Finland and Sweden don't have school choice and they smoke us. 

 

Huh?  Finland has some of the most robust school choice in the entire world.  It's essentially universal there.

 

http://blogs.worldbank.org/education/magic-education-finland

 

Finland runs a national school choice system where parents and students can choose freely between the 2,600 municipal and 80 privately-managed schools and funding follows the student.  While municipalities provide infrastructure financing to municipal schools, this appears to be the only major way in which the municipal schools differ from private schools.  Crucially, they do not guarantee teacher salaries or fixed costs if enrollments decline.

 

I'm as in favor of school choice as just about anyone and I think the Finnish model has amazing potential.  It's true that there's less distinction between public and private schools in Finland.  That's because Finnish municipal schools are allowed to fail if enrollments decline (like a private business), but are also not constrained by geographical districts (also like most private businesses).

 

Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that people would really want this type of "school choice" system here. Tell parents in Bay Village that kids from inner-city Cleveland can attend their school and see if they still support "choice."

Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that there's equality of opportunity in this country, or that associated gaps can be solved, while retaining school districts as they exist.

Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that there's equality of opportunity in this country, or that associated gaps can be solved, while retaining school districts as they exist.

 

I agree.  I meant my comment more as an indictment of society as a whole and not Gramerye's commentary.  I would love for their to be real school choice where all public schools are free to anyone.  I just don't see the privileged (I know people hat that word) class wanting their kids to go to school with those kids.

Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that people would really want this type of "school choice" system here. Tell parents in Bay Village that kids from inner-city Cleveland can attend their school and see if they still support "choice."

Who's "people?"  I'm people and I would favor that system.

 

But you're right, you wouldn't get majority support for it here.  Suburbanites wouldn't want to open their doors any wider, not after so many of them are invested in the premiums they paid to move into those districts just for the school systems.  And progressives would be opposed because the Finnish system really is universal, meaning the students and the money that follows them are free to enroll in religious schools as well (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/05/finland-schools-curriculum-teaching), not to mention that religion is actually a subject taught in public schools (https://www.suol.fi/index.php/religious-education-in-finland).  That Guardian article also contains the seeds of one of the major differences between the lay of the land here and there, though: While the government funds slots at religious schools as well as secular ones, there are only a tiny handful of religious schools in the entire country.  Identically worded school funding provisions in this country would result in much greater state funding of religious schools, because we have more of them even as things stand ... and we would almost certainly have even more of them if they were suddenly free or dramatically reduced in cost.

 

The one group who would be most enthusiastically in support of provisions like this in the US are also among the smallest factions in the entire country--urban conservatives.  The fact that the "universal scholarship" (or universal per-pupil funding) that Finland offers could be used at religious schools doesn't faze us, and the fact that it would allow us to live in urban downtowns and still send our kids outside of urban public school districts without major tuition expenditures on top of our generally applicable property taxes would be a tremendous benefit.  Suburban conservatives don't need to care as much, and urban liberals will have secularist reservations.

Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that people would really want this type of "school choice" system here. Tell parents in Bay Village that kids from inner-city Cleveland can attend their school and see if they still support "choice."

Who's "people?"  I'm people and I would favor that system.

 

But you're right, you wouldn't get majority support for it here.  Suburbanites wouldn't want to open their doors any wider, not after so many of them are invested in the premiums they paid to move into those districts just for the school systems.  And progressives would be opposed because the Finnish system really is universal, meaning the students and the money that follows them are free to enroll in religious schools as well (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/05/finland-schools-curriculum-teaching), not to mention that religion is actually a subject taught in public schools (https://www.suol.fi/index.php/religious-education-in-finland).  That Guardian article also contains the seeds of one of the major differences between the lay of the land here and there, though: While the government funds slots at religious schools as well as secular ones, there are only a tiny handful of religious schools in the entire country.  Identically worded school funding provisions in this country would result in much greater state funding of religious schools, because we have more of them even as things stand ... and we would almost certainly have even more of them if they were suddenly free or dramatically reduced in cost.

 

The one group who would be most enthusiastically in support of provisions like this in the US are also among the smallest factions in the entire country--urban conservatives.  The fact that the "universal scholarship" (or universal per-pupil funding) that Finland offers could be used at religious schools doesn't faze us, and the fact that it would allow us to live in urban downtowns and still send our kids outside of urban public school districts without major tuition expenditures on top of our generally applicable property taxes would be a tremendous benefit.  Suburban conservatives don't need to care as much, and urban liberals will have secularist reservations.

 

I would favor this type of system TBH.  But if we are going to allow funding for religious education, then I might request government funding to go back to funding things that religious people object to (abortion.) I'd prefer government funding to be morality neutral.

 

I meant "people" as the majority population. I think suburban residents in general would be the most averse to this. Many of these families fled the city during busing, which brings up another issue if we truly want choice.

