More stupid, potentially illegal, shit being cooked up for DPS in Lansing.

[brizee]

"We obviously have a pesky Constitution that limits public dollars to private, parochial use. I think nothing should be off the table."

Well that's certainly how I like to start any conversation with a lawmaker.

BTW.

Wasn't the EAA in it's 2nd year supposed to give the state outside of Detroit the privilege of being rolled into it?

What happened to that?

The legislators that deemed an experiment good enough for those kids in Detroit a little gunshy about little Tommy and Britney joining in the fun?

http://www.freep.com/story/news/loca...roit/32505165/

[Wesley Mouch]

I am glad to see education a concern. We should be more tolerant of different ideas.

[Baselinepunk]

Politicians who know NOTHING about how to educate children should never, ever be in charge funding or educational policy.

The Republicans do not have the best interest of our children at heart; only seeking another money grab/shift to their buddies in the for profit education business.

Profit should never be goal of education.

[EastsideAl]

"pesky Constitution"... unbelievable.

It's amazing to me that some folks will exploit any issue to try to keep the Parochiaid quest going, more than 40 years after the question was settled.

[Richard]

Politicians who know NOTHING about how to educate children should never, ever be in charge funding or educational policy.

The Republicans do not have the best interest of our children at heart; only seeking another money grab/shift to their buddies in the for profit education business.

Profit should never be goal of education.

From 1983 to now there have been two Democrat and two Republican Governors.

Like you posted profit should never be a goal of basic education then add nor should politics.

It should be a common ground and goal across all lines.

[Wesley Mouch]

From 1983 to now there have been two Democrat and two Republican Governors.

Like you posted profit should never be a goal of basic education then add nor should politics.

It should be a common ground and goal across all lines.

The goal is education, never profit. Profit is a by-product of doing something better than others.

Profits are made day in and day out by companies doing business with our schools. The textbook companies. Construction companies that build the schools. The utility that provides the electricity. They all make profits 'on the backs' of our students. Why is it wrong to allow someone who can deliver good education at a better price the opportunity to profit. If you attended the business class in school that what they'd tell ya. Profits encourage competition to produce the best product at the best price. Its a 'race to the bottom' for costs, but a 'race to the top' for quality.

Or you can give the school districts a monopoly. Business class will tell you how well that works too.

[mwilbert]

The goal is education, never profit. Profit is a by-product of doing something better than others.

Profits are made day in and day out by companies doing business with our schools. The textbook companies. Construction companies that build the schools. The utility that provides the electricity. They all make profits 'on the backs' of our students. Why is it wrong to allow someone who can deliver good education at a better price the opportunity to profit. If you attended the business class in school that what they'd tell ya. Profits encourage competition to produce the best product at the best price. Its a 'race to the bottom' for costs, but a 'race to the top' for quality.

If you believe this is true in reality, and not just in principle, you haven't been paying attention. The "race to the bottom" for costs generally happens. The quality part is much less certain. Since it is extremely difficult for people to evaluate the quality of a school and the most significant [[by far) variable in how good a schools' outcomes look is how good the kids it manages to attract are, it is unlikely that competition will produce good schools, but rather schools that look good to whoever is selecting the school. And since actually making the schools good would cost more, by the logic of the market, they don't do that.

If this isn't convincing to you, consider the cesspool that is the for-profit sector of higher education. Costs down, yes, [[except CEO pay). Quality, pretty much non-existent. Value to students, minimal. Student debt, enormous.

Or you can give the school districts a monopoly. Business class will tell you how well that works too.

I'm fine with providing competition for local school districts. I just don't see any evidence that for-profit schools do a particularly good job. The alternative schools that have done the best job with disadvantaged students are non-profit.

[Wesley Mouch]

If you believe this is true in reality, and not just in principle, you haven't been paying attention. The "race to the bottom" for costs generally happens. The quality part is much less certain. Since it is extremely difficult for people to evaluate the quality of a school and the most significant [[by far) variable in how good a schools' outcomes look is how good the kids it manages to attract are, it is unlikely that competition will produce good schools, but rather schools that look good to whoever is selecting the school. And since actually making the schools good would cost more, by the logic of the market, they don't do that.

