Democrats v. Poor Parents

As yes, those lovely teacher's unions! The main two questions that should be asked when dealing with vouchers, as with virtually any other issue, are: 1- Is it constitutional and 2- Does it work
.
Both are yes when it comes to vouchers. A child shouldn't be punished for happening to live in a run-down area.

Joe says-"But if the program is working for those children"
.
From the linked story-"The Department of Education recently issued a three-year analysis of student achievement under the program that found limited gains in reading and no significant progress in math."
.
There is something about this issue that brings out something in Joe. It is as if he can't make the case without hyperbole and vitriol. And frankly it diminishes his argument.

Actually, vouchers don't really work. They just concentrate better students in one place. Look at the results of the Chicago study on them. It was found that while students who received vouchers did better, there wasn't an appreciable difference in performance between students who requested and received vouchers and students who requested and didn't receive vouchers.
-
In other words, voucher requests were a good telltale indicator of which students were likely to do well, but they didn't necessarily impact performance.
-
It's unpopular to say, but for the most part, good parents and good families = good students, no matter the school. The single biggest predictor of academic success is still the number of books in a child's home, not the school district they're in.

The Department of Education recently issued a three-year analysis of student achievement under the program that found limited gains in reading and no significant progress in math.

.
Yeah those sorry Democrats and teachers unions who were running the Department of Education for the last three years. Oh wait...
.
Funny how those GREAT Republicans love to shill for school vouchers which costs money but are loathe to EVER increase funding for public schools which is the one way to help ensure that we don't NEED a frikkin voucher program. And shame on the teachers unions who represent people who get sh*tty pay for a thankless job. I mean why should they fight to get tenure for their union members just because they don't get paid worth a damn? Speaking as the son of two exceptional former high school teachers who were both union members from the bottom of my heart f*ck you Joe Klein. This is a Bush League post with a Bush League title from a journalist who at least for today is also pretty damn Bush League

Yes, the single biggest indicator of student success is family income, but to me this doesn't mean other methods should be tried. For me, the main issue is whether a student should be forced to attend a certain school based purely on geography. I happened to be born in a middle-class city with good schools. Why deny the same privilege (based on pure chance) to others just because they happen to live in a poorer area? And sg, vouchers, if implemented correctly, shouldn't cost extra money. You just take whatever money the state would've allotted for your education and take it to wherever you please.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2009/05/07/wapo-paints-obama-plan-kill-d-c-vouchers-middle-way-contentious-issue

sgwhite, the word is "loath", not "loathe", and DC spends more per capital on schools than any other place, and the results are crap. Money is being tossed down a rathole.
.
And schools in Chicago suck for a lot of people, Sean. The problem is generally that the bad apples ruin it for everyone.

Guarantee that the charter/parochial schools accept ESL students and special needs students. Then get back to me on the cost per pupil.
.
Different schools serve different students all with different costs attached. This isn't all that different from the "city schools WASTE so much money, here in my suburb we only spend 60% of that"

This is yet another problem that cannot be solved just by throwing money at it. We need to re-think the entire system and philosophy on this issue.

apollyon07- I read this down below and have to say that's a pretty interesting point.
.
"While Republican party ID is low, it has been standard in modern times that there are more Americans who identity as Democrats (admittedly not at this much disparity), but at the same time more Americans classify themselves as conservatives. Hence, the reason you hear America described frequently as a center-right country."
.
WAPO polled on this last month and you are right. I'm not sure what to draw from this (semantics? Would asking if one self identified as "progressive" change anything? Maybe people really are center-right whatever that means today) but it's something to think on. Thanks.

You're welcome! This is a somewhat little known fact that people need to realize. As for your uncertainty, some of it (though not a majority) has to do with the existence of conservative democrats. The kind I'm talking about are those who are conservative on social issues, and relatively liberal on economic ones. (argh, the opposite of me).

Speaking as a high-school math teacher and a union member (although I haven't seen my union rep this semester, come to think of it), let me first of all point out that I have not yet met a member of my profession who likes the "brain-dead, assembly-line" nature of traditional schooling, since we're the ones on the front lines seeing where and how it doesn't work. The factory-school model *never* worked for many students; the reason conservatives tend to think it did is that up until the '80s or so it simply wasn't a big deal for the students for whom it didn't work to drop out and get factory jobs. Those sorts of low-education jobs just aren't there anymore, but the students who would have taken them still are.
.
The reason that private/charter schools look more successful than public schools is that they get to pick and choose which students they will take. Discipline problems, special needs kids, ESL students, and students whose home lives simply don't value education are filtered out by default. The public schools, on the other hand, are committed to teaching every kid that shows up, and chasing down the kids that don't. Of course our results are going to look different!
.
And the people with a vested interest in maintaining the system instead of the students aren't the teachers; they're the administrators, especially the district admins who have been out of the classroom for five, ten, even twenty years. They're the ones who are so risk-averse that they smother all attempts at "bold, persistent experimentation" in favor of more skill-and-drill to get the kids to pass the No Child Sinister Buttock, er, sorry, Left Behind federally-mandaded and state-mandated high-stakes tests. We see the kids, day in and day out, and we care about them as human beings; all they see is a set of scores at the end of the year and its effect on their paychecks.