Well, obviously there's no possible way to bus every child to every school in a universal choice system.  There could be multiple kids living in one large apartment complex that are going to five or ten or fifteen different schools.

 

And of course time and distance constraints are stubborn even if financial constraints are lessened.  While a universal choice system might make it possible for a child in Kenmore to go to Hudson, it's still a very inconvenient drive unless they're the beneficiary of some other practical circumstances in their favor (e.g., one parent works in Hudson--and works normal hours--and therefore can drop the kid off and pick them up).

Well, obviously there's no possible way to bus every child to every school in a universal choice system.  There could be multiple kids living in one large apartment complex that are going to five or ten or fifteen different schools.

 

And of course time and distance constraints are stubborn even if financial constraints are lessened.  While a universal choice system might make it possible for a child in Kenmore to go to Hudson, it's still a very inconvenient drive unless they're the beneficiary of some other practical circumstances in their favor (e.g., one parent works in Hudson--and works normal hours--and therefore can drop the kid off and pick them up).

 

And this is starting to get us to the root of the problem.  The legacy of segregation .

Maybe.  We could obviously argue about that.  But on the flip side, that would actually be how I'd pitch a system like this to the residents of Hudson.  You wouldn't be randomly assigned students like in a government-mandated busing situation.  You'd only get students that freely chose to come there, and that were dedicated and resourceful enough (using the always-tacit cynical definition of "resourceful" that includes luck as a resource ...) to make it work.

Maybe.  We could obviously argue about that.  But on the flip side, that would actually be how I'd pitch a system like this to the residents of Hudson.  You wouldn't be randomly assigned students like in a government-mandated busing situation.  You'd only get students that freely chose to come there, and that were dedicated and resourceful enough (using the always-tacit cynical definition of "resourceful" that includes luck as a resource ...) to make it work.

 

That works as a way to sell the idea but it doesn't provide an actual choice to underprivileged students.  Sprawl makes it harder to get these kids to the choice schools just like it makes it harder for their parents to get to the jobs. 

True.  But for example, in Akron, those students would have the options of St. Vincent or Hoban, if they could get in.  (Obviously demand exceeding supply is also an issue with some of these places.)  But perhaps a bigger question, and this would perhaps get back to the charter school issue more directly, is whether the universal choice system (a) would put serious performance pressure on the existing Akron neighborhood schools, or (b) would redirect more enrollment, and therefore necessarily more resources (in this system), to Akron's public charter/magnet schools (the National Inventors Hall of Fame STEM School, the Miller-South School for the Visual and Performing Arts, and Akron Early College High School).

 

Of course, at the end of the day, schools are largely defined by their student bodies.  If you swapped the student bodies of Hudson and Buchtel, you'd change the characters of the school infinitely more than if you swapped the teaching staff or the physical buildings.  Akron Early College High School has such stellar scores largely because it's a magnet school that draws honor students from across the entire district.  And of course, while Hoban and St. Vincent might like to say that their faith gives them focus, the fact that they're overwhelmingly recruiting from intact, high-SES families does give them a little bit of an edge.

A simple solution would be that anyone living in a failing school district could opt for any number of private schools (religious or secular), but not other community schools. Community schools are not inherently a bad thing - many of the best school districts in the state are in smaller communities - there's no reason to meddle with those and you'd be facing an unwinnable uphill battle if you attempted to do so.

 

Ohio's EdChoice program is a good start at this, IMO. Regardless of income, if your kids would be enrolled in a failing community school, you can get tuition assistance for a private school of your choice. That's huge if your goal is repopulating the urban cores of Ohio's cities with more people, specifically more families.

I get that that's kind of the current center of gravity; freefourur and I were talking more about where we wished the center of gravity were than where it is.

 

I don't understand the need for the "failing" label to attach to a school before we let people leave.  Do I need to prove that East of Chicago is failing before I switch to Papa John's?  That Skyway is failing before I switch to Swenson's?  (In reality, of course, there's no switch involved there ... you just go to Swenson's in the first place. 8) )  Why should I need to prove that Peninsula is failing (it isn't!) if I want to go to Hudson or Revere?

 

I'd still respect capacity limits.  Within reason, I'd respect preferential placement for local residents.  But the hard jurisdictional lines are somewhat nonsensical.  Sometimes they're visibly nonsensical.  The border between Akron and Cuyahoga Falls looks like a screencap from a Japanese kaiju movie about two Godzilla-amoebas that got into a fight.

Finland and Sweden don't have school choice and they smoke us. 

 

Huh?  Finland has some of the most robust school choice in the entire world.  It's essentially universal there.

 

http://blogs.worldbank.org/education/magic-education-finland

 

Finland runs a national school choice system where parents and students can choose freely between the 2,600 municipal and 80 privately-managed schools and funding follows the student.  While municipalities provide infrastructure financing to municipal schools, this appears to be the only major way in which the municipal schools differ from private schools.  Crucially, they do not guarantee teacher salaries or fixed costs if enrollments decline.

