Post New

School district budget meeting last night. Trying to decide what to cut since our state lawmakers are not interested in funding public schools. State funding stuck at 2021 levels, and the voucher program is pulling money away from the public schools.

One proposal is to cut 40 English Learner Tutors, saving $1.6M. They are part timers (usually retired teachers) who help the English Language teachers. We need them because 16% of our students do not speak English. This is in suburban Ohio.

How did we end up with this many non-English speaking kids? Should the federal government be compensating the school district for this expense?

Hopefully the number increases.

Sheeple deserves this drain.

16% of our students do not speak English. This is in suburban Ohio.

Get ready for the ICE raids. I'm always reminded of the fellow I met who four years before had been working in fields in Mexico and had an American accent that was 99.8% perfect. His seamstress mom bought an English course on tape with books and he watched TV. She sat him down every night and worked on his English. He was a natural mimic and could imitate different TV characters, but I had to hand it to him, I was dumbfounded by how good his accent was.

Sheeple deserves this drain.

I agree, though probably for a different reason than you.

If the state isn't funding education, they deserve what they get. If they are allowing vouchers, that means a drain on public schools, and again...they deserve it.

These aren't rocket science problems. Disallow vouchers (for a variety of reasons, not just the "drain" part), raise taxes to pay for proper education, and support ESL. 1poorkid had to do ESL because she spent her first few years in the Philippines**. She was getting straight-As by fourth grade because of ESL, and has been fluent ever since. (Yes, she is a documented US citizen, child of documented US citizens.)


**Long story, not relevant to the topic at hand.

Private, public, rich poor - I could care less.

If it means that Americans - - have to divert money from dumb shit like math, science, "extra curricular" stuff -- and spend it on teaching English.

I'm in.

And in my tiny way, I've added to the burden. It means little in big picture but, it's satisfying

More More more!

1poorkid -- excellent. And thank her and you, 1poorkid isn't in gangs or dealing drugs. She's not only accomplishing and contributing, she'll compound --- and we're along for the benefit.

But -- I could've told you that the moment you said Phillipines---and said nothing else. I'd have made a 90/10 bet to the good.

Yes, it's ok - - to be accurate.

If it means that Americans - - have to divert money from dumb shit like math, science, "extra curricular" stuff -- and spend it on teaching English.

There is a push on for vouchers in Michigan too. No plan to increase education funding, just siphon more away from public schools, to subsidize higher income people who send their spawn to private school.

I have commented before that I looked at the Farmington, MI high school course catalog, a few years ago. Besides kids needing to buy their books and supplies, the school system charges a fee for every academic class: $10, or more, for every class, every semester. But playing football is free. The school system absorbs the cost of the football stadium, equipment, transportation to "away" games. But want to take a physics class? Pay up.

Steve

have to divert money from dumb shit like math, science, "extra curricular" stuff -- and spend it on teaching English.

If you improve English proficiency, proficiency in math and science will go up.

If you improve English proficiency, proficiency in math and science will go up.
****

True.

But many immigrants who are on top of math and science - are English proficient as it is.

Either way, as long as it's a drain of resources I'm in. Be it English classes or a ballroom.

Now - IF someone says "LEGAL immigration only.....and as part of that ENGLISH will be requirement where in X years the only bilingual service we provide is at hospitals...." -- lemme know, I might be vehemently for it.

But doing it because we have to? Back when I cared - I was against it. If I'm gonna pick up and move to Italy -- IT'S MY RESPONSIBILITY to learn Italian and be fluent. If my retired bachelor uncle, moves to Brazil (which the did just that in the 90s...) - it was his responsibility to be fluent in Portuguese ---and he was before he landed there.

These aren't rocket science problems. Disallow vouchers (for a variety of reasons, not just the "drain" part), raise taxes to pay for proper education, and support ESL.

Uh, huh. You’re assuming that public education is the one and only answer and that left alone it’ll produce great outcomes.

That’s a massive assumption.

There needs to be a credible alternative to force improvements in public education. Else there’s zero motivation.

There needs to be a credible alternative to force improvements in public education.

Deport Spankee and all his sycophants. Average US IQ will go up 40% or more.

