Hey young people, tell us what you can do!

[Half Fast]

ok.

But, I think it's fair to say that the parents/students that "win" the selection lottery are probably more motivated than the average public shool parents/students.

Okay, those parents are “probably more motivated,” but what is it that motivates parents to get their kids out of public schools? It’s the poor education the kids receive in public schools.

 

[Bob Noel]

More motivated than the parents that applied and lost due to lottery? Whose kids end up in public school because of a bad lottery pull?

More motivated than the parents/students that didn't bother to enter the lottery.

 

[weilke]

Well, if you can find a decent lot, maybe you could buy the house (only) and have it moved. But you’d have to get a fantastic price; that house needs work.

The issue is to find a developed lot at the lower end of the market. Most developments are done by mass builders like Toll or Ryan. Even if there is a independent development, it usually comes with a shortlist of approved builders, design restrictions and an HOA.
Unless you are really out in a rural area, it's very difficult to find a buildable lot that is not locked down already (at the lower end of the market, not talking larger properties, lakefront, airparks).
If you can find one, the lowest per sf price is probably going to be something modular.

 

[Racerx]

A friend of mine is building a house in northern Wisconsin using the Amish. Said they've been the most honest people he's ever dealt with and amazing workmanship.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Far northwest Chicago suburbs, where nearly 80% of my 13k property tax bill goes to the school district.

Yep, that's an area I'd expect to be expensive.

FWIW, in the far northwest Milwaukee burbs, my property taxes are about $5K. And I hope at least 80% goes to the school district... The only other thing property taxes fund here is the municipal government, which in our case is far smaller than the school district. 21 total (full and part time) employees for the village, 311 for the school district.

All of which is to say that public schools are spending more money per student per year than charter schools but getting worse results. I'm not sure how that's an argument in favor of public schools.

Um, no. They get the same $ per student, in theory... But for the ones that get kicked back to the public system after count day, the private school gets the $ and doesn't even have to have a student, while the public school gets $0 and has a difficult (ie expensive) student they have to educate.

And of course they get worse results, they get the worst students. The ones that have severe "issues" and require an aide are particularly expensive, while the model students the private schools like to keep have a below-average cost.

And the public schools are not spending more money per student - They get less money per student because they're getting more students after the funding gets dished out, while the private ones get fewer students and keep the money.

When a school can pick and chose which students it allows to enroll, it can certainly use that to ensure more successful outcomes. I'm not saying that charter schools are doing that, but...

Then I'll say it. They're doing that, at least in the states where it's financially advantageous to do so.

 

[Half Fast]

Why did charter schools get started in the first place? Because the public schools were performing poorly. Charter schools and private schools and home schools came about as a solution to an existing problem; they didn’t cause the problem.

 

[2-Bit Speed]

Yep, that's an area I'd expect to be expensive.

FWIW, in the far northwest Milwaukee burbs, my property taxes are about $5K. And I hope at least 80% goes to the school district... The only other thing property taxes fund here is the municipal government, which in our case is far smaller than the school district. 21 total (full and part time) employees for the village, 311 for the school district.


Um, no. They get the same $ per student, in theory... But for the ones that get kicked back to the public system after count day, the private school gets the $ and doesn't even have to have a student, while the public school gets $0 and has a difficult (ie expensive) student they have to educate.

And of course they get worse results, they get the worst students. The ones that have severe "issues" and require an aide are particularly expensive, while the model students the private schools like to keep have a below-average cost.

And the public schools are not spending more money per student - They get less money per student because they're getting more students after the funding gets dished out, while the private ones get fewer students and keep the money.

At least when my grocery store fails to compete I can take my business elsewhere.

Then I'll say it. They're doing that, at least in the states where it's financially advantageous to do so.

HA

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Why did charter schools get started in the first place? Because the public schools were performing poorly. Charter schools and private schools and home schools came about as a solution to an existing problem; they didn’t cause the problem.

If you look at the history of education in the US, it was the private schools that came about first.

At least when my grocery store fails to compete I can take my business elsewhere.

What stops you from going to a private school?

