Opinion Talk

By Lee

February 7, 2009 12:54 PM | Link to this

As a parent who sent one child through public school and pulled the youngest out in favor of private school, there are two major differences between the two types of schools: (1) the type of student that are sitting in the class with my child, and (2) the “customer service” awareness of the private school’s teachers and principals.

To the first point, the typical public school classroom includes a full array of student - from the border line retard to the future valedictorian. For good measure, throw in the special ed kid, the illegal alien who can’t speak a lick of English, and the future felon whose only goal seems to be to disrupt the class every day. It is only in high school that the student may segregated himself by ability by enrolling in A/P, Honors, and College Prep classes. Too little, too late, IMHO.

To the second point, the private school knows exactly who the customer is. They know that if they do not satisfy me, I will take my child and my check down the road. The public school is run by petty bureaucrats who hide behind the policy manual like it was a Roman Gladiator shield.

Tell you what, forget vouchers. Just give me a tax credit (or hell, even a deduction) for the tuition I pay.

By Aaron Williams

February 7, 2009 8:32 PM | Link to this

Maureen is 100% correct. We do need more schools with better “customer service.” If our public schools were more responsive to the needs of our children and the educational goals of the parent, we would have no need for private education.

But what’s the incentive for those school administrators to change? After all, they make a decent pay and fantastic benefits. Plus, it’s basically a guaranteed job for life. It’s not like they’re penalized or rewarded on silly things like performance or anything.

Plus, the schools are guaranteed to have a constant revenue stream. As long as kids are in the district, the money will keep flowing into their coffers.

I just came back from the grocery store. The food was plentiful, the aisles were clean, the produce was fresh and the employees were (for the most part) friendly. After all, if I didn’t like my shopping experience there, I could have gone to the other grocery across the street.

Just a guess, but if the store was given a set amount of money from the government based on the population of the area, and given a monopoly on providing groceries to the region, I’m thinking my shopping experience would be much different.

Point being — if you had 3 or 4 other schools to pick from and your tax dollars went with your kids, I’m guessing your problem would have been solved pretty quickly.

Without the threat of losing tax dollars or their jobs, why should schools treat your kids like anything other than a number?

By Older & Wiser

February 7, 2009 8:47 PM | Link to this

The problem with vouchers is that it allows the government to legally short-fund education. After all, if you can take the voucher “anywhere” and get the education of your choice, then, a decrease in the amount of the voucher isn’t actually cutting education spending; it’s cutting education government subsidies. That goes down much easier with the idiot voters. And all along, the people whose children are already in private school will benefit the most because, now, your tax dollars will have underwritten what they could already afford while those who couldn’t will have a voucher that won’t cover the entire cost of getting the same quality education.

One other thing: remember that private schools are not obligated to take the same government-mandated measurements of student achievement. So, private doesn’t automatically mean better.

By Dr. Craig Spinks/Augusta

February 8, 2009 1:21 AM | Link to this

If an educator is paid a certain and substantial amount of money whether or not s/he performs a job, how strong must be that educator’s professional code if it motivates him/her to do a job well, particularly in the face of the bureaucratic and legal obstacles placed in his/her path? Stronger than the sense of professional duty demonstrated by many of our educators, I fear.

By Ben

February 8, 2009 10:08 AM | Link to this

This is an idea whose time is long overdue. My children attend a Catholic school and it is a great school that has educated them very well. The great thing about attending such a school is that discipline problems are effectively and immediately dealt with and there are no special ed miscreants to take away from instruction time.

Any special ed types are referred to outside schools to be handled by teachers who are trained to warehouse and control them. The great thing that vouchers would do is to make private schools more affordable to parents who want something better for their child’s education, they will not replace public schools for parents who want mediocrity and “equality” for their children; they also will not totally underwrite a private school education but they will give parents some financial breathing room to give their children something better.

I am 100% in favor of this effort.

By Sam

February 8, 2009 10:52 AM | Link to this

I completely concur with Ms Downey about public schools needing to respond to parents concerns and providing better customer service. I am happy to hear that she is not advocating throwing more money at the public school system.

