Reuters article about Louisiana's school privatization

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · June-01-12, 05:37 PM

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8H10AG20120601

Interested in your opinions on this article. As a general rule, I am in favor of having money follow kids to the schools their parents send them, public or private. I personally think getting kids out of bad schools is more practical than fixing rotten ones. But I am curious what everyone else thinks.

**DetroitPlanner** · June-01-12, 05:41 PM

This is happening much closer than LA. Muskegon Heights is doing this. http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...-school-system

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · June-01-12, 06:12 PM

Not really the same thing, I don't think. The Louisiana plan seems to allow kids to go to different schools. The Muskegon Heights plan is hiring private operators to run existing public schools as charters. Both I think are positive, but Louisiana's plan is more radical. Also, while I favor radical school choice statewide, its largest and best impact will be in inner cities, which currently have an expensive system of non-schools.

**antongast** · June-01-12, 06:51 PM

I think that if you want to improve educational outcomes, you figure out what the problems are and then devote resources to solving them. If you want to use public tax dollars to improve private companies' bottom lines, you do something very much like what was outlined in the article.

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · June-01-12, 07:10 PM

Antongast, why hasn't anyone thought of that before!? Brilliant! Seriously, there are many non-public schools, maybe even most, that are non-profit [[certainly religious schools). And I have NO PROBLEM with someone making off of kids learning to read and write if the alternative is spending X amount of money to have the current results. New Jersey required poor public schools to spend the same amount of money per pupil as the affluent suburban districts do, at state taxpayers expense. Now, public schools in Jersey City and Newark and Trenton are performing worse at $20,000 per pupil than they did at $7500. Besides, the Louisiana plan does not abolish public schools, it merely allows the parents to choose where they go. If you had a neighborhood hospital where most of the patients die, no one would hold it against you if you choose to get your health care elsewhere. No one thinks you should just wait for the hospital to improve. Kids lives are at stake NOW. Their parents should be able to send them to a different school if the current one isn't working. I DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM. We don't have "outcomes" in Detroit, we have kids. And they need a shot a real education.

**antongast** · June-01-12, 07:31 PM

Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn

Antongast, why hasn't anyone thought of that before!? Brilliant!

Plenty of people have thought of it, but implementing it is somewhat inconvenient. For one thing, actually educating the bulk of inner-city minority kids would be problematic, because they'd start asking all sorts of awkward questions about the existing power structure, and they'd be much harder to credibly ignore and dismiss than they are currently. For another, lots of other private contractors are making zillions of dollars incarcerating those kids once they get out of school, so we have to keep that gravy train running. And then we can't be seen actually investing in public institutions, because that's communism. It's a tightrope, man.

**Jimaz** · June-01-12, 07:54 PM

I can't see anything from Louisiana as a model for improving schools elsewhere.

I spent two years there and it stunk in so many different ways. They mistakenly stuck me in a slow math class yet a year later I scored highest in the whole school on the standardized [[i. e. not defined by the locals) tests. It was more like a prison camp than a school, complete with barbed wire fences! There were other horrors I dare not mention even here.

And we were told that our particular school was the best that New Orleans had to offer! I'd hate to see the other ones.

Seriously, if you want to be a proponent of that kind of school you'd do better to find a different state to represent it. Louisiana has a horrible reputation.

**gnome** · June-01-12, 09:24 PM

You just graduated High School?

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · June-02-12, 12:50 AM

You have unwittingly helped my point. Recognizing that their schools are awful has caused Louisiana to take a radical approach to reshaping education there. Our Non-Scools in Detroit might be different than Louisiana's in a million and one ways, but they have the same results: high drop-out rates and low literacy rates for those who manage to graduate. We also need a radical new approach. I don't want another decade of young black men dead, poor, or in jail. The way to prevent it is to totally rethink our education system. Let parents send kids to schools that work for them. I think it's criminal to just pout and cry about the house burning down when we can grab the hose of school choice and start spraying.

