Conference moira::parenting_v3

    I believe a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) is important
    to the economic well being of everyone - more so today than ever
    before. I also think a free, maximum feasible, public education
    (FMPE) would be even better. Unfortunately, I don't believe we are 
    really doing either FAPEs or FMPEs today.
    
    Today, we offer a free, public education (FPE) to everyone,
    but it's not always appropriate, and it certainly is often not
    the maximum.
    
    In this world more and more people are becoming knowledge workers
    - informationm and knowledge are increasingly the substance of the
    world's economy, which means that a country's, a state's, a community's,
    a family's and a person's success will be increasingly dependent on
    brain power.
    
    So, educating each child to their maximum ability means that the
    child, and the economic units to which the child belongs,
    will both prosper if everyone gets a FMPE or -at least- a FAPE.
    
    The reason's kids get FPEs rather than FMPEs or FAPEs are many.
    
    o  First of all, most parents, unless they are the parent of an
       educationally handicapped child in some states, have no legal
       standing to demand a FMPE.
    
    o  No one in the USA, other than parents of educationally handicapped
       children, even have the right to demand a FAPE.
    
    o  In the USA the law requires everyone to get a FPE - and that's
       what kids get.
    
    o  Parents, who know there children best, are often disenfranchised
       by the schools - often unintentionally, because of educational
       jargon or bureaucracies.
    
    o  Teachers are not held accountable or rewarded for their performance 
       as teachers.  The best lawyers will make the most money - if
       money is what they want.  The best engineers will make the best
       money.  The best teachers won't.  A doctor who fails to do the
       right thing by a patient can be held individually liable for
       malpractice.  When was the last time you heard about an individual
       teacher being held liable for educational malpractice.  Even
       with educationally handicapped children - who have more legal
       rights than most kids - educational malpractice is specifically
       ruled out as a remedy for kids and their parents.
    
    o  The way we fund our schools - through local property taxes -
       creates huge disparities between the education available
       to children in different areas.
    
    If forced to make a choice between an FMPE, a FAPE or an FPE, the
    choice becomes obvious.
    
    On the other hand - if faced to make a choice between an FPE and
    either an appropriate or maximum education - most people simply do
    not have the money to be able to afford, on their own, an appropriate
    or maximum education.  This is even more true in those community's
    with the worse schools.  The people who are most often able to find
    the funds to get their child an appropriate or maximum education
    are often already living in towns where the education is not all
    that bad anyway.
    
    So, a FAPE or FMPE for all is the best.
    
    An appropriate or maximum education is second best, although most
    people don't have the funds for it.
    
    The FPE is the worse, but better than nothing.
    
    -Dick
     
    

    I've recently done some listening to tapes sent me by an educative
    organization (non-profit, registered) called The Advocates for Self
    Government.  Phone number is 209-441-1776.  That's Fresno, CA. 
    
    Anyhow, I learned that public schools really got cranking in the late
    nineteenth century and a lot of the reason was so that society could
    produce the kind of product it wanted, that fit with it, vs. giving the
    chance to varied children to turn out varied.  Probably better
    educational history scholars can provide additional data and critiques
    of this, but it got me thinking.  I'm coming down on the side that free
    is not worth a whole lot if you don't get what you want.  Perhaps we're
    living a fiction.  Children get something which is called "education"
    but for purposes which may contort them into shapes which we as parents
    don't want them to take, which may not fit into the rapidly changing
    society of the future, but which DO fit into outmoded conceptions of
    what it takes to succeed (by old rules?).  IF this hypothesis is
    correct, then we (society) get neither whole people nor economically
    self-sufficient people.  Probably time to re-examine our models for
    what "free" public education is really there for.  
    

    
    I am a FIRM BELIEVER in free, public education for everyone.  However,
    as the quality of education declines--especially in towns with low
    property taxes (ie: less money and/or willingness to spend the money on
    education)--I am starting to think that those that can afford to pay
    for education, should.  
    