I’ve posted this before: America spends an avg of $10,800 per public school student and yet we get results that are very avg at best compared to the rest of the developed nations. Europe and Japan spend an avg of $6,500 per student and get far better avg than we and get far better results. So money is NOT the problem no matter what the teachers unions say.

However, I completely disagree with Ms. Downey’s position regarding vouchers. I believe a little competition from voucher funded school would light a fire to these entrenched beurocrats who feel it’s OK to dismiss parents concerns. Nothing like a little competition and job INsecurity to have them pay attention to us.

By Copyleft

February 9, 2009 8:08 AM | Link to this

“Customer service”??? You’re joking, right? The schools aren’t here to enable parents’ laziness and sense of entitlement. They’re here to educate your kids.

Instead of whining about how your Precious Darling isn’t being catered to enough, or complaining about the “unreasonable demands” of homework and tests, you should be in the TEACHER’s corner helping to crack down on your spoiled brat and drill some good study habits into his/her thick little noggin.

When did it become acceptable for parents to side with the students, AGAINST the teachers? You’ve got it exactly backwards and you’re not doing your kid any favors with this kind of nonsense.

Until parents are willing to step up and take the responsibility to BE parents, I say ignore them. Parents like this are the problem, not the “customer.”

By lovelyliz

February 9, 2009 9:05 AM | Link to this

I have not heard on oone single voucher plan that comes close to paying 100% of the cost of a moderate private school education. My niece attends a private school because her fathers family is paying for it. The list of what has to be paid for far exceeds the $4800 tuition and that’s not at a top tier school: tuition, registration fee, book fee, technology fee, school uniforms, building fee, science fee, etc. That’s for a child who isn’t even in high school. Ad in the cost of transportatin and you realizr that only those who can afford to send their chikdren to a private school or those who can’t quite afford it would be helped. The rest of the students would be left to fend.

By lovelyliz

February 9, 2009 10:38 AM | Link to this

I have not heard of one single voucher plan that comes close to paying 100% of the cost of a moderate private school education. My niece attends a private school because her fathers family is paying for it. The list of what has to be paid for far exceeds the $4800 tuition and that’s not at a top tier school: tuition, registration fee, book fee, technology fee, school uniforms, building fee, science fee, etc. That’s for a child who isn’t even in high school. Ad in the cost of transportation and you realize that only those who can afford to send their children to a private school or those who can’t quite afford it would be helped. The rest of the students would be left to fend.

By lovelyliz

February 9, 2009 10:38 AM | Link to this

I have not heard of one single voucher plan that comes close to paying 100% of the cost of a moderate private school education. My niece attends a private school because her fathers family is paying for it. The list of what has to be paid for far exceeds the $4800 tuition and that’s not at a top tier school: tuition, registration fee, book fee, technology fee, school uniforms, building fee, science fee, etc. That’s for a child who isn’t even in high school. Ad in the cost of transportation and you realize that only those who can afford to send their children to a private school or those who can’t quite afford it would be helped. The rest of the students would be left to fend.

By Tman

February 9, 2009 2:06 PM | Link to this

So the parents are the customer now. What happen to the kids? Parents like this continue to drain resources from the schools. Then ask why public education is not getting the job done. I do understand getting involved when there are problems but to ask for special treatment because of past siblings. Give me a break. No wonder the principles are pulling their hair out, parents are draining their time

By Ben

February 9, 2009 5:51 PM | Link to this

I think it is unfair to criticize public schools. They may not be as pricey as private schools, but our politicians, scientists, lawyers, doctors, teachers, and CEOs are coming from somewhere. I attended a public high school, Clayton County to be exact, and I graduated number 3 in my class, and received acceptance from Duke because of my 2100 SAT score. My friends were all very smart, the teachers I had were smart, and the administration for the most part knew what they were doing. Private school offers nothing that public schools cant, and in fact, most colleges would pick a public school student over a private school student with the same crudentials. The voucher system is basically giving the 13% of parents who put their children in private schools already a free check. Older and Wiser hit the nail on the head when he said that private doesn’t always mean better. Parents need to realize that the education that their child receives is based upon what habits the child has learned at home and how the child applies himself in school. Switching your kids to Woodward of ELCA will not cause them to make better grades.