Originally Posted by Jimaz

I can't see anything from Louisiana as a model for improving schools elsewhere.

I spent two years there and it stunk in so many different ways. They mistakenly stuck me in a slow math class yet a year later I scored highest in the whole school on the standardized [[i. e. not defined by the locals) tests. It was more like a prison camp than a school, complete with barbed wire fences! There were other horrors I dare not mention even here.

And we were told that our particular school was the best that New Orleans had to offer! I'd hate to see the other ones.

Seriously, if you want to be a proponent of that kind of school you'd do better to find a different state to represent it. Louisiana has a horrible reputation.

**webband1** · June-02-12, 07:08 AM

The fault I see in school choice is that you don't take away a student's problems with learning, structure, or authority by simply moving them from a low-performing school to a high-performing school. Do you really think that the behavioral issues will simply disappear because these kids are in a new school? Having worked with many teachers throughout Metro Detroit, I can tell you that teachers in DPS spend an inordinate amount of time on discipline issues compared to other districts. When a teacher spends 20 minutes of a 50 minute class getting kids to behave in a way that is conducive to learning, is it really a surprise that the kids are under-performing?? And do we really think that students from dysfunctional classrooms are going to know how to function in model classes?

Not to mention the fact that many low-performing students are also low income students. Do we really think middle- and upper-class families are going to stay in schools that are suddenly the choice of many low-income students? So what happens when all the families and students that make a school high-performing leave?

Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn

You have unwittingly helped my point. Recognizing that their schools are awful has caused Louisiana to take a radical approach to reshaping education there. Our Non-Scools in Detroit might be different than Louisiana's in a million and one ways, but they have the same results: high drop-out rates and low literacy rates for those who manage to graduate. We also need a radical new approach. I don't want another decade of young black men dead, poor, or in jail. The way to prevent it is to totally rethink our education system. Let parents send kids to schools that work for them. I think it's criminal to just pout and cry about the house burning down when we can grab the hose of school choice and start spraying.

**Johnnny5** · June-02-12, 07:47 AM

IMO charter schools and school of choice legislation are two of the main reasons for the rapid meltdown that has been affecting DPS. It may help those students that are fortunate enough to get into high performing schools, but it leaves DPS with those that are the most difficult [[and expensive) to educate.

A major change is needed, but adding more "for profit" schools to the mix is not that change. Honestly, what I would like to see in Detroit is the use of boarding schools for troubled students at the middle and high school levels. A lot of these kids leave school and return to a dysfunctional home where proper parenting is non existent. Improving that part of their life [[or reducing their exposure to it) would make a a dramatic difference. It would also improve the environment at the normal DPS schools by reducing the behavioral problems and allowing the remaining students to better focus on their education.

Have a bus pick up these kids every Monday morning and return them home every Friday afternoon and build these schools far enough outside of the city so that students are not tempted to ditch class, or become involved with those that are a poor influence. The initial costs would obviously be much higher, but would easily be recouped if only a small percentage of these kids make it out of school with a high school diploma instead of a criminal record.

**Jimaz** · June-02-12, 09:24 AM

What's wrong with choosing a successful school model instead of a model that has already failed to the point of desperation, like Louisiana? That's backward thinking.

Utica seems to have a good reputation. There's a better model.

Next we're going to hear praises for the Somalia school system. [[And now you have cholera.) LOL!

Shollin · June-02-12, 09:37 AM

I wish people would focus more on the environment than the schools. I went to Denby and I turned out all right. Denby though has a 60% attendance rate. The state average is 95%. How can teachers teach students who aren't in class? Where are the parents of the 40% who don't show up to class? I guess it's not politically correct to have the parents shoulder some of the blame. What about the students as well? How do you get through to kids who don't want to learn and join gangs? Is it really just coincidence that the "worst" school districts are in inner cities? Take the kids that go to Denby and bus them to Grosse Pointe South and watch Grosse Pointe South's test score drop. It's already happening in Grosse Pointe North because a lot of Detroiters who moved into Harper Woods are going to North. In the end it's easier to just blame the schools instead of taking responsibility.

