25% of Charter Schools Owe Their Soul To the Walmart Store 233
theodp writes "Among the billionaires who helped Bill Gates pave the way for charter schools in WA was Walmart heiress Alice Walton. The Walton Family Foundation spent a whopping $158+ million in 2012 on what it calls 'systemic K-12 education reform,' which included $60,920,186 to 'shape public policy' and $652,209 on 'research and evaluation.' Confirming the LA Times' speculation about its influence, the Walton Foundation issued a press release Wednesday boasting it's the largest private funder of charter school 'startups,' adding that it has supported the opening of 1 in 4 charter schools in the U.S. since 1997 through its 1,500 'investments.' But as some charter school kids have learned the hard way, what the rich man giveth, he can also taketh away. For the time being, though, it looks like America's going to continue to depend on the tax-free kindness of wealthy strangers to educate its kids. For example, while it was nice to see the value of Shop Class recognized, the White House on Monday called on businesses, foundations and philanthropists to fund proposed 'Maker Spaces' in schools and libraries. Hey, when the U.S. Secretary of Education turns to corporate sponsors and auctions to fund his Mother's afterschool program for kids of low-income families in the President's hometown, don't look for things to change anytime soon."
She needs to be educated on DUI (Score:5, Insightful)
Due to a technicality Alice was let off of on a DUI charge just recently. [dailymail.co.uk] Maybe she should spend some of her $27 Billion on Drug and Alcohol education in the schools instead?
Re:She needs to be educated on DUI (Score:4, Interesting)
Not surprising. I went to a pretty excursive private school. (Not that may English reflects it.) We had one student pulled over for DUI. He got off because his parents hired a Private investigator to follow the arresting cop around. Turns out he liked to pick up prostitutes and take'em to an alley and return them.(I don't remember if he did this while on duty or not) He wasn't able to testify due to being on forced leave and since the high priced lawyer insisted on speedy trail the prosecution dropped the case.
Re: (Score:2)
If one wanted to be snarky, one could point out the disconnect between What is KIPP [kippchicago.org] ("Thanks to the support of Doris & Don Fisher (co-founders of the GAP clothing stores), the Walton Family Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and other education reform advocates, KIPP now has a network of 99 schools...Five basic principles form the "pillars" that are responsible for the success of students at KIPP Schools....When it comes to effort and behavior, there are no excuses.") and Texas drops D [dailymail.co.uk]
Conmen and grifters (Score:5, Insightful)
I have come to the conclusion that the charter school movement was conceived in sin. born in corruption and is too full of conmen and grifters to give it any support.
There may be some decent, honest people trying to make things better in the movement, but it is not the way to bet.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not at all, teacher's unions are quite direct in their interests being representation of teachers and not the students.
This is why they are teacher's unions, not student unions. You want representation of student interests, try another group.
Can't serve two masters.
Re:Conmen and grifters (Score:4, Interesting)
You are right in one assumption though: "You can't serve two masters.". That is exactly why giving parents the power to choose their children schools is the best way to solve the problem, because the only people who serve the right masters, the students, are the parents.
Absolutely (Score:2)
As everyone knows that most parents have a far better understanding of differential equations and other mathematics skills than do math teachers. Besides, parents always have Fox News to rely on if they are weak on subjects such as history, social studies, as well as how to prepare their children for a reverse mortgage and life in the unemployment line.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never heard the teacher's unions around here make that argument.
Not my fault if you have been isolated in a cave for the last 50 years or so .
The parents are both interested in their children's best welfare and that they are informed enough to make the right choice
Between the parents and government bureaucrats I will bet in the parents every time. Parents are responsible for many other critical decisions regarding their children and considering the human race haven't been extinct yet I think they are doing a reasonably good job. Bureaucrats on the other hand have very little interest in creating a society that does not need their "guidance".
Oh, and regarding your last silly remarks, ma
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But seriously, the teacher's unions around here do not make the arguments that you claim yours do, but if yours does, ok, however it seems you're also making that same argument. So if we can't trust them, how can we trust you when you're doing the same thing you say not to trust in others?
