Should public schools really be doing this?

[nathanm]

Our public schools are FAILING our kids, and it pisses me off that my money is feeding that b~tch.

Some of 'em are. Most of our schools locally are not. And before you get pissy, I pay a lot to educate other people's kids. So does everyone here, unless they don't buy things. I pay even more since I own cars and a house. That's OK by me; the schools have to be paid for somehow. I'd rather we pay to educate kids than have them all become hoodlums and pay even more to incarcerate them. That's selfish me talking.

I like going on vacation in the Dominican Republic. I don't want to come home to it.

I can tell you the one thing we can do to fix schools, but I'm not prepared to do it and I doubt you or anyone else here is: End special ed. A large part of the increase in outlays on school (beyond the school lunch program and other mandates which are paid for with federal dollars) is on that one thing. That and districts like Jenks deciding they need what amounts to two teachers to a classroom. But the former is far more expensive than the latter, albeit much more necessary.

[nathanm]

Anybody that knows me will tell you that I am NOT a snot nosed little punk.

Don't get mad, he's just projecting..

[heironymouspasparagus]

I had complaints about public schools for long time, but then started realizing the reality is that they aren't that much different.  Parental participation is a much bigger component than just about anything else.

Conan, guido is biting the hand that fed him, since he has all but admitted that he is a product of those same schools upon which he heaps his scorn.  But then, the thought just came to mind - look how he turned out... and a lawyer to boot!!  Maybe his journey of self investigation and learning has lead him to this place in life.  Maybe the system IS irretrievably broken!

Not!  His bad result is a fluke.  Plus, he has to spew to keep on script!

Average high school population nationwide has always had about 25% drop out rate.  For many decades!  Some of the Big Three seem to be slightly better than average.  We really need to do better, but no one - including the private schools - has figured out how to do that. 

[nathanm]

Average high school population has always had about 25% drop out rate.  For many decades!  Some of the Big Three seem to be slightly better than average. 

I'm pretty sure those numbers are gamed. At the high school I went to, it wasn't possible to drop out. They'd "transfer" a prospective dropout to the alternative ed school before letting them do so. Maybe it was just them, but I somehow doubt it.

And yes, a large part of what makes private schools "better" also makes Booker T. better. Everybody who is there wanting to be there makes a big difference.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I know.  If a private school has a potential "dropout" - someone who is failing - they just kick them out.

[Gaspar]

I know.  If a private school has a potential "dropout" - someone who is failing - they just kick them out.

Wow!  That's not true. 

[Townsend]

Wow!  That's not true. 

You're an interesting one to call a post into doubt.

[Conan71]

And I will continue to help pay for the Tulsa Public Schools now that I have no school aged children and my children have never attended a school in the Tulsa district.  I have no problem with that, that's part of being a resident citizen of Tulsa and living in the defined boundaries of TPS.  Public education is NOT a pay-as-you-go service, we all pay for it.  I've got a daughter at OU, yet my tax dollars also help fund something like 50 other public junior colleges and universities in the state.

The only thing I can't stand is being dunned for more money when the money they already have is not being managed properly.

[guido911]

The only thing I can't stand is being dunned for more money when the money they already have is not being managed properly.

That's precisely my point, along with our public school's lack of competition.

[guido911]

I know.  If a private school has a potential "dropout" - someone who is failing - they just kick them out.

That there is a dumb@ssed point. Trying to snatch the "Clavin" moniker from Nate?

[Conan71]

That's precisely my point, along with our public school's lack of competition.

I don't really see how "competition" from a private entity is going to improve government schools.  I simply don't buy that you can force anything out of the government with competition.  The government schools will still be allowed to exist even with sub-par service, just like every other government entity can do.

Private schools existed long before public schools, yet it's not really engendered any sort of competition all along unless I'm totally missing the point you are making.  I'm simply not on the voucher train, as I don't see how it adds anything to public schools or forces them into improving.

If enough people participate in the voucher program, more private schools open to take advantage of government funding.  Much like privately-owned quasi-tech schools (think cosmetology and electronics, and business schools) which thrive on government loan programs but often provide little value in return to the students.  It's another system ripe for fraud.

[guido911]

I simply don't buy that you can force anything out of the government with competition. 

UPS and FedEx are sure whipping the crap out of the government postal service. Here's an interesting read:

http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post.aspx?post=ba61c52f-6deb-4ca6-998d-79419469a983

To bring this back to the OP point, yes, given today's economic climate, parents of children in public schools are, gulp, going to have to shoulder some of the financial responsibility for their kids' education. Oh the horror of that. If they don't, then there will have to be cuts or outright elimination of those programs that are fee-based.

[nathanm]

UPS and FedEx are sure whipping the crap out of the government postal service. Here's an interesting read:

I'm sure it helps that they get millions of dollars every year from the postal service, and that they don't have a universal service mandate.

[guido911]

I'm sure it helps that they get millions of dollars every year from the postal service, and that they don't have a universal service mandate.

From my article which you apparently didn't read:

Here are the biggest nails in the Postal Service's coffin:

1. Its union is too strong. The USPS cannot lay off employees due to union contracts. And in the next four years, union members will get a 3.5% raise and seven (yes, SEVEN) uncapped cost-of-living increases. That's a shocking commitment.

2. It spends too much on salaries and benefits. About 80% of its budget goes to salaries and benefits, writes BusinessWeek's Devin Leonard. Can you even imagine that? Compare that with the 43% spent at FedEx and the 61% spent by UPS.

3. It hasn't raised prices enough. It costs the same to mail a letter to your neighbor as it does to deliver it by snowmobile to the Alaskan wilderness. (Yes, the USPS actually does that.) The postal service should charge higher prices for longer travel distances.

4. It relies too much on junk and first-class mail. Total mail volume fell 20% from 2006 to 2010. The USPS relies too much on first-class mail for money, and when mail volume falls, its revenue falls as well.

5. It has too many post offices. Most of the post offices around the country lose money. What if the USPS took a page from Starbucks (SBUX) playbook and opened mini post offices at supermarkets, gas stations and retailers like Target (TGT)? Still convenient, but lower overhead. Even better: Nonunion workers can staff those offices, Leonard writes.

6. It hasn't embraced the Internet. E-mail has been a killer. But maybe the USPS has taken the wrong approach to the Internet. In other countries, Leonard reports, the postal service lets people pay bills online, and even scans mail and sends it to customers online.

Funny that the "universal mandate" thingy you mentioned didn't make the author of this article's list.

[Conan71]

UPS and FedEx are sure whipping the crap out of the government postal service. Here's an interesting read:

http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post.aspx?post=ba61c52f-6deb-4ca6-998d-79419469a983

To bring this back to the OP point, yes, given today's economic climate, parents of children in public schools are, gulp, going to have to shoulder some of the financial responsibility for their kids' education. Oh the horror of that. If they don't, then there will have to be cuts or outright elimination of those programs that are fee-based.

And yet one more example of where competition has not improved the government product.  Actually their product isn't so bad, they simply do a poor job of managing cash and their assets.  The postal service is one government service which could be out-sourced and managed profitably.  There IS an alternative to the government product for those who wish to (literally) pay the freight.  

Don't underestimate the leverage the Teamsters has on UPS.  Last time they walked out, UPS really did not have competition in the ground freight business, so they didn't risk permanent damage to their customer base by refusing to buckle to union demands right away.  Now that FedEx has a competent ground organization (and I do not believe their drivers are unionized) UPS could lose a ton of customers.