One is about Dr. Lesky declaring that education is under attack based on school funding, vouchers, and charter schools. The other is by Margie Peters

FROM ROSS NUNAMAKER

Patch.com has a pair of related stories. One is about Dr. Lesky declaring that education is under attack based on school funding, vouchers, and charter schools. The other is by Margie Peterson, also on Patch, declaring that vouchers would erode our common denominator.

In short, both are concerned that if people are given options to send their children to a school other than a public school they will go. Patch reports "Lesky said that if charter and cyber schools take away the district's best students, then "I'm afraid our schools will be schools to only educate the disabled and the poor."

So what does this mean? The best students can't be poor? Our public schools wouldn't be the choice compared to charter and cyber schools if cost weren't an issue?

Patch further quotes Dr. Lesky as saying, ""Schools are a melting pot where everyone comes together to learn about each other," he said. "They are going to destroy public education in the state."

I've never viewed the core purpose of school to have students learn about one another.

And from Peterson's opinion piece is this line of thinking, "With vouchers, private schools can cherry pick the best students with the most motivated parents, leaving public schools to educate children with special needs or behavioral problems and to bear the costs associated with that."

Again, if public schools are performing, why leave? And, regardless of vouchers public schools are required to educate children with special needs and behavioral problems.

Peterson notes, "Right now, if taxpayers don’t like what’s being taught in their local school district, they can go to the school board meeting and complain. Will private schools open up their meetings to the public and allow residents to vote on their board members if they accept taxpayers’ dollars?"

I think the context is being responsive to your constituents, and the reality is that private schools operate on a private sector model, perform or pay the consequences. Private schools can't raise taxes, they can't ignore constituents, they have to be responsive to those who support them financially or they will be out of business. If their students can't get accepted to the schools the parents' expect, they are accountable for that. Grade inflation is fine so long as the students are able to get accepted to the colleges they expect to get into. When that fails the onus is on the school. Why the grade and not the acceptance? If the grades aren't delivered, then it falls on the student. We don't find this in public education.

Education as an industry is fearful of the disruption of vouchers. This ought to be an impetus for internal reform. Public education needs to take a page from heavily regulated private industries and streamline, gain efficiencies, and lobby within the system to account for special needs and resource disparities as a result of regulations.

What do you think?

Posted via email from Ross Nunamaker

http://nocnews.blogspot.com/