School Choice=No Separate Divisions

[BigShow1]

lets back up a minute now. The walmart analogy was only used in reference to building bigger buildings. You questioned there not being enough room in the "good" schools and I said more funding due to more students equals more construction just like Supercenters. That is all that analogy was used for.

 

The Constitution also says all things not covered in the Constitution would be taken care of by the States. Education is not a part of the U.S. Constitution and thus I would rather have more State involvement anyways. Now I would have to read the Tennessee Constitution to see from there. But your argument does not hold firm either in this regard. The Constitution now grants women and black people equal right to vote but they do not transport them to the vothing booth because there might be a higher percentage of them that do not own a car or something. The constitution side of the argument is way too far out there to try and say that because the government(tax payers) fund something like education that thus every child must be given transportation to any school of thier choosing. Just equal oppurtunity. Constitutionally this means that government can not stop you from doing so. For example there is not guaranteed freedom of speech. If there was children would sue when the teacher said stop talking. That is funny to even think about. The Constitution simply says the U.S. congress shall make no law restricting your freedom of speech.

 

If anything one could argue that the Constitution should not restrict us from attending the school of our choosing. So I would stay away from the constitutional argument side of this.

 

Lastly, I understand the recruiting of a 13 year old thing. What is great is that parents still have a say so in all these matters. Again I don't know that the recrutiting would become a huge problem. But I simply support an individuals right to choose if they want to play for Coach Wright at Fulton instead of Joe Somebody at a school that does not take it as serious. That sounds reasonable to me.

[rick7425]

BigShow1, I will respond to the last part first just because it is the simplest. If the only issue were the right of parents to choose whether their child will play football for this coach or that one, you would be right. But recruiting, by its very nature, goes beyond just the parents making decisions and gets into coaches and others trying to influence those decisions -- and not necessarily with the child's best interest as the foremost consideration.

 

As for the issues involving the constitution, you're probably going to find yourself in disagreement with the Tennessee Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court, and federal judges in a lot of places. Does the federal government belong in education? Maybe not. That's a matter of educational philosophy. but they are in it, with Title I, the IDEA, and a host of other programs (some funded and some not). And once the federal government is in a program, then the federal constitutional requirement of equal protection of the laws is an issue. At the state level, the Tennessee Constitution includes a guarantee of equal educational opportunity (the basis upon which the entire funding mechanism was changed for public education as a consequence of the Small Schools litigation). In addition, the Tennessee Constitution grants to the state legislature the exclusive authority to determine the makeup and structure of public education in Tennessee. This means that state constitutional provisions calling for equal protection of the laws, as well as the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (which applies to the states), must be considered when you are dealing with public education in Tennessee.

 

Merely saying that anyone can choose any school doesn't necessarily mean that educational opportunity is equal. Transportation is indeed an element of insuring that the opportunity is indeed equal. That is part of the reason why there no longer are traditional neighborhood schools in many metropolitan school districts and why federal courts have used busing orders to insure desegregation of the schools. If you put your choice system in place, and you wind up with de facto segregation, I don't think the fact that inner city kids from poor homes without a means of transportation had "equal opportunity" to enroll in the good schools, if they could figure out some way to get to them, is going to get that school system out of litigation for violating the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

Again, just my opinion.

[BigShow1]

You sound like a very well informed person. But again while I do not know of every court case you have referred to. And while I'm sure you might be right that under the current Supreme Court they would probably use thier power to possibly outlaw the perfect school choice bill that I have given an example of. But we know that supreme courts are wrong many times as well. Constitutionally speaking again equal oppurtunity means not taken away from anyone on bases of gender, race, etc... Again from the original intent of the constitution (and hopefully we will soon have that original intent ideology dominate the Judicial Branch) equal oppurtunity does not grant everyone the right to anything but does not allow the congress to limit your access. Congress can't keep this person from going here due to race, gender, etc... Which is a great law. It does not say that anything that is government funded must be spoon fed to everyone if that person cannot drive themselves to the voting booth or to that school.

 

Lets get back to topic away from the constitution. I'm not trying to push ideology on anyone just throwing some ideas around. Do you not agree that even the "weaker" schools would benefit in that the teachers there will work much harder even if their ultimate desire is to get hired at the larger school and make more money? As it currently is there is no motivation beyond inner heart morale to get schools to do everything they can to educate a person. I just have never in my life could have imagined the United States of America while outlawing a parents right to choose where their kid is educated, could argue it on the bases that A) Not everyone has great parents to keep their child's best interest at heart, that not every family will have the money or resources to drive their kid to school thus I don't think anyone should have that freedom, C) that because some people might abuse the system (coaches do everything they can to get a child to play for them) thus we should not allow the system.