    There are many families that use the free, public education system to
    educate their kids--despite the fact that these families can afford to
    pay some sort of "tuition."  I think there should be a financial cutoff
    for free, public education--a point at which those families making over
    a certain amount (ie: taxable income) be liable for all or part of the
    cost of educating their child(ren).
    
    I realize this is controversial, would be a bear to implement, and
    would dig deeply into the pockets of many of us.  But, with the state
    that the educational system is in today--either we do something radical
    or our kids are going to end up being scholastic morons.  How many
    points have SAT scores dropped since we were in school (not that SAT
    scores measure real knowledge--but certain indicators can be gleaned
    from dropping scores)?
    
    I for one would rather send my child to public, rather than private
    school.  But, I am prepared to send her to private high school--for
    college preparation--if the public education system doesn't get its act
    together within the next 10 or 15 years.  It scares me to think what
    things will be like then--educationally speaking.  
    
    Bonnie
    
    

    Making a public education a needs based benefit rather than an
    entitlement would certainly be one way of getting more money for
    education.  But, it could also make a lot of the remaining 
    "free" educations even worse since it's the parents in 
    affluent towns that would tend to have
    the money to pay some or all of their children's tutition.  These
    kids are generally likely to be already getting a fair education,
    and the new money in these towns (from the more affluent parents)
    would only make the education in the affluent towns better - it
    would do nothing to help the kids in the towns who have lower income
    people.         
    
    An idea I've heard of that sounds great is to go to a "voucher"
    system.  That is, each parent in whatever town gets a "voucher"
    for their child's education.  This would cover the costs of getting
    the child educated in the town - or be available to allow the parent
    to pay tuition at some other school - either private or public.
    
    The effect of the voucher system would be to enfranchise parents
    to use their entrepreneurial instincts and their knowledge and care
    for their children to search out the best schools.  Schools would
    become competitive - 
    		NOW, SEND YOUR CHILD TO APPLEVILLE'S HIGH SCHOOL
              - 98% OF OUR GRADUATES WENT ON TO COLLEGE LAST YEAR.
    
    Schools could choose to start to specialize, to offer specific
    programs for the needs and desires of subsets of children.
    
    Schools that do a lousy job will go the way that businesses go who
    do lousy jobs - out of business. 
    
    Schools who do a good job for their "customers" would stay in 
    business and prosper.
    
    

    A voucher sysytem has been proposed many times, but never seems to make
    it into law. We, personally, would be thrilled, since we have chosen to
    home educate our children. We are dismayed not only by the lack of
    scholastics being taught, but also by the morals and values (or lack
    thereof) that conflict with our religious values. Numerous studies have
    proven time and again that the value of one on one tutoring by a
    "teacher" who cares deeply and personally for his/her students, will
    enable that child to make gains far above the "norm" for his age.
    
    It is interesting to note, that up until approximately the time of the
    civil war, home educating was overwhelmingly the norm. Couple this with
    the fact that in the mid 1800's, the literacy rate in the USA was at
    its peak (I can't remember the exact figures, but it was in the 90
    something percentile), and has declined steadily since then, and reach
    your own conclusions. We are happy with our choice, and are among a
    *very* rapidly growing segment of the population. But that voucher
    would be nice in paying for supplying our home school!
    
    --dave--

    I hadn't thought of vouchers going for home schooling.  There's
    the danger, in that case, of parents just pocketing the money and
    not bothering educating their kids.  The people that are truly
    home schooling now are undoubtedly truly interested in education.
    I'm just worried about the parents that don't think education is
    at all valuable and would much rather just use the $4K or whatever
    for buying things.
    
    There will probably be other scams, where someone will claim to have
    a "school" that lures parents to send their children there with
    kickbacks or just false advertising.
    
    I suppose there's also the problem of a child of a different religion
    in a community where 95% of the people are of some other religion.
    It might turn out that it's not economically feasible to have any
    school in that community other than a religious school of the majority
    religion.
    

