Flip the Fayette County School Board Today with your Vote at the Ballot Box

[cricket3]

Because their spouse makes enough money to support the lower wage.
Because they see the benefit of the reduced tuition.
Because they don’t have the required education for public school teaching.
Because they’re retired from public schools.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Arizona has a system like what the General Assembly wants and it blew a hole in their budget. Also, most of the monies go to already well off peoples who have their kids in private school. Amendment 2 was basically a "Vote to give a tuition break to your rich neighbor" and people in rural areas, which don't have many private offerings (if any), soundly rejected it as such.

I'm a capitalist but no degree of competition is going to make schools better for the simple reason that schools have to take who is in their geographic footprint. If you are in an area with a lot of poverty, disengaged parents, a community that doesn't value learning, etc. then you are not going to have a good mix for a school. There's a reason why the test scores that come out every year are well correlated to high income zip codes. If schools just kick out any person that was violent or a problem or apathetic or whatever, I guarantee the bad test scores people talk about would magically improve. But guess what? You can't. State law says kids stay till 18 now and the state constitution guarantees a right to an education. There are also federal rules to enforce that. So lots of public schools are just stuck.

I'd also highlight that KY has a massive teaching shortage now. How does this fix any of that? People aren't going to take jobs at these alternative places with less pay and even fewer benefits.

None of this means that schools can't do better. But there are some really bad incentives that hurt schools right now such as schools being penalized by graduation rates, leading to pressure on teachers to pass everyone lest a kid fail and hurt the accountability metrics. State tests need an overhaul as existing social studies standards were created by people that think history is meant to turn kids into activists and the science standards are so terrible that even high achieving kids aren't passing them (look at this past year's results). There needs to be a more thorough study of where money is going as little is reaching the classroom as some districts have too much top heavy administration. We need a different paradigm but for me Amendment 2 didn't cut it at all.

I have to disagree with most of what you say because you are looking at schools as they exist today not what they could be. What you said that is true is that the circumstances kids grow up affect their learning environment. However the idea that schools have to take whoever is in their geographic footprint would theoretically come to an end if schools were forced to compete. Taking everyone is a problem beyond just the low income students. When you dump every learning level in a classroom teachers can't really teach optimally to all levels. Although teachers try to differentiate leaning for all levels, that can't really do it effectively. With competition, schools could evolve into something they aren't today. Schools could cater to certain segments of the market. This alone could make the learning environment better. Schools potentially would shrink in size, also creating a better learning environment. You have to stop thinking about how schools work today and what they could be like if they had to compete for students.

Competition would also solve the teacher shortage because demand for good teachers would increase, therefore increasing salaries. Today we operate schools as monopolies which provides no economic incentive to raise salaries. Competition provides that incentive because good teachers become more valuable.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

This is just not true. There are private schools with healthy enrollment and their pay for teachers + health insurance benefits is much less than their public school counterparts, which is an incentive for a lot of teachers to not make that jump. If you are a teacher and you go private, you lose your state pension as well. No one is going to give that up for a 401k plan. Private schools unless they receive a sizeable endowment are not going to ever be in the position you discuss. Even if these kids bring the $4k or whatever in state dollars that's not going to be enough at all. It takes a LOT of money to run a school. Personnel is a big cost but you have to have materials, tech, infrastructure, etc. So that $4k is a small drop in the bucket.

I know a couple of teachers at Catholic high schools in Louisville who makes the same or more than they made in public high schools in Louisville. I think Country Day and Collegiate also pays quite well. My wife is a teacher at a Catholic primary school and doesn't make as much as her public school counterpart. So some do and some don't. Competition improves that for everyone. When you're a Catholic primary school, holding down tuition is paramount because a lot of people can't afford it, especially if you have more than one child. With competition, tuition becomes less a a problem and having top teachers becomes a priority to attract students. This will higher pay for teachers. Again, stop thinking about how schools are now and what they could be if they had to compete.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

If thats the case, why do those teachers choose the private schools? Tells you how sh1t the public schools must really be.

You just made a better argument for vouchers than I did.

My wife teaches at a Catholic school even though we aren't Catholic. She does it for the reason you suggest. Many public schools are full of discipline problems and they don't do much about it.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Because their spouse makes enough money to support the lower wage.
Because they see the benefit of the reduced tuition.
Because they don’t have the required education for public school teaching.
Because they’re retired from public schools.

Only one of those is exclusive to private schools and its the degree. A successful private school has its choice of teachers, regardless of degree. So teaching competency is certainly not the issue

The rest of the issues cut across teaching regardless. Noone in the profession is making great money unless you're a tenured professor.

 

[KYExtemper]

My wife teaches at a Catholic school even though we aren't Catholic. She does it for the reason you suggest. Many public schools are full of discipline problems and they don't do much about it.

Problem is they can't do anything about it because of federal rules. If a disruptive kid has special education classification, you can only suspend them 10 days max. The DOJ has also warned schools that if there are racial disparities in discipline they will sue them into the ground. Schools are also judged on discipline now for accountability so the solution is not to write a lot of people up to cook the metrics.

This is why comparing both systems is a fools errand. Private don't have to play by the same stupid rules that schools are saddled with, whether its discipline, testing, or other metrics. Get rid of those and maybe public schools can get better rather than nuking the system. More government interference hasn't helped education, something I think many of us here would agree with.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Problem is they can't do anything about it because of federal rules. If a disruptive kid has special education classification, you can only suspend them 10 days max. The DOJ has also warned schools that if there are racial disparities in discipline they will sue them into the ground. Schools are also judged on discipline now for accountability so the solution is not to write a lot of people up to cook the metrics.

