School Choice=No Separate Divisions

[BigShow1]

Unfortunatley to fully explain my desire in this post would take too much time and would be more reading than most would want to deal with. So if people reply with reasons they would be for or against this then I could reply and hopefully people will understand the need for this.

 

With school choice in regards to athletics and academics, parents could send their child anywhere to school as we currently do in our colleges. One could call it a voucher program but government money would in essence be sent where the parent wanted their child to attend school. This would motivate our schools and our school athletic departments to hire the best teachers, best coaches, and even pay those who are better more than others in an effort to convince parents to send their child to the best school possible. This as we do now in college. No one argues whether American colleges are the best in the world most agree that ours are. But we grade far lower in our secondary schools.

 

With this change we could eliminate the separation of private and public schools in regards to TSSAA because all schools could recruit as they do in college now. Athletes who want to be great at basketball will have more motivation to get better because every child will have the oppurtunity to play for a Jody Wright or a Rickey Norris or whoever they deem to be the best coach for them in the best system. Many today are less motivated being stuck at a school where they feel the coaching is lacking or athletics and more importantly academics are not taken seriously. Academically I and others have been pushing for school choice instead of being forced to go where you are zoned in for a while now. With this competition would increase. And competition is what motivates so much innovation and improvement in our lives to take place. I believe it would work with academics and athletics as well. This would make coaching more challenging but also more fun. The coaches that work the hardest and are the best would make more. Thus more coaches will work harder to earn this higher pay. This student athletes will become better players in the state. What objections would people have towards this?

[old24eagle]

There are not enough qualified teachers and coaches in TN to keep a full staff right now let alone stir up competition to help motivate them to do better. Regardless of what most people think 90% of teachers are doing the best they can with what they have.

 

Whenever you see a school or athletic program failing it is most likely due to poor resources and finances and lack of support at home NOT from lack of effort by Teachers and coaches.

 

This would only worsen the problem by enabling only those who can afford it send their child to different schools. Even with Gov. Vouchers transportation can still be too costly for some.

 

In a perfect world your idea would be great , but you have to remember secondary schools must TRY to educate everyone and only the best go to college. Your comparing apples to oranges.

[BigShow1]

I totally disagree. Teachers do not always give it their all that would be silly to say. I have been in classes and seen it for myself. There are great teachers out there that make the same as others who don't try. Go to NYC where they have the rubber room teachers that sit there and do paper work because they won't take a shower or teach but the Teacher Unions will defend their tenure and its more costly to fire and fight the lawsuit than to pay them for sitting in a room. So they have a building just for these teachers and pay them teacher salary while paying an actual teacher in the school too.

 

Furthermore the amount of money spent per student in the U.S. I believe is over 10K and it is higher in many of our poorer schools. America spends more money per student on education than any other nation last time I looked. That is when every bit is taken into account. I know there is no perfect scenerio but competition breeds better things in every walk of life and people say it won't in education and athletics. Besides if a good teacher/coach could make 70K a year... don't you think some people who choose not to teach in order to do something that can make them more money might choose teaching/coaching. They might be really good at it too.

 

Lastly all studies show this. School Choice would most help those people that most anti-choice people claim to look out for. Inner Schools and failing schools would benefit the most. There are some who go to those schools that do not have the resources to move out. But there are many who's parent would love to drive them 15 or 20 miles to go to a non-private school that functions better than the current school. If it is only 100 students out of 1000 that would benefit it would be worth it than to make all 1000 struggle.

 

I have never understood how people can argue competition will only make something worse when our society is a testament to the contrary.

[old24eagle]

I totally disagree. Teachers do not always give it their all that would be silly to say. I have been in classes and seen it for myself. There are great teachers out there that make the same as others who don't try. Go to NYC where they have the rubber room teachers that sit there and do paper work because they won't take a shower or teach but the Teacher Unions will defend their tenure and its more costly to fire and fight the lawsuit than to pay them for sitting in a room. So they have a building just for these teachers and pay them teacher salary while paying an actual teacher in the school too.

 

Furthermore the amount of money spent per student in the U.S. I believe is over 10K and it is higher in many of our poorer schools. America spends more money per student on education than any other nation last time I looked. That is when every bit is taken into account. I know there is no perfect scenerio but competition breeds better things in every walk of life and people say it won't in education and athletics. Besides if a good teacher/coach could make 70K a year... don't you think some people who choose not to teach in order to do something that can make them more money might choose teaching/coaching. They might be really good at it too.

 

Lastly all studies show this. School Choice would most help those people that most anti-choice people claim to look out for. Inner Schools and failing schools would benefit the most. There are some who go to those schools that do not have the resources to move out. But there are many who's parent would love to drive them 15 or 20 miles to go to a non-private school that functions better than the current school. If it is only 100 students out of 1000 that would benefit it would be worth it than to make all 1000 struggle.