    RE: .6...Even with a voucher system there's still the Constitutional
    principle of separation of church and state.  As an aside, it's also
    been my experience that lots of different kids have attended church
    supported schools.  For those not of that particular affiliation,
    religious classes were optional, even on the elementary level.  
    
    In my opinion public would ultimatley be improved by the following:
    	o  A voucher system to introduce *real* competition into the 
    	   educational system
    	o  Merit pay for teachers to reward the "best performers" 
    
    While neither of the above would ensure an ideal education, I think
    that they are significant steps toward improvement of the entire
    system which, I think we all agree, is sorely needed.
    
    The individual who talked about public education coming to fruition in
    the 18th century was absolutely correct.  Our system is a product the
    18th century mindset.  It's time for a *major* overhaul.
    
    I could talk for *days* on public vs. private education as I have been
    intimately involved with both.  This is a real "hot-button" for me, but
    I won't bore you with my personal experiences.
    
    I'm delighted to see a topic such as this and the amount of support for
    a voucher system.  Perhaps I'll see it implemented in my lifetime???
    
    A former teacher,
    LZP
    
    

    It's hard to argue with the concept of educating everyone as a
    critical part of society's obligations, but when I look at the
    results of the present system, its 25% dropout rate and an even
    higher failure rate, at the emotional damage unintentionally
    inflicted on so many young people, so much talent neglected or
    even squashed, despite the best efforts of so many dedicated and
    caring children and parents, I find it hard to defend the present
    implementation at all.
    
    --bonnie

    Home schooling is fairly well monitored in most states. Obviously fther
    would need to be some accountability as to how a voucher was spent,
    such as producing receipts, etc. Then the question is, what (and who
    decided) is educationally appropriate or necessary? If I spend $1500 on
    a very elaborate wooden play sturcture in my back yard, so that the
    child(ren) may use it as part of a PE program, would that be allowed?
    How about a field trip? How about a field trip that's far away (like
    international)? How about art or music lessons? It could get sticky,
    deciding what is appropriate and what isn't.
    
    I have to agree 100% with schools as they now stand, often squashing a
    child's talents and inclinations. I just read, in a back issue of a
    home schooling magazine, about a *7* yr. old girl who entered a science
    fair with her project on "Beta Rays and whether they can be used to
    determine mass independent of gravity" or something like that! The
    judges had a tough time being convinced she did it all herself but
    after questioning her extensively, they came to just that conclusion!
    She wants very much to be a physicist when she grows up, and her
    parents said she's been interested in physics since she was not quite
    5. They have allowed her considerable freedom on researching and
    reading on her chosen topic, and feel very strongly that if she had
    gone to public school, she would have probably given up long ago, as
    she would almost certainly not have had the freedom to study what she
    was interested in and was (obviously!) quite gifted in. I don't suggest
    this is common, but who knows just how much more of this we'd see if
    there were some wya for *all* kids to pursue the areas they excelled in
    and not be held back by those around them. Kids in public school (or
    private schools with large classes) must conform to the norm or be left
    behind, or forced to not go ahead. 
    
    I don't pretend to have the answers to this. Certainly home education
    is not for everyone, but it is, to me at least, startling to see the
    (relatively) large movement in this direction. Much of it is
    religiously motivated, but a sizable portion is not. In a home school
    your 10 yrl old child may be on a 5th grade level in math, a 7th grade
    level in reading, a 3rd grade level in geography/history, etc. And you
    can accomaodate and teach that child on his/her individual level!
    That's the beauty of it! If he finishes his 5th grade math in April,
    well, just begin 6th grade then! No holidng his progress up and
    allowing boredom to set in.
    