By radiowxman

February 9, 2009 7:16 PM | Link to this

“Private does not always mean better” or “Most public schools are good” are canards.

Of course there are good public schools and of course there are bad private schools. That’s not the issue.

I went to a great public school. My son will likely go to a great public school. As an involved parent, I will ensure that he will get a quality education. However, families like myself aren’t the ones school choice will help.

The issue is one of CHOICE. Why should the woman in Clayton County break the law in order to give her son a chance at a better education? Or do you believe she should have stayed in a school system that’s not going to be fixed until after her son graduates?

Instead, it’s going to help the dedicated and committed parents and kids who, by accident of geography, are forced into a school with metal detectors and teachers who are glorified babysitters. Don’t you wonder why there’s overwhelming support for voucher programs in failing school districts (mainly in the inner cities?)

Perhaps you’re fine with your suburban school. So let others eat their proverbial cake. After all, as long as your kids have a good education, what does it matter if other kids have a similar shot, right?

By chuck

February 9, 2009 7:37 PM | Link to this

But I left the principal’s office that day feeling that she valued absolute control more than parental goodwill, and that she preferred parents be seen and not heard.

As a teacher with 20 years experience, I had to comment about this statement. It is not as you say about the principal wanting absolute control. When you request a specific teacher for your kid, you put principals in a hard place. If they grant your request they have no choice but to accomodate EVERY parent. That sets up a scheduling nightmare. Especially if there is a PERCEPTION among parents that one teacher is better than another (which usually just means that they give higher grades or they don’t give as much homework).

While you might not have said anything about it, MOST parents would then start telling other parents that the principal “will give you the teacher you want”. Inevitably, someone is going to have to be in “that other class” and those parents are going to be angry.

The principal should NEVER have told you that she did not give you that teacher BECAUSE you asked. What she should have told you is that she sets the computer scheduler to randomly schedule students to classes. That really is the ony fair way to schedule anyway.

The principal certainly could have handled it better, but she did the right thing in refusing the request.

By chuck

February 9, 2009 8:03 PM | Link to this

BTW, parents are NOT CUSTOMERS and schools are NOT BURGER KING. You can’t “have it your way”. Public schools certainly have some problems, but putting parents in control is not going to solve them. One big problem with education is that EVERYBODY is an expert because they spent 12 years in school. They can tell you just how to fix things.

They will say things like, “you need to whup their butts when they misbehave”…but then THEIR KID does something wrong and the story changes. Butt whuppins’ are for those OTHER kids. Much of what we deal with on a daily basis are parents who don’t want the rules to apply to their kids.Many of them want special treatment for their kids. It’s a pain. There are ALWAYS special circumstances that require that THEIR kids to be treated differently. We do our jobs. Sometimes it is best to just let your kids suffer the consequences.

By Copyleft

February 10, 2009 9:08 AM | Link to this

Radio: You may not realize it, but you’re arguing AGAINST funding and vouchers. The idea that we need to make education better for all kids, rather than just a privileged few, is the reason to fix PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

Making it easier for more parents and students to bail out will not accomplish that. It will only help another small segment of near-affluent students, while consigning the underprivileged to even worse schooling. Bad idea.

By radiowxman

February 10, 2009 9:57 AM | Link to this

Copy —

Again, your argument is a canard.

No one (except Boortz) is arguing for the elimination of PUBLIC SCHOOLS. In fact, voucher programs would probably not affect public school systems that are working. Parents from good public schools would not move them, since the voucher program wouldn’t pay the cost of more elite private schools.

However, if you’re a concerned parent in a failing school, you are under the tyranny of the majority. You’ve got kids who don’t care about learning, teachers who are inflating grades and administrators who are ineffective at best, inept at worst.