If this isn't convincing to you, consider the cesspool that is the for-profit sector of higher education. Costs down, yes, [[except CEO pay). Quality, pretty much non-existent. Value to students, minimal. Student debt, enormous.

I'm fine with providing competition for local school districts. I just don't see any evidence that for-profit schools do a particularly good job. The alternative schools that have done the best job with disadvantaged students are non-profit.

Measuring quality is very difficult. Thus, its a job best done by the consumers -- not by bureaucrats. Yeah, that of course is mostly opinion. Don't see that we get any decent, objective measurements of school quality -- what with all the politics involved.

What evidence do you have that non-profit alternative schools do better than for-profit?

Yes, there certainly is a segment of profit-seeking, low-quality higher education. But what troubles me about your comments to my post is the suggestion that things are just fine as the are. For that, I've never seen evidence. Were things really that great when the school boards had a monopoly? Do we really think a return to that monopoly would serve children best?

[mwilbert]

Measuring quality is very difficult. Thus, its a job best done by the consumers -- not by bureaucrats. Yeah, that of course is mostly opinion. Don't see that we get any decent, objective measurements of school quality -- what with all the politics involved.

What evidence do you have that non-profit alternative schools do better than for-profit?

Yes, there certainly is a segment of profit-seeking, low-quality higher education. But what troubles me about your comments to my post is the suggestion that things are just fine as the are. For that, I've never seen evidence. Were things really that great when the school boards had a monopoly? Do we really think a return to that monopoly would serve children best?

First, I didn't suggest things are fine as they are. I suggested that for-profit schools aren't helping much. There is nothing about saying that a suggested solution to a problem is not likely to work that implies that a solution wouldn't be desirable.

Second, the fact that for-profit schools at the post-secondary level are a disaster is well-documented. This might be an indication that this approach isn't a great one for education.

Third, there are only a few K-12 charter-type schools that have been shown to both work better than public schools for poor/minority communities, and to be replicable. Those are all, to my knowledge, non-profit.

[Wesley Mouch]

First, I didn't suggest things are fine as they are. I suggested that for-profit schools aren't helping much. There is nothing about saying that a suggested solution to a problem is not likely to work that implies that a solution wouldn't be desirable.

Second, the fact that for-profit schools at the post-secondary level are a disaster is well-documented. This might be an indication that this approach isn't a great one for education.

Third, there are only a few K-12 charter-type schools that have been shown to both work better than public schools for poor/minority communities, and to be replicable. Those are all, to my knowledge, non-profit.

The debate on education is one that unfortunately is mired in hardened positions.

One side believes that there are profit-seeking, union haters out to destroy schools. The other side wants change -- which could include for-profit, charters, voucher, etc.

Its not clear to me that charters haven't 'been shown to work better.... and... replicable'. Maybe its true. Maybe not. But even if so, does that mean that experimentation by outsiders to monopoly school boards needs be squelched? The Wright Brothers did not accomplish much in their first flight. Yet today we fly on twin-engine jets direct to Australia.

I think we're better advised to err on the side of experimentation. Some experiments will fail. Others might succeed. But we're already failing each and every day in some monopoly school districts. So why be afraid that experimentation? That's what I don't understand in your post.

Maybe the grass isn't greener with experimentation [[charters/profits, etc.). But why not find out?

Why prohibit experimentation?

[jt1]

The debate on education is one that unfortunately is mired in hardened positions.

One side believes that there are profit-seeking, union haters out to destroy schools. The other side wants change -- which could include for-profit, charters, voucher, etc.

Its not clear to me that charters haven't 'been shown to work better.... and... replicable'. Maybe its true. Maybe not. But even if so, does that mean that experimentation by outsiders to monopoly school boards needs be squelched? The Wright Brothers did not accomplish much in their first flight. Yet today we fly on twin-engine jets direct to Australia.

I think we're better advised to err on the side of experimentation. Some experiments will fail. Others might succeed. But we're already failing each and every day in some monopoly school districts. So why be afraid that experimentation? That's what I don't understand in your post.

Maybe the grass isn't greener with experimentation [[charters/profits, etc.). But why not find out?

Why prohibit experimentation?

That's fine and dandy but why is the 'experimentation' always done in poor or minority districts? Let's experiment more in rural and suburban communities. Funny how the 'experimentation is good' crowd goes all NIMBy crazy when it may hit their community.

