The problem in attracting qualified individuals is lack of good pay. When starting salaries average just around $30k and it takes mroe than 20 years to every top $50k, you have a problem. We require teachers to earn masters degrees and continue their education but we dotn pay them salaries worthy of their dedication. Lets start by making sure that teachers are paid fair and reasonable wages. Lets stop placing unfunded mandates on states. Lets place more emphasis in schools on math, science, technology, health and physical education and less on learning useless foreign languages like French and taking meaningless classes.

I'm a product of public choice in Milwaukee, and I think it was wonderful. I attended one of the magnet schools in Milwaukee that was situated in the inner city, and had the opportunity to go to classes with both lower-income students from the nearby area and also affluent students who came all the way from places such as Brookfield (which isn't even technically a suburb of Milwaukee, much less in the same county)

That's basically the same way they set up the magnet school system in Wake County, where Raleigh NC is. It did a whole lot for me and a lot of other kids, and I'm quite happy about it.

Like many other Southern states, NC doesn't pay teachers very well, so it's hard to set up a good school. But a lot of teachers were very eager to go teach there -- even though it was in the inner city and they'd be teaching a lot of less academically motivated students -- because they'd also get a chance to teach the kids of computer scientists and chemists from the suburbs.

If more motivated students (with parents of resources) attended these schools, there would be more political incentive to improve these schools in addition to the neighborhood schools in areas with higher average incomes.

Exactly. That's one of the virtues of setting up your magnet school in the inner city -- you can get all the rich suburban parents to (1) push for their kids to go to an ethnically diverse inner-city school and (2) push for more money for that school.

"Any politician who sends his/her own children to elite private schools and campaigns against school choice for the rest of us is a hypocrite of the first order."

This is an interesting approach, and I think it should be addressed to even more people. Here's my version: If someone advocates for school choice, they should also advocate for low income students to attend the same school or type of school that their children attend. For example, if they send their kids to an expensive private school, and they advocate for school choice, it is not fair for them to grant the low income students only the ability to choose only between bad schools. If they live in a great suburb, they should advocate for cross-district public school choice.

This idea of increasing "choice" for some but not for others is why the Utah voucher program failed. It didn't provide enough assistance for low income parents to send their kids to acceptable schools, so it wasn't increasing their choice at all.

Wow.. we really are going to go broke.

"Maybe, but the point of the public school system-- and of having tax payers foot the bill-- is that it *is* supposed to reasonably "work for everyone.""

This is true.. Question is we have a slippery slope for what 'reasonably work' means. Used to be the general laborer was satisfied once he 'learned his letters' or had a decent handle on the the '3 rrr'.

Going to apprentice for welding? Work at the local factory? ..go out commercial fishing on the family boat? Great! Thats about all you needed along with some basic Am. Civics to make you aware of your basic rights.

Now we're setting all these goals as if every kid shoudl be going to college, and most likely graduate school. Even the stupid ones.

Yes I said it.. stupid kids exist.. not just stupid by happenstance. Those that are stubbornly, proudly, overachievers when it comes failing at academics. thats ok, they're happy as the rest most often.. they get a basic job, a basic family, and thats the last we hear of them.

Problem is we're dumbing down our schools so that 'creaming' of the students doesnt happen.. We stuff the best and the brightest into classes filled with those that dont want to learn, and turn the most intelligent ones into hoodlums because they're bored!

They go study bio-chemistry as seniors so they can craft the better pot-plant and customized bong apparatus. (Real life example, sadly.) Sure the knowledge attained there is an achiement, but such a wasted one as far as society goes.

Just an of the cuff idea.. why not allow the smart students to group up together.. (smart affluent, successful, whatever you want to call those guys that go out and tend to graduate and find gainful employment that benefits the country.) but tie funding of the schools together. So that the least capable schools in an area are funded equally with the highest level ones. ..maybe even mandate a percentage of them be special ed teachers in the lower ranked schools. ..whatever.

There needs to be a way to make it fair, and accessible. But we also REALLY need to make sure that we aren't chaining the achievers to the slackers only to wonder why we cant innovate, invent, refine, and compete with the rest of the world anymore.

Please let me give you the two cents of a high school government teacher. First, Hillary's idea of merit pay contingent on a whole school's performance is terrifying. I work with some real idiots; why should my pay have anything to do with what they do in their classrooms when I am powerless to change it? Second, we DO have a problem of schools preparing every child for college when half of them need work skills. Third, vouchers as they are usually set up are a cruel joke: they don't come anywhere close to paying for private school tuition (which where I live is more than a state university), so if you can't afford it a voucher wouldn't be a drop in the bucket. Instead, the vouchers will simply subsidize the wealthy families that can already afford to cough up $10k a year. Fourth, Praxis is a very minimal exam and each state sets their own cut scores. Some states have mighty low cutoffs, so Praxis doesn't do much. Having said that, I'm leery of too much federal involvement in education anyway.

mhsteacher1 is right, 'whole school' merit pay is retarded and makes no sense at all. If you want to know why per teacher is 10x better, think about it for a bit.

note to bloggers:

The term 'merit pay' has a context history in Republican ideas out of the same vein as NCLB, where merit pay is determined by basically the same assessments. Obama's merit pay, and his views on assessment general, are very different.

Those things define really what 'merit pay' is, so when you use the phrase without any additional info, readers may read it as the Republican thing.

Wholesale jewelry, supply vast kinds of styles handmade jewelry,mainly engage in wholesale handmade jewelry such as wholesale crystal ,wholesale pearl ,wholesale gemstone,wholesale costume jewelry,also wholesale fashion jewelry like wholesale swarovski crystal,wholesale beads,wholesale turquoise,wholesale coral,costume jewelry,shell jewelry and discount jewelry, jewelry wholesale, just on AYpearl jewelry store.Unlimited selection of jewelry at Great prices!

http://www.fantastic-replica.net

http://www.fantastic-replica.net