There needs to be a credible alternative to force improvements in public education. Else there’s zero motivation.

The goal is “elimination”, not “improvement”.

The goal is “elimination”, not “improvement”.

That would be *your* assumption.

The fact is that we spend more and more on public schools and get less and less bang for the buck.

Interestingly, Mississippi introduced accountability and Magic happened. It’s unlikely that the sources of information utilized by board liberals have made them aware of this.

Interestingly, Mississippi introduced accountability and Magic happened. It’s unlikely that the sources of information utilized by board liberals have made them aware of this.

I mean, I'm aware of it. The New York Times has been run articles on it for the last several years. Here's one from 2023, and they ran a pretty big story about it a month ago.

https://archive.ph/TqN3i
https://archive.ph/etdj0

...while The Argument also had a big feature on it last year:

https://www.theargumentmag.com/p/illiteracy-is-a-p...

Matt Yglesias also had an interesting analysis noting Mississippi's performance, and putting it in the context of what's been happening nationally (which BTW has been terrible, in both Blue States and Red States, sadly):

https://www.slowboring.com/p/schools-are-getting-w...

I'm not sure it's a "sources of information" problem, but as noted by The Argument article above, there's more skepticism on the part of liberals towards how "real" this performance is than is probably warranted.

I'm not sure it's a "sources of information" problem, but as noted by The Argument article above, there's more skepticism on the part of liberals towards how "real" this performance is than is probably warranted.

They've gone from something like 49th to...16th overall. That's insanely good.

https://www.ibtimes.com/mississippi-schools-rise-l...

Mississippi's fourth graders now rank ninth in the nation for reading, a dramatic turnaround for a state that placed 49th just over a decade ago.​
And their low-income kids are beating Michigan's by 17 points. Wow.

It should be a national story with others lining up to emulate their success...but it's not. The odd article from NYT otherwise.

Uh, huh. You’re assuming that public education is the one and only answer and that left alone it’ll produce great outcomes.

Ideology of the last forty years dictates that everything be rationed according to ability to pay. Spread an education budget more ways, with vouchers, and the private school kids will increase their lead over public school kids, because of both funding, and the privates can pick who they want as students, while the publics are stuck with the dregs.

I don't know about other states, but, in Michigan, many school districts have cut trades classes, to save money. Some school districts have cut driver's ed.

Part of "Plan Steve" is to take what Farmington is doing, and ramp it up, so that public high schools charge a thousand, or more, per semester, in tuition, on top of the cost of books, supplies, and the nominal fees Farmington is charging now. That will force more kids out of school, to "learn the dignity of work", at the end of middle school. Meanwhile the state saves millions in public high school funding that they can then give the "JCs" another tax cut.

But playing high school football will continue to be free, because MAGA must have it's circuses. The net sifter says, nationally, only about 29% of college football fans ever graduated from any college. We could probably see the same for hyped up high school football programs, with two thirds of the fans blowing money on game tickets and apparel, actually having never graduated high school.

Steve

They've gone from something like 49th to...16th overall. That's insanely good.

It is very good. But I think there's a few reasons why it's not the huge national story with people lining up to emulate it.

The first is pretty simple, but important. A big part of their rise in the national rankings is that everyone else has gotten notably worse. They look great on comparisons to the other states, and it's amazing that they managed to resist the retrogression experienced almost everywhere else. But their absolute improvement isn't nearly as large as their relative improvement.

The second is also pretty simple - most other Red States, which ostensibly have similar attitudes towards education (like Florida, itself formerly held up as having the answers) have seen their performance fall.

And the third is a little more complicated, but perhaps the most important. This is in some ways a policy that's been tried before, and that is now very unloved by both sides. Many of the concepts that underlie the "Mississippi Miracle" are straight out of No Child Left Behind. Measurement, accountability, consequences and rewards work. NCLB resulted in a significant improvement in student performances.

Teachers and their unions hated NCLB, and basically killed it. But the principles behind NCLB improved student performance. The left responded to this by kind of giving up on significant education reform, but the right responded by deciding that this meant the system had to be torched. As Yglesias put it:

I think people know, broadly speaking, that teachers and unions generally did not like No Child Left Behind because it threatened negative consequences for a poor-performing minority of schools. This reflects poorly on them and conservatives are right to believe that public sector unions often lead to bad public sector outcomes.