    I do agree that teacher incentives to produce children who really can
    read, calculate, etc., would be a step in the right direction. There is
    also no doubt in my mind that the relative disintegration of the family
    (I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in this conference, just saying
    that the trend away from "traditional" families has brought a host of
    social problems) has caused problems in the classroom that cannot be
    solved by teacher incentives or better training, or lowere
    teacher/student ratios. When the teacher has to face violence both in
    the classroom and among her students, when she/he deals with students
    who are being abused or have been raped, when drug and alcohol use is
    bringing kids to school stoned and drunk, then academics takes a vary
    large back seat. The bright, quiet, "good" boy or girl sitting in the
    back, gets no notice and little attention. Most children crave the
    attention and care of those who they hold in authority, and when the
    only way they get it is by being "bad", they'll do it. Same principle
    with your kids at home. Reward the bad behavior by giving it the most
    attention, and it will increase. This is what is happening in our
    schools.
    Wish I *had* solutions, but just observations right now. I believe they
    are accurate, but will willingly listen if others disagree (my
    perceptions come form numerous public and private school teachers I am
    personally acquainted with).
    
    --dave--

re: .9

Dave, I don't dispute that what you say goes on in the public schools.  But 
will say that it is not as universal as your message portrays it.

re: "F" APE

First of all, I object to a misnomer.  There is no "Free".  In the context of
what we are talking about, there is "public" or "tax-supported".  But not 
"free", at least in the economic sense.

re: .4, voucher system

Dick, I'm a little suprised that you would be so enthused about a voucher
system.  IMO, the population on whose behalf you argue most persuasively and
passionately is the population most likely to lose out in such a system.

Unless the "voucher" amount varies from student to student, then the parents
of that student would get an amount equal to some sort of average cost, which
in the case of a special needs student would be much less than the cost of
educating the student.  Suppose that student's parent(s) didn't make enough
money to be able to afford the extra amount that it costs to educate that
student properly?   If they can afford it, fine -- they pay the difference
between the voucher amount and what the school charges.  If not, it's back to
the "warehouse".

If the voucher amount DOES vary from student to student, then how do you
determine what the amount should be?  A voucher system does not put any more
funds into the system.  You've only solved a part of the problem -- you're
letting the bad schools go out of business, but you haven't said how you would
fund that schools that are in business.

If you're saying that the schools could charge no more than the "voucher"
amount, then there's no incentive for the school to provide special and
creative services -- only to cut costs.  Programs would be aimed at the
"typical" kid, and if your needs are a bit different, then you're out of luck. 

As for schools becoming competitive, suppose the % of graduate that go to
college is "goodness".  What's the best way to accomplish that?  You make your
school very attractive to high achiever, college material students, and
unattractive to students who are more difficult to educate or who aren't
college material.  Or who want to do prepare themselves for a career in
something that doesn't typically require a college education.

Remember also that entrepreneurial instincts aren't enough.  It takes money
also.  Only the wealthy communities could afford to create the kind of programs
that would attract students.  And they could easily make it unattractive to
outsiders, either by pricing, or by sheer distance.  IMO, it would just create
another barrier to providing education to the people who need it most.

I like much better the concept of funding schools partially by tuition that is
based on your ability to pay, and partially by tax dollars.  It's fairer not
only within the town -- the more direct your benefit, the more you pay.  It
also would mean that a larger portion of available tax funds could be funneled 
to the schools that really need it.  

Clay
  

    .9> Then the question is, what (and who decided) is educationally
    .9> appropriate or necessary? . . .How about art or music lessons?
    
    Dave, your inclusion of art and music lessons as a questionable
    expense intrigues me.  I find that most people agree that such
    classes are enrichments, not necessities.  I'm not sure I
    disagree.  
    
    Yet as the mother of a child who appears to have considerable
    artistic talent and a definitely large enjoyment of art -- and
    says he wants to be an artist when he grows up -- I find it hard
    to say that he should be content with once-a-week cutsie projects
    for the next six years.  This is a kid who's bugging me to let him
    learn how to use my oil paints.  
    
    Now it happens not to matter to me at the moment since I can
    afford to compensate for the school system's lack of expertise in
    this area, but if we were poor, he would basically be behind by
    however many years it is between now and when the schools offer
    elective art classes -- ninth grade, probably.  By then his
    interest might well have died from neglect.  He'd be years behind
    people like me who can afford special classes.  It might not
    matter -- but on the other hand, it might mean the world loses a
    good artist.
    
    --bonnie

    
    Bonnie,
    While I truly think that people that can afford to pay some amount of
    tuition should--even for *public* school--I wholeheartedly agree with
    you about art and music.  Many children have been literally SAVED
    (academically) by schools that offer the arts and music in their
    curriculums.  Just as some kids are gifted in math and science, others
    are gifted in art and/or music.  I think these two subjects should be
    mandatory from grade school up.  Even for those with no talent--the
    exposure will teach them tolerance for things other than what they are
    interested in.
    
    Bonnie
    
    

    I believe there is an answer.
    
    #1 There will be a "guaranteed" voucher statewide of a minimal amount
    based on the past five years of the costs to educate the average
    children in a given region and the average financial resources
    of the families in the region. This guaranteed voucher amount would
    ensure that parents with average financial resources can continue
    to get the same education their children have been getting. 
    This voucher approach would unleash the entrepreneurial system
    for the educational community.  All "schools", including home based
    schools would be subject to the same statewide controls that currently
    exist for these schools, thus ensuring that no school would be 
    representative of a scam. Indeed, any school - including home-based
    schools that would be taking voucher money
    would be required to adhere to state regulations or lose their ability
    to collect the voucher. Home-based schools today are already
    required to meet state standards. 
    
    With this approach parents would have an increased ability
    to think about what they want from their free-choice schools and
    whether or not they are willing to add to the guaranteed voucher
    amount extra money for better education, or change the child's school
    to a school pereceived by the parent as better.
    
    #2 All children and their parents and any advocate would be 
    given the legal rights to an maxixmum education (MxE). 
    This would give all parents the right to get legally 
    involved in their child's education and demand
    an MxE, and the benefits of this approach, which generally
    empowers parents to become their child's advocate if they
    want to,  have been seen in this state with educationally 
    handicapped children for many years.
    
    #3 All education would become needs based, that is all parents
    with  would have their guaranteed voucher amount adjusted based
    on their needs.  Thus, a multimillionaire in Boston might get $0;
    while the Lowell parent with average resources and a child without special
    needs for an MxE would get an amount sufficient to pay the costs
    associated with staying in the local school; while the poor parent 
    of an educationally handicapped child in Springfield might get an 
    amount several times that of the minimal voucher amount, in order 
    to assure the childe gets an MxE.
    
    With this approach some of the following good things would happen:
    
    o there would be more money for education
    o no one would be forced to short change their child for financial
    reasons
    o the educational system would benefit from a new entrepreneurial
    system
    o all children, including the artistically talented, the high IQ
    child, etc., would be legally entitled to an MxE - regardless of costs,
    just as today's educationally handicapped children have this right.
    o all schools that stayed in business would need to meet state
    requirements AND parent's requirements.
    o in the worst case - of a non caring parent - the child would
    certainly be no worse than he is today, but would likely benefit
    from the general elevation of school's approaches caused by wanting
    to please parents AND meet state standards.
    
    --Dick
    

    RE: .13 - I'm a staunch supporter of choice in education and a voucher
    system, but I do have a bit of difficulty with part of the previous
    note, largely around point #3.
    
    If education is to be considered a "right", there needs to be a
    government financed base level of education to which *everyone* is
    entitled.  Hence, even the millionaire in Boston should be entitled to
    some level of financed education regardless of income.  Otherwise,
    the affleuent are deprived of a basic "right".
    
    If education is to be considered a "priviledge", then certain segments
    of the population can be denied access.  That opens up a different can
    of worms.  
    
    Financing *decent and equitable* education is one of the major
    challenges government faces.  So far, I'm not impressed.  We (as a
    society) haven't done anything terribly creative since the 19th
    century.
    
	Lois