 

I'm as in favor of school choice as just about anyone and I think the Finnish model has amazing potential.  It's true that there's less distinction between public and private schools in Finland.  That's because Finnish municipal schools are allowed to fail if enrollments decline (like a private business), but are also not constrained by geographical districts (also like most private businesses).

 

There must be two different Finlands:

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/what-americans-keep-ignoring-about-finlands-school-success/250564/

 

 

There is this idea out there that taking kids out of poverty and plopping them in a rich kid school will magically lift them up.  It doesn't.  One's family culture is like 95% of who we are and a school can *barely* affect that. 

 

School Choice?  Why don't we get to choose whether or not we inherit $10 million?  I'm for Inheritance Choice. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Charter schools should be shut down at once. They are scams. Upon graduating,  kids can do no better than get into a crummy school like MIT! (or Tufts, Emory, etc...)

 

Teen goes from Bronx homeless shelter to full-ride at MIT

By Selim Algar June 7, 2018 | 10:59pm

 

https://nypost.com/2018/06/07/teen-goes-from-bronx-homeless-shelter-to-full-ride-at-mit/

 

"A Bronx teen made the stunning journey from a homeless shelter to a full ride at MIT — and is crediting Success Academy for lighting his path.

 

Moctar Fall, of The Bronx, is one of 16 members of the charter school network’s first graduating high-school class — all of whom nabbed spots at four-year colleges ranging from Barnard and Tufts to Stony Brook and Emory."

^ Sure, whatever. I don’t think there are many people advocating that charter schools should all be shut down.  However, i would not mind seeing all for profit ones shut down or switched over to non-profit status.  Charter schools are here but they also need to pull their weight and meet the same standards as public schools.

  To me the whole thing is still a republican scam to cut out a big voting block from the Democrats.  As they weaken the public schools by giving them less money, they weaken the teachers unions. That is the point. If republicans can make money while doing this even better.  Obviously public schools are not perfect either.  But instead of trying of improve them, the GOP, decided to cut them out at the knees throughout the midwest.  So a one in a million story where a kid does something great from a charter school is obviously the exception.

Well yeah, they'd better have produced some success stories by now.  We've been throwing money at them for years.  But there are millions of similar stories for public schools, and they've lost a lot of revenue just to get one kid into MIT.

Some of these charter schools are employing huge numbers of foreign teachers.  So not only is there no pesky union to deal with, the teachers can't vote AT ALL. 

A simple solution would be that anyone living in a failing school district could opt for any number of private schools (religious or secular), but not other community schools. Community schools are not inherently a bad thing - many of the best school districts in the state are in smaller communities - there's no reason to meddle with those and you'd be facing an unwinnable uphill battle if you attempted to do so.

 

Ohio's EdChoice program is a good start at this, IMO. Regardless of income, if your kids would be enrolled in a failing community school, you can get tuition assistance for a private school of your choice. That's huge if your goal is repopulating the urban cores of Ohio's cities with more people, specifically more families.

 

Ohio's EdChoice and other private school voucher programs are, as you mention, more about real estate than education. It's true that most middle-class white families won't send their children to public schools in (Ohio's) big cities. Because private schools are mostly urban (elite) or religious, this tends to benefit people who are already sending their children to private schools; people who are wealthy or committed to their childrens' elite or religious schooling. It might draw in a few more people to inner city neighborhoods.

 

I think it is a mistake to divide up school funding on a per-pupil basis; school funding is for schools, not individual families to use as they choose. The aim should be to have a strong public school system that is publicly funded, and a strong array of private schools that do not rely on public funding. Over time, state funding of private schools will necessarily integrate them into the public system, since they are using public money. If private schools want to remain unique/innovative/elite, they'll eventually have to forgo the public $$.

I think it is a mistake to divide up school funding on a per-pupil basis; school funding is for schools, not individual families to use as they choose.

 

 

I'm curious as to why you think that's actually better than having individual families able to use the funding as they choose (with the obvious stipulation that it's still school funding for schools and they can't just pocket it, they have to send it to some school).

I think it is a mistake to divide up school funding on a per-pupil basis; school funding is for schools, not individual families to use as they choose.

 

 

I'm curious as to why you think that's actually better than having individual families able to use the funding as they choose (with the obvious stipulation that it's still school funding for schools and they can't just pocket it, they have to send it to some school).

