Betsy DeVos and Vouchers - Yes!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I left a go-nowhere public high school for a working class Catholic high school because I wanted to go to college and get admitted to a good college. At the Catholic high school, I found much better academics (even AP classes which were new at the time) and good discipline, with no bullying whatsoever. At the public high school, some teachers were getting body-checked into the lockers in the hallways and fights among students were routine after and sometime during school. I was in some of those fights, and it didn't stop bullying - there was always a new one (it becomes a culture). At the public high school, suicide was high, as well as drug use and heavy drinking; there were many deaths from car fatalities too. We had the freaks and the jocks, and the jocks beat on the freaks and anyone in between. None of the foregoing existed at the Catholic school, notwithstanding the kids being tough and predominantly from an inner-city working class neighborhood; needless to say the football, basketball and baseball teams were division one.

I got accepted from the Catholic high school into a highly competitive Jesuit college. I went there on financial aid, including Pell grants, Stafford loans, and some other Federally subsidized loan that had lower interest than the Stafford.

If I had stayed at the public high school, I know none of this would have happened. Discipline was virtually non-existent. We'd even have snow ball fights in the classroom by opening the window in winter. And yes, there was my chemistry teacher displaying a retort tube, stroking it, and asking the girls what they thought of it and what it reminded them of as he slowly passed up and down the aisles; we all thought he was so cool and didn't think anything of it at the time. I guess here in DC the public school teachers just skip the foreplay and "sleep" with the students while taking cell phone videos (if we must stereotype and generalize).

The long and short is that the Federal government paid for and subsidized me to go to a religious school. What's the difference here in DC?

Give some kids a chance.

Don't worry, they won't get converted unless they want to, and most don't.

+1.

I had a very similar experience.

Thank you for taking the time for sharing yours.

I'd love to see a serious and ambitious voucher plan at national scale.

Nope, no, not getting away with that here. Please read the literature on vouchers, and explain, in detail, how vouchers will expand choice IN DC, and in the rest of the country.

Very funny, comrade Stalin.

Please explain, in detail, how having no choice expands choice.

Seriously? Nobody is arguing that in an ideal world additional high-quality school choice would be good for DC. What we're asking for is a detailed analysis of how this would work in DC. Vouchers are intended to have a market impact and we've all been pointing out that the market conditions in DC for schools are such that additional high-quality choice does not actually appear to be the result.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Please explain, in detail, how having no choice expands choice.

Having fewer choices can allow for better focus on making them good choices.

Take this analogy: If there are 500 restaurants and not enough people to staff them, then you have lots of shitty choices. If you have 10 restaurants that are well staffed with the best people, then you have better choices.

In this city, the problem we have is that we have 10 restaurants staffed with "the best people" (hi, Trump!), but they already have people dining there and there are no tables for people who did not make a reservation months ago. The problem is that even with vouchers, there are still not enough seats in the private schools that people WANT to send their children to to accommodate all those people. I very much doubt that expanding the voucher program expands the number of seats available at those schools, given that those schools can fill up with people who are willing and able to pay full price.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Please explain, in detail, how having no choice expands choice.

Having fewer choices can allow for better focus on making them good choices.

Take this analogy: If there are 500 restaurants and not enough people to staff them, then you have lots of shitty choices. If you have 10 restaurants that are well staffed with the best people, then you have better choices.

In this city, the problem we have is that we have 10 restaurants staffed with "the best people" (hi, Trump!), but they already have people dining there and there are no tables for people who did not make a reservation months ago. The problem is that even with vouchers, there are still not enough seats in the private schools that people WANT to send their children to to accommodate all those people. I very much doubt that expanding the voucher program expands the number of seats available at those schools, given that those schools can fill up with people who are willing and able to pay full price.

Exactly. This is an issue of supply, not demand. Vouchers (as likely to be constituted) are not going to do anything for supply in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Please explain, in detail, how having no choice expands choice.

Having fewer choices can allow for better focus on making them good choices.