Teacher's unions anywhere use this argument. It is the argument used against charter schools anywhere charter schools exist. They try to detract charter school quality anyway they can. They preach that privatization of all schools would make education worse because it would be a commercial and ruled by market laws, ignoring that private schools are better. They use the students supposed "well being" to leverage their position all the time, in US and everywhere else where there is threat to their jobs.
An
Re: (Score:2)
But apparently you still failed to learn that "the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data.'"
Privately funded school systems will always be subject not only to the financial whims of the benefactor but to the political whims as well.
Kentucky Charter School (Score:2)
Is that the one that teaches intelligent design and creationism in biology class?
Is that the same Kentucky charter school (Score:2)
Is that the same Kentucky charter school that teaches intelligent design and creationism in biology class?
You know what I mean. (Score:4, Interesting)
$60,920,186 to 'shape public policy'...
AKA lobbying. What won't a politician do for money?
Re:You know what I mean. (Score:5, Informative)
Aka corruption. Public corruption that is actually viewed as a positive thing.
It shows how far people have fallen.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, 0.04% of the money was spent for lobbying!
Isn't it frightening to think about how much more money could have gone toward the charter schools if it wasn't for that 0.04% lobbying?
Re: (Score:3)
It is essential to keep lobbing costs down (Score:2)
So that the 60% of the money to pay teachers can instead go to charter school administrators, whose salaries vault into the 7 figure range. Clearly, one of the advantages of being a not-for-profit charter, just like the NFL.
Call me a cynic but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Call me a cynic but... (Score:4, Funny)
the U.S. Secretary of Education turns to corporate sponsors and auctions to fund his Mother's afterschool program
I'm torn-- on one hand, what are you going to do, say "no, our education system won't take it"... on the other hand, what kind of strings are attached (or what kind of agenda comes along with the $)?
I'm reminded of the Pete Seeger (RIP) song, "What Did You Learn In School Today? [youtube.com]" As corporations take over the role of governments, I think this song could probably be slightly modified...
What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine? What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine?
I learned to stack, I learned to greet!
I learned that minimum wage is neat!
'Course it keeps me an endless debtor,
But Wal-Mart Saves Money, so I Live Better(TM)!
That's what I learned in school today, that's what I learned in school.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
What profit do they get for giving millions to these?
National Audubon Society - people appreciate birds more, so they'll buy birdseed at Walmart.
Harvard University. Threefold: 1) Harvard alumni tend to be wealthy. They'll have more money to spend at Walmart and Sams Club. 2) They often start businesses. Businesses buy stuff at Walmart and supply stuff to Walmart. 3) They may employee some people. Those people may have kids who can stock shelves at Walmart.
Georgetown University: They're trying to buy
Re: (Score:2)
The Walton Family Foundation is a charitable institution, giving more than any other business. National Audubon Society, Harvard University, Georgetown University, Nature Conservancy, Inc., etc. What profit do they get for giving millions to these?
Billionaires give money to Harvard University so that their kids can go to Harvard University.
You don't think George W. Bush got into Harvard because of his SATs, do you?
Wow (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It should be called SlashWhiners.
Incessant whining about everything. It's like all the adults have been banished on only 5th graders are posting.
The possibilities are endless (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe schools should raise some more corporate-sponsored cash by doing product placements. For example, it would be easy to monetize homework assignments:
1a. Juan is planning a picnic. He buys packages of Sara Lee® brand 100% Wheat Home Style® Hot Dog Buns which each contain eight buns. He also buys packages of Osar Mayer® Jumbo Deluxe All-Beef Franks®, which each contain 10 wieners. What is the minimum number of Hot Dogs Juan needs to buy so that there are no unmatched buns or wieners?
1b. Juan plans to put 1/2 ounce of Heinz® Sweet Dill® Relish on each hot dog. How many 12-oz jars of relish does he need to buy? What brand of mustard would best complement the relish: (a) Heinz® Classic Yellow Hot Dog® Mustard (b) some other non-specific mustard?