 

 

Because the tax structure is set up to require individuals to contribute to a school system, not to paying families to choose where to send their children. The principle is different: we pay school taxes, not tuition taxes. I disagree with having school tax monies pay for the tuition of a student to a school that discriminates, such as not admitting students with disabilities; anti-gay policies; etc etc. I think that students should be able to transfer to other public schools using public money, but not private schools. I do believe that these policies are mostly set up in the interest of maintaining racial-economic segregation in urban areas. Many of my friends with children in Toledo say they wouldn't live here if without programs like this. The well-off children end up attending "good" Catholic schools, charter school etc, which the poor + Black kids generally cannot gain admission; they end up in strip center charter schools without sports, music, etc. There are certainly a few "good" charter schools in Ohio, but many of them are warehouses and e-data centers for students from shuttered public schools.

The Catholic schools I went to were good at keeping their various scandals out of the press, and when something does make news, it dies immediately.  Their finances are not public so any financial malfeasance will never become public. 

 

 

 

I remember there was a crooked charter school in Columbus that was in an old Sun TV store. They hadn't removed most of what was left of the store so there was still store signage and fixtures all over the place. One of the TV stations went in there and started filming. Then another charter school one smuggled in McDonald's since they didn't pay their food delivery service bill.

 

"Now go sit over there in Car Audio and think about what you did. Come back over to checkout in 15 minutes so you can do pushups."

 

It's a total race to the bottom and society has to keep playing wack-a-mole as capitalism constantly finds loopholes, shortcuts, cost-grinds, abuses and workarounds.

I think it is a mistake to divide up school funding on a per-pupil basis; school funding is for schools, not individual families to use as they choose.

 

 

I'm curious as to why you think that's actually better than having individual families able to use the funding as they choose (with the obvious stipulation that it's still school funding for schools and they can't just pocket it, they have to send it to some school).

 

 

Because the tax structure is set up to require individuals to contribute to a school system, not to paying families to choose where to send their children.  The principle is different: we pay school taxes, not tuition taxes.

 

Again, though, that tries to use the existing state of affairs to justify the existing state of affairs.  "It should be that way because it's that way" is never a sound argument.

 

I disagree with having school tax monies pay for the tuition of a student to a school that discriminates, such as not admitting students with disabilities; anti-gay policies; etc etc. I think that students should be able to transfer to other public schools using public money, but not private schools. I do believe that these policies are mostly set up in the interest of maintaining racial-economic segregation in urban areas. Many of my friends with children in Toledo say they wouldn't live here if without programs like this. The well-off children end up attending "good" Catholic schools, charter school etc, which the poor + Black kids generally cannot gain admission; they end up in strip center charter schools without sports, music, etc. There are certainly a few "good" charter schools in Ohio, but many of them are warehouses and e-data centers for students from shuttered public schools.

 

Even if all that were true, I would still think that it would be better than the alternative, which is the balkanized, sprawl-producing, enclave-incentivizing public school system we have now.  Then again, my thoughts very much align with those of your friends with kids in Toledo.  And I get the sense that you don't have any of your own (which, to be clear, doesn't delegitimize your opinion on these issues, but it does mean that you don't directly face the decision that families like mine face).

 

The whole point of the individual-student-funding model would be to allow everyone to attend the "good" Catholic schools (your quotation marks, not mine), within the limits of their capacity, of course.  But that capacity issue would also expand over time; many Catholic (and other private) schools have closed or been consolidated, and could be reopened or re-separated if the demand and resources were there.

 

That said, I'd ask on your point about being able to "transfer to other public schools using public money," would that include crossing what are currently district lines?  As in, would you allow my child to still live and grow up in West Akron but go to school in Copley or Richfield?

 

The Catholic schools I went to were good at keeping their various scandals out of the press, and when something does make news, it dies immediately.  Their finances are not public so any financial malfeasance will never become public.

 

I believe this, but I believe this about public and charter schools as well.  It's not like public schools are all that resistant to scandals.

 

 

Even if all that were true, I would still think that it would be better than the alternative, which is the balkanized, sprawl-producing, enclave-incentivizing public school system we have now.  Then again, my thoughts very much align with those of your friends with kids in Toledo.  And I get the sense that you don't have any of your own (which, to be clear, doesn't delegitimize your opinion on these issues, but it does mean that you don't directly face the decision that families like mine face).

 

 

But that's an Ohio problem. Other states have county schools that aren't dependent on each different street having rich people and no poors. They also don't have townships or any of these other tiny fiefdoms that the Right loves.

Sight unseen, I guarantee that they have other mechanisms within the county that will allow parents with the means to do so to cluster together (if needed) and largely pick their children's peer groups.  The ability to do so is too important to too many people, especially middle-class and higher income people with the means to actually do so.  That drive will never be socially engineered away, and attempts to try have and will continue to create widespread resentment and backfire.

 

I think Tennessee does countywide school systems.  Maybe I'll have a look at how schools are set up in Davidson County (Nashville) when I can spare some time.