Take this analogy: If there are 500 restaurants and not enough people to staff them, then you have lots of shitty choices. If you have 10 restaurants that are well staffed with the best people, then you have better choices.

In this city, the problem we have is that we have 10 restaurants staffed with "the best people" (hi, Trump!), but they already have people dining there and there are no tables for people who did not make a reservation months ago. The problem is that even with vouchers, there are still not enough seats in the private schools that people WANT to send their children to to accommodate all those people. I very much doubt that expanding the voucher program expands the number of seats available at those schools, given that those schools can fill up with people who are willing and able to pay full price.

Exactly. This is an issue of supply, not demand. Vouchers (as likely to be constituted) are not going to do anything for supply in DC.

I'm not supportive of vouchers (or Betsy DeVos), but the only way I think that the DC voucher program could be expanded in a fashion that actually improves "choice" (quotes used VERY sarcastically) is to raise the means test used to determine eligibility. Right now, it is so low that middle class families cannot receive vouchers even if they want to send their kids to a mediocre parochial school. If there was a way that families making more than ~$23k a year but less than $200k a year can access this option, it might actually expand choice.

[Anonymous]

Or we could put more resources towards schools that teach the most challenging students to the point that the students can actually succeed and UMC aren't afraid of sending their kids there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Or we could put more resources towards schools that teach the most challenging students to the point that the students can actually succeed and UMC aren't afraid of sending their kids there.

What would that look like? Seriously? How are you defining "challenging students"? How are you defining success and achievement? KIPP has good scores but I don't see UMC white people lining up to send their kids there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Or we could put more resources towards schools that teach the most challenging students to the point that the students can actually succeed and UMC aren't afraid of sending their kids there.

Very true.

Instead of spendind hundreds of millions on building Taj Mahals for Duke Ellington or Ballou, why not invest a cool billion on each?

#SoUnfair

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or we could put more resources towards schools that teach the most challenging students to the point that the students can actually succeed and UMC aren't afraid of sending their kids there.

What would that look like? Seriously? How are you defining "challenging students"? How are you defining success and achievement? KIPP has good scores but I don't see UMC white people lining up to send their kids there.

If poverty is the source of the problems, then work on solutions to mitigate the effects of poverty. It kind of looks like socialism, so some people don't like it. Look up community school models.
KIPP is drill & kill with high discipline. It has an effect, but I'm not sure that's the right answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or we could put more resources towards schools that teach the most challenging students to the point that the students can actually succeed and UMC aren't afraid of sending their kids there.

Very true.

Instead of spendind hundreds of millions on building Taj Mahals for Duke Ellington or Ballou, why not invest a cool billion on each?

#SoUnfair

Capital spending vs. operating spending. You can't just make a building fancy and call it a day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I left a go-nowhere public high school for a working class Catholic high school because I wanted to go to college and get admitted to a good college. At the Catholic high school, I found much better academics (even AP classes which were new at the time) and good discipline, with no bullying whatsoever. At the public high school, some teachers were getting body-checked into the lockers in the hallways and fights among students were routine after and sometime during school. I was in some of those fights, and it didn't stop bullying - there was always a new one (it becomes a culture). At the public high school, suicide was high, as well as drug use and heavy drinking; there were many deaths from car fatalities too. We had the freaks and the jocks, and the jocks beat on the freaks and anyone in between. None of the foregoing existed at the Catholic school, notwithstanding the kids being tough and predominantly from an inner-city working class neighborhood; needless to say the football, basketball and baseball teams were division one.

I got accepted from the Catholic high school into a highly competitive Jesuit college. I went there on financial aid, including Pell grants, Stafford loans, and some other Federally subsidized loan that had lower interest than the Stafford.

If I had stayed at the public high school, I know none of this would have happened. Discipline was virtually non-existent. We'd even have snow ball fights in the classroom by opening the window in winter. And yes, there was my chemistry teacher displaying a retort tube, stroking it, and asking the girls what they thought of it and what it reminded them of as he slowly passed up and down the aisles; we all thought he was so cool and didn't think anything of it at the time. I guess here in DC the public school teachers just skip the foreplay and "sleep" with the students while taking cell phone videos (if we must stereotype and generalize).