Again, let me state that I am not against school choice. I am very much against it being funded in the way that it is right now. If a kid goes back to a public school, the money must follow them.

Comparing this to business like you're trying to do, the current model is one where if you go to a business and the owner decides they don't like you, they take the money out of your wallet and THEN kick you out of their facility.

HA

An effective argument if I've ever seen one.

 

[Half Fast]

If you look at the history of education in the US, it was the private schools that came about first.

If you look at the history of charter schools and the homeschooling movement, you'll see they were because of the failure of public schools. They didn't cause the problem; they fixed it for their students.

I am very much against it being funded in the way that it is right now. If a kid goes back to a public school, the money must follow them.

That argument holds no water at all for homeschooling. With ZERO public funds, homeschools beat public schools hands down.

So maybe, just maybe, you might consider that money might not be the core issue, hmmm?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

That argument holds no water at all for homeschooling. With ZERO public funds, homeschools beat public schools hands down.

And that's fine for them, and expected with really small "class" sizes, heavily invested "teachers", and lots more opportunities for hands-on learning.

Are you proposing that we switch to 100% homeschooling?

So maybe, just maybe, you might consider that money might not be the core issue, hmmm?

Money is absolutely the core issue. Want better teachers? Give them pay and respect. And smaller classes (more teachers, more money), and more hands-on learning opportunities (buses, drivers, more money).

It's quite possible to get similar results as homeschooling, but it would cost a metric crap-ton of money, which we have decided we don't collectively want to pay.

And I don't expect homeschooling results from public schools. The money issue is the private schools literally stealing the money from public schools. They're getting a student's money, but they are not educating that student. That is my issue with it. If the funding follows the student, then I'm all for it.

 

[Bob Noel]

we also need to get rid of bad teachers.

 

[Half Fast]

we also need to get rid of bad teachers.

Which is near impossible in public schools. Paying bad teachers more won’t make them better. There is no benefit to raising salaries without a mechanism to replace sub-par teachers.

 

[Half Fast]

Money is absolutely the core issue. Want better teachers? Give them pay and respect.

No, it isn’t. Paying the current crop of teachers more won’t magically transform them into good teachers.

The more money we throw at public schools, the more they waste, with little accountability and few results.

Want more money in the schools? Get rid of wasteful levels of administration, stop building Taj Mahal campus buildings, dump wasteful athletic programs, expel troublemaker students, etc., etc. Want better performance? Focus on basic academics and eliminate the rest.

 

[2-Bit Speed]

An effective argument if I've ever seen one.

I saw no reason for redundancy.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Which is near impossible in public schools. Paying bad teachers more won’t make them better. There is no benefit to raising salaries without a mechanism to replace sub-par teachers.

And there will never be a mechanism to replace subpar teachers until there are enough good teachers to replace them.

Right now, the mechanisms that are in place are exactly the opposite: They are hiring random people off the street to have an adult in the room, and they are being given ever longer grace times to get a teaching license, because right now it's hard to have enough adults in the classrooms to watch the kids, and that's pretty much all that's happening in some classrooms.

Substitute teachers are all but gone, and regular teachers are being forced to spend the time they're supposed to spend prepping for upcoming classes subbing in other classes. The good teachers are retiring as quickly as they're able, and now it's so bad that good teachers are throwing up their hands in defeat/disgust and just leaving the profession to places where they get pay, respect, and the ability to leave work behind at the end of the day.

No, it isn’t. Paying the current crop of teachers more won’t magically transform them into good teachers.

Correct - But paying them less isn't a recipe to keep the good ones. The good ones are the ones we're losing. The bad ones are sticking around.

The more money we throw at public schools, the more they waste, with little accountability and few results.

I'm not suggesting we blindly throw money at schools... But what does "accountability" look like to you?

Want more money in the schools? Get rid of wasteful levels of administration, stop building Taj Mahal campus buildings, dump wasteful athletic programs, expel troublemaker students, etc., etc. Want better performance? Focus on basic academics and eliminate the rest.

Definitely with you on admin and facilities. But extracurriculars, be they sports or marching band or a zillion other things, are really important to creating better students as well.