But in most cases, rather than “it reflects poorly on unions that they oppose effective education reforms, so we should blow them off and run school systems,” the trend on the right has been to behave as if the goal of education policy is to dismantle teacher unions. As a result, the biggest reform trends have not been the kind of curriculum efforts we see in the Southern surge states.

Instead, there’s been a ton of enthusiasm for vouchers and education savings accounts, which are basically efforts to replace public-school funding with tax breaks for spending money on your kids’ education. The evidence on the effectiveness of these programs has generally been negative in terms of the impact on student achievement. This is true including (and perhaps especially) in states like Tennessee and Louisiana, where the mainstream public-school systems have been getting good results.

There's not really a constituency anywhere for this kind of program. Big factions in the left coalition hate it, and big factions on the right have a much different policy solution they want implemented. Keeping public schools - with the teachers unions - but imposing some really serious harness on them isn't a popular policy in either coalition.

Interesting article in The Argument. When I lived in Japan there were two American English teachers that would show up outside of the Japanese style 7-11 one story below and we'd chat. They were both teaching English to Japanese and the class was 100% in English. They received extensive training on how to teach English to Japanese, there were a lot of drills, sheer memorization, etc., and they were valued because they were credentialed native speakers with good accents. Because they were Americans they received training on how to treat the students because normal American discipline would likely traumatize the student. In their culture everyone in the class moves forward together regardless of performance unless there's been a prolonged illness.

I'm not really assuming anything. Also, when has public education ever been left alone?

There does not always need to be a "credible" alternative. Is there one for the police? For the fire department? For the military? No. Not everything is (or can be) boiled down to the Invisible Hand of capitalism.

Fund the schools well, pay teachers well, and you will generally get good results. I would say "school board oversight", but that can go either way. You can get a good school board, or you can get Dover (among others). That can be mitigated by getting good teachers, and the courts spanking school boards like Dover. And, occasionally, parental outrage (I think that happened in TX a few years ago).

Fund the schools well, pay teachers well, and you will generally get good results.

Until you don't.
Seattle is as liberal as it gets. But despite an increasing population, Seattle's public schools are dropping in student enrollment.

Why is that?

Perhaps these parents feel their kids can get a better education elsewhere.

I don't want vouchers.

Bad schools -- lead to more punishment for America.

I'd rather have Liberals continue to enslave.... at least they show how much they'll protect their plantations.

Now back to the topic....

Good, more need for bilingual education - pull resources from other stuff.


In the meantime -- emerging markets will have more and more explosion of whip smart, hungry young people.

May they whack the shit an out of America's professionals as times go on, and use today's American IT and Engineers for tomorrow's call centers.

“If it means that Americans - - have to divert money from dumb shit like math, science, "extra curricular" stuff -- and spend it on teaching English.”

And that’s what’s happening.

We have a school district 1.25% earned income tax on the ballot in May. This is in addition to all existing property and income taxes. Might pass because a lot of voters won’t have to pay it. I give it a 10% chance.

If it doesn’t pass they have to make cuts. Big cuts. All extra curricular activities, for example.

As currently set up, the non-English speaking kids are a net financial drain on our schools. They have to be educated, of course. Should our community be the ones paying for it?

Well, Trump wants to change the census so Illegal immigrants aren't counted, which would foul things up even more. I live in Florida ad don't begrudge paying higher taxes for schools, and a councilman told me we are being apportioned for police, fire, admin and school buildings for a new development next door.

"The U.S. Census Bureau does not directly allocate funds or specific dollar amounts for the education of undocumented immigrants. It counts all residents, including undocumented individuals, to determine congressional apportionment and state-level representation
. While this count influences the distribution of federal funds for education, it is not a direct, line-item allocation.

Impact on Funding: Census data is used to calculate federal formulas for school funding (such as Title I, Part C for migrant education), which are distributed based on student population, not legal status."

There's always something to resent when it comes to taxes. :) We don't benefit from kids until they enter the workforce according to some people, but I don't mind at all assisting in kids education until they do and I have no kids.