 

I have never understood how people can argue competition will only make something worse when our society is a testament to the contrary.

Notice were I did not say all , I said 90%. Show me someone in ANY profession that ALWAYS gives it their all. Teachers and Coaches in TN. aren't just there for the $$$ , mainly because it's not there! Which is why I say most do the best they can because it's what they love doing, if they didn't they would find a job that isn't so hard and stressful that actually pays a descent wage. I also never said anything about NYC , I thought we were talking about TN. There is already a shortage of Teachers in this state already , if you started demanding more and competing for students just to keep their jobs someone better show up with some $$$ when most Teachers make less than 35k per year you better not get too demanding. As I said most arent in it for the money but if you start this there needs to be something extra in it for them. I would have the same question for this that I do for Obamas Health Care Plan, Where is this $$$$ gonna come from? Me? You? the Tooth Fairy?

[PHargis]

I think I am going to agree with someone but leave the athletics out. In larger population areas it is already happening and only time will tell when either zones change, are eliminated due to school maintenance or new schools will be built. Even today a lot of AAA schools in Eastern Tennessee are being dropped to AA because of School Population. But why would that be? IMO, more schools than students. Privates are being built and publics aren't. They can be built on just any corner for any reason and Public Schools have to deal with tax efficiency, bussing cost, academic needs and larger classes and qualified teachers and consequently larger buildings. It keeps the cost of education down. If population changes due to whtever and schools have less students, the first thing that is done is to promote the school due to curriculum and most of the time open zoning to keep the cost of education down. Too often doing it is behind the curve because its hard to make that choice so then smaller schools may be more needed and small privates fill the need. Public schools just will not build small schools. The cost is too high. The time will come that larger schools will be built in population areas to meet the needs. It is unclear who will beat who to the punch but a well run Public School will be hard to beat for efficiency. An older Public School may not be able to provide community support for other reasons.

IMO, there should not be seperate Public/Private school system. But keep athletics away from the reasons for attendance. And find some way to zone both. If someone wants to be in an area, let them build a school. Don't transfer kids everywhere.

[Indian]

Good points..in Chattanooga alone, Red Bank, Chattanooga Central, Brainerd, Hixson, East Ridge, Howard (briefly) all have had Class AAA level numbers and are now all in Class AA. Yet you have a couple of terribly overcrowded schools in Chattanooga, but that's another topic.

[BigShow1]

I'm glad this has become a good dialogue. I love teaching. I'm a teacher myself. There are people in this line of work that work hard and many that do not. Teaching is an easy degree to get in college. It is tough though to be a good teacher. Bad teachers make the same amount as good teachers and thus there is less motivation to continue being a great teacher. I will always do my best no doubt but not everyone will. Whether we want to say it or not money motivates and I do not believe there is anything immoral about that. Money will motivate teachers too. You missed my point though. With competition (no zoning laws) schools have a reason to compete for students and thus they will look to hire the best teachers who can attract the most students thus raising their funding. Teachers who are good teachers will work there, more students (thus filling up schools that are not full yet) and those teachers will make more money. For example a good history teacher at a good school could teach classes of 70 students in a room much like freshmen would go to in college. That teacher could make, due to the extra funding with the more students coming to that school, say 50-60,000 dollars instead of the 35,000 they currently make. The money is there because the school is full now with more students and the money following the students. Other schools would pay less and the quality of education not as good as that school but the quality will be better than the already failing schools of today. Because those teachers are thinking: "I'm going to get better so that I can get to that bigger school one day." There would be fewer schools because some schools would fail and most schools would be larger but better schools.

 

You act like teachers don't care about $ but teachers who get masters degrees 90% of the time are thinking about the extra few thousand not becoming a better teacher. Same thing with EDS degrees. Why do you think a lot of teachers want to become principals their last five years? Because retirement is based on your average salary your last few years. Money talks loud. Oh by the way... there is nothing wrong with doing something for money. You should love what you do. But most things that are all about money.. are usually ran pretty well and efficiently. Money motivates people whether you and I believe it moral or not.

 

From the athletic standpoint once again the reason I bring this up is this. Choices and Freedom. If someone is against school choice they apparently do not like freedom. How is it American to tell a child and his/her parents they must attend this school in this zone and can not go anywhere else unless you want to go to a private school and pay for that while also paying taxes to pay for our government schools? Why not simple say: "Government is to help promote a better life for people. People can make better decisions than the government. You can choose where you want to attend school." Not everyone would take this oppurtunity. But is that any reason to not allow the oppurtunity to others?