1c. Extra credit: Juan asks his friend Latoya to buy ketchup for his picnic. List three benefits Latoya would receive if she bought genuine Heinz® Classic® Ketchup instead of the discount store brand. Explain how sometimes what appears to be the least expensive choice isn't the greatest value overall.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Between feeding the students corporate propaganda and government propaganda I certainly prefer the former. At least there will be many corporations fighting for what to feed them and not a single one.
No. There will be many corporations bidding. Only one will get to feed them. This is how it works already, with soda companies holding exclusive contracts to provide fountain drinks and sometimes even the vending machines on a campus.
The Truth (if you can handle it) (Score:4, Informative)
My children go to a charter school and they are getting a far better education than they would at the failing local schools. My wife and I are both involved in the school and we both have a teaching background (I taught engineering at the college level for 4 years and my wife was a preschool teacher for 11 years, both sets of grandparents also taught public school for 20+ years). The teachers and organization of the charter school is light years beyond the local public school in delivering an effective learning experience for the kids. There are always a few bad apples, but anyone who tells you that charter schools as a whole are not far better than public schools is a liar in the tank for the teachers union or someone who has been brainwashed by their propaganda.
The money that charter schools get from the taxes that we pay is a pittance compared to what the pathetic, failing state run public schools get. If we don't want charities funding charter schools maybe we should ban teachers unions and give parents vouchers that they can take to any school that is accredited. Let's also institute a ranking system based on the learning the students actually do so even the laziest parents can pick winner schools. That way charter schools won't have to beg for funding and will be on an even footing with public schools; the problem is the teachers unions don't want that because they know that inside of 10 years all of the public schools would be gone along with their power, massive union dues and a huge fundraising/advertising arm of the Democrat party. The bottom line is the teachers unions exist only to further their own power and enrich the teachers, regardless of how well they teach. Until we break those unions, our children's education will always be second place on the political landscape.
They tried vouchers in DC and it has been an unmitigated success which is now trying to be shut down because the unions are scared spit-less that it will spread to other states.
Re:The Truth (if you can handle it) (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe the charter schools by you are good. The ones by me? Not so much. First of all, they get to pick and choose what students they accept. Inevitably, any student with special needs isn't accepted. (We had our son in a Montessori school for a bit years ago and we were pushed out. We suspected this was because our son required PT and OT services. Later we found out that all students with PT or OT were being pushed out but we felt pressure not to talk since the principal was friends with some people high up in the district.) This selective enrollment means that the public schools get a bigger percentage of students who need services. This costs more money, of course, but the charter schools don't need to pay for that.
Next, there are the high stakes tests that New York has implemented. I'm opposed to those tests in general. They are administered by Pearson, not reviewed by ANYONE to see if they are appropriate, and don't show what students have learned. They only are used as a threat against teachers - if your kids do poorly, you might be out of a job. This means that the teachers teach to the test and toss aside anything that won't be on the test. However, the charter schools are exempt from this. They don't need to take these tests and so they can do what they want.
Third is the fact that they pull money from public schools. Those same public schools that now need to spend more money on the higher percentage of student with special needs and who feel pressured to teach to the test are finding themselves with less and less money and more money flows to the charter schools instead.
Finally, what tests the charter schools DO administer, they get to decide which results to publish. So if a few kids don't do well on the tests, those scores get tossed aside while the successful kids have their scores touted as the norm.
This all combines to lead public schools to ruin while diverting more money to charter schools. It becomes a vicious cycle too. Charter schools look stellar with selective test reporting while the struggling public schools look bad. So more charter schools are opened and the public schools get less and less money. Rinse and repeat. Meanwhile, the kids who need special services get a second class education because the charter schools don't want to touch them. (Not that I'd want my sons in one of those.)