 

The bottom line, though, is this: Unless the government physically takes my child from my wife and me and divests us of custody (which I would obviously fight to my dying breath), he will never go to a school that I disapprove of.  This isn't something that I'll just vote on every couple of years and deal with it if I lose, the way I would with lesser issues like whether we start a nuclear war with China.  I like my house and my urban neighborhood, but if getting him into a school that my wife and I are comfortable with means moving, we'll move.  I don't like the thought of both paying property taxes and then paying private school tuition on top of that, but if that's better than moving, then that's what we'll do, too.

 

Of course, I might well still find a way to keep him in Akron Public Schools for most of his school years; the NIHF and Akron Early College magnet schools perform admirably.  And I also have no intention of sending him to some scam charter school just because I believe in school choice, and I do wonder how some of these strip-center charter schools stay in business.

^Kentucky and West Virginia also have county schools. It is not revolutionary. Kentucky actually has a very good reputation in the education community despite all the poverty and Republicans around.

 

 

Even if all that were true, I would still think that it would be better than the alternative, which is the balkanized, sprawl-producing, enclave-incentivizing public school system we have now.  Then again, my thoughts very much align with those of your friends with kids in Toledo.  And I get the sense that you don't have any of your own (which, to be clear, doesn't delegitimize your opinion on these issues, but it does mean that you don't directly face the decision that families like mine face).

 

 

But that's an Ohio problem. Other states have county schools that aren't dependent on each different street having rich people and no poors. They also don't have townships or any of these other tiny fiefdoms that the Right loves.

 

Ding Ding Ding. We have a winner.

 

Look at Maryland public schools. County school districts. They consistently rank high for K-12 education. Or Massachusetts. They consistently rank first. They used to be middle of the pack until they completely reformed their system to pump state dollars into low-income school districts. It's not rocket science. We don't need more charter schools. We need to emulate what liberal states have done, because it's been proven to work.

^Kentucky and West Virginia also have county schools. It is not revolutionary. Kentucky actually has a very good reputation in the education community despite all the poverty and Republicans around.

 

Kentucky does better than Ohio when it comes to school district structure but they don't fund their schools adequately either. Ultimately, we need to get away from property taxes as a primary funding source and move towards state funding of schools.

The Catholic schools I went to were good at keeping their various scandals out of the press, and when something does make news, it dies immediately.  Their finances are not public so any financial malfeasance will never become public.

 

I believe this, but I believe this about public and charter schools as well.  It's not like public schools are all that resistant to scandals.

 

Hamilton County's prosecutor went to St. Xavier and is a big St. X booster which is why this priest was not charged with anything:

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/education/2018/04/09/cincinnati-priest-accused-soliciting-st-xavier-student-via-text/499622002/

 

 

 

 

 

Sight unseen, I guarantee that they have other mechanisms within the county that will allow parents with the means to do so to cluster together (if needed) and largely pick their children's peer groups.  The ability to do so is too important to too many people, especially middle-class and higher income people with the means to actually do so.  That drive will never be socially engineered away, and attempts to try have and will continue to create widespread resentment and backfire.

 

I think Tennessee does countywide school systems.  Maybe I'll have a look at how schools are set up in Davidson County (Nashville) when I can spare some time.

 

The bottom line, though, is this: Unless the government physically takes my child from my wife and me and divests us of custody (which I would obviously fight to my dying breath), he will never go to a school that I disapprove of.  This isn't something that I'll just vote on every couple of years and deal with it if I lose, the way I would with lesser issues like whether we start a nuclear war with China.  I like my house and my urban neighborhood, but if getting him into a school that my wife and I are comfortable with means moving, we'll move.  I don't like the thought of both paying property taxes and then paying private school tuition on top of that, but if that's better than moving, then that's what we'll do, too.

 

Of course, I might well still find a way to keep him in Akron Public Schools for most of his school years; the NIHF and Akron Early College magnet schools perform admirably.  And I also have no intention of sending him to some scam charter school just because I believe in school choice, and I do wonder how some of these strip-center charter schools stay in business.

 

I'm with you on most all of this. Countywide districts would be good for Ohio, and I agree that parents have the ultimate authority as to where their children go to school. It's just that I don't think parents have the right to take public school money and pay for private/religious schools with it. If they are dissatisfied with the school district, then then can move to another district. The challenge is, of course, that this also often coincides with wealthy parents removing their children from mixed and low-income areas. I agree that trend is very difficult to stem, but I don't think it should be encouraged by giving public school money to parents so they can concentrate their kids in schools that reproduce and perpetuate inequality.

The Catholic schools I went to were good at keeping their various scandals out of the press, and when something does make news, it dies immediately.  Their finances are not public so any financial malfeasance will never become public.

 

I believe this, but I believe this about public and charter schools as well.  It's not like public schools are all that resistant to scandals.