The long and short is that the Federal government paid for and subsidized me to go to a religious school. What's the difference here in DC?

Give some kids a chance.

Don't worry, they won't get converted unless they want to, and most don't.

+1.

I had a very similar experience.

Thank you for taking the time for sharing yours.

I'd love to see a serious and ambitious voucher plan at national scale.

Nope, no, not getting away with that here. Please read the literature on vouchers, and explain, in detail, how vouchers will expand choice IN DC, and in the rest of the country.

Very funny, comrade Stalin.

Please explain, in detail, how having no choice expands choice.

If you really want an answer, read the NY Times article about Detroit that was posted upthread. Because of the Wild West charter scheme there (that DeVos supported), Detroit has 30,000 more school seats than kids to fill them. The schools and LEAs fight month to month for bodies to fill seats on "count day" and virtually none of the schools have the resources or stability to make actual academic progress. It is really fucking shameful. The DCPCB is 1000x better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or we could put more resources towards schools that teach the most challenging students to the point that the students can actually succeed and UMC aren't afraid of sending their kids there.

Very true.

Instead of spendind hundreds of millions on building Taj Mahals for Duke Ellington or Ballou, why not invest a cool billion on each?

#SoUnfair

Capital spending vs. operating spending. You can't just make a building fancy and call it a day.

In operating spending too, failing DCPS schools get higher per-capita dollars.

What's going on?

It's a mystery...or its the parents.

Certainly not the resources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I left a go-nowhere public high school for a working class Catholic high school because I wanted to go to college and get admitted to a good college. At the Catholic high school, I found much better academics (even AP classes which were new at the time) and good discipline, with no bullying whatsoever. At the public high school, some teachers were getting body-checked into the lockers in the hallways and fights among students were routine after and sometime during school. I was in some of those fights, and it didn't stop bullying - there was always a new one (it becomes a culture). At the public high school, suicide was high, as well as drug use and heavy drinking; there were many deaths from car fatalities too. We had the freaks and the jocks, and the jocks beat on the freaks and anyone in between. None of the foregoing existed at the Catholic school, notwithstanding the kids being tough and predominantly from an inner-city working class neighborhood; needless to say the football, basketball and baseball teams were division one.

I got accepted from the Catholic high school into a highly competitive Jesuit college. I went there on financial aid, including Pell grants, Stafford loans, and some other Federally subsidized loan that had lower interest than the Stafford.

If I had stayed at the public high school, I know none of this would have happened. Discipline was virtually non-existent. We'd even have snow ball fights in the classroom by opening the window in winter. And yes, there was my chemistry teacher displaying a retort tube, stroking it, and asking the girls what they thought of it and what it reminded them of as he slowly passed up and down the aisles; we all thought he was so cool and didn't think anything of it at the time. I guess here in DC the public school teachers just skip the foreplay and "sleep" with the students while taking cell phone videos (if we must stereotype and generalize).

The long and short is that the Federal government paid for and subsidized me to go to a religious school. What's the difference here in DC?

Give some kids a chance.

Don't worry, they won't get converted unless they want to, and most don't.

+1.

I had a very similar experience.

Thank you for taking the time for sharing yours.

I'd love to see a serious and ambitious voucher plan at national scale.

Nope, no, not getting away with that here. Please read the literature on vouchers, and explain, in detail, how vouchers will expand choice IN DC, and in the rest of the country.

Very funny, comrade Stalin.

Please explain, in detail, how having no choice expands choice.

Seriously? Nobody is arguing that in an ideal world additional high-quality school choice would be good for DC. What we're asking for is a detailed analysis of how this would work in DC. Vouchers are intended to have a market impact and we've all been pointing out that the market conditions in DC for schools are such that additional high-quality choice does not actually appear to be the result.

