By Public Teacher

March 4, 2009 10:15 PM | Link to this

The cooments here are a good starting point. I would like to add an area of thought. Do charter schools have to take every child regardless of ability, behavior or rather disability? What happens to the student when the charter school is tired of trying to deal with an unruly student? A second thought… I agree money may not be the best answer but parental accountability. An interesting numbers game… How many parents are envolved or value education in suburbia vs Urban districts. How many students in foster care in similar settings which equates to a stable home life regardless of income level. Fiscal responsibility is a must for all of us, I cut some wants from my family in order to purchase items used in the classroom, which I then try to recoop through tax deductions as a charitable gift to the school. Remeber that most teachers work in the classroom to help the children succeed regardless if it is a charter school or a public school.

By Dave

March 3, 2009 8:25 PM | Link to this

Oldprof, the state of Ohio can’t even come up with a constitutional way to fund public schools. Extra money would never be used to reduce tuition. And the private college and out-of-state college students would still be screwed.

By Mary

March 3, 2009 7:29 AM | Link to this

oldprof, it is debatable that an education at the moneyed schools is actually better. I think many families approach a college education as a prestige or social thing, not an intellectual experience. As I recall, the book “Beer and Circus - how big time college sports has crippled undergraduate education” divides students attending colleges into four main categories as far as motivation to attend. Getting a good education might have been one of them.

By Oldprof

March 2, 2009 8:58 AM | Link to this

Richard, if you think money does not contribute to quality, then tell me why successful people are willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in tuition to UD, Harvard, Yale, George Mason, Pepperdine—or, at the K-12 level, $41K/yr. at the Forman School in Litchfield, CT? See, the elite know that you get what you pay for—and they’re eager to keep your kids and mine from challenging theirs by “starving the beast” in public education.

By Oldprof

March 2, 2009 8:55 AM | Link to this

Dave, the state of Ohio recently showed that higher ed. is ready and capable of keeping tuition down with the right funding formula. If you want to know how much our federal government spends on servicing student loans, go to the USDOE websites and do just a little digging like I did. BTW, my figures didn’t account for savings that would accrue from reduced administrative costs—fewer FAFSA forms to score, fewer financial aid workers at colleges, no more Bill-Bennett paperwork that requires a student to submit an “I’m current on my student loan payments” from every prior institution, even if the student never took out a student loan anywhere before. Government-subsidized student loans are a horrible thing for everyone BUT bankers—who, as we’ve seen recently, should not be admired as paragons of financial stability.

By Oldprof

March 2, 2009 8:51 AM | Link to this

JT wants to know how charter schools have been worse. Just follow the news, JT. While there are a few excellent charters, by and large they are unstable. Many fail to report student or financial data required by the state. Several have closed in mid-year, which not only shocks the students’ progress but puts stress on the public schools that wind up receiving them. Given that charters made extravagent promises that they were the way to fix public education, and given that they didn’t, isn’t it time to give the other side of the argument a turn?

By Richard

February 28, 2009 10:39 PM | Link to this

But…but…throwing money at a problem is a magic pill that cures everything! How can this possibly fail? Reform is just a fad!

By Dave

February 28, 2009 8:40 PM | Link to this

Oldprof, ignoring for the moment that your suggestion would really screw the students at private and out-of-state schools, what makes you think the elimination of student loans would result in even a single cent additional money going to cut tuition at schools?

By JT

February 28, 2009 12:57 PM | Link to this

Liberals want to support failed educational programs, especially in urban areas because they know keeping their rank in file stupid is the only way they can win and keep power. Obama has proven that by pulling the wool over so many people’s eyes to win the election. He has no interest in fixing public education. How have charter schools done any worse educating students than public education has, especially in Dayton? There are a few pockets of success within the district but as a whole, it is a failure and it’s had 30 years to be bad, unlike the charter schools, which have had less than 10 years to be bad.

By Oldprof

February 27, 2009 9:32 PM | Link to this

I think Obama has education wrong. His support for the failed charter school experiment suggests that he hasn’t seen the numbers. College student loans are not subsidies for education, rather they subsidize bankers. Eliminate all student loans and we save enough on interest and default subsidies to cut tuition for every college student by $1200 per year or more—which would REALLY make Sinclair and WSU affordable.