 

Hamilton County's prosecutor went to St. Xavier and is a big St. X booster which is why this priest was not charged with anything:

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/education/2018/04/09/cincinnati-priest-accused-soliciting-st-xavier-student-via-text/499622002/

 

Public schools definitely have their problems. Witness the recent jackassery at Washington Local Schools in Toledo:

 

http://www.toledoblade.com/Courts/2018/05/09/Hickey-pleads-guilty-in.html

 

That said, public schools are subject to public regulation and scrutiny that private schools are not, so problems in public schools tend to get quicker attention (with an attentive public, press, board, etc) than a hierarchical, closed system like the Catholic schools.

I'm with you on most all of this. Countywide districts would be good for Ohio, and I agree that parents have the ultimate authority as to where their children go to school. It's just that I don't think parents have the right to take public school money and pay for private/religious schools with it. If they are dissatisfied with the school district, then then can move to another district. The challenge is, of course, that this also often coincides with wealthy parents removing their children from mixed and low-income areas. I agree that trend is very difficult to stem, but I don't think it should be encouraged by giving public school money to parents so they can concentrate their kids in schools that reproduce and perpetuate inequality.

 

Perhaps.  But in what way does Hoban reproduce inequality in any way that Hudson does not?  Why so uniquely punish high-income parents who remain in the city vis-a-vis high-income parents who bail for the suburbs?

^ It doesn't. It is just a lie perpetuated by the teachers unions to get more funding for public schools and away from private schools. As Courts have ruled for many years now in Ohio, school funding goes with the student and not the district and is allocated on a per student basis set by the state. This is why my kid gets to ride the school bus to his Catholic school as part of our tax dollars. This is very fair and reasonable and makes sense.

 

For those who argue otherwise, keep in mind that after 12 years when my kid is out of the system, we are still paying taxes in to the school system, and the public schools are the beneficiary of that.

The Catholic schools I went to were good at keeping their various scandals out of the press, and when something does make news, it dies immediately.  Their finances are not public so any financial malfeasance will never become public.

 

I believe this, but I believe this about public and charter schools as well.  It's not like public schools are all that resistant to scandals.

 

Hamilton County's prosecutor went to St. Xavier and is a big St. X booster which is why this priest was not charged with anything:

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/education/2018/04/09/cincinnati-priest-accused-soliciting-st-xavier-student-via-text/499622002/

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jake - I don't think Deters going to St. x is covering up for Papa Smurf. I truly think the text was intended for someone else altogether and there is no reason to create a conspiracy about it.

^ It doesn't. It is just a lie perpetuated by the teachers unions to get more funding for public schools and away from private schools. As Courts have ruled for many years now in Ohio, school funding goes with the student and not the district and is allocated on a per student basis set by the state. This is why my kid gets to ride the school bus to his Catholic school as part of our tax dollars. This is very fair and reasonable and makes sense.

 

For those who argue otherwise, keep in mind that after 12 years when my kid is out of the system, we are still paying taxes in to the school system, and the public schools are the beneficiary of that.

 

Private schools don't have the power to tax, so they shouldn't be the beneficiaries of tax dollars. Even though Ohio and other states have allowed school monies to follow students, it's bad policy, and exacerbates segregation and inequality. Then again, it's a real estate policy, not education policy.

It was not a state decision but a court decision that allowed this. It does not foster income inequality in fact helps to cure it. As pointed out earlier, you will never be able to desegregate schools in a way that creates equality when families can create geographic districts that fit their socio economic status. The Catholic and other private schools are more urban and can level this gap by providing choice and opportunity to students without taxing existing transportation systems.

I'm not creating a conspiracy.  I knew the priest quite well when I was a student.  I know the facts of this situation and they aren't good. Deters has a long history of sleazy behavior -- he was of course booted out of Columbus for a pay-to-play scheme which went unreported by the Cincinnati media.  While we're at it, when I was a student at St. X there was a member of the administration who walked through the gym showers several times each school day.  So the parents were shelling out the big $'s to send their kids to a school where they hire "good people", yet that sort of stuff was going on.  And this character was in charge of the altar boys when I was an altar boy at St. James: http://www.bishopaccountability.org/Larger_Raymond_E.html  He infamously had the historic parish priest house torn down so that he could go live with his boyfriend in Clifton.  He also drove a luxury car and was suspected of embezzling parish funds. 

Jake - I understand what you are saying but it does not connect the dots. There is a big difference between the Assist Principal monitoring the shower and getting his jollies. As a 14 year old, it was something to joke around about but the evidence is circumspect as to his purpose in the locker room. I don't know if it would rise to the level of sweeping something under the table vs something that could be seen as borderline appropriate.

 

Deters went to St. X yes, his kids went there too,  and he was involved in a scandal when he was auditor. None of those dots connect to the fact he is covering up for Papa Smurf. Reading the facts of the case, from what was reported, the guy sent an inadvertent text to someone who was not supposed to see it. For all we know, the student who received it was texting him about school or something and he was simultaneously carrying on another conversation with a boyfriend or something. That shit can happen to anyone when you receive multiple texts at the same time. Now what Papa Smurf did is disappointing considering he is a priest but not illegal.

