Public School Surrender

Is it possible to maintain responsibilty and authority over your children while they are attending public school? Or are we giving it all away when we enroll them?

Public Schools vs. Cyber Schools

Our local paper had an article about cyber schools today. A few things caught my attention.

A superintendent of a traditional school

"suggests finding an alternative way to assist in funding other than through
the home district."

The article also stated

As part of the public school system, cyber charter schools receive about 75
percent of the per-pupil funding of a student’s district of residence. When
parents enroll their child in a public charter school, the resident district no
longer has any responsibility for the education of that child."

I have a hard time understanding why school districts think they should receive per- pupil appropriations for students they no longer educate. For one thing, the home district might write the check, but the money isn’t generated by the district. It is TAXPAYER money to begin with! Some of those taxpayers choose an alternate form of education. If they happen to choose another public form, their child still deserves that per-pupil funding as much as any traditionally schooled child.. The home district shouldn’t even be keeping the 25% unless the student participates in district athletics or other extra curricular activities.



From a superintendent at another school ....

Bower said that with more students moving online for education, Rockwood must
find ways to compete.

Mr. Bower gets it! He understands that schools are being forced into competition. The big government education monopoly is slowly coming to an end. While that may be distressing to some districts, it will benefit our children greatly. After all, educating our children is what it’s all about, isn’t it? Funding the operation of a bottomless money pit is not my priority, nor that of most other parents who send their children to school. There will never be enough money to appease any district. They need more, more, more. Cyber schools, charter schools, and home schools are all proving that more money is not the solution to our education crisis. In most cases, these alternatives are producing better results with less money. Why wouldn’t that be appealing to parents? Why shouldn’t the taxpaying parent have a choice? And why should taxpayer money continue to support only the least effective means of education?
Many countries out performing US schools (and there are many) credit school choice - competition created by attaching the money to the child rather than the district of residence. I have a feeling our bureaucratic thinkers will cite the success to a national curriculum and ignore the competitive factor. As it is now, teachers and administration are not accountable to parents. We are merely a nuisance to many educators. Parents are the number one complaint of many professionals. The job wouldn’t be bad if they didn’t have to deal with parents. I would take that to mean poorly mannered, rude parents because I’ve seen parents treat teachers horribly. But as a parent who has experienced the “let me do my job” syndrome first hand, I can tell you many teachers don’t want bothered with parents at all. They are extremely defensive and resentful of any opinions or input regarding OUR children. This has to change. While I understand there are lazy parents who have the “he’s your problem from 8 to 3" mentality, many of us are simply not that way. Even so, a financial shift would also shift the responsibility, rightfully, back to the parents, who would then be making decisions about their child’s education even if they were they type to never give it a thought before.

http://http//www.tribune-democrat.com/local/local_story_322002529.html

John Edwards On Education

Presidential candidate, John Edwards thinks he has a solution for education reform. For one, he proposes increasing the salaries of teachers up to $15,000 in high poverty areas.

Then I read an article that says this:
Numerous research studies have shown that the quality of teachers is the single most important contributor to student achievement. Indeed, teacher effectiveness has been found to matter more than the students’ income level, their race, or their parents’ level of education. While teacher salaries are not an infallible proxy for teacher quality, they are one of the best indicators we have of teachers’ experience, skills and knowledge.

Should we understand that the teachers in these high poverty schools are ineffective.? Yet John Edwards wants to pay them MORE! Yes, I realize a higher salary supposedly attracts more highly qualified teachers, but with tenure how are the schools going to get rid of the obviously lacking teachers who are already there? They won't. The fruitless teachers will continue to do a lousy job and get paid more for it. Why not offer a bonus to teachers who perform well? An across the board increase doesn't make sense to me. Better yet... why not offer school choice to parents?


Another grand idea of his is to create universal preschool. Is he unaware of the recent studies showing the negative effects of sending children to school too early?

Our children are preparing for unprecedented global economic competition," Edwards said in the policy statement.
Then why is he worried about babies going to school earlier rather than the sharp academic decline from grade 8 to 12?

Belief Statement

“We believe that children are our greatest resource” and it takes a village to
raise a child so it must involve education, family, church, and the entire
community.

Would you believe this garbage is on our school's website as part of their belief statement? And people deny the fact that there is a liberal agenda in our public schools. LOL! Seriously, I would bet the person responsible doesn't even realize how objectionable that comment is. It has become cliche - thanks to the good ole liberal media. People unknowingly buy into what they hear. I've been there.

It does NOT take a village to raise a child. It takes devoted PARENTS.
I know, I know...but parents aren't doing what they should as far as their kids are concerned. Why do you suppose that is? Hmmm... maybe because they don't have to. They can rely on the parental government/schools to do just about everything for them - breakfast, lunch, before school care, after school care, after school snack, tutoring, guidance, physicals, dental exams, and so on. Shame on the parents who are content to give it all up in order to make life a little easier. And shame on the government for encouraging this forbearance in order to add another drone to the work force. The government will gladly take over your children so you can contribute to the economy. Heck, they'll even give you money to pay someone else to watch your kids. Money, money, money!
We all benefit from an educated populace - true. We need education and I can see the government wanting to make that a priority, but why wouldn't they encourage people to parent first and foremost? Undoubtedly, society would benefit from that far more.


I'm planning on reading Rick Santorum's book - "It Takes a Family". Now, that I might agree with. Reading this "belief statement" might have inspired me to get to the book faster.