Seriously, you want a detailed explanation on an anonymous website? Get comfortable with the concept and scribes can fill in the details. It's doable, and it works with parochials right now. Other privates could be created or tailor their schools to accommodate a voucher tuition. Rome wasn't build in a day. The Charter proliferation didn't happen overnight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Seriously, you want a detailed explanation on an anonymous website? Get comfortable with the concept and scribes can fill in the details. It's doable, and it works with parochials right now. Other privates could be created or tailor their schools to accommodate a voucher tuition. Rome wasn't build in a day. The Charter proliferation didn't happen overnight.

NP, here. What works with parochials? Hasn't the Archdiocese closed 6 or 7 schools in the past few years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or we could put more resources towards schools that teach the most challenging students to the point that the students can actually succeed and UMC aren't afraid of sending their kids there.

Very true.

Instead of spendind hundreds of millions on building Taj Mahals for Duke Ellington or Ballou, why not invest a cool billion on each?

#SoUnfair

Capital spending vs. operating spending. You can't just make a building fancy and call it a day.

In operating spending too, failing DCPS schools get higher per-capita dollars.

What's going on?

It's a mystery...or its the parents.

Certainly not the resources.

It's not nearly enough. Imagine the Donald Trump Charter School (makes very good deals). If they're given a certain per pupil fund for a regular student, and were given the choice of taking at-risk students for a bonus $ amount per kid. Can you image them taking at-risk kids for a few thousand dollars extra per kid? I can't, so it seems to me that it's not enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I left a go-nowhere public high school for a working class Catholic high school because I wanted to go to college and get admitted to a good college. At the Catholic high school, I found much better academics (even AP classes which were new at the time) and good discipline, with no bullying whatsoever. At the public high school, some teachers were getting body-checked into the lockers in the hallways and fights among students were routine after and sometime during school. I was in some of those fights, and it didn't stop bullying - there was always a new one (it becomes a culture). At the public high school, suicide was high, as well as drug use and heavy drinking; there were many deaths from car fatalities too. We had the freaks and the jocks, and the jocks beat on the freaks and anyone in between. None of the foregoing existed at the Catholic school, notwithstanding the kids being tough and predominantly from an inner-city working class neighborhood; needless to say the football, basketball and baseball teams were division one.

I got accepted from the Catholic high school into a highly competitive Jesuit college. I went there on financial aid, including Pell grants, Stafford loans, and some other Federally subsidized loan that had lower interest than the Stafford.

If I had stayed at the public high school, I know none of this would have happened. Discipline was virtually non-existent. We'd even have snow ball fights in the classroom by opening the window in winter. And yes, there was my chemistry teacher displaying a retort tube, stroking it, and asking the girls what they thought of it and what it reminded them of as he slowly passed up and down the aisles; we all thought he was so cool and didn't think anything of it at the time. I guess here in DC the public school teachers just skip the foreplay and "sleep" with the students while taking cell phone videos (if we must stereotype and generalize).

The long and short is that the Federal government paid for and subsidized me to go to a religious school. What's the difference here in DC?

Give some kids a chance.

Don't worry, they won't get converted unless they want to, and most don't.

+1.

I had a very similar experience.

Thank you for taking the time for sharing yours.

I'd love to see a serious and ambitious voucher plan at national scale.

Nope, no, not getting away with that here. Please read the literature on vouchers, and explain, in detail, how vouchers will expand choice IN DC, and in the rest of the country.

Very funny, comrade Stalin.

Please explain, in detail, how having no choice expands choice.

Seriously? Nobody is arguing that in an ideal world additional high-quality school choice would be good for DC. What we're asking for is a detailed analysis of how this would work in DC. Vouchers are intended to have a market impact and we've all been pointing out that the market conditions in DC for schools are such that additional high-quality choice does not actually appear to be the result.

Seriously, you want a detailed explanation on an anonymous website? Get comfortable with the concept and scribes can fill in the details. It's doable, and it works with parochials right now. Other privates could be created or tailor their schools to accommodate a voucher tuition. Rome wasn't build in a day. The Charter proliferation didn't happen overnight.

+1