99: For sure, not saying any of us should be listened to, but human minds work that way, so I thought I would mention my experience on the other side. Carry on with actual science.

I think to be perfectly honest people place way too much emphasis on the type of schooling. Schooling through 8th grade is not really about learning facts, it's about learning social interaction and figuring out what kind of person you like (to be friends with). Some schools are better than others, even significantly, at preparing kids for standardized tests (which I'm not necessarily belittling; this involves actual learning of facts). But those facts aren't really relevant to life most of the time. Obviously it's not totally irrelevant, but I honestly don't think that within the general range of schools in this country that it really matters so much.

96 - That's totally fair. In my experience, there are two distinct "branches" of NYC private schools. There are the touchy-feely ones that promote individuality and self-esteem at the expense of giving actual grades, promoting work-ethic and achievement etc...and then there's the ones we went to. Where they basically work you to death starting at a fairly young age.

This email was not intended to sanctimonious, and I'm fairly certain the second category can have negative ramifications for some or all of the students. Just my two cents.

Couple examples of what I'm talking about:

Brick colonial with three bedrooms and two baths, good schools, big flat yard, close to shopping. Listed at $149,900.

Three-bedroom brick ranch, good schools, easy commute via Route 19. Listed at $129,900.

Etc.

This led to me spending a few minutes searching Youtube for the Wire clip in which Carcetti's chief of staff says, "Kids don't vote." Sadly, I was unable to find it.

I forgot about that scene.

Man, that show was both awesome and depressing at the same time.

What does "dictating a curriculum" mean? Everyone pretty much knows what kids should be taught -- math, mainstream science, great books, English composition, etc. It really isn't a mystery, and there's no serious doubt. I suppose things get a little tricky with human sexuality and its interaction with science/health but that's less than 1% of any serious system of study.

It sounds like you want to reserve the right for schools to teach kids, at the very least, political ideology -- if not outright bvllshit.

No. I just don't want schools forced to teach the education bureaucracy's ideology either.

I'm fine with academic standards.

In my experience, there are two distinct "branches" of NYC private schools.

That's what I've heard, too. The ones I took a peek at happened to be the touchy-feely kind (**); at that point we just decided to take the forceful recommendation of the private preschool headmaster and send the kid to the neighborhood PS. (The only other contender was a French-speaking school which would have been a disaster.)

(**) One, embarassingly so, the spine of one of the senior guys' presentation to hundreds of parents being the insistence on the "genius" LeBron James demonstrates by the mere act of dribbling the basketball to the floor while moving -- the physics and brainpower of it all being something akin to splitting the atom, I guess. This by way of justifying the no report cards until 8th grade policy.

Set the amount equal for all children in the state (you could adjust for cost of living). That way, you wouldn't have rich suburbs spending $25,000 per student, and rural areas $8,000.


snapper, I'm not sure I understand how your proposal would address this last issue. Would parents be prohibited from spending more than $8,000 on their children's tuition? Presumably richer parents would still spend significantly more than poorer parents; they would just do so by using the $8,000 voucher and paying the difference out-of-pocket.

I just don't want schools forced to teach the education bureaucracy's ideology either.

What's the "education bureaucracy's ideology"?

Where they basically work you to death starting at a fairly young age.

And what year did you graduate from Trinity? ;-)

And what year did you graduate from Trinity? ;-)

Hahah, very close but no cigar. My older sister went to Trinity for high school though. I did not envy her high school experience.

Although perhaps class size is the answer there... as the school gets better, it gets more popular, so the class sizes get bigger, the teachers get overworked, and decided to move to the school with smaller class sizes and worse kids for more pay.

As the school gets bigger, it takes the additional money and builds additional classrooms/hires additional teachers. And other schools start emulating its methods and begin attracting students. I imagine this is the idea, right?

snapper, I'm not sure I understand how your proposal would address this last issue. Would parents be prohibited from spending more than $8,000 on their children's tuition? Presumably richer parents would still spend significantly more than poorer parents; they would just do so by using the $8,000 voucher and paying the difference out-of-pocket.

The voucher would presumably be for more than $8,000, $8,000 being what really poor districts spend. As of 2010, the national avg. was $10,250 per student, NY spent $17,100.

You could go one of two ways. You could prohibit schools that take the vouchers from charging more, or you could let parents supplement.

If the voucher was, say $10-12,000 per student for a regular student (disabled students would need to get more) I'm fine with prohibiting schools from taking addt'l payments above the voucher amt. You'd also give higher vouchers for HS, lower for Elem. as the costs vary.

Private schools charging $25-35,000 a head are ridiculous rip-offs. If you want to pay for gold plated foofaraw, you don't get the voucher.

What's the "education bureaucracy's ideology"?

In NY? Basically the extreme left's. Abortion is a natural right. Anyone with a moral objection to homosexual marriage is a bigot, etc.

Anyone with a moral objection to homosexual marriage is a bigot, etc.

There are no reasons that aren't inherently religious reasons that the government should have benefits only for straight marriage.

And as far as public policy, once you've delved into religious reasons, you've admitted you don't have good reasons.

In NY? Basically the extreme left's. Abortion is a natural right. Anyone with a moral objection to homosexual marriage is a bigot, etc.

This is not extreme left, sorry snapper.


Hahah, very close but no cigar. My older sister went to Trinity for high school though. I did not envy her high school experience.

I went to a small (good, for what it was, and the area) public school in a town of 1400. When I heard in college (mostly, sometimes before at model congresses and UNs) about high schools like Trinity I nearly wept from jealously, so, grass greener and all that.

Private schools charging $25-35,000 a head are ridiculous rip-offs. If you want to pay for gold plated foofaraw, you don't get the voucher.

Why are they rip-offs? The idea sort of falls apart here, because it really doesn't have the courage of its own convictions. You'll still have a group of schools -- the ones not open to, ahem, "voucher" kids -- that will endeavor to be, and likely succeed in being, a self-perpetuating elite.

And what about the smart, teachable inner-city kids saddled with shitty parents? In the voucher system, other smart, teachable kids are going to flee, which makes their school worse.

Abortion is a natural right. Anyone with a moral objection to homosexual marriage is a bigot, etc.

Is this taught without qualification in the New York state, or New York City standard curriculum? I highly, highly doubt it.

Obviously it has no bearing on how kids younger than 10 are taught and is, accordingly, entirely inapposite.

I went to a small (good, for what it was, and the area) public school in a town of 1400. When I heard in college (mostly, sometimes before at model congresses and UNs) about high schools like Trinity I nearly wept from jealously, so, grass greener and all that.

Don't get me wrong. I remain forever grateful for the education I received (and my sister does as well). It was truly life-altering to be exposed to some of those things at an early age. My lack of envy concerning my sister's Trinity experience was really from the perspective of a 12 year old whose main life priorities were buying a new CD or shooting hoops with his friends.

If any school is teaching about abortion, outside of sex ed, and in a clinical term, I'd be surprised. Anything related to sex scares the #### out of schools

There are no reasons that aren't inherently religious reasons that the government should have benefits only for straight marriage.

And as far as public policy, once you've delved into religious reasons, you've admitted you don't have good reasons.

We've had this debate before, let's not again. All I'm saying is the system won't work if the state imposes what moral beliefs a school has to teach.

Why are they rip-offs? The idea sort of falls apart here, because it really doesn't have the courage of its own convictions. You'll still have a group of schools -- the ones not open to, ahem, "voucher" kids -- that will endeavor to be, and likely succeed in being, a self-perpetuating elite.

Because there's no way to spend that much money without wasting much of it. If you pay teachers $100,000 all in (with benes) and they avg. 20 students per class, that's $5,000 per student. Double it for overhead and admin, and you're at $10,000.

So let them. I'm not willing to ban certain schools.

Don't get me wrong. I remain forever grateful for the education I received (and my sister does as well). It was truly life-altering to be exposed to some of those things at an early age. My lack of envy concerning my sister's Trinity experience was really from the perspective of a 12 year old whose main life priorities were buying a new CD or shooting hoops with his friends.

Yeah, I absolutely didn't mean to imply you had any other attitude, it was primarily to bring up how crazy different some experiences are.


Is this taught without qualification in the New York state, or New York City standard curriculum? I highly, highly doubt it.

Snapper lurks the hallways. He knows, man.

Yeah, I absolutely didn't mean to imply you had any other attitude, it was primarily to bring up how crazy different some experiences are.

wow, a civil BTF discourse....who knew?

Is this taught without qualification in the New York state, or New York City standard curriculum? I highly, highly doubt it.

Obviously it has no bearing on how kids younger than 10 are taught and is, accordingly, entirely inapposite.

I'm just giving examples.

If you even mandate that schools can't teach that abortion is immoral, you cut off many, many potential schools based on religion. Religious based private schools have proven to be among the most efficient and effective, especially in poor, inner city areas.

wow, a civil BTF discourse....who knew?

I learned how to interract in a small, poor, public, unionized-teacher school. :-O

(With no ####### AP courses!)

I'm just giving examples.

Right, but you gave a couple hot-button talking point examples of things that really aren't part of the state of New York's or New York City's school curriculum. The schools in New York don't "teach" that abortion "is" a natural right or that anyone with an objection to homosexual marriage "is" a bigot.

So I'm kind of baffled as to why you suggested the schools do teach those things.

If you even mandate that schools can't teach that abortion is immoral, you cut off many, many potential schools based on religion. Religious based private schools have proven to be among the most efficient and effective, especially in poor, inner city areas.

Ah, I see ... you want the purported efficacy of a group of religious schools to be the Trojan Horse by which the schools' religion can be taught. And to make the religious schools seem more effective, you're going to invent a bunch of bugaboos about the awful, immoral things the public schools are teaching kids.

Pretty cynical sauce, there.

Ah, I see ... you want the purported "efficacy" of a group of religious schools to be the Trojan Horse by which the schools' religion can be taught. And to make the religious schools seem more effective, you're going to invent a bunch of bugaboos about the awful things the public schools are teaching kids.

I'm perfectly happy with their being atheist schools, and secular humanist schools, or whatever teaching their morality too.

I just think excluding religious schools is a huge diservice to the students you're trying to help.

Today I learned that, apparently, I live in school choice heaven here in Minneapolis. We've started looking into school choices for next year for my soon to be kindergartner. We've got open enrollment for public schools and lots of charter schools. School request forms & lottery forms are due in early Feb I think, so we are trying to tours, etc, before the Holidays. Some of the public schools are sketchy, of course, but not in my particular area. We've got it narrowed down to two neighborhood schools, three public schools that are farther away (we'd have to have some luck with a lottery to get in), and two charter schools from a completely different area of the city. There is at least one in each category that is very appealing. I think that hard part of the process won't be finding a good school, but deciding which good school to attend. For as great as school choice is, it was nice to grow up in a small town where you didn't have to consider dozens of choices....you went the "the school".

Also for those who love vouchers & charters, busing is incredible expensive for the schools when there is all these choices, and pain for all of society (lots of buses going down residential streets and clogging up regular traffic every day). On my block, kids attend at least 7 different schools, so that is 7 different buses coming through twice a day.

Also the cost of living is dramatically different in different parts of a state, so flat funding models don't necessarily work wrt teacher salaries, etc. And, some kids are more expensive to educate than others. English language learners, special ed kids, and kids from troubled backgrounds in particular. A big problem with school choice is that non-public schools can say no to whoever they want and leave the burdensome kids for someone else. I don't think that happens all that much, but it is part of the system, and the most expensive kids to educate are very expensive to educate. I'm very conflicted about the possibility of choosing a charter school because of that.

I learned how to interract in a small, poor, public, unionized-teacher school. :-O

(With no ####### AP courses!)

I went to a big, poor, public school with no ####### AP courses. However, the school being fairly big meant I pretty much only interacted with other kids like me. Despite my nerdiness, I never really got picked on because the size of the school allowed me to just hang out with other people in "smart-person" classes.

(I don't think this is necessarily a good thing, by the way. I was a real arrogant jackass after high school. I've come pretty hard down to earth since then after other foibles in my life. I'm a better person for it now.)

(Also, my definition of 'big' is big for New Hampshire, which was about 5000 students, only about 2/3 of which end up graduating.)

I'm perfectly happy with their being atheist schools, and secular humanist schools, or whatever teaching their morality too.

I just think excluding religious schools is a huge diservice to the students you're trying to help.

The idea that a normal humanist curriculum is a product of the "ideology" of the "extreme left" is bizarre, to say the least. One's perspective must be to the right of, say, Franco to think such a thing.

If Catholic schools are spending enough time discussing abortion and homosexuality to matter, that alone is reason enough not to fund them, regardless of the content. Those things don't belong in school, beyond maybe a day or two survey in philosophy or political ethics or, maybe, something along the lines of "Contemporary Moral Issues." In the latter, all serious points of view, including the Catholic ones, should be presented in public schools.

OK, so Joey Ramone was a Republican.

No, he wasn't.

Why is it so shocking that Beane is a republican? Have folks never met smart conservatives, or is the portrayal of conservatives as backwards and dumb just all-pervasive?

A "smart conservative" (at least, as "conservative" is conventionally defined in US politics in 2011) is essentially oxymoronic, of course, and that slight tweaking some genius in these parts noted not long ago really does say most of it: "A Conservative is a fellow who is standing athwart history yelling 'Stop! I've got mine!"

Any more questions I can help you with?

Politics in baseball are awfully contradictory, anyway. For a game run by rich old white Republicans, they sure act like a bunch of socialists when it suits them.

No different, though, than it's always been. King had it right: socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor.

Likewise, many of my liberal friends who are baseball fans are very quick to ##### about the ridiculous millionaire contracts ballplayers get

I hear this complaint from liberals about CEOs, but never about baseball players. I personally hear more conservative personalities (literally, not Rush, etc.) get down on baseball for salaries.

Dunno where I'd fit on the spectrum, though surely not conservative, and I loathe the "ridiculous millionaire contracts ballplayers get". Well, actually, I loathe the lack of a marginal tax rate in the happy neighborhood of 90+ percent on million dollar salaries. Fwiw, my liberal friends in general think paying millions of dollars in salary to anyone is a bad joke, ceo or ballplayer.

OK, so Joey Ramone was a Republican.


No, he wasn't.

Johnny was, though.

A "smart conservative" (at least, as "conservative" is conventionally defined in US politics in 2011) is essentially oxymoronic, of course, and that slight tweaking some genius in these parts noted not long ago really does say most of it: "A Conservative is a fellow who is standing athwart history yelling 'Stop! I've got mine!"

Almost all of conservativism today, from tax cuts to the "war on terror" to US policy toward Israel, is viewed by the mass of its adherents as divinely-inspire. No smart person signs up for such a thing on its intellectual merits.

More seriously, I haven't heard what the schools are like in this neighborhood, just that they are full of non-white kids.

Lassus, I was wondering if anyone would respond to this. Unfortunately, many schools these days are virtually segregated, and those don't tend to be the good schools. A lot of the suburban vs inner city school talk is also white vs black school talk. I chose to address this crassly I find it funny when people try to talk about this stuff without acknowledging the race issue.

In my case, the schools within my districts are indeed ranked very low.

My high school was about 10% white and was a fine school. Though it was also probably about 5% black, so probably not relevant to this particular discussion.

Naw, I kid. Did anyone read it? Any good?

I own it. It's been about five or six years since I read it. It's relatively good. It's not Ball Four or a masterpiece like that and in many ways it's fairly by-the-book. However, it is an honest portrayal of Bean's slow realization that he was gay and struggles he had to reconcile this with his athletic prowess and jock culture in high school and then the minor leagues. It then moves through his efforts to remain closeted during his time in professional and the pressures and stresses this placed on him during his career.

snapper, in one post talks about not sending kids to schools with "wack job ideologies", yet in another post, advocates sending kids to Catholic schools.

Are they still teaching kids that Jews killed Christ, in Catholic schools? Serious question, because they were teaching that in the 60's and '70s.

So as it is, we kind of figure that we're going to have to move to Iowa or northern Vermont in a few years...

Pittsburgh is nice, and the housing is very affordable. You can get a three-bedroom place in good repair in a top school district for less than $200k.

Keep it in mind, anyway.

Anecdotal, to be sure, but I taught at the University level in Iowa, good school, good area. I had probably 240 freshmen come through my various classes, most of them natives of Iowa, having gone to the better Iowa high schools. Literally half of them couldn't write a paragraph, or even a sentence, worth a damn. I don't know why, now, but at the time I was shocked at how bad it was. Of the half that could write, there was the usual handful who knew how to write well. The rest wrote serviceably.

Perhaps elsewhere it's so utterly dreadful that the small sample of Iowans I came to know were fine writers overall compared to the rest, but if so, then "good writing" at the high school senior level must mean only "doesn't eat the pen".

snapper, in one post talks about not sending kids to schools with "wack job ideologies", yet in another post, advocates sending kids to Catholic schools.

Are they still teaching kids that Jews killed Christ, in Catholic schools? Serious question, because they were teaching that in the 60's and '70s.

All of my kids go to Catholic schools. My wife is the principal of our Catholic K-8 school (after spending 12 years as a public school teacher). I'll just say that your knowledge of Catholic school education would probably demand that you stay quiet on the subject.

So the answer is "no"? Good. But that wasn't the case back in the 60's and 70's, according to the family that lived across the street from me. I went to the E.P. Tileston school in Mattapan, and they went to St. Angela's, in Mattapan, and they were taught exactly that, back then. It caused a bit of friction.

Almost all of conservativism today, from tax cuts to the "war on terror" to US policy toward Israel, is viewed by the mass of its adherents as divinely-inspire.

Unless it's Democrats saying and doing exactly the same stuff, in which case it's divinely pragmatic.

Mid 60's. Not the '70's. Glad they stopped. Sorry I brought it up.

Are they still teaching kids that Jews killed Christ, in Catholic schools?

Well, didn't they?

Are they still teaching kids that Jews killed Christ, in Catholic schools?


Well, didn't they?

Do you realize how absurd that is? Seriously, the idea is beyond ridiculous. I mean, it's three hundred million miles past moronic.

How in the world could anyone teach that Jews killed Christ in Catholic schools when Catholic schools didn't even exist at that time?

DB

Y'all hear about this guy? I'm amused that they categorize Vacaville as being part of the Bay Area.

Craig in MN -- great post in 127, agree wholeheartedly. What part of Minneapolis are you in? I just bought a house in southwest, expecting the first child this winter. Feeling thankful that Southwest High is well-regarded, but I'm definitely nervous about pre-high school decisions. And I desperately long for the simplicity of growing up in a one-school town.

I went to Catholic school in the late 1960s-late 1970s, and apparently the entire faculty at both schools did not get the "Jews killed Christ" memo. Shocking that to a man - er, to a nun - they all missed the boat on that one.

I do recall learning a song called, "And They'll Know We Are Christians By Our Love..." which I now can't get out of my head but which doesn't exactly fit the meme, either.

Apparently, they stopped in 1965. Before '65, it was taught. Now, did they unteach it in 1965? I doubt it. "Oh, by the way, kids, what we told you last year...we were wrong. Never mind about that." The bell wasn't "unrung", in my neighborhood.

As unfortunate as that was, and as lingering a sentiment as it may be for some, I'm sure that kids aren't taught that today, and haven't been for many years.

Congrats on the child, spycake. It's an adventure. So is home ownership, I guess.

I live in Seward/Longfellow area. It's a great area. Everyone recommends all of the Southwest schools, but there's no way we are busing all the way there, and I don't think there is much chance we'd get in anyway. They are all good schools over there though.

I typed up that original post and I forgot to include the main point. We get a lot of people talking about how bad schools are in theory and all the theoretical reform options, but I don't see the problems in reality in the bulk of my city. There are places I probably wouldn't send my kid, but there are also lots of other options, so I don't have to send her there if I don't want to. Do people in most cities not have options, or is Minneapolis that much ahead of the game? I'm not seeing a lot of actual experiences discussed anywhere, so I don't know.

PreservedFish

Don't despair on the Oakland Public school situation. I'm in your exact situation, just about 7 years ahead of you.

We were fortunate and got our kids into a great charter school not far away (NOCCS). Of course we had to defy the odds and win a lottery to get in there.

Of the other families I know, who did not choose to go the charter route, every one of them ended up in a school they are happy with eventually. OUSD will almost always assign you to your nearest school no matter what schools you "choose" in the options process, if you have the nerve and patience to wait list at your chosen school it seems to always work out.