 

I don't know where I stand on the coaches having the ability to try and get a 14 year old to go to a specific high school as being a bad thing. Hey child let me show you our facilities, you know my knowledge and record as a coach. Here is our weightroom. Oh and Mom and Dad good to meet you let me introduce you to our dean of education and show you how good of an education your child will get here. I just don't see the harm in that. Yah some kids will have to deal with coaches pulling them in different directions and maybe not always with the best intentions.. but I just don't know if the negatives of that outweigh the positives. Economics is about weighing the good and the bad. And in this case maybe the good would be much better than the bad? Would you not agree?

[rick7425]

BigShow1, you and I probably can't agree on the constitutional issues. While I tend to think that the original intent of the framers ordinarily should control, as a society we have to admit that some things have changed since then (such as the abolition of slavery, granting women the right to vote, etc.). The way that the constitutional provisions like the equal protection clause are read must change to some degree with those changes. Fifty-five years ago in Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court decided that the "separate but equal" doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson was wrong and that separate was not equal when it came to race. I don't think even the most ardent originalist on the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia, would argue that Brown v. Board of Education was wrongly decided.

 

As for the whole recruiting issue, we're probably not going to agree on that either. It has a little something to do with my philosophy about what high school sports should be about. While winning is important in any endeavor where the score is kept, sports are played in the schools (as opposed to independent leagues like AAU basketball and travel soccer) in order to support the educational missions of those schools. I think the educational missions, not the sports, should lead the way. I also think that terrible and long-lasting harm can be done to a child if that child is lured to a school where he is an academic or social misfit for the sake of sports success. While I would hope that his parents usually would not let that happen, we all have seen too many situations where parents get too caught up in their child's athletic exploits. In my way of thinking, success in high school sports on the scoreboard or the won-lost record is just not important enough to rationalize the damage that can be done to a child by recruiting for the sake of sports.

[cbg]

There are two words that tell the whole story as to why public school competition will not take place in my lifetime: TEACHERS UNION

 

Let's be honest and tell the truth, the teachers union makes sure that the bad teachers get paid as much as the good teachers!

 

In order for public school education reform to take place someone must first break the teachers union & that would be no small task.

[rick7425]

Teacher pay in Tennessee comes in two parts, the state minimum portion of the salary and the local supplement. The state minimum is based on the teacher's degree and years of experience. It is consistent across the board in part because the Tennessee constitution mandates equal educational opportunity, and variations in the state-mandated portion of the salary from one locality to another arguably would be contrary to that constitutional mandate.

 

The local supplement is set by local boards of education. Local school boards typically will set local supplements based on degree and years of experience as well. They do so as a matter of convenience, not because they are required to by law. In addition, for the last several years state law has allowed local school systems to adopt differential pay systems.

 

While the Tennessee Education Association lobbies at the state level, it is the local "teachers union" that may have some influence on salaries for teachers in a particular local school system, by negotiating with the local school board over the local supplement portion of the teachers' salary. In a school system where a majority of the teachers choose to be members of the local teacher's union, that union has the power to engage in collective bargaining with the school board. In a school system where the local board of education treats its teachers as valued employees, the teachers union probably won't enjoy majority support, and therefore won't have the power to engage in collective bargaining -- the school board can set the local supplement portion of teachers' salaries as it sees fit.

 

Even where there is collective bargaining, ultimately the school board doesn't have to agree to anything, and state law effectively prohibits teachers from engaging in a strike to get their economic demands met. The local teachers union does not have the power to set the salaries.

 

The "teachers union" has become a convenient whipping boy for what ails public education, but in reality the responsibility for this government operation lies with the public officials who are elected or appointed to run it.

[PHargis]

Or with you and I who elect them.

[fiftyfifty]

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.

 

To quote you, there should not be seperate public-private school systems, but you stated that you are leaving sports out of this post. Thus my question, how could private schools and public schools be in the same school systems. Answer, they cannot, except in the area of sports and it seems they cannot do this either.

[PHargis]

Your question and then answering it yourself with your own spin is not worth an answer as you have your own answers based on your own bias. Like talking to yourself in the mirror, know the feeling? As long as there is that approach you have suceeded in stopping discussion before it even starts. Other states do this. They find ways to make things work but the financial hurt is not bad enough yet. The motivation to get out of the status quo is not there. The need to seperate elementary and middle schools has not been experienced by constituants to find there are better ways to educate and why? The horse and buggy, one room school, is still in place. Educating age groups together is advantageous. It's no wonder that costs are high. Certainly not doing so might even be higher but likely in some private high schools might keep the possibilty of recruiting down. Tuitions will continue to rise. Its inevitable. Too many costs involved. Extracurricular activities having to be scheduled apart from activities of schools in the rest of the state are a little bit of a problem in MS but a part of small schools facilities but workable but again separates the students. So are there other reasons, maybe?