People just take for granted the concept of universal public education. Priveleged private schools in the UK are still referred to as "public schools", because they date from pre-universal public education. They were open to those of means. Public schools are a treasure that shouldn't be ransacked on false premises, driven largely by religious zealots who want funding for their own form of madrasah.
.
The key points here made by Klein and others are that parents are the biggest determinant of succuss in school, the voucher, and charter schools in net value are not more successful, the public school system are hurt by funding private enterprises. Even if these schools were more successful, which they aren't, wouldn't it make more sense to apply whatever basis there is for the success to the public system, for all student's benefit?

PNNTO
.
The word "liberal" has been demonized so much that almost nobody wants to self identify as one. I know several of my friends who say they are conservatives but they are also loyal democrats and when you ask them about specific policy questions they end up on the liberal side of most issues. I think its a branding thing more than anything else. Even some people who are pro life or are anti gay marriages are actually liberal on just about all other policy issues but they would never call themselves a liberal. What would make a lot more sense in the liberal vs conservative polling would be to come up with a set of policy questions that were non partisan then tally up their score to see if they actually are a liberal or a conservative. But until that time I expect that even if Democratic self identification doubles the polling numbers for liberals will stay stagnant. Remember, even President Obama won't come out and say he is a liberal, on the other hand Republicans rush for any microphone or television camera to brag about how conservative they are. Messaging is a mofo.

omorka, excellent post with examples, context, reasons, and consequences. Sadly, Joe lives in Boston 1974 and won't come out so it will be lost on him.

SG-that's sort of what I was thinking with semantics. I always say republican rather than conservative because I don't believe there are any real conservatives left. With any juice in the republican party anyway. We saw that the last 8 years.
.
apollyon07, I think SG's post addresses your comment too about conservative Democrats.

sg, I am a liberal and damn proud of it.

SG's post does address it somewhat but I don't think that it completely accounts for the total, large disparity. Besides, often polls such as these question people on specific issues. On a related note, it has been shown recently that Obama himself is moderately more popular than his policies. Same kind of idea.

omorka - good sinister/left translation association.

*ahem*
.
Right at this moment Al Sharpton is standing between Mike Bloomberg and Newt Gingrich talking about a meeting they all just had with President Obama about education. I can't wait to hear spongebob trash Newt Gingrich for standing on a stage with Al Sharpton and not denouncing him.
.
LOL

apollyon, Obama is presents a pleasant, intelligent, nonoffensive demeanor, and people naturally like him. For some, his policies enhance that image. For others, his policies don't change his natural appeal for now, but standby.

P-NNTO: While I tend to think of 1974 as a reasonably good year (after all, it gave me my debut upon the unsuspecting world), anyone whose educational policy is from that era needs to hie themselves to a modern-day classroom and see what's changed (and what hasn't!).
.
Of course, it's all GenX's fault. Back in the '80s, when the "Nation At Risk" report came out and all the controversy about our educational system being surpassed started, the public dialogue blamed the students - we were stupid, we didn't care about education, we just weren't as good and bold and upright as the Boomers before us had been. Now that the Silent have largely retired, and the Boomers are starting to, the educational profession is largely made up of GenXers, and the educational crisis is still our fault - we're lazy teachers, we're not working hard enough, we need to be held accountable by outside testing because looking into the eyes of a kid and being told "I don't get it" no matter what we do isn't punishment enough. I don't think the paradigm will shift the blame to where I think it belongs (the administrators who don't interact with kids) until another generation has cycled through and the GenXers, who are safe to blame, are in those district offices.

I've heard of private schools taking the public subsidy then kicking gay kids out. How would you deal with that?

apollyon
.
I know that you still read some right wing news and watch some right wing media. Here is something you should know. Just about every President who is popular is more popular than most of their policies. You can go back through history and its the same thing. This is a cannard used by right wing media mostly to lend skepticism to President Obama's agenda but its not unique that this is the case. What is unique about most of President Obama's agenda is that while his policies may lag his own personal approval rating most of them still have almost 60% approval. Right now you won't find many actual policies of the Republican party that approach even 50%. And remember I said ACTUAL policies, not some vague, general, party platform.

omorka, if you haven't seen it you need to check out a mock documentary called "Chalk". You will have a good laugh, I think.