Fixing public schools is what we’re talking about here. So far, we’ve tried to fix them with a lot of money. But there’s been no real consequences for failing. If we allow their captive audience to leave, taking their tax dollars with them, public schools will have the incentive to shape up. It will force schools to get rid of those who don’t or can’t do the job….and reward those who excel.

Seems to me that the anti-voucher crowd is either ignorant of the real-world problems facing parents in bad schools, or they’re afraid of a little competition.

By Sam

February 10, 2009 10:44 AM | Link to this

To Copyleft and anti-voucher crowd:

Put your money where your mouth is. Move and send your kids to a Clayton County School or just about any public Detroit City School. Then come back and post your holier than thow BS about equality and how it can all be fixed by throwing more money at the public school system. See my previous post about how much money we’re already spending compared to other countries.

It seems as if the biggest proponents are the families who are living in these failing school districts where they currently have no other options. Perhaps it’s another way of keeping the “black man” (in this case, minority children) down.

By Copyleft

February 10, 2009 12:51 PM | Link to this

Sure. Let’s save public schools by making it even easier for people to leave them, IF they can afford to. And then let’s take away their funding.

Neither of those will have any negative consequences for the kids who remain there. No, not at all. Are you people even LISTENING to your own arguments?

By V for Vendetta

February 10, 2009 12:55 PM | Link to this

The lack of personal accountability displayed by many people on this blog is nothing short of astounding. Maureen is upset because her kids didn’t get the exact teacher she requested. Big freaking deal. People seem to think that others are ENTITLED to a tax-sponsored hand out simply because they are unsatisfied with their geographic school system. BOLLOCKS.

Sam, you talk about how we can’t fix the problems by throwing more money at them, but then you seem to indicate that vouchers will magically solve everything? You want to throw TAX money at the problem? Ridiculous.

Look, public schools are in a mess right now. I think we can all agree on that. But this sense of entitlement and lack of accountability is what perpetuates this problem. If you want your child to attend a private school, then do whatever it takes to afford that private school. Every second spent complaining about it and demanding some type of compensation is a second you could be figuring out how you could afford the tuition. If I were unhappy with my child’s situation, I would do WHATEVER it took to make it better—within the confines of the law. If that meant working another job to pay for private school, I would do it. If that meant moving somewhere else in order for him or her to attend a good public school, I would do it.

What I wouldn’t do is ask someone else for a handout on the basis that I DESERVE it. What a crock of $hit.

By Sam

February 10, 2009 1:46 PM | Link to this

So “V” and Copyleft seem to think it’s perfectly acceptable for taxpayers to be spending $10,800 per public student and getting $hitty results depending on your geopgraphic location…..Priceless!

By Copyleft

February 10, 2009 8:06 PM | Link to this

No, Sam. We think all of us are on the hook for fixing public schools so that they work—for EVERYONE, not just the privileged few.

By Sam

February 10, 2009 8:20 PM | Link to this

yeah right Copyleft,

like the privileged few in Clayton County and Detroit City—give me a break. In Detroit, you’ve only had 25 YEARS to “fix the public schools”… worked well thus far, don’t you think?

Please feel free to make some sense!

By david wayne osedach, san diego/ U.S.A.

February 10, 2009 9:13 PM | Link to this

In this economy, voucher, or, not - the vast majority will be attending public schools. Not all of them are like in this article.

By Ben

February 10, 2009 10:00 PM | Link to this

Sam, Are you really saying that this is the act of “keeping the black man down.”? That is exactley the kind of attitude that brought trouble upon so many school systems in the first place. There is nothing about trying to keep one minority better than the other, and it is absurd to think so. If you feel that black parents deserve a chance, then take the highest black percentile school board in the state and look how they’re doing. Would you like to take a guess at what school system that would be? It is CLAYTON COUNTY. You think that people are trying to keep the “black man” down, or as you also put it, the “minority children” down. Well, in several school districts white is not the minority, and you are spouting off at the mouth because you think that this is a race issue, and until you fix your misconstrued idea about what the education system is there for, then keep your mouth closed.

By Sam

February 10, 2009 11:18 PM | Link to this

Ben and I agree that Clayton county has a majority black population, with majority black beurocrats, administrators, and teachers. They have demonstrated repeatedly their utter incompetence. Some or many of these students and their families apparently don’t seem to care. Alas, sadly, you can’t help those who don’t care about their childrens’ education and not make it a priority, no matter how much money you throw at them. That’s a sad fact. But there are those parents of minority children (and majority) who DO care and are frustrated with the rigid, underachieveing unacommodating system. Many have suggested that they “move to another area with better public schools”—like that’s so easy to do. Why not offer vouchers for the motivated students and families to go to schools that excel? B/C it would rob more funds from those already failing schools? Like how much could they get worse than Detroit or Clayton County?

How much more money per student do we have to spend before we say enough: $15,000… $18,0000…$20,000…anyone,anyone?….Ben?

By Copyleft

February 11, 2009 8:21 AM | Link to this

You’re right, Sam. Clearly it’s time to stop addressing these problems… and start ignoring them! That’ll make things better.

By Sam

February 11, 2009 9:25 AM | Link to this

Actually Copyleft,

The people who support vouchers are coming up with a solution and NOT “give up”. For once, just once, please come up with a solution that doesn’t involve throwing more money at the current system. Your crowd has had 25-30 years to do it and nothing has changed, only become worse.

You know the definition of insanity, don’t you? Do the same thing over and over again and HOPE you get a different result. I thought liberals like you were supposed to be “progressive” thinkers?

By Ben

February 12, 2009 7:18 AM | Link to this

The schools in Clayton County are NOT failing, they were revoked by SACS because of their school board. It is unfair to believe that the education is worse because the board is a bunch of idiots.

By Cleopatronize

February 12, 2009 10:46 AM | Link to this

Maureen Downey, you’re holding a gerbil when you should have an asp.

Your request for a teacher is the equivalent of tutoring. Tutoring is different and underwritten with an entirely different set of liabilities.

Thus your entire piece is amateurish. How did you get a column? HOW? This is an injustice and as the new conservative writer for the ajc, a big problem.

You’re Fired!

(no back, no vice versas, no changies.)

Jklol

no, seriously.

Jklol

no, seriously

Jklol

no, seriously

moron

By Kathi

February 12, 2009 1:04 PM | Link to this

Maureen, you are bellying up to the public trough for a service provided free by the taxpayers, and you’re complaining? If you don’t like it, get off the public dole and pay for your kids’ education.

By radiowxman

February 12, 2009 7:51 PM | Link to this

Actually, Ben…. I think Clayton County schools are bad because 70% of their kids can’t pass a geometry or biology exam. And 30% of the kids who got A’s in those classes also failed.

By Chris Broe

February 14, 2009 10:03 AM | Link to this

Why is it that babies come in packs of eight, but there’s only womb for one or two buns-in-the-oven? I always end up throwing away a few perfectly good babies. I waste a lot of bath water that way, and that’s such a shame during this drought……

Jklol

By koma

February 15, 2009 10:48 AM | Link to this

Food for thought:

This topic really has a covert paradigm contained inside. I attended a liberal institution some years ago and I never, ever, heard one nice comment made by any of my professors concerning the “public school system.” In fact I remember some of the tirades rather vividly from Dr.M** Our English 101 professor chastising the works by screaming out “what are the fools over there (public school system) doing!” “ Every one of you has a head full of rocks!” She was about as liberal as they come by the way, there is a stark rift between these two public entities and those of you who attended and or graduated from an upper learning institution know it is so.

Deciphering the tea leaves:

By catlady

February 15, 2009 10:52 AM | Link to this

We had the parent request program for years. It ended up that all the “high end” kids were put in two teachers’ classes. These were good teachers, don’t get me wrong, but they were not the only good teachers. Then, the results these two teachers got from their high end kids were thrown in the face of the teachers who taught the kids whose parents did not even know what grade their kids were in!

I don’t think we need more money. I think there are other, low cost things that would improve our schools: discipline (assuring that all kids have a learning environment), parent investment (reinforcing certain behaviors from parents), acknowledging teachers as professionals (getting rid of scripted lessons, for example), banning cure du jour (that justify a whole ‘nother level of “administrators” and their salaries to manage) to name a few.

I don’t think schools should worry about customer service. If parents have a specious complaint (my child did not get the teacher I wanted): give the parent a copy of state regs on home-schooling so they can “have it their way.”

Schools should strive to have friendly,positive relationships with parents, instead of seeing them as the enemy (so should parents toward schools!) But customer service—no way.

Chris Broe—let it rest. You’ve gotten all the mileage you can out of that one. The biggest billy goat Gruff should knock your little troll a** off the AJC bridges!

By Mort Merkel

February 16, 2009 12:44 PM | Link to this

I think you should out that principal by name. Shameful.

By Richard

February 17, 2009 7:42 PM | Link to this

Maureen could not be more wrong on this. Public schools should not have to answer to parents in any way. That’s why those parents send them to school. So that they can allow the experts to educate their children.

What is needed is for there to actually be experts in the education system that know what they are doing when it comes to developing cirriculum for the slow learner/average student and gifted child and teaching it to them that challenges the students. Currently we don’t have that.

If you want to start fixing education, try doubling the salaries of all teachers. Let better qualified people be enticed by a career in education so we can stop hiring teachers like my old AP Chemistry teacher that always bragged about getting a 950 on his SAT.

By NRB

February 17, 2009 9:06 PM | Link to this

You mean like Private School?

By Copyleft

February 18, 2009 12:08 PM | Link to this

Parents who want their little darling catered to and never given a bad grade ARE uninvited guests. More specifically, they’re a harmful influence on the educational process and should be studiously ignored until they learn to act like responsible parents.

The only change we need to make in our educational system is that it fails to educate the parents along with the children!

By Chuck

February 21, 2009 5:40 AM | Link to this

All anti-school-voucher arguments are bogus. As proof, consider those things that could be state owned and operated (funded by taxes) but aren’t like: grocery stores, gasoline stations, restaurants, health care, pharmacies, day-care, public utilities, and yes, even department stores.

Let us now pretend that some evil people don’t like being limited to those state-run facilities and thus are seeking (gasp) vouchers to shop where they want in the small, tolerated private sector. The anti-voucher folks would say:

1) vouchers will drain away the best customers from the state grocery stores leaving only the customers no one else wants

2) only the elite will be able to afford eating at private restaurants

3) vouchers will benefit only those private day-care centers that receive those funds

4) the real solution is to improve those state gasoline stations rather than abandoning them

5) no study has shown that the private sector can provide health care any better than the state

Now remember that none of the forgoing bogus claims actually exist in those industries just as they would not exist if we didn’t have forced taxation earmarked exclusively for government schools to the exclusion of private schools. See how easy that is to solve? All you have to do is add more government to parallel situations to realize that less government is the solution.

By Pre 91 Fan

February 21, 2009 5:12 PM | Link to this

I live in a Georgia county that has relatively good schools, whose students have above average test scores, among the best in the state. I’d guess that 80% of the teachers in my kids’ elementary school send THEIR children to private schools.

‘Nuff said.

By PrivateSchoolFan

February 22, 2009 8:46 AM | Link to this

The best teachers in the world can’t do much with lazy, uninterested students. Private schools succeed because the parents of those students have instilled in their children the value of education. Public schools fail because the parents of those students don’t care about education. So for those parents who value education provide vouchers and convert the public schools to vocational training schools. There’s always a need for burger flippers.

By Donovan

February 22, 2009 10:39 AM | Link to this

What you see is what you get. Public education is open to the dregs of society. The teachers are protected by unions. The students are protected by idiot parents. The schools are protected by liberal legislators. New schools keep getting built in the false premise that they will improve student scores and boost morale. Hold teachers to higher standards. Enforce more student discipline. Otherwise, issue vouchers or enroll students into private education where at all possible. Public education is mostly a baby sitting service free to uninterested parents.