We have a school district 1.25% earned income tax on the ballot in May. This is in addition to all existing property and income taxes. Might pass because a lot of voters won’t have to pay it. I give it a 10% chance.

If it doesn’t pass they have to make cuts. Big cuts. All extra curricular activities, for example.

As currently set up, the non-English speaking kids are a net financial drain on our schools. They have to be educated, of course. Should our community be the ones paying for it?
***
Thanks for that local slice of life.

I'm fine either way on that one - I feel the income earners and property owners --- more often -- *not always* will be Liberal 401K'ers who are greedy mooches and need to pay. If this is a Red district - so be it ---but overall. I'm all over taxing income any way we can -- Especially income even $1 over the national average - Liberals should pay.

And if things get cut - education quality goes down. FICA contributions reduce and with any luck - some more crime.

Sometimes in politics, you get a win-win.

Should our community be the ones paying for it?

YOUR community, so YOU get to plant the fields, tend them, AND pick the crops.

NOW do you want to pay for (whatever) "it" is?

Trump wants to change the census so Illegal immigrants aren't counted

As stated previously, do NOT count non-citizens in RED states. DO count non-citizens in BLUE states.

Both sides get what they want.

Impact on Funding: Census data is used to calculate federal formulas for school funding (such as Title I, Part C for migrant education), which are distributed based on student population, not legal status."

The irony is that two red states, Florida and Texas, are among the states with the highest proportion of their population being illegals, so they would be hurt worse than most.

from the net sifter:

High Concentration: A 2023 study by Pew Research Center indicates that California, Texas, Florida, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois remain the top states for unauthorized residents.

Highest Percentages: Eight states (including California, Texas, Florida, Nevada, New Jersey, Maryland, and Connecticut) and Washington, D.C., were estimated to have 5% or more of their population as unauthorized immigrants in 2023.

Regional Shifts: While California has historically held the highest number, some data indicates its unauthorized population has declined slightly, whereas Florida saw a significant increase of 400,000 between 2019 and 2024.

And yet, where have the storm troopers been rousting people lately? Minnesota and Maine. Not exactly "target rich" states.

Would Texas or Florida lose a seat in the House, if all the illegals were not counted?

Steve

Would Texas or Florida lose a seat in the House, if all the illegals were not counted?

Probably. As would CA.

As a rough cut, each US Representative represents about 770,000 people. CA and TX have a bit over 2 million undocumented residents. FL is closer to 1.5 million. So CA and TX would likely lose 2 and maybe 3, while FL would be 1 or 2.

But where would those seats go? To states with relatively lower undocumented populations. But it’s complicated.

—Peter

—Peter

“YOUR community, so YOU get to plant the fields, tend them, AND pick the crops.

NOW do you want to pay for (whatever) "it" is?”

I want to pay for it - my share that is. “It” being the education of all children, native-born and immigrant.

We sent our kids to public schools. We believe in them, but the schools have changed since we started out. There’s a segregation happening along financial lines. There’s been a huge influx of immigrants and our public schools are struggling to cope.

We sent our kids to public schools. We believe in them, but the schools have changed since we started out. There’s a segregation happening along financial lines. There’s been a huge influx of immigrants and our public schools are struggling to cope.

I smell vouchers. If so, eliminate them. Make sure all funds go to the public schools.

“I smell vouchers. If so, eliminate them. Make sure all funds go to the public schools.”

Vouchers are one cause of the segregation, sure. Eliminate them how? Ohio went red fairly recently. It will stay red for a generation.

No one seems interested in addressing the other issue - 16% of kids in our public schools don’t speak English. That’s a huge drain on school resources, only partially compensated by the federal government. Our community has to provide the rest.

Why is that?

Perhaps these parents feel their kids can get a better education elsewhere.

Which could be true. I don't know Seattle's situation, so can't really comment on that specifically. There could be (and probably are) a lot of factors. A quick check says you don't have vouchers, so that is good. It also says you have some sort of program for "free" community college (also good). Without doing a lot more research into it, it isn't obvious what the problem(s) could be.