**Wesley Mouch** · June-02-12, 02:40 PM

I'm in favor of trying anything to educate kids.

Are those who are against charters and choice really so sure that things will get better if DPS is just left alone and given more money?

And sure, society is messed up. Does that justify preventing new ideas from being implemented? Is it worse that a private company makes money, or that it gets squandered by incompetent bureaucrats and corrupt administrators.

I really don't care what methods are used. Let's just get to work and try things out and stop fighting change.

**Bham1982** · June-02-12, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Are those who are against charters and choice really so sure that things will get better if DPS is just left alone and given more money?

There's no evidence that "charters and choice" lead to better outcomes. I don't know the solution, but it seems that both sides are locked into their ideologies.

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · June-02-12, 05:54 PM

The thing about school choice is that different schools can offer things that particular kids need. Kids with no discipline at home, kids with no food at home, kids amazing at math but with poor reading skills, kids with artistic inclination, and kids with behavior problems might all thrive at different schools. For better or worse [[worse in Detroit, better in some districts), government schools are cookie-cutter and slow to try new things. That is the advantage of school choice. Schools that meet no one's needs will not exist.

**Locke09** · June-02-12, 06:52 PM

I will always be opposed to sending public dollars to private schools and I am especially opposed to having to win a "lottery" in order to get my child into one of the available slots for a good education. All schools should be providing a quality education.

I sent my kids to private school and I paid for it, while still paying taxes that went to public schools. There was nothing magic happening at the private school. The average teacher there was not any better than the average public school teacher [[I know a lot of educators in both public and private schools). The difference was that every parent there was involved in their child's education and in what was happening in the classroom. The school knew parents expected a lot of their children and a lot of the school and would hold both accountable.

Under Louisiana's model, I would still have to pay my kids' tuition, still have to pay property tax and get to watch people who make less than me get vouchers to send their kids to the schools that I have to pay to send mine.

**Wesley Mouch** · June-03-12, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn

The thing about school choice is that different schools can offer things that particular kids need. Kids with no discipline at home, kids with no food at home, kids amazing at math but with poor reading skills, kids with artistic inclination, and kids with behavior problems might all thrive at different schools. For better or worse [[worse in Detroit, better in some districts), government schools are cookie-cutter and slow to try new things. That is the advantage of school choice. Schools that meet no one's needs will not exist.

Well put.

Bham1982 asserted that "There's no evidence that 'charters and choice' lead to better outcomes".

I respond that much like Unions claim to improve wages for all, I believe that 'charters and choice' are leading to improved schools for all.

**Locke09** · June-03-12, 02:01 PM

There is statistical evidence that unions have improved wages for all - whether you like unions or not. All you need do is look at the history of wages in America: pre-Unions, while the unions were strong, and now that the unions are weaker. It's more than just a claim made by the unions. It is in fact one of the things corporate America whines about constantly these days: "Unions have driven up costs by driving up wages and benefits to levels that cannot be sustained - boohoo!"

But there are no statistics showing that schools have improved for everyone with the advent of charters and choice. Charters have been around long enough for the evidence to be there if it exists. Of course it can't exist, or we wouldn't be crying about the declining state of education - would we?

**firstandten** · June-03-12, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by Johnnny5

A major change is needed, but adding more "for profit" schools to the mix is not that change. Honestly, what I would like to see in Detroit is the use of boarding schools for troubled students at the middle and high school levels. A lot of these kids leave school and return to a dysfunctional home where proper parenting is non existent. Improving that part of their life [[or reducing their exposure to it) would make a a dramatic difference. It would also improve the environment at the normal DPS schools by reducing the behavioral problems and allowing the remaining students to better focus on their education.