 

Are you more upset with Deters or more disappointed in the priest for not being who everyone thought him to be.

I went to private schools in NE Ohio, and we received transport, via the public school bus, and had textbooks stamped with the local public school system logo. That makes sense to me since my parents paid taxes for those items. And it ensures the State Of Ohio that I was taught from textbooks that follow the approved public curriculum. I think low income kids still got tax funded lunch/milk money aid as well.

 

If my parents felt like I needed to go to a non-public school, that's their choice, and they paid for it. The subsidy they got for books and transport was fair. No vouchers beyond that IMO.

 

 

It was not a state decision but a court decision that allowed this. It does not foster income inequality in fact helps to cure it. As pointed out earlier, you will never be able to desegregate schools in a way that creates equality when families can create geographic districts that fit their socio economic status. The Catholic and other private schools are more urban and can level this gap by providing choice and opportunity to students without taxing existing transportation systems.

 

So we've identified another hard barrier which, so long as it exists, will preclude equality of opportunity in this country.

Some of my '80s memories are starting to dry up... trouble remembering what private school was like... went public for '89...

 

old...

It was not a state decision but a court decision that allowed this. It does not foster income inequality in fact helps to cure it. As pointed out earlier, you will never be able to desegregate schools in a way that creates equality when families can create geographic districts that fit their socio economic status. The Catholic and other private schools are more urban and can level this gap by providing choice and opportunity to students without taxing existing transportation systems.

 

So we've identified another hard barrier which, so long as it exists, will preclude equality of opportunity in this country.

 

So what's your proposal?  One statewide school district (unionized, of course), outlaw private schools, and all children assigned by lottery among all schools within a given driving distance of their home?

Are you more upset with Deters or more disappointed in the priest for not being who everyone thought him to be.

 

I'm upset that the Catholic school culture in Cincinnati has so much momentum that nobody who was part of it can step back and look at it with any objectivity.  Unfortunately the products of this city's "best" schools are often its biggest snakes.  They get away with stuff because they're "from good families" and used to be an altar boy at St. Williams, or wherever.  Even Chris Smitherman has re-written his upbringing and now claims that he was raised Catholic and was an altar boy.  And all the old Catholics are sending him money.  I see his campaign literature all over the place at the old people's home. 

Jake - Do you regret your St. James and St. X educations, or is it animosity toward growing up Catholic? I don't think they make that stuff up about their upbringings. Cranley for example uses that as a source of his pride and who he is. He is more proud about winning the 8th grade CYO basketball championship than about graduating from Harvard Law. When he talks about St. William, he is being authentic. Shouldn't we hope for more authentic moments like that.

It was not a state decision but a court decision that allowed this. It does not foster income inequality in fact helps to cure it. As pointed out earlier, you will never be able to desegregate schools in a way that creates equality when families can create geographic districts that fit their socio economic status. The Catholic and other private schools are more urban and can level this gap by providing choice and opportunity to students without taxing existing transportation systems.

 

So we've identified another hard barrier which, so long as it exists, will preclude equality of opportunity in this country.

 

So what's your proposal?  One statewide school district (unionized, of course), outlaw private schools, and all children assigned by lottery among all schools within a given driving distance of their home?

 

Of course all those proposals would be non-starters anyway as the US Supreme Court has ruled on many of those very issues already.

I don't have all the answers, and any attempt at a solution would take decades to tweak out unintended consequences (as those who have supported school vouchers are finding out). For the geographic/socioeconomic segregation issue: I think there is a lot to the Mount Laurel decisions, and what was found in the NJ state constitution should also be seen in the federal constitution by anyone who sees within it a mandate for equality (of opportunity or condition). A bonafide remedy there would most likely be some strong form of inclusive zoning, mandated on a federal level.

 

For the school districts, I'm not sure. At a minimum, there couldn't be district boundaries, as they inherently create an uneven playing field. If they didn't have that effect, few would feel strongly about their removal.

 

My real recommendation, and the point I was alluding to, isn't about policy but about the mental disposition we should have when thinking about these and other issues: that the premise of equality of opportunity is invalid. It doesn't exist, people would fight against implementing it as aggressively as they would fight for anything, and any time it's implicitly or explicitly used as a premise to justify a policy, that policy should be looked upon with great suspicion. Additionally, when someone espouses the belief that equality of opportunity should exist, questions about school districts and inclusive zoning (or other issues related to geographic/socioeconomic segregation) may be good litmus tests to gauge how serious they are -- how open are they to eliminating these barriers, or are they even willing to admit they function as barriers. (Again, my contention is they both preclude EoO.) People have a lot of emotions surrounding their schools and neighborhoods, so it's an area ripe for cognitive bias, which also makes it a good area for self-reflection.