This is why comparing both systems is a fools errand. Private don't have to play by the same stupid rules that schools are saddled with, whether its discipline, testing, or other metrics. Get rid of those and maybe public schools can get better rather than nuking the system. More government interference hasn't helped education, something I think many of us here would agree with.

I absolutely agree that more government involvement won’t help school. Government involvement is a big part of the problem.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Problem is they can't do anything about it because of federal rules. If a disruptive kid has special education classification, you can only suspend them 10 days max. The DOJ has also warned schools that if there are racial disparities in discipline they will sue them into the ground. Schools are also judged on discipline now for accountability so the solution is not to write a lot of people up to cook the metrics.

This is why comparing both systems is a fools errand. Private don't have to play by the same stupid rules that schools are saddled with, whether its discipline, testing, or other metrics. Get rid of those and maybe public schools can get better rather than nuking the system. More government interference hasn't helped education, something I think many of us here would agree with.

You keep making better points for vouchers than me.

They'll never clean it up under the current system because they have no incentive. If they won't charge st least give the kids and their parents a choice.

 

[Tskware]

Let me ask a question.

I understand that Sayre charges $28,000 a year for tuition. Lets say the Legislature passes a $5K or even $10K voucher program, and 100 kids from Bryan Station decide they would like to transfer to Sayre. Is the probable response from Sayre, well sure, we would love to have you . . . if you can come up with the other $18K, and in addition, we first need to fund raise $25M or so to build an additional wing to house another four or five classrooms to handle the influx. That seems highly unlikely to me. Instead, seems to me the more likely result is that the parents already sending their kids to Sayre are just going to pocket a nice tax break.

Isn't that how it has played out in Arizona and other states that have passed their version of Amd 2?

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Let me ask a question.

I understand that Sayre charges $28,000 a year for tuition. Lets say the Legislature passes a $5K or even $10K voucher program, and 100 kids from Bryan Station decide they would like to transfer to Sayre. Is the probable response from Sayre, well sure, we would love to have you . . . if you can come up with the other $18K, and in addition, we first need to fund raise $25M or so to build an additional wing to house another four or five classrooms to handle the influx. That seems highly unlikely to me. Instead, seems to me the more likely result is that the parents already sending their kids to Sayre are just going to pocket a nice tax break.

Isn't that how it has played out in Arizona and other states that have passed their version of Amd 2?

That probably would be the case for very top end schools. However in sure those very top end schools probably also have competitive academic scholarships that require testing etc. Those probably won't change because exclusivity is part of the brand. No different than high end aau/travel ball.

The people this really helps are low income kids and families. Like 99% of us, maybe they cant afford to pit their kids in the absolute best, but this gives them a chance to get their kids to somewhere better. Once theyre somewhere better, who knows what potential might be unlocked.

The alternative is to keep things the same and watch generations of kids fall further behind. Covid made the gap even further because privates kept going while teachers' unions and politicians kept public kids home for 2 years. At a point, that gap becomes generational.

Poor kids and families dont deserve equal outcomes but the do deserve equal opportunities. Especially kids, because they cant choose their parents but their educational opportunities are currently bound to their parents' choices in life.

If the state is spending the same amount of money anyway, let the consumers decide. It will improve their outcomes and the losing schools forced to get better or just die off. That in turn makee the entire education program better across the board. But unions and highly paid do nothing administration will be out, but theyre the problem.

 

[MGGA]

Where are these wonderful schools that will provide scholarships on top of whatever voucher money they might receive?

Also ...

probably

probably

probably

 

[cole854]

Let me ask a question.

I understand that Sayre charges $28,000 a year for tuition. Lets say the Legislature passes a $5K or even $10K voucher program, and 100 kids from Bryan Station decide they would like to transfer to Sayre. Is the probable response from Sayre, well sure, we would love to have you . . . if you can come up with the other $18K, and in addition, we first need to fund raise $25M or so to build an additional wing to house another four or five classrooms to handle the influx. That seems highly unlikely to me. Instead, seems to me the more likely result is that the parents already sending their kids to Sayre are just going to pocket a nice tax break.

Isn't that how it has played out in Arizona and other states that have passed their version of Amd 2?

They aren't going to accept everyone, just like your top tier colleges don't accept every HS student who is qualified. I see your point, but that isn't realistic, nor would ever apply in any circumstance.

 

[Tskware]

I mentioned Sayre because I know someone who told me that is what it cost his daughter's last year there, but what does it cost at LCA and Lexington Catholic? I think it is somewhere around $15-20K per year, but not entirely sure. And that is in Lexington, where we actually do have several private schools to choose from.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

I mentioned Sayre because I know someone who told me that is what it cost his daughter's last year there, but what does it cost at LCA and Lexington Catholic? I think it is somewhere around $15-20K per year, but not entirely sure. And that is in Lexington, where we actually do have several private schools to choose from.

Over time, I would expect more private schools opening because more people could afford it. Some private could also expand., or open satellite campuses. The most important aspect, which I assume doesn't require a change in the Constitution, is public schools need to compete. No more districts. You accept students based on who applies. And you allow schools more flexibility in how they teach. This was also a funding mechanism for charter schools, had it passed. Perhaps some public schools would have become charter schools. None of this matters if we still operate public school as monopolies.