Have a bus pick up these kids every Monday morning and return them home every Friday afternoon and build these schools far enough outside of the city so that students are not tempted to ditch class, or become involved with those that are a poor influence. The initial costs would obviously be much higher, but would easily be recouped if only a small percentage of these kids make it out of school with a high school diploma instead of a criminal record.

Ultimately, I think what you wrote is what its going to take to turn things around more than any other option I've seen or heard about.

To have a kid for 6-8 hours then sending him or her back to a dysfunctional home with dysfunctional parents for the remainer of the 24 hour day, isn't going to get us to where we want to be education wise. Part of education especially at the upper levels is critical thinking skills. There is very little of that coming from some of the homes these students live in.

**Patrick** · June-03-12, 05:11 PM

Read this:

http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?...8H10AG20120601

Possibly the most disturbing article I have read in the past year.

At Eternity Christian Academy in Westlake, pastor-turned-principal Marie Carrier hopes to secure extra space to enroll 135 voucher students, though she now has room for just a few dozen. Her first- through eighth-grade students sit in cubicles for much of the day and move at their own pace through Christian workbooks, such as a beginning science text that explains "what God made" on each of the six days of creation. They are not exposed to the theory of evolution.

**Wesley Mouch** · June-04-12, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by Locke09

There is statistical evidence that unions have improved wages for all - whether you like unions or not. All you need do is look at the history of wages in America: pre-Unions, while the unions were strong, and now that the unions are weaker. It's more than just a claim made by the unions. It is in fact one of the things corporate America whines about constantly these days: "Unions have driven up costs by driving up wages and benefits to levels that cannot be sustained - boohoo!"

But there are no statistics showing that schools have improved for everyone with the advent of charters and choice. Charters have been around long enough for the evidence to be there if it exists. Of course it can't exist, or we wouldn't be crying about the declining state of education - would we?

I agree that Unions improved wages. [[That doesn't justify their continued existence.)

But onto the thread...

If you allow choice in education, you create a diverse environment where different ideas can compete in the market.

This diverse environment might breed 1,000 new ideas. Let's assume that only one of those ideas is great. The rest are just nothing. What do you have?

You have a result that shows statistically that charters aren't any better. But you in fact have one school that is a lot better. Even great.

So a statistic comparing 'traditional' vs. 'choice' is meaningless.

If you want to prove that Charters are no good, you need to prove that there are no individual schools that have found a better way to education children.

**Jimaz** · June-04-12, 08:16 PM

The Partisans : ZOMBIE AYN RAND

They walk among us.

**Goose** · June-04-12, 08:33 PM

the problem with school of choice is that public schools HAVE to accept the kid... as a private school entity, if a kid is a dirt bag or bad seed, he is dropped and the space opens up for a deserving student... at the public level this dirt bag can come and go as he/she pleases, distrupt the class, disturb other students, etc etc and the public schools have little recourse....

whats the problem with private schools "making money".... if a school is good and in high demand, and the people sending their kids there value the education and feel they are getting their moneys worth, than why not make money on it....

profit is a great incentive to produce the best results...

**Wesley Mouch** · June-04-12, 09:01 PM

Originally Posted by Goose

the problem with school of choice is that public schools HAVE to accept the kid... as a private school entity, if a kid is a dirt bag or bad seed, he is dropped and the space opens up for a deserving student... at the public level this dirt bag can come and go as he/she pleases, distrupt the class, disturb other students, etc etc and the public schools have little recourse....

whats the problem with private schools "making money".... if a school is good and in high demand, and the people sending their kids there value the education and feel they are getting their moneys worth, than why not make money on it....

profit is a great incentive to produce the best results...

Dirtbags: Perhaps Charters will demonstrate that ability to 'drop' students improves education. Perhaps not.

Profit: Also great motivation to prevent innovation by others -- as evidenced by public schools and their unions.