I was listening to portions of the confirmation hearing and was very disappointed nobody brought up the topic of Gifted Education. Irrespective if you support her or not I would expect somebody in the democratic or republican side to at least ask her about it as education secretary.

It there any way to get through to someone?

There was a somewhat similar discussion recently: DeVos on gifted ed.

I agree that it is disappointing that support for gifted education is not being discussed while vetting DeVos, and specifically find that disappointment rests with the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC), and its State affiliates, as these are thought to be our legislative advocates.

As far as a way to get through to someone, that would usually be to contact one's State senators especially if they are members of the Health, Education, etc Committee.

In addition to contacting one's Senators, it may be worthwhile to contact NAGC, and your State affiliate organization.

Also disappointing was that although Michelle Obama credited a gifted program with altering the course of her life, as First Lady she was not an outspoken proponent of gifted education.

This was the gist of Sen. Franken's queries to Mrs. DeVos, regarding the distinction between "growth" versus the more benchmarking-oriented approach known as "proficiency." Franken specifically mentioned gifted learners, though using softer terminology.

We tend to discuss the perils of educational settings with an over-enthusiasm for the latter quite regularly here. They tend to be quite toxic for gifted learners.

There were also statements which are troubling for families with 2e children, who may be facing Faustian choices if they must seek private educational settings without the rights provided by public schools under IDEA.

My 2E DD12 wasn't able to fall asleep until 2 am because she is so concerned about Friday's inauguration. "I'm not so much scared about Friday - I'm scared about what happens after." She is especially concerned about the videos she has seen of him mocking the disabled reporter. And although we have not discussed it she has clearly heard some of what went on with Devos' testimony. "What about kids like me with learning disabilities? I just can't go back to regular public school..."

We are in unchartered waters and I truly don't know what to tell her.

She is clearly clueless, doesn't even understand the questions that are asked of her. I doubt she knows anything about either gifted education or special education. The focus is on how to turn education into a big business, under the guise of "parent choice".

Exactly.

Surely there are some qualified people out there, but her money and ties to business got her the nod.