Publics are not all great but some are worse than others and until older schools feel the responsibility to keep the facilities in top notch shape, some are vulnerable. Yes, some try to blame the private schools scheduling problems on publics. What a cop out. Except for 7 schools in each Division, what difference does it make? But you know, all of this makes no difference. As your attitude exhibits, no one will try to find a way. There is one. Status quo. The further it goes the harder it gets to change. For those privates who feel the need to maintain their place in the communities they are in but feel the need to make a statement flor the reason they exist, you deserve commendation for your effort. It is evident in your hard work. The schools around you respect you. In fact all schools respect each other, its just the missions are different. The students are the same. Or are they? Wonder what happened to the tolerance? Oh, thats another age group. But we're going to have to exist together. Oh, thats not a part of education. We'll worry about that later in life. It's working so don't worry about it. Or is it?

This is posted as an opinion, shoulde have been on another forum, and not meant to be disrespectful to anyone.

[fiftyfifty]

Your question and then answering it yourself with your own spin is not worth an answer as you have your own answers based on your own bias. Like talking to yourself in the mirror, know the feeling? As long as there is that approach you have suceeded in stopping discussion before it even starts. Other states do this. They find ways to make things work but the financial hurt is not bad enough yet. The motivation to get out of the status quo is not there. The need to seperate elementary and middle schools has not been experienced by constituants to find there are better ways to educate and why? The horse and buggy, one room school, is still in place. Educating age groups together is advantageous. It's no wonder that costs are high. Certainly not doing so might even be higher but likely in some private high schools might keep the possibilty of recruiting down. Tuitions will continue to rise. Its inevitable. Too many costs involved. Extracurricular activities having to be scheduled apart from activities of schools in the rest of the state are a little bit of a problem in MS but a part of small schools facilities but workable but again separates the students. So are there other reasons, maybe?

Publics are not all great but some are worse than others and until older schools feel the responsibility to keep the facilities in top notch shape, some are vulnerable. Yes, some try to blame the private schools scheduling problems on publics. What a cop out. Except for 7 schools in each Division, what difference does it make? But you know, all of this makes no difference. As your attitude exhibits, no one will try to find a way. There is one. Status quo. The further it goes the harder it gets to change. For those privates who feel the need to maintain their place in the communities they are in but feel the need to make a statement flor the reason they exist, you deserve commendation for your effort. It is evident in your hard work. The schools around you respect you. In fact all schools respect each other, its just the missions are different. The students are the same. Or are they? Wonder what happened to the tolerance? Oh, thats another age group. But we're going to have to exist together. Oh, thats not a part of education. We'll worry about that later in life. It's working so don't worry about it. Or is it?

This is posted as an opinion, shoulde have been on another forum, and not meant to be disrespectful to anyone.

 

You have problems going from A to B. You STATED that you were going to keep sports out of your earlier response, and then stated that public and private school systems should not be seperate. But your response above is chocked full of sports reasons. I want clarification. Are you saying that there should not be private schools? If you are, then this is my response to you. There will be private schools as long as there is schools period. The first schools in this country were Catholic schools and it is an part of the church's overall mission to educate, not an option not to educate, it has to be done and will be done. As to the sports part of it, it is secondary in importance and that is what seperates myself from you. As to your wild remarks concerning biases, no one and I mean no one is more biased as proven by their ballyhoo on many topics than you. And once again, you said you were not going to respond to my posts, you lied again. PS on the volleyball thread, could you post about the damage and hurt that having the Mid Tn Classic at the new location has caused, I would like to know. One other thing, isn't you experience limited to attending a small private college called David Lipscomb, so should you not limit your comments about the public school system which is a entirely different animal than when you attended school. Most all schools were good back then, just not now.

[fiftyfifty]

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.

 

Rick, I think there is no question that smaller schools are much more effective and conducive to learning. Another poster says build the bigger schools because the children will be going to colleges with 20,000 students or more. But many, many children go to smaller colleges and if someone looked closely at test scores and percentage of those earning degrees, the smaller schools would come out on top. All one needs to do is compare what ACT score it takes to get in to many of the major universities versus what it takes to get in the smaller colleges and universities. If anyone has sat in a classroom with 200 other students, this happens at UT often, versus sitting in a classromm with 20 other students, who do you think is going to get more individual attention, thus learn more, the smaller class wins every time.

Thank God, I never had to attend a high school with three or four thousand kids, I would not have made it.

[rick7425]

stbulldog, my own limited experience (in my own upbringing and in the raising of my children) leads me to the same conclusion as you. I believe the smaller neighborhood schools provide a better educational experience for students at the secondary level. I recognize that it is difficult and perhaps impossible in some places to have neighborhood schools when housing patterns can lead to the result that those schools are racially segregated. I also know that there are theories about trying to provide students with a broader range of opportunities, recognizing that the college track is not the track for all. But I haven't seen anything in the large comprehensive school setting that makes me think that it represents, overall, an improvement in secondary education.