Like I said, this might not be the case for the Charter schools by you, but by me this has been my experience. They are run by greedy corporations who see the public school system as a big piggy bank that they can suck dry and they will manipulate test results and lobby politicians as much as they need to to get those dollars.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, in this day and age, if you add in all of the benefits teachers get (remember I was a teacher, my wife was a teacher, my mom is a teacher and my father in law and his father were teachers, so I know WTF I am talking about) teachers are making bank. In southern California they are making $56k/year, median US income $51k according to Salary.com. This doesn't take into account the top of the line medical benefits, housing benefits and many other benefits that they get which are far better than a mu
Re: (Score:2)
they are doing a job that any high school graduate could technically do (and up until the advent of state run schools and unnecessary regulation, people did).
You think any high school graduate could teach K-12 science? You don't know much about science. You especially don't know much about teaching science. Take a look at some of the articles on science teaching in Science magazine sometimes.
The teachers unions have consistently increased the regulation on who can teach by legislation to the point where I can teach at the college level but can't teach in the public grade school or high school. All to justify jacking up the salaries of teachers and increasing the power of the unions.
It's actually easier to teach science at the college level than at the K-12 level. They're only able to understand certain things at certain ages, and teachers have to know what that is. For example, according to the research, most junior high school kids aren't able to unde
I want my TAX dollars spent the way that I want (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you have a child in a failing school? Have you spent time time talking to clueless administrators? One of them told me "it was against state law" to teach the multiplication tables. They won't teach fractions except for 1/2, 1/3 and 1/4. That is unfortunate because you don't get to pick your fractions in algebra. One of the (first grade) teachers directly criticized my wife for not speaking more to my son in Spanish. The kindergarten teacher said he "didn't want parents in the classroom". The public school principal spoke with me in very thinly disguised contempt.
I could either run for school district or send my son to a charter school. When we asked about math, the principal of the charter school said, "Oh, so that is why none of the fifth graders who come from the school district can't do math."
So no, my presence, my ideas, my concerns were not welcome at the public school. Your theories fail the actual children in the schools. I like choice. What does it matter that a "corporation" does it rather than the school district? If you don't like charter schools, then don't send your children to one. If enough people don't like them, they will close.
Re: (Score:2)
Despite the obvious problems with our political system currently, anyone with a clue knows that public schools need to be improved rather than phased ou
Looks like charter schools are the way to do it in the US.
Crystal Bridges (Score:4, Interesting)
Charter school... (Score:4, Informative)
Many many decades ago, I went to a charter school for k-6th grade. The school had to allow everyone in the area as part of its opening up in a richer suburb. I lived along the border and was included in the school map. School had computers while only the jr high and high schools. My parents could have never afforded to to send me to a private school with lower population sizes and computers. I was lucky. And being a poor rowdy kid, they never kicked me out. Lucky that's where I got my introduction into computers.
Only thing I'd like to see is smaller classes, and charter schools on average have higher. This is supposedly with them kicking poor performing kids out. But charter schools differ so much, there is no "standard" model used. I think we can all agree smaller classrooms with more individual help is what schools should have, but thats gets very expensive. I'd rather take all those billions of dollars in state taxes on alcohol and marijuana taxes go to directly fund schools instead...
Re: (Score:2)
It's a bribe, pure and simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't just the charter school movement but the whole Common Core garbage as well. Common Core supporters claim that it was written by educators, but there were only two on the panel and they refused to sign the finished document. Meanwhile, we've been hearing over and over again how our kids are failing and how it's all the fault of teachers. Why? So companies like Pearson can swoop in to "save" us. They get paid big bucks to administer high stakes tests to show just how much students are learning
Re:It's a bribe, pure and simple (Score:5, Informative)
Local governments have plenty of resources to educate the nation's children. The U.S. spends more on education per student than any other country in the world [ncee.org]. K-6 spending is 4th highest in the world, 7-12 is 5th highest (both about 40% more than the OECD average), and post-HS spending is highest in the world. The result of all this spending? Performance at or below the OECD average [theatlantic.com].
The problem isn't lack of money. The schools are completely awash in it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's just like the 1990s when deep-pocketed for-profit HMOs offered healthcare at below-market rates.
That's based on the unwarranted assumption that there actually is a market rate for health services.
Fines and philanthropy (Score:2)
huh? (Score:2)
I'm confused. At first glance I thought the summary was saying that the Waltons were donating hundreds of millions to charter schools as an act of grand philanthropy. I'm sure the schools could use the money. But it looks more like the money is going toward lobbyists for charter schools and not charter schools themselves. Am I reading that right? I'm sure that's exactly what kids need.
Re: (Score:3)
Charter schools get their money from the public school system. The Waltons are giving money, not to open schools, but to "convince" politicians that what their failing school districts really need is to open a charter school and wind up giving even LESS money to the failing public schools. And if that didn't work, open a second or third charter school. And if the charter schools are failing, deploy the lobbyists to convince the politicians that it shouldn't be closed. (One charter school by us missed th
the problem isn't money, it's control (Score:2)
America spends vast amounts of money on its public education system, but it's not yielding better outcomes.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]
What these people who you denigrate as "wealthy strangers" are doing is provide a better, and usually less costly, alternative for education, after public schools have already sucked vast amounts of money out of the pockets of
Time to Raise Prices at Walmart (Score:2)
In order to secure desires of the owner's of Walmart concerning how education is to be granted in the USA, everyone should accept higher prices at WalMart. Its not as if you have a choice in the matter anyway.
Puhlease (Score:2)
Bitch is worth $20+ billion. $158 million is what, like a half a day's pay? It's chump change for a Walton. Want to be a real humanitarian? Spend some of those billions ensuring your workers earn a living wage so their kids don't have to live in poverty while they're not attending one of your fancy expensive charter schools.
Here's some quotes (Score:4, Insightful)
"tax-free kindness of wealthy strangers"
Why do some feel that charitable contributions should be taxed? Say someone makes a billion dollars this year and gives away that billion dollars to feed the hungry or buy clothes for the poor... that should be it. If the government takes half a billion off the top, that is half a billion less for those hungry and poor.
It's the same as giving someone a welfare check and then taxing half of it. Suggesting that would be considered preposterous by the same people who want to tax the hell out of the charitable contributions.
Re: (Score:2)
That and you presume that income or wealth correlates with charitable giving. If they had an extra half a billion dollars, what if they'd spend it all on cocaine and hookers?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Every single one. In fact, the newest dodge is that when a state is trying to lure a company to come there (or to keep a company there, as in Boeing), they will allow to company to collect state income tax from their employees and then just keep it themselves. Got that? The company still deducts the money from your paycheck and your W-2 says "State Income Taxes Withheld" but every penny of that money is kept by your employer, just because.
I believe for the period 2008 to 2012, there were 26 companies wit
Re: Here's some quotes (Score:2)
First they can be taxes if you are giving more than 25% of your income away (there are nice loopholes with cost basing stock at purchase price rather than current price).
Second charity is not only money to the poor. Charity is money to your favorite lobbying group, money to your favorite theater an average person couldn't afford a seat in for his family, and money to erect statues of your family members as well.
Why should you get a tax break to build a statue to yourself in some private building run by a p
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there's charity and then there's charity.
If you know your neighbor has been unemployed and anonymously drop off $1000 at his house, that's charity.
If you contribute to a university and have a building named after you, it is still called "charity" but in fact, you have just purchased a monument to yourself.
If you're a sponsor of the Lyric Opera, you get a box seat and a nice bronze plaque so all your rich friends can see that you are a nobl
Re: (Score:2)
You described two separate issues:
1) the definition of "charity" is much too loose and includes things of personal benefit
2) things that should not be considered charity allow for tax breaks
I understand and agree that issue #1 is wrong. It needs to be fixed. And if it is fixed, issue #2 also gets solved.
But if I make $50K/year and use $20K of that for my own food, clothing, and shelter, and give the remaining $30K to selflessly help others be fed, clothed, and sheltered.... no, the government should not
Re:Love the quotes (Score:5, Insightful)
Good parenting means not letting your public schools become shit and not letting corporations take over your education system via backdoor like this.
Re:Love the quotes (Score:5, Insightful)
No.
Good parenting means taking _complete responsibility_ for your childs education. If your public school is awesome, great - but that only goes a little way. The culture, values, education, and effort/commitment of the parents has always been the number one predictor of a childs future academic success. Public schools are also limited in what they are allowed to teach your child - forced to comply with what is polically correct, what politicians and businesses have managed to redefine the subjects and ideas to study as, and what the local/state/federal government have compromised as the textbooks and teachers that your kid will interact with. These are usually far from the best choice which you learn about in great detail if you go and investigate on your own and then put together your own educational plan which you implement via home schooling, careful selection of private schools, or selective hiring of tutors.
Having kids was never supposed to be about the state taking over most of the responsibility for education, or for being a gloried childcare center because both parents work, or something that could be handled without careful planning and ensuring one had the necessary resources ahead of time. Politicians and the public can talk all they want about improving public schools and overall childhood education, but the further responsibility and teaching moves away from responsibile active parents - the worse the result will always be. We've had a 100 year slide away from families and responsibile parenting and nothing is going to be fixed in education until we reverse it.
Re:Love the quotes (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Most states allows groups of parents in a neighborhood to group together and form homeschool co-ops. This can significantly reduce costs and save time - but the tradeoff decision should be made by the parent based on what they think is the best interest of the child. In any case, public schools really are just one option among dozens and there is no real reason why it should be the default - especially these days with the huge amount of educational resources available online or via amazone or various comm
Re: (Score:2)
Taking 10 years off work to homeschool a child shouldn't be something that unusual
Yeah maybe it shouldn't, but seriously how many people do you know that have enough savings or income from a single parent to take a 10 year vacation?!? Personally I don't expect that I'm going to get a whole 10 years of retirement.
Some WA counties already have "choice" schools (Score:4, Interesting)
Some of the public school systems right nearby Bill G. already have something of an alternative to private charter schools.
http://www.lwsd.org/schools/Ch... [lwsd.org]
So not sure why they have to push so hard to get private charter schools stood up.
Admission is by lottery, which is just as self-selecting for motivated parents as charter schools... that is to say, you will probably get into one of them if you bother to apply. Once in, you're expected to put in so many hours of community service (both students and parents), as well as make a "voluntary" donation of $200 per year (as a public school, they can't really mandate collection).
The schools themselves tend to be small and very tightly-knit. They're usually run entirely by a handful of "star" teachers with free reign over the curriculum and virtually no administration... they usually share a principal from the nearest conventional school. The real "scam" is some legal loophole that allows these schools to be built with none of the extra facilities - usually when school campuses are constructed, they need a certain minimum allotment of athletic fields, gyms, cafeterias, multipurpose rooms, etc. While some of these choice schools have such things, the majority of them are just a handful of classrooms - so funds are purely focused on academics (kids can still participate in sports and activities at their local conventional school). The other scam is no school busses; parents have to drive the kids there themselves, though a lot of them carpool and the kids also get public bus passes.
So it's actually not all that much different than what you describe. Most of them have themes (art/theater , environmentalism, politics, foreign language / history, STEM, etc.). The big complaint is that there aren't more of them, which is funny because they appear to be much cheaper to run than most typical school campuses and draw on a lot of parent involvement.
Re: (Score:3)
Taking an interest in your kids is now an "inefficient allocation of resources"?
Re:Love the quotes (Score:5, Interesting)
Public school teachers are all well and good, but from the Parent perspective (who has the strongest interest in the education of their child):
* The parent has no control over which specialist/teacher is chosen. In fact, in many school districts, the assignment of students to classes isn't known until 5pm on the Friday before the first week of school. This just hammers in that the child will be forced to attend the school assigned classroom regardless of the parent's interests or concerns about the teacher.
* The parent has little to no control over what is taught in the class - and has little ability to protest or take their child out if they find some material offensive or inappropriate.
* The school sets the emphasis on the various subjects, which might be completely opposite of what the parent believes is correct for his child.
* Even if a parent is willing to work with the child when he comes home from school on those areas he/she wants to emphasize or reinforce, typically the child will have other conflicting homework or be worn out - simply lose his creativity after attending public school for many years.
* Sometimes the parent believes the teacher/school is actually teaching wrong information, or the child is being exposed to bad influences/culture - How much time does the parent spend every week deprogramming their child when he/she could have been teaching/reinforcing instead?
Taking active direct control of the childs education by reading up, becoming familiar with educational topics and curriculums, which books are good/bad, what teaching philosophies work/etc and then choosing the right educational venue (public, private, tutor, home school, coop) would seem to be a better approach.
But honestly, a lot of parents are afraid of homeschooling because they think they couldn't stand being around their child all day or that they just can't teach effectively....or that the child is somehow losing out. For grades K-8, it honest is not that difficult and with a larger family and some careful planning there is no issue with socialization. And just 2-4hrs/day of direct 1-on-1, or 1-2 education time between a parent and child easily matches or surpases what a child learns by being one out of 30 students during 5-7hrs of public school. All home schooling really requires is an educated parent with a reasonable amount of time, modest resources, and the drive/commitment to make it work. As for specialists, I'm currently home schooling my 3rd and 5th graders and will consider exposing them to community colleges professors or dedicated online classes when they get to high school for those subjects that need substantial expertise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Love the quotes (Score:4, Insightful)
And good statecraft means making sure the population is well educated. Be it through strong public schools or making sure parents have the time, energy, and resources to educate their children themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
It sounds like that would be a good thing... but I challenge anyone to show me a truly educated
Yes, (Score:2)
especially in a highly dynamic technological society, where all parents have an innately excellent grasp of differential equations and the advanced mathematics needed to be competitive in the marketplace.
Re: Love the quotes (Score:2)
What are you talking about? There are lots of problems with public schools, but quality of education relative to 150 years ago when the state was not involved is not one of them.
If you were educated back then you were unlikely to learn anything other than the minimum to support farming and reading. Your parents had none of the baseline knowledge to even consider privately tutoring you. Either that or you were born into wealth.
Public schools have issues, but parents who don't care about their children's e
Re: (Score:2)
Fixed your quote (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Haven't you heard? Corporations are already taking over the ed system via common core.
Re: Love the quotes (Score:2, Insightful)
Eh, the public high school I went to was pretty good, certainly produced many good graduates that are doing well now. NW suburbs of Chicago. Many parents even sent their kids to the public school instead of the rather prestigious catholic school nearby.
Re: (Score:2)
And here we have an example of a "self-fulfilling prophesy."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Public schools exist to protect property values by keeping the neighborhood from filling up with illiterates (hope I spelled that properly : - ), and by making neighborhoods more attractive to buy a house in because there are good schools nearby, and even for the purpose of turning out people better able to to be informed citizens, the better to choose wisely representatives and the path of the nation.
Okay, admittedly that last part is utopian idealism that's being rapidly destroyed by big money buying cong
Re: (Score:2)
Strange how I live in a country where private schools are all but unheard of, and quality of our public schools is far greater than that of private schools across the US.
How soon should we expect them to become shit, existing only for the benefit of the government and teachers? They're only gone the way they are for about 40 years as far as I know, and they've been fairly steadily improving over at least thirty of those.
Re: (Score:2)
But to make that money, they have to prove to the kids' parents that they provide value for that money, i.e., good education. There's no such requirement for public schools, so they can provide the bare minimum education because they have no competition. Yet another example where capitalism trumps communism.
Re: (Score:3)
Whereas private schools exist solely for the benefit of the kids, and have no need to make money or pay employees?
Why can't they do both? They already do seem to be doing a better job at both.
Re: (Score:3)
Or educated by Alice to have the mathematical skills needed to accept a job with such low pay that you need to go on food stamps.
Re: (Score:2)
a simple minded person that doesn't understand how competition can force public schools to step up their game.
Competition can't improve public schools. The public schools aren't allowed to compete, so they've never had a chance to try.
Name a single charter school that accepts *every* applicant. When that happens, then we can talk. The rules are not even close between public schools (not allowed to expel anyone, short of a conviction of a violent felony against a school employee), and a charter school (accepts only "qualified" students, and keeps numbers to a preset level by rejecting/expelling unwanted students
Re: (Score:3)
I think you have that backwards... in most public schools with a union, it's virtually impossible to fire a tenured teacher... while simply violating school district policy can get you expelled without any conviction.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In a proper setting, teaching is a calling.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes. It's called slashdot. You're stinking it up with your "beta beta blah blah blah" bullshit. Take it to the farmers for composting or something.
Re:At least that's a winner for the new motto (Score:4, Insightful)
That was indeed the double meaning. Thank you for spelling it out for everyone.
Fact is though, the beta protest movement has its place. And its not in the other discussions. Even a good cause can lose a lot of support if most ardent supporters start to trash everything, rather than focusing their protests on the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
"Fact is though, the beta protest movement has its place."
And you'd like it confined to a "free speech zone" far from where anyone will actually be aware of it?
Re: (Score:2)
Because clearly this is an issue of free speech. Arguing against people spamming topics with item completely unrelated is stifling free speech.
And somewhere, people are hooking up generators to bodies of people who actually fought for free speech, to make money on electricity they will generate after that claim.
Re:At least that's a winner for the new motto (Score:4, Funny)
There's always usenet.
Re: (Score:2)
Until the trolls show up. Gets tiring spending more time adding things to the kill file rather then discussing. Currently most of usenet is great because the idiots are on web forums.
Who needs Usenet (Score:2)
Who needs usenet, when we can still send smoke signals. Global warming is just a lie anyway, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for that link. Dice seems to have been able to keep it off my screen previously.
If you're joining the Slashcott, allow me to direct you to The Individual Midnight Thread.
http://slashdot.org/submission... [slashdot.org]
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's quite simple really when you distance yourself from the whole thing, like those of us not in that country can do.
Step one: buy out all mass media. Advertise that government is bad and capitalism is good.
Step two: use aforementioned propaganda as a tool to get tax breaks.
Step three: use part of the funds gathered through tax breaks to show the masses that are getting poorer how good corporations are, reinforcing point one.
Step four: repeat step two.
Step five: repeat step three.
Every even step after one: profits increase.
Every odd step after one: chance of revolt against corporate agenda decreases and push for step mentioned above increases from public direction towards the government.
It's a brilliant construct, built to self-accelerate profit generation and increase fund transfer from public to private interests.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a similar loop around government regulation, what's called the "revolving door". Hire people who used to be government regulators with a fat paycheck; tell existing regulators they'll earn more that way than their government job pays; use profits from unregulated activities to hire more regulators. This is how financial companies in the US cracked regulation by the SEC, food manufacturers avoid the FDA, etc.
It's hilarious how an AC thought your history lesson here was a plan for the future.
Re: (Score:2)
And those outside your country, including chinese, figured out that you're a single party oligarchy. Chinese even copied it, minus they knew their people aren't gullible enough to swallow the bullshit, but pliable enough not to have to feed them the bullshit in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah (Score:2)
I specifically notice the change from MS bashing articles to stuff actually interesting. Maybe slashdot has finally grown into something useful.
Re: (Score:2)
When you think about it, they're really the same. Windows 8 == slashdot beta. The ugly duckling == Lion King (or Macbeth; I get confused sometimes) == Pirates Of Penzance. Ayn Rand == Bennet Haselton.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, it's based on "Kimba, the White Lion". I thought everybody knew that by now.
Would be a bit easier to use, if default font size (Score:2)
If they just increased the default font size a little and if one could more clearly mod-up posts which are actually on topic.