^ It doesn't. It is just a lie perpetuated by the teachers unions to get more funding for public schools and away from private schools. As Courts have ruled for many years now in Ohio, school funding goes with the student and not the district and is allocated on a per student basis set by the state. This is why my kid gets to ride the school bus to his Catholic school as part of our tax dollars. This is very fair and reasonable and makes sense.

 

For those who argue otherwise, keep in mind that after 12 years when my kid is out of the system, we are still paying taxes in to the school system, and the public schools are the beneficiary of that.

 

There are a lot of problems with the current funding system.  One is that it's not just state dollars that follow a student from public school to a charter school.  My local district loses a few thousand dollars per kid living in the district that goes to a charter because the amount that the state requires the district to pay out is less than what the state provides the district in the first place.

 

Another problem is that losing one or two kids per grade often is not enough to reduce the number of teachers that the public school has to provide.  So the public school district is losing income while being forced to maintain expenses.  Let's also remember that private schools can dismiss a kid for behavior problems at any time and the public schools have an obligation to continue to try to educate that child.  So public schools have more kids with learning disabilities and behavior problems and these things cost more to deal with.

 

And every citizen, whether you have children or not, benefits from having quality public schools.  Many learning disabilities can be overcome, with the right help, so that the students become productive (taxpaying) members of society. Kids whose behavioral problems are addressed early are less likely to be a problem for society later on.  Quality schools mean a quality labor pool for businesses to draw from.  Or to start new businesses!

^ The public school is not losing out on any money. They get the money based on the number of children they educate. I hate that argument because it really shows what public schools and school districts think about their students. It shows that they are not individuals but they are merely tax money for the schools.  It was never about educating them, as that argument demonstrates (and it is one that is spouted by the teachers unions and their cronies all the time) it is solely about getting more money in their district at the expense of opportunities for children.

Robuu: Sure.  The whole equality-of-opportunity vs. equality-of-outcome distinction was always somewhat porous.  And by definition, government-enforced "equality of opportunity" would involve taking opportunities away from my children, because they have opportunities by virtue of their birth that simply cannot be replicated by any level of government expenditure or regulation.  A stable, nuclear family with five degrees between the two parents.  Reading almost every night before bed.  Heck, genetic advantages simply by having no major health issues.

 

I'm all for giving children good school buildings.  But urban public school districts often have amazing facilities, physically, and it doesn't really help their rankings all that much.  (Columbus East High School may be one of the poster children for that in this state right now.)

 

I'm all for giving children good teachers.  But credentialing standards are the same in Columbus Public and in Bexley.  Salaries are sometimes actually higher in urban districts in order to attract teachers to unpopular posts.

 

I'm all for giving children good libraries.  Heck, I'm all for giving adults good libraries, even in the age of Google and Wikipedia.  With certain caveats, I'm all for giving children good technology in the classroom.  (To the extent I'm against it, I'm actually against it for all children.  And so are some of the tech heavyweights in Silicon Valley that actually produce that technology.  You'd be surprised at how intentionally low-tech some Silicon Valley multimillionaires want their children's education to be.)

 

But there are limits to how much "opportunity" can be made equal when that's such an expansive term.  Peer groups represent a source of opportunity but you will face ferocious resistance at forcibly reengineering peer groups via busing or any other coercive means.  Stable families, of course, are a major source of opportunity (a middle class child from a stable household will very open outperform divorced parents even when both divorced parents are making outstanding incomes); there is no way to "redistribute" that.  With a theoretically infinite budget, you could hire private tutors for every single child in the country, but when I teach my son letters and words and numbers, I have the advantage in keeping his attention that I'm his dad.  So on and so forth.  Trying to compensate for social capital with economic capital is very frequently a wasted effort--and yet disparities of social capital necessarily mean disparities of opportunity.

This is what the whole white/male/wealthy/etc privilege garbage arguments are all about. It focuses on trying to level the playing field by taking away advantages that others have in order to "level" the playing field from the beginning. 1) that is asinine and it sets everyone back when you do that and 2) there is never going to be a way to level the playing field. Everyone is an individual and has a different perspective and outlook and thoughts from the next person.  I look to my own family. My oldest child has certain advantages that my youngest will not have or middle because of his birth order. My youngest will have certain advantages that my oldest will not have because of her birth order, and the middle child benefits from his birth order in ways the other children cannot. They each bring different perspectives and viewpoints into life because of this and that affects how they will end up as adults.

 

Take this small sample and now extrapolate it out over the entire economy, now you add into the fact people come from different regions and have different experiences growing up. Someone who grows up with parents who are trained in classical piano are more likely to have the opportunity to do the same in their lifetime than my kids who are not as exposed to that.  You cannot create the equality people are searching for when you have individuals who come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences.