55 thoughts on “Michelle Rhee: Blueprint for urban schools?”

1. I’ve read about this woman…. very controversial. I’ve seen her interviewed on Charlie Rose too. She is hard core. She puts everything on the teachers, discounting what is going on in the student’s personal lives. DC is desperate, as is 150. How do you change an entire society that does not value education? Can teachers alone be responsible? Granted, bad teachers must go, but so must bad administrators and consultants!

2. Tenure is obsolete.

3. Busting up a union isn’t going to solve all of District 150s problems. There are plenty of folks who think that that is the magic bullet, its not. But….. the union needs to recognize and stop defending poor performance. I think teachers benefit from having a union but mediocrity should not be part of their platform. They need to make merit part of the conditions for being represented. If you are a lousy teacher, the union should not be there for you.

4. Maybe they need a RatemyProfessor.com for elem/secondary students…?

5. First, C.J., glad to see your post!
   I’m going to sound like a broken record. I agree with most,if not all, of the above responses. Imaswede, your assessment is certainly correct–all of society’s ills simply cannot be laid at the teachers’feet; actually, that’s where they appear to be “lying” right now. For example, District 150 thought Manual would improve with an all new “hand-picked” faculty–that doesn’t appear to be happening. First of all, I know there are lousy teachers. I agree with you, Mahkno, except not for the part about unions representing lousy teachers. The union simply provides representation as in a court of law to see that the charges, etc., are fair. However, in my experience (43 years of it), I have found the real problem lies in the quality of administrators who judge teachers before they get tenure. I have said before and will say again, I think that “bad” teachers during the first five years are often just as bad 30 years later. The “weeding” out process should take place during those first years when unions have very little to say about firing teachers. In my experience, non-tenured (and tenured) high school teachers are judged primarily on the grades they “give” and the number of referrals they send to deans, etc. Consequently, many new teachers give high grades (often unearned) and allow discipline problems to go unreported. (I know, Kcdad, you’re going to mention how unimportant grades are, etc.) Oh, and the administrative criterion that I believe is high on the list: how well the teacher gets along with the administrator, etc.–with little relationship whatsoever to what happens in the classroom.
   I said before and will say again, I think you will find that getting rid of tenure isn’t going to bring any noticeable change in inner city schools–the ones that families want to escape (therefore, leading to the present demand for charter schools)because the societal problems still stand in the way of success and because administrators would continue to use poor judgment as to who is or isn’t a good teacher.
   Now–the real problem. Please tell me (if you were an administrator) what criteria would you use to judge bad teachers and what proof would you offer for your judgment. I know I would never have wanted that job.

6. Why don’t we fire administrators in districts that don’t perform? And how about the education bureaucrats? They set policy, not the teachers. It’s like blaming a line worker when the execs have them manufacture poorly designed products with broken machines and bad material. Start at the top for a change.
   You can start talking accountability when the people pulling down big salaries and preaching about places (classrooms) they’ve never been in, start accepting accountability themselves.

7. New Voice: I’m not sure about the rate-your-teacher idea. I know that some of us did that in our own classrooms–I often gave my students the opportunity to “judge” me–whom am I kidding? Ha! High school kids (the ones I taught, at least) were more than happy to offer up their opinions. And I was never unhappy with their criticisms or praises. However, I did object to the administrators who listened to disgruntled students sent to the dean for discipline problems. At that particular moment a student’s judgment is going to be anything but impartial. Unfortunately, administrators often base their opinions of teachers on these “negative” encounters with students “in trouble” rather than on discussions with the majority of students.
   I have no idea how you could get any kind of fair or relevant appraisal from elementary students. Also, if student-evaluations are to be used at all, I think they would best be solicited at the end of a year–just as a teacher’s final appraisal of a student’s work, etc., is at the end of the year or semester. In my experience, high school students in more recent years often believed they had the power to “force” teachers out of teaching–and in some cases that certainly did occur with new teachers. In my own experience, a student’s opinion of me was often based on his/her own grades (all too often students tend to believe a grade is an assessment of them, not of their work). I had to work hard to try to erase that perception. Did any of you have teachers that you disliked at the time, but later realized that you learned from those teachers? Frankly, more often than not I probably received more praise from students than I deserved. I think that I can honestly say (without taking credit at all) that more often than not my students truly liked me. However, these personal opinions are not necessarily signs that I was a “good” teacher. Hopefully–but not necessarily.

8. Pingback: Loose Lips Daily—Is Nickles the New Cheney? - City Desk - Washington City Paper

9. Mouse: Very good assessment of the problem–it fits with my own biases.

10. C.J.–I’m curious about your comment about charter schools being an opportunity for Bradley to train teachers. Many of us were already taught and trained by Bradley professors. Manual had a “partnership” with two Bradley teachers in the education department who came often to conduct workshops, etc. Teachers often go back to school to be trained (the certification laws now demand it and going up on the salary schedule requires it), so if the universities aren’t providing the right kind of training, that is where change needs to take place.
    Another complaint about administrators–many get jobs in areas where they have had no experience. For example, being an elementary teacher or administrator does not provide sufficient experience for being a high school administrator, etc. Also, an administrative certificate does not qualify an administrator to give advice or to criticize the methods of a subject-matter teacher. For example, I could have gotten an administrative degree–and that would, in no way, have qualified me to criticize a math teacher’s methods–since I don’t know the first thing about teaching math. However, that happens often in District 150. And how can that same administrator judge a math teacher’s capabilities, etc.

11. CJ- Last month I picked up the December 8, 2008 issue of Time magazine because with the cover story “How to Fix America’s Schools” by Amanda Ripley …Michelle Rhee is on the cover with a broom in her hand…perhaps a double message? Anyway,If you are interested in reading the article and are unable to find it on line- let me know and I will mail my copy to you.
    Beth

12. Just finished reading an article in FastCompany re: Ms. Rhee…she’s certainly controversial and has her work cut out for her. As do we here in Central Illinois.

    Here’s a link to the online FastCompany article…

    http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/128/the-iron-chancellor.html

13. I just found this clip about Rhee:

    Each week, Rhee gets e-mails from superintendents in other cities. They understand that if she succeeds, Rhee could do something no one has done before: she could prove that low-income urban kids can catch up with kids in the suburbs. The radicalism of this idea cannot be overstated. Now, without proof that cities can revolutionize their worst schools, there is always a fine excuse. Superintendents, parents and teachers in urban school districts lament systemic problems they cannot control: poverty, hunger, violence and negligent parents. They bicker over small improvements such as class size and curriculum, like diplomats touring a refugee camp and talking about the need for nicer curtains. To the extent they intervene at all, politicians respond by either throwing more money at the problem (if they’re on the left) or making it easier for some parents to send their kids to private schools (if they’re on the right).

    My comment:
    I agree with this assessment of the problem and, especially concur that it is becoming easier for parents to send their kids to private schools (or charter schools); this move toward private and charter schools doesn’t solve the problems of the inner school students, but leaving the problems behind–and unsolved–satisfies the fleeing parents.
    As for Rhee–so far I don’t believe she has accomplished her goals. The “if she succeeds” is the big “if.” When Rhee actually proves that low-income urban kids can catch up with kids in the suburbs (en masse), then we can have the discussion about tenure and unions, etc., being the problem.
    Until then (cynically, I’m sure) Rhee will have her symbolic broom in one hand and her other hand out collecting the money school administrators are giving her just to try her unproven fix-all programs. I think she just took over the D.C. schools in 2007–nothing has been proven yet. She won’t be the first to get rich with unfulfilled educational promises.

14. The consensus among the respondents, so far, is that there are many aspects of the current school system that are broken, and in need of repair. I am going to be controversial, and say that the school system, as it sits, is beyond repair.

    My recommendation would be to sweep the current structure out of the way, and put a new one in its place. I believe that the school system should be largely privatized. In my opinion, most parents want their children to have the best education they can. For this reason, I think it should be up to the parents to send their children to the school they feel will best accomplish that task. I think that, in turn, parents should pay for the school year, in its entirety, with no subsidies from the government. This takes responsibility for the schools out of government hands, and places it in the parents’.

    I know many of you by now think this is a wacky plan, and it can’t succeed because of poor people who can’t afford to pay more for their education. I also hear the chorus of individuals out there yelling, “How can we insure that children get educated to proper standards?”

    I would argue that there is an enormous tax burden on everyone placed on them by the city, state, and federal government because of the school system. Without government money pouring into the school system from tax dollars, people would pay less income tax, less sales tax, and of course less property tax. This would return a large portion of money back into the pockets of people, and allow them to afford their children’s education (Don’t think it is that much? Most people pay over 40% of their income in taxes, and a large amount goes for schools). Doing this would also eliminate a lot of the financial bloat that exists in education because people could simply find a cheaper school to attend without sacrificing quality.

    Also, union busting would not be an issue. If parents wanted union teachers to teach their children, then they would let their kids attend union schools. If people found that non-union schools were better, then the unions would bust themselves.

    For those people who argue that this type of system could not enforce standards, I ask you to examine car manufactures, food producers, airlines, medical institutions, and car insurance companies. All of these industries are private (although some might argue otherwise now), and yet they all deal in products that most would consider to have to meet important standards. These companies all deal with life and death on a daily basis. We trust these companies to produce quality products, or the lives of people are seriously affected. Schools are no different, and should also face the same scrutiny by the people as these companies do.

    I think the most important advantage of this system would be the wide variety of educational opportunities that would emerge. Students do not all learn the same way. I found that the public schools did not teach me the way I needed to be taught. As such, I did not do very well in the public school system. However, in college, I found programs that taught me the way I wanted to learn (not just for my major, but gen eds too). I excelled in those programs, and consequently did very well throughout college. I feel that I could have accomplished much more through my younger years, and enjoyed school much more, if I had been taught the way I learned best.

    Teachers aren’t at fault for this. They have to deal with kids that learn in many different ways, but by creating choice in schools, this allows them to teach to children in their way of learning. I think once most people appreciate their ability to learn new things, it motivates them to be all they can be.

    I went through public schools thinking I was stupid, when in fact I wasn’t. It makes me wonder how many people don’t go on to college because they think they aren’t smart enough, when they could be the next Einstein.

15. on a related note- I hear there was discussion at the last 150 board meeting about changing the boundaries of Woodruff and Richwood’s or did this have something to do with the possible closing of a high school in the future. Was anyone at the meeting this week that knows what was discussed?

16. Yes, there was discussion about changing boundaries. I was there and taped it–but I would have to check to be sure what I heard since it was being discussed as I was leaving. I don’t think it’s related to the more “iffy” possibility of closing a high school. I think this idea is more of a possibility. I think it relates to creating a kindergarten through 8th grade school to save transportation money. I would hope that the district would soon go back to all K-8 schools.

17. Peoriafan — I wasn’t there, but I watched the meeting on TV. They had a whole list of possible cuts. The less extreme cuts were above a red line, and the more extreme cuts were below the red line. There were several ideas below the red line, but the ones you’re referring to were these two options:

    1. Close a high school, or
    2. Make the Woodruff/Lincoln school campus one big K-12 school; don’t build the new middle school building; and redraw the attendance area borders so that the distribution of students for the Woodruff/Lincoln school isn’t too large for the available building space.

18. Sharon Crews: I talked to a friend today who used to work for District 150 (name withheld to protect the innocent). This person said that part of the problem with teacher accountability was that incidents don’t get written up. If a teacher gets in trouble, they’re simply told to “stop doing that,” or whatever, but never formally warned (written warning) for any incidents. Thus they can’t fire anyone because the union would require documentation/grounds for dismissal.

    While I have no reason to disbelieve this person, I nevertheless have a hard time believing that. What do you think of this person’s story? Fact or fiction?

19. Sorry to be so opinionated and to have so many opinions on this subject. But I have been giving some thought to the subject of tenure. I taught for 43 years and never at any time did I have any fear of losing my job. Maybe in the last few years when I began to “agitate” and criticize the system, etc., I would have been at risk if not for tenure. However, I probably wouldn’t have spoken out if I had thought my livelihood was at risk–which is also a major danger of not having tenure. Many, many teachers still stay very quiet about situations in the schools that are kept “secret” for fear of retaliation of some kind. Case in point would be the recent situation at Trewyn where some teachers did get word to Phil Luciano, who then did the investigating. I really think it is very important for teachers to have some security so that they will not be afraid to call attention to problems about which the public has a right to know. Frankly, I relied heavily on union support (if not protection) when I began to call attention to problems at Manual–problems that weren’t really “personal” to me. It is really not my nature to fight for myself–I don’t think. I did so mainly because I knew that the younger teachers had too much to risk to speak out and my risk wasn’t as great. Right now there are many situations in District 150 that are ignored, etc., because teachers are afraid to speak out. Not all these situations are just gripes affecting only disgruntled employees or “bad” teachers.
    I’m not at all sure that the elimination of tenure would mean that many teachers would be fired in a small district like 150. I hope you also understand that the Chicago schools and D.C. schools have many more problems than even 150’s inner city schools–and more problems with “bad” teachers. First of all, there are areas where teacher shortages would affect an administrator’s desire to get rid of a “bad” teacher. I don’t believe there are many new teachers begging for jobs in inner city schools. Take away the pay incentives in large school districts (made possible by unions) and there would probably be a major teacher shortage–especially of “good” teachers. For those of you who are ready to wash your hands of inner city school problems and seek more private and charter schools, there would be many children left behind–and in the end they will, as they do now, affect the quality of life in our cities–if you need a selfish reason for carrying about these students. My main reason for being against charter schools is that there will be children left out and there will be few people left to care about them–and little money. Many of these children have already been left behind as more and more families have moved to the suburbs and to private schools. I hold strongly to the theory that “peer group” pressure in a school if far more important than teachers. Having a significant population of students who excel academically (and are self-disciplined) will “pull” others up. We have a major problem with education in our city and country–I think all of us are just grasping at straws trying to find solutions.

20. C.J. – I think what you heard is partly true and partly not true. At the end of every year, every teacher is given an evaluation–if a teacher is not performing well, an administrator certainly should take that opportunity to document any problems that a teacher may have–these would, of course, be of an academic nature, problems related to the classroom. A few years before I left a new system was put into place where teachers receiving a “needs improvement” evaluation had to be monitored and mentored for the next year or three years. I believe that (with documentation) tenured teachers can be dismissed if there is no improvement (all in the “eye of the beholder.”) Teachers who want to fight charges in court, of course, can do so–isn’t that true of employees in private companies also? Of course, union membership does provide legal representation. Certainly, there are some offenses that would require immediate attention without any prior documentation–the one most often demanding that kind of attention would be illegal activity or mistreating or molesting students, etc.
    Non-tenured teachers are really not protected by the union–union reps might voice opinions of some kind (although I don’t think that happens very often at all). I believe administrators are free to use “subjective” judgments in not renewing contracts of non-tenured teachers. I can’t think of very many times when a “new” teacher was dismissed, however (the fault of administrators). I know of one case recently where a student teacher was not recommended by the supervising teacher but the teacher was hired anyway because of some family relationship. Finally, after many classroom problems, the teacher was dismissed.
    Administrators are free to write teachers up–all of us had personnel files which we can ask to see but are kept at the board rooms. I know of a few cases where teachers were surprised by some of the accusations against them contained in this files.
    C.J., are you advocating that teachers be dismissed at the whim of administrators? I’m not sure what you mean by “getting in trouble” and told to stop doing “what”? Certainly, I agree that any teacher who is guilty of a serious offense against a student should be fired–or that accusations should be reported and investigated. There was a situation just like that at Manual very recently; and from all I heard the administration was warned by an employee and ignored the warnings. Eventually, the situation came out into the open and the teacher was charged and is serving time in prison now. However, I also believe in “innocent until proven guilty” because false charges against teachers can and have been made.
    As for the union intervention, an administrator is free to ignore the union, etc., but the cases could go to court. It’s possible that administrators don’t want to risk court procedures, etc.–and the district complaining about court costs, etc.
    I’m just not sure what kind of offenses your friend was referencing. My support of tenure relates only to unfair judgments and very subjective opinions from unqualified administrators about classroom performance–and I do see that as a major problem in education. First of all, just defining what is a good teacher is very, very subjective. Right now, NCLB leads everyone to judge teachers on test scores alone–I’m not at all ready to believe that a student’s success or failure is solely an indication of the teacher’s success or failure.
    I guess I’m asking what specific behaviors do you believe should be grounds for dismissal. Just what is a “bad” teacher?
    I’m still trying to outguess the situation your friend brought up. Certainly, because humanbeings are involved, there have been times when administrators have not taken action against a teacher because of a personal friendship, etc. (more than because of a fear of union interference). Certainly, if all the accusations about Trewyn are correct, the principal for some reason chose not to get the substitute teacher in trouble. I’m still trying to figure out why the principal wasn’t more concerned about what would happen to her if she didn’t report the incident.
    Well, I’ve occupied much too much space today–no promises though that I can resist the temptation to respond.
    However, C.J., glad to see that so far you aren’t sticking to your New Year’s resolution.

21. To answer CJ’s question without writing a dissertation: yes, 150 should bust the teacher’s union. It should also sell all of its education assets, fire all of its employees and function only as a distributor of education vouchers while private companies provide education services.

    With free-market competition in education it would be parents deciding with their dollars which teachers, administrators and schools are effective rather than bureaucrats and union bosses.

22. What he or she said.

23. Sharon asked, “C.J., are you advocating that teachers be dismissed at the whim of administrators?”

    Certainly not! I’m not advocating anything, as a matter of fact. I was just asking a question.

24. C.J.–I should write with more care–I didn’t mean to imply by the question that I believed you would want a teacher dismissed on a whim. However, the person you quoted seemed to be thinking that a one-time incident should result in dismissal–at first read seemed like a “whim.” I was just trying to figure out what kind of incident? The “in trouble” part does indicate that he/she was probably speaking about a serious matter. I truly don’t believe that any union member or leader that I know would want a teacher to get away with anything that could be considered criminal–but they might want them to receive representation to prove guilt or innocence. Any principal (regardless of unions) should immediately report such matters to central administration and action and/or investigation should take place.

25. Sharon and C.J…. let me play devil’s advocate for a moment.
    Why shouldn’t a teacher be subject to firing on a whim? What makes a teacher so special?

26. Sharon you have again thrown out the line about how we have to keep the good kids in bad schools becase we can not leave kids behind if all the good kids leave. I don’t get it. If the ship is sinking and we can save half, why not save them? Year after year the good kids are left to rot in bad schools under some promise that we have to make it better for everyone. How many lives have been destroyed by people like you forcing good kids to stay in crap schools under the line that you will eventually make it better for everyone. Guess what its not getting better! Its time to let the good kids out so that they can get an education and move on to a better life. If that cost a bunch of union teachers their jobs so be it. Its time the union stop holding these kids hostage in failing schools. Its time people like you allow good kids to get an education. If the public schools have not done it by now, why should we belive it will get better next year, or in five, or ten years? How many kids do we have to flush down the toilet before we allow them to go and get an education. There are good schools to choose from. Why are you against allowing poor kids the same chance as those who have money to opt out of public / union schools and get an education at a school that will give them an education?

27. More “brilliant” posturing from a person who doesn’t know sh*t about the subject she’s writing about.

    Let’s pretend that 50% of the teachers get fired up, and somehow become “great teachers”- how do we scare up the additional money to compensate them for suddenly becoming “great”?

    Maybe we can sweeten the pot by offerring money to parents who suddenly become “great” parents, too. That might help out the schools even more.

28. I agree with Michael. Those that are able to learn and excel should have full access to a curriculum and peer group that is interested in doing the same. Richwoods should be developed into a top college prep school that any student in the District that qualifies can attend.

    I am “frustrated” that all educational discussions focus on inner city instructional challenges when there are many, many capable students in the District which deserve a well-rounded, competitive education.

    No wonder those that can have left the District. What is the District doing to entice those with ability to its schools?

    A reading of the Time article on Ms. Rhee indicates that she has fired her share of administrators since arriving in D.C. There is no one problem with District 150 or public education in general, except that as GenerationWhy points out, the system has failed to change with the times. Student populations are far more diverse and different learning opportunities must be offered to students with varying skills and abilities.

29. Surprise! I probably understand reluctantly and sadly some of the last few comments–but perhaps for different reasons. If pushed to total honesty, I personally believe that the public schools (especially in the inner city) are all but dead. But I don’t believe that unions or teacher tenure had much to do with their death–those of you sitting on the sidelines can and will continue to put the blame wherever you choose–but I choose not to accept the blame. In the 1960s through the 1980s most of the rest of the city thought Manual was an inferior school–it wasn’t; there are many Manual graduates from that era (black and white) and before who have done very well in college and their chosen professions.
    I don’t think anyone can deny (probably will but history proves otherwise) that there was great white flight in the 1950s and 1960s. Richwoods and Peoria Christian both came into being at that time–and (as a high school and college student) I heard all the discussions that would give credence to my assertion that racial views had much to do with establishing these schools as far away from the south side as possible–anywhere to avoid forced integration. That era with more and more people pulling out of Peoria schools to the suburbs or to private schools began the decline of the public school. Nothing or no one has been able to stop this movement. I have no doubt that all of you will get your way–there will be charter schools and there will be more private schools; that’s the logical outcome to what was begun fifty years ago.
    And the inner city public school will die. Frankly, right now I wouldn’t be averse to closing Manual and distributing all the south side high school students throughout the city. The exodus should probably start at the primary and middle school level. That is my response to Michael’s question, “Why are you against allowing poor kids the same chance as those who have money to opt out of public / union schools and get an education at a school that will give them an education?” I’m not against it–just don’t know for sure who “wants” these young people and who will pay for their education. People like me (according to one accusation above) haven’t forced anyone to stay in public schools. The union and or teacher tenure have not kept anybody in public schools. You give us far too much power–I just taught whoever walked through the doors into my classroom. Most who wanted out of Peoria schools have found their way out. And frankly today I don’t blame them. In fact, the family of children about whom I care the most are facing this dilemma right now. There is no way that their daughter, now at Washington Gifted, will be going to Manual next year.
    Of course, I am conflicted. Why wouldn’t I be? I spent my life and career caring about south side kids and doing everything in my power to give them a chance in life. I have spent my life believing in the importance of public schools. Of course, I hate to give up. I never thought about the issue in terms of what would happen to me if there were no union or tenure–probably because I didn’t have to.
    I think the controversy about unions and teacher tenure will play itself out. Don’t expect teachers in District 150 to help you bust the union or to give up tenure. Ironically, I truly was not a strong union person as a teacher–my strong pro-union feelings began maybe 10 years before I retired and are extending into the present. Obviously, many of you will not be supporting teachers on these issues. I know that Caterpillar workers thought the union would never lose its power–but it did. What will be, will be! Right now I would like to see Jeff Adkins-Dutro and Hedy Elliott-Gardner have their chance to lead the union–to give them a chance to make a difference and even possibly change some of your minds. I don’t know what the future holds for public education in Peoria; I know that I don’t approve of much that is going on right now in District 150 (we don’t differ that much); however, understandable, I am not willing to blame teachers or the union–you all can do that, no problem.

30. The union has fought very hard against school choice, thats the issue. If a south side parent wants to send their child to peoria christian or dunlap, then they should have the choice, and property taxes that fund education should fund that choice. To claim that the parent can send their child is a lie when you know that the average south side parent is not in a position to pay the tuition at pca and residence requirements would stop them from going to dunlap. The money to pay for quality education is available, it just needs to be taken from the public schools that a failing.

31. Michael: (Mostly, anyone please answer my question at the end of my initial comments) I know that the union talks against charter schools and private schools–stands strongly for public schools, etc. The voucher system would have to be in place in order to attempt to accomplish what you are advocating. I do acknowledge that at the state and national level the union is fighting the voucher system. Locally, the voucher system has seldom been raised as more than a talking point. I guess that fight is so far removed from my world that I never consider myself to be a part of it. Until then, any talk of choice in Peoria really translates into how much choice District 150 offers within the system. Right now schools such as Washington Gifted and the Edison schools are the primary means of “choice.” I do believe that a good many children would be left out if the voucher system were in place because an individual parent’s “voucher” money wouldn’t be enough to get his/her child into a “choice” school. Some schools are still going to end up with the problem children or those whose parents cannot provide the “rest” of the tuition or provide the transportation, etc. Teachers will still be needed. I am assuming that you will want the “bad” teachers to be placed in those schools so that the “choice” schools can have the “good” teachers. I suppose then competitive pay will determine how much a teacher is paid. I see much inequity in such a system. The old “you won’t know until you try it” adage applies here. It’s unchartered territory, so I don’t know how I’d really feel about it. All my arguments relate to how things are today. Proponents of the voucher system are free to push for it–and if the “yes” votes are stronger than the “no” votes, then you win. So far that’s the way it works in this country, for the most part. The same holds true of the new District 150 charter school. I have many misgivings about it–but if it works I would be happy if the children in my life could benefit from it. The question about the charter school was voted on by six people (the vote was “yes”)–the union had no vote on the matter, so how can you say that the union is powerful enough to stop a charter school?
    Now for my question–actually, I didn’t think about it until today and I have never heard any discussion of it.
    Let’s say that the voucher system is adopted in Illinois. That would mean that money that goes to schools would be in “limbo,” right?–it doesn’t belong to any particular school until a parent uses his/her share as tuition.
    OK–here’s the question. I have no children (many people do not have school age children). Where will my tax money for schools go? What if an individual with no children doesn’t want his/her money supporting an existing public school (if any are left)–will we get to choose our school of choice? Could taxpayers with no children choose to put their school tax money at a private school or does it have to go to a public school? More than likely, it seems to me as though the general public will continue to support “failing” schools, etc., since all the “good” students will be in “choice” schools.

32. Sharon, we already have school choice at the college level. I take my money (government money) and use it at a public or private school of my choice. I can even use it to study religion at a christian school. Some students go to harvard, some are left behind at icc. As a whole all the schools are better.

33. Michael: Yes, of course, we have school choice at the college level, but not everyone goes to college–isn’t there something wrong with your comparison?
    Please explain this “government paid” college system. I believe I missed that opportunity. What do you mean by “my money” is “government money”?
    But you didn’t take a stab at my main question. Where does my tax money (when I don’t have children) go under the voucher system?

34. Sharon — I think the money would have to go to the public school system by default.

35. C.J.–Thanks! That seems to be the logical answer. Therefore, all the people complaining about tax money going to failing schools would still be complaining–and should still have a major interest in trying to improve the public schools. However, I find that under the present system, taxpayers with no children (as a rule) don’t seem too interested. I find that true when I talk to West Peoria people without children–most have no desire to challenge the system. If all taxpayers would stay interested, I think the system could improve.

36. The voucher system wouldn’t be able to work exactly as you described though Sharon. It wouldn’t be a matter of individual taxpayer’s deciding where their tax money went by choosing the school for their children. Because as is the case for most families, they do not pay the full “share” of their child’s education cost and as a result the expense is spread across all of the taxpayers. So those taxpayers who do not have children or have children beyond the school age would not have their tax money automatically sent to the public school system. Instead what would probably happen in a voucher system would be an averaging of school expenses per pupil across the state or at least over a certain geographic area (because obviously the Chicago metro area would increase the average cost benefiting those of us downstate).

    I would argue the claim that “Therefore, all the people complaining about tax money going to failing schools would still be complaining”. Because you are assuming that failing schools will still have students. If a failing public school sees a migration of students out of the system they will have no choice but to either close or alter their program to become “successful”. It becomes an issue of economies of scale because any public school district that saw say a 50% decrease in enrollment, and as a result a 50% decrease in financing, would have to pay proportionately larger operating expenses to keep their doors open. They just simply wouldn’t be able to pay their bills. And that is assuming that an underperforming school would have a large number of apathetic parents. And while that may be the case in some situations if the voucher system were as easy as checking a box for a school I think even the apathetic parents would choose a better performing school.

    I think the voucher system is a great idea not only because it would give parents an option right now for their students but I also think it would be the slap in the face the educational system needs to reform itself and place more of a focus on student performance.

37. Until the State of Illinois gets control of the school district make up there is no hope for any type of rebirth of education in Illinois. Link to the number of school districts in the state of Illinois (1,101)
    http://illinois.educationbug.org/school-districts/

    No of school districts in Florida = 67

    State of Fl POPULATION 17.01 million
    State of IL POPULATION 12.8 million
    There are too many districts to be changed because of the traditional school development during the 19th and 20th centuries.

38. I don’t necessarily disagree PC, but based simply on the information you provided the number of districts is irrelevant. Now, if you can show that there is a relationship between student performance in Florida and Illinois as a result of the number of districts than I am with you. But I am not for reforming the number of districts just for the heck of it. I for one prefer local control of schools (or as much government as possible) so as long as that isn’t a dertriment to the system I see no reason to change it.

    If anything, a larger number of school districts and thus small schools would be able to more easily adapt to changing needs in the education system based on how size typically affects organizational behavior.

39. 11Bravo: About your statement,
    “any public school district that saw say a 50% decrease in enrollment, and as a result a 50% decrease in financing, would have to pay proportionately larger operating expenses to keep their doors open. They just simply wouldn’t be able to pay their bills.”
    When the doors of these “failing” schools close because of the voucher system, where do the students “with no school” go? Who pays the tuition of students whose parents don’t have matching funds? Who pays the transportation costs to transport these children to a “choice” school? Won’t these children take their academic “challenges” with them to the new school–and aren’t those factors the ones that will have caused the “defunct” schools to “fail”? Or will these “choice” schools truly be able to perform miracles? With the voucher system, can we guarantee that provisions for special needs students will be met? Will all these “choice” schools, especially if they are private, have to meet NCLB standards?
    Are there any states where the voucher system is the “law of the land”?
    Do we have any proof that the voucher system is the cure-all–or is this all just conjecture at this point?

40. I can never understand why there is never any mention in all this voucher discussion about student ability. Most private schools in the area would not take students from failing District 150 schools if their was a voucher system because they would not qualify due to peformance,conduct or both.

41. Frustrated: How do you think these “better” schools maintain their reputations? If you only have good, smart, motivated students… you only graduate good, smart, motivated students.
    What I don’t understand is why can’t we get it through our thick skulls that schools DO nothing except provide a setting for something to occur.

42. Frustrated: Your comments are my main concern about how the voucher system will work. I would be the first (and have said) that the problem with our education system is that students and parents view educational opportunities as a right, not a privilege. Consequently, they tend not to appreciate educational opportunities. To some extent, the voucher system would cause them to consider entrance into a particular school as a “privilege.” My concern is that (especially at the primary school level) some children will not be “chosen” or won’t be able to afford their school of choicem etc., and we will end up with a very class-oriented education system. In large part, I guess, it already is.

43. Yes, I almost sounded as though I’m advocating Kcdad’s kind of “classless” system. Neighborhood schools–an “old” pre-integration idea–might be a possibility now that times have changed. And neighborhood schools are going to reflect the economic status of those who live in the neighborhood. That’s OK with me–in fact, I think neighborhood schools could solve some problems–especially K-8 schools. However, I believe we should remain diligent to be sure that public education is as “equal” as possible (whatever that means). Frankly, I prefer the “neighborhood” schools to a growth in private schools–if I had a choice.

44. Sharon, were does your money go now? I have no choice on were my tax money goes, or what school it supports. I pay twice, my tax money goes to a public school, I then pay a second time with the cost of a private school education. I think that all parents, even the poor ones on the south side, deserve that same chance to have their children get an education. From your comments, I guess that you figure that if they can’t pay for a private school, then its fine to force them to attend a public school that will fail to provide an education to prepare them for any future outside of drug dealer or crack whore. In the end the union has a lock on those kids and will not allow school choice as it would surely cost union jobs.

45. Sharon I think a lot of those questions are irrelevant. When a school closes students will go to other public schools or private schools should parents choose to use the voucher system, they wouldn’t simply be left out in the cold.

    I am not sure what you mean by “matching funds” because that hasn’t been part of most voucher arguments I have heard. As I pointed out earlier the state (or whatever govt body that would handle the administration of a voucher program) would assign a dollar amount of per pupil spending and when utilizing a voucher that money would be assigned to the school of the parents choice. A lot of private schools already charge tuition well below that amount so matching funds probablt aren’t required.

    Whether or not NCLB applies to public school is irrelevant because voucher schools would only be preferred if they were capable of satisfactory academic performance. So NCLB isn’t necessary. The only reason it is in public schools is because of the difficulty of holding public schools accountable. Sure there are programitc issues with NCLB but that is becauase of larger problems with public schools in general. Whether any state abides by a voucher system completely at this point is also irrelavant. As long as you don’t dispute the case that private schools outperform public schools on average that is enough to warrant an implementation of vouchers. And as I said vouchers are not the silver buller for education, my hope would be that the system would light a fire under the modern public school establishment to incite reforms that could actually increase student performance comparable to private schools like Ms. Rhee is doing.

    I can understand your objections to the voucher system, my wife who is also a teacher would probably have some of the same issues. But frommy perspective, I am not necessarily blaming educators but the entire system including administrators, elected officials, and others.

    The voucher system wouldn’t have the issues with troubled or challenged kids because there would be motivation for private schools that can lift those students up.

46. 11Bravo and Michael: I think we’ve all put ideas out there–and now it’s getting confusing. For instance, I don’t remember mentioning the term or idea of “matching funds.” I believe that private schools do a better job because they have the power to choose their students (and please don’t tell me that they don’t). So you and I neither one have any idea how most private schools would deal with the academic and behavior problems that I believe keep schools from succeeding. None in Peoria have come close to trying. When you can prove that Peoria Christian and Peoria Academy, for example, can motivate and lift up students who make public school teaching difficult–then I’ll buy all your theories.
    We already know the results of the present system–I agree that there is very, very much wrong. We just may disagree as to who is at fault. And we all seeking solutions The voucher system, charter schools, no unions, no teacher tenure might work–but no one knows yet.

47. Why do all the kids, both good and bad, need to go to the same school. If a child has made it clear that they have no desire to learn, then why would you put them into a class were they will ruin any hope for an education for all those who want to learn? This is why my children do not go to public school. To often public school is about teaching to the bottom of the class. The teacher spends all her time on trouble makers and children who have fallen behind or have no desire to learn. The bright kids and those who do their work are left to sit in boredom. In the end no one really gets an education that is worth much.

48. Michael: I don’t know how my point of view has gotten so confused,or did you just start reading my comments on this particular post? I am a strong advocate of an alternative school for the very students about whom you are talking. Jeff Adkins-Dutro and Hedy Elliott-Gardner, who are running as president and vice president of the union, feel very strongly about such a school as well. Your last statement is a complaint I’ve been making to District 150 board members and administration for a long, long time. The situations you describe are the reasons that we “union” teachers have a difficult time having success–do you think we choose to work in those conditions, conditions which do limit opportunities for kids who want to learn.

49. Michael Michael Michael… ALL children, all human beings want to learn. The only ones that seem to get labeled as bad learners do so because what they want to learn is not what the school wants to teach them… like things that are important to them.
    Did you see the statement by Albert Einstein about force feeding a beast of prey to kill its appetite for meat?
    It is not coincidence that children stop asking “why” and “how come” and being genuinely curious about the world after being “taught” what schools have to teach them.
    Its no coincidence that free schools and other alternative schools are considered UN-American because they reinstall this curiosity and questioning.
    Sharon, I don’t want classless education, I want a classless society.

50. Michael – You are living proof of why District 150 is failing and why so many residents of the area select private school to educate their children. You want instruction that challenges your children and that is something District 150 in most cases has difficulty offering due to it diverse population. Education must be more customized within the District to attract and retain families.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.