No one seems interested in addressing the other issue - 16% of kids in our public schools don’t speak English. That’s a huge drain on school resources, only partially compensated by the federal government. Our community has to provide the rest.

ESL. That's really the only way to address it. The kids will learn fast (they seem to have a lot of plasticity in their minds, and pick up languages very quickly...ref: 1poorkid).

And education is largely controlled at the local level (even more with the defacto elimination of the DOE). School boards are local, operating within a very broad, general framework of the DOE (at least until the past year or so). So, yes, the community is very involved in education. That appears to be intentional. The community also benefits from that education.

Education is an investment, not an expense.

A quick check says you don't have vouchers, so that is good. It also says you have some sort of program for "free" community college (also good). Without doing a lot more research into it, it isn't obvious what the problem(s) could be.

Heh. The public schools are mediocre despite increases in funding and teachers making 6 figures in pay and benefits. Not bad for working 3/4ths of the year.

Compensation isn’t the problem.

Vouchers are one cause of the segregation, sure. Eliminate them how?

Multiple ways to make them essentially worthless in terms of making a profit or creating segregated schools.

The easiest way is to require every school to accept ALL voucher applicants--with the voucher being the ONLY payment required for a full year's costs to attend that school.

But despite an increasing population, Seattle's public schools are dropping in student enrollment.

Why is that?


The two biggest drivers are declining birth rates (nationwide), and higher cost of living which forces families to choose lower cost of living areas. <--this last one is a big one. So take a look around you Dope, you may see it.

The two biggest drivers are declining birth rates (nationwide), and higher cost of living which forces families to choose lower cost of living areas. <--this last one is a big one. So take a look around you Dope, you may see it.

Nope. Seattle’s population is increasing.

We have the 2nd or so highest rate of kids in private schools here.

There’s an obvious answer. The answer is that the schools here aren’t perceived to be very good.

We have the 2nd or so highest rate of kids in private schools here.

There’s an obvious answer. The answer is that the schools here aren’t perceived to be very good.

Require the private schools to accept all applicants. Watch what happens.

There’s an obvious answer. The answer is that the schools here aren’t perceived to be very good.

That would indicate a very high rate of affluency. Private schools aren't cheap. There's a good chance that any parent that can afford private school would send their kids there anyway, no matter what city they lived in.

I also like the suggestion to require private schools to take special needs kids. The state must take them. Private schools can pick and choose to make their "outcomes" look better. Of course, since Seattle doesn't have a voucher system, that probably wouldn't be workable. Any city that does, require the private schools to take all comers with no extra fees. They'll almost certainly end up no better (or worse) than the public schools.

There's a good chance that any parent that can afford private school would send their kids there anyway, no matter what city they lived in.

Back before this all happened, some public high school systems were very good, top notch. As the move to voucher systems happpened, it was predicted that there would be a drain on public schools and that public schools would lag. So we created segr3agation based on affordability lines. In CA I knew people who moved into neighborhoods because of the school system and how they were rate wouold help your kids get into good Universities. Then the system is forced to take some students from outside and the parents are pissed as the ratings go down.

I remember taking standardized test when I was young and because my parents spoke English well, I knew proper English. I could eliminate a couple of wrong answers on multiple guess because the English wasn't right. I had an advantage, the odds were in my favor. It doesn't seem right to do that on a history exam, etc.

There's a good chance that any parent that can afford private school would send their kids there anyway, no matter what city they lived in.

Not in every city. Here in Miami, and I expect many others, the wealthy parents would use their wealth to buy homes in the attendance districts of the better public schools. Cheaper than private school, since you can (usually) recapture that premium when your kids leave home and you resell the house.

That would indicate a very high rate of affluency.

…which means they have a choice. And their choice is to pull their kids out of Seattle public schools.

Think there’s a lesson there?

Here in Miami, and I expect many others, the wealthy parents would use their wealth to buy homes in the attendance districts of the better public schools. Cheaper than private school, since you can (usually) recapture that premium when your kids leave home and you resell the house.

Mrs. Goofy and I were in broadcasting, where youy tend to get bounced from city to city every 3-4 years. Sometimes by company transfer, sometimes because your show gets cancelled, sometimes because you get fired, sometimes because…

We have no childen, but the most important issue on our list for buying homes (currently on #6) was “good school district” because we knew we could sell - quickly, and generally for a better price.