[PHargis]

Sounds reasonable. But takes a lot of cooperation to get all of that done and a lot of selling. Searching and finding short term achievable goals that might move the bar quicker could get your goals quicker.

[rick7425]

What is the more effective educational model -- large schools with students from a large geographic area, or smaller neighborhood schools?

 

What happens when there aren't enough spots at the "good" schools for the kids who want to go there?

 

What happens when poor families can't send their children to the "good" schools because they can't transport them there?

 

What if unlimited choice in the public schools leads to de facto segregation?

 

And what do you do about the substantial number of people, both parents and educators, who believe that the type of athletic recruiting that happens at the college level is not appropriate when you're talking about 13-year-old children?

 

Just a few questions that come to mind.

[PHargis]

Rick, again you have rhetorically drilled down to the questions involved. While some areas things just work out as citizens in communities want it to as to planning, other areas do not and planning seems to go down the drain. large schools go down and arre reduced in size due to your questions. There are some problems which I didn't mention and that is flexability. Some schools can handle that and others just can't do it. This includes motivation, change and making small sections out of a large boxes based on need. Some do it, and some don't based on vision. However, schools who don't strive to provide the best of everything in their product regardless of student leave themselves to criticism from without and within. Then comes your last paaragraph.

Great Principals make Great Schools but great teachers provide community support. What many schools don't do is see and keep up with objectively their customers needs. This transcends the big small issue if done right. Might answer some of your questions if not all. Everyone is in the same shape as far a problems are concerned no matter where you are on the issue. Some "hype" their side better because of unknowns. Some can throw more money and some just haven't. Nothing is beyond keeping up. Just need a "customer service" area.

[BigShow1]

And now we get to the beautiful part.

 

What happened to Walmart when more people kept shopping there and they became overcrowded and people started wanting groceries? SuperCenters. Today they are just called Walmart because all Walmarts are supercenters. Schools build on. They become crowded and the principals and the board of directors of that school are like now it is time to use this extra funding to build bigger schools. I am not agaisnt having a high school with 3000 students or 4000. In just a couple years many of those students will be going to colleges with 20,000 students. So bring on the concstruction. Then more kids will be able to attend.

 

Poor parents are already having to send their children to bad schools in many cases. The point if you would read some of my posts(I know their long) is that all schools get better because those teachers that have little motivation to do good because they don't get pay increases, etc... will now be motivated to do better. Bad schools get better. And worse case scenerio, it gives some of those kids an oppurtunity that they currently do not have.

 

Why would I stop hundreds of thousands of kids in Tennessee not be allowed to go to the school of thier choosing because some of the poor kids can't get transportation to the school of their choice? So you think that because this poor person can't get transportation there should be a government entity say no one can? You can't afford healthcare so Bill Gates can't get any either? people only think that way in regards to education. Why? The most important or one of the most important institutions in our nation and this is where we ask common sense questions that are addressed everyday in the business world. The world where America is greatest.

 

I have to go workout now. My friend is rushing me!

[rick7425]

BigShow1, I think that some of your efforts to draw analogies between public education and the private sector fail because of some realities you are disregarding. Public education is funded with taxpayer dollars, so you can't decide you are just going to leave out those who can't afford transportation or whatever else it takes to avail themselves of equal access to the good schools. When the government decided that it was going to be in the education business, then constitutional principles became a part of the public education process (some who favor a lot of government intervention into the field of health insurance might want to consider this). One of those principles is the Fourteenth Amendment requirement of equal protection of the laws. Fifty-five years ago, the United States Supreme Court declared that separate is not equal. You can't just disregard these principles and take a sort of survival-of-the-fittest approach to education in the public sector. Of course, the shortcomings that these principles cause are among the reasons for the growth of independent schools.

 

As far as the idea that Walmart Super Centers and schools are comparable, I respectfully disagree. The first is a retail store, the second a service business. When it comes to service, I think of restaurants; and I will take a small local restaurant where they know me and consequently give me great service over the larger chain restaurant any day. I don't profess to be an expert on matters of education philosophy, but I grew up in the Metro school system in the days of neighborhood schools, before the advent of the large "comprehensive" high schools. I think neighborhood schools, where the teachers and parents saw each other at the grocery store; where the teachers and administrators knew all of the students by name; and where there was true community support for the schools, were better places for learning than the larger schools we have now. Just my opinion.

 

Of course, since this is largely a board for posting matters related to athletics, there remains that issue you raised of having high school coaches recruiting 13-year-old children for sports just like the colleges recruit now. Some folks (me included) might think that would be a really bad idea. That gets into the purposes of high school sports, the risks of exploitation of young children, things like that.