[Wesley Mouch]

That's fine and dandy but why is the 'experimentation' always done in poor or minority districts? Let's experiment more in rural and suburban communities. Funny how the 'experimentation is good' crowd goes all NIMBy crazy when it may hit their community.

The solutions are where the problems are.

[EastsideAl]

That's fine and dandy but why is the 'experimentation' always done in poor or minority districts? Let's experiment more in rural and suburban communities. Funny how the 'experimentation is good' crowd goes all NIMBy crazy when it may hit their community.

It's always easiest to "experiment" on the poor and powerless. Since "they" are the cause of the "problem" it's OK to "experiment" to try to fix "them" [[and cheaper than actually dealing with the problems and fixing what has been broken). And, after all, the price for failure in these "experiments' [[other than the profits pocketed by the experimenters) is just more poor dark people down there where the crazy scary dark people live, so who cares...

...[[But don't even think about "experimenting" in Birmingham! And, heaven forfend, no school integration!)

[mwilbert]

The debate on education is one that unfortunately is mired in hardened positions.

One side believes that there are profit-seeking, union haters out to destroy schools. The other side wants change -- which could include for-profit, charters, voucher, etc.

Its not clear to me that charters haven't 'been shown to work better.... and... replicable'. Maybe its true. Maybe not. But even if so, does that mean that experimentation by outsiders to monopoly school boards needs be squelched? The Wright Brothers did not accomplish much in their first flight. Yet today we fly on twin-engine jets direct to Australia.

I think we're better advised to err on the side of experimentation. Some experiments will fail. Others might succeed. But we're already failing each and every day in some monopoly school districts. So why be afraid that experimentation? That's what I don't understand in your post.

Maybe the grass isn't greener with experimentation [[charters/profits, etc.). But why not find out?

Why prohibit experimentation?

Who said experimentation should be prohibited? I was just pointing out that your ideas about for-profit schools boosting school quality through the forces of the market had basically been shown not to have actually happened in the real world.

The DPS basically does almost nothing useful educationally. The average DPS student learns almost nothing [[recall the NAEP tests where they scored worse than chance). It does provide a babysitting service, which diminishes in value as the children get older and stop showing up. Unless you set up schools where the kids were beaten, or used as sweatshop workers, or turned into lunch meat, you would have a hard time setting up schools which were less valuable to the students. I have long called for the DPS to be abolished. So I have nothing against experimentation, as there is basically nothing to lose. I just think one might not want to keep repeating failed experiments, which, unfortunately, the way Michigan charter schools work, is exactly what happens.

I would absolutely welcome a voucher system in Detroit. It would, perhaps, allow the less-disadvantaged students of the city to get a decent education, and that would be a good thing, and probably make living in the city more attractive to less-disadvantaged families. However, I know perfectly well that there is no chance that vouchers would ever be funded at a level that would provide an adequate education for the disadvantaged students of Detroit, given what we know it costs to overcome that disadvantage, even if we could set up enough high-quality schools to accommodate them.

[Wesley Mouch]

Who said experimentation should be prohibited? I was just pointing out that your ideas about for-profit schools boosting school quality through the forces of the market had basically been shown not to have actually happened in the real world.

The DPS basically does almost nothing useful educationally. The average DPS student learns almost nothing [[recall the NAEP tests where they scored worse than chance). It does provide a babysitting service, which diminishes in value as the children get older and stop showing up. Unless you set up schools where the kids were beaten, or used as sweatshop workers, or turned into lunch meat, you would have a hard time setting up schools which were less valuable to the students. I have long called for the DPS to be abolished. So I have nothing against experimentation, as there is basically nothing to lose. I just think one might not want to keep repeating failed experiments, which, unfortunately, the way Michigan charter schools work, is exactly what happens.

I would absolutely welcome a voucher system in Detroit. It would, perhaps, allow the less-disadvantaged students of the city to get a decent education, and that would be a good thing, and probably make living in the city more attractive to less-disadvantaged families. However, I know perfectly well that there is no chance that vouchers would ever be funded at a level that would provide an adequate education for the disadvantaged students of Detroit, given what we know it costs to overcome that disadvantage, even if we could set up enough high-quality schools to accommodate them.

So you say...
1) DPS is poo.
2) Voucher don't work
3) Trying new ideas doesn't work.

So what do you think we do? Just stay the course?

[BankruptcyGuy]

There is an open question whether or Blaine Amendments in general or prohibitions on state foundation allowances going to parochial schools in particular comply with the US Constitution. The State Constitution is clear, however; that's not allowed.

Doubtful this makes its way to the SCOTUS through Michigan, but it may through some other state.

[Wesley Mouch]

There is an open question whether or Blaine Amendments in general or prohibitions on state foundation allowances going to parochial schools in particular comply with the US Constitution. The State Constitution is clear, however; that's not allowed.

Doubtful this makes its way to the SCOTUS through Michigan, but it may through some other state.

A product of parochial schools, I prefer that religious education be separated from state funding.

I have often wondered just how it came to be that parochial schools were defunded. Was it a union-led 'attack'[[1) on religion? Or just a peaceful realignment of our priorities?

Can anyone enlighten us on the history?

[[1) - I love using the word 'attack' there, since that's all I hear in the media these days when any policy makes any changes to any beloved program. 'Attack' on women'. 'Attack' on the poor. 'Attack' on the middle class. 'Attack' on traditional marriage? Do we really think there's a group sitting in a smoke-filled room plotting 'attacks' with even rhetorical tanks? Or might there just be a diversity of opinion?

[mwilbert]

So you say...
1) DPS is poo.
2) Voucher don't work
3) Trying new ideas doesn't work.

So what do you think we do? Just stay the course?

I'm apparently not making myself clear to you at all.

I did say 1).

I said 2) won't work for disadvantaged students at a level of funding that is ever going to happen. It would help other things, and probably help students and families who are less challenged.

I said I was in favor of experimentation, so I don't know where you got 3). I am not overly optimistic, but DPS is so ineffective it can't hurt.

The underlying problem is that based upon currently proven educational models the cost to run schools that can overcome the underlying social problems of the disadvantaged students of Detroit is more than we are willing to pay. So in that sense, there isn't any solution. Maybe some cheaper way will be found, or perhaps other aspects of Detroit will improve in such a way as to reduce the proportion of students who are difficult to educate. In the meantime, nothing useful will be done.

[BankruptcyGuy]

A product of parochial schools, I prefer that religious education be separated from state funding.

I have often wondered just how it came to be that parochial schools were defunded. Was it a union-led 'attack'[[1) on religion? Or just a peaceful realignment of our priorities?

Can anyone enlighten us on the history?

[[1) - I love using the word 'attack' there, since that's all I hear in the media these days when any policy makes any changes to any beloved program. 'Attack' on women'. 'Attack' on the poor. 'Attack' on the middle class. 'Attack' on traditional marriage? Do we really think there's a group sitting in a smoke-filled room plotting 'attacks' with even rhetorical tanks? Or might there just be a diversity of opinion?

What I read [[not that you can necessarily trust that these days) is that James G. Blaine, Speaker of the House in 1875, tried to pass an amendment to the US Constitution that prohibited funding religious schools. Some have written that this was in direct relation to the influx of Catholic immigrants at that time.

That amendment failed, but 36 states passed similar amendments.

From what I read, it wasn't really religion vs. no religion, it was Catholic [[newcomers) vs. Protestant [[effectively throughout public education at the time).

This predates public employee unions, so it wasn't that, although they benefit now.

[Wesley Mouch]

...From what I read, it wasn't really religion vs. no religion, it was Catholic [[newcomers) vs. Protestant [[effectively throughout public education at the time).
...

My parents, both Catholic, liberal, lifelong Democrats were elated at the election of Kennedy. They did recount discimination against Catholics. It never really registered with me. That Catholics were victims of discrimination in the US is hard to understand today. Maybe you're idea that the real problem wasn't religion, but was that the newcomers were dirty Eastern Europeans vs. the Mayflower crowd. We see an echo of this in Trump vs. Bush -- so apparently it isn't completely history. [[Trump is apparently Scottish-German -- so its not a perfect analogy. Also please, please note that I am not expressing any solidarity with Trump. He's clearly a buffoon. Right now, I'm not sure who I support -- but Trump is not in my list for consideration. I'd take Biden before Trump.)