As the move to voucher systems happpened,...

Seattle doesn't have vouchers. I checked. But as a general rule, I agree that vouchers have been a disaster for education. Also, the end of busing. I read an analysis several years ago about busing. It actually worked. The money followed the more affluent (usually white) kids, and the poorer schools started to improve.

I don't know what Seattle's problems are, and Dope isn't really providing any information on them. Teacher's salaries? Lack of funding? Poor teacher/student ratio? A disproportionate number of wealthy people sending their kids to private schools? Or maybe some idiotic policy I'm unaware of?

I know the CUSD better because that's what I dealt with (over 10 years ago now...1poorkid is pushin' 30...time flies...).

We have no childen, but the most important issue on our list for buying homes (currently on #6) was “good school district” because we knew we could sell - quickly, and generally for a better price.

That's sort of risky, though. School districts aren't static. When we moved to our present home, the district was struggling. We had the option to keep 1poorkid in the district of the house we sold, so we did. Today, the school district we live in is regarded as very good. At least comparable to the prior district we lived in. This would be in part because there is more money because more people live here now. When we moved here we were surrounded by fields, and the freeway wasn't built yet, and the Costco was just another field.

But as a general rule, I agree that vouchers have been a disaster for education.

They have not. Vouchers allow parents to have a choice where their child goes to school and if there’s a better option they can take advantage of it.

We spend more on education now than we ever have and we’re getting worse results. Why do you think that is? Might it be that accountability isn’t a thing any longer?

I don't know what Seattle's problems are, and Dope isn't really providing any information on them. Teacher's salaries? Lack of funding? Poor teacher/student ratio? A disproportionate number of wealthy people sending their kids to private schools?

None of those things. The district has plenty of money but runs at a deficit because of bloat.

We have no childen, but the most important issue on our list for buying homes (currently on #6) was “good school district” because we knew we could sell - quickly, and generally for a better price.

Probably fine if you move every 3-4 years.

We bought in a good school district in 2007 for our kids. Now it is a financially struggling school district about to cut everything there is possible to cut and will still be running a deficit. Our youngest graduates this year, so why should we be concerned...but...we're good little sheeple libtards so we do care. About kids. Not resale.

ESL. That's really the only way to address it. The kids will learn fast (they seem to have a lot of plasticity in their minds, and pick up languages very quickly...ref: 1poorkid).

Sure, we have ESL teachers and tutors, of course. It does take resources from other school functions. More ESL, less math and science, possibly.

Education is an investment, not an expense.

Agree. I'll post that on the school district Facebook discussion and see what response I get.

Seattle doesn't have vouchers.

Neither does CA - but they do move into areas with good school systems as Albaby has described. And people who do move into areas for the better schools don't like having the rating for the school disrupted if they have kids. And I think we can all understand why. We need to understand what drives a school systems teaching ability up and concentrate on that and not move the kids. And at least part of what helps drive the ability up is that the parents care.

The irony is that two red states, Florida and Texas, are among the states with the highest proportion of their population being illegals, so they would be hurt worse than most.

Thanks for pointing that out. The fellow next door to me makes liberal use of illegal immigrant labor in rebuilding his house. He'll make good money from it, but he plans on living in it. I think the tax law has changed so you can se,, it after two years and keep up to 250k without having to be over 65, if you lived in it 2 out of the past five years.

The irony is that two red states, Florida and Texas, are among the states with the highest proportion of their population being illegals, so they would be hurt worse than most.

------------------

Thus demonstrating their motives are altruistic, for good of the republic in general, and not rooted in self interest.

Thus demonstrating their motives are altruistic, for good of the republic in general, and not rooted in self interest.

Not so. Lee Atwater's quote demonstrates that y'all will vote for something against your interest if you think it will hurt brown people more than white people. While polls show an increase in laws restricting University and College tuition from illegals (hurting brown people), there is no similar move at the high school and below level (y'all want the money- so far).

So one could reasonably say, when you can narrow it down to hurting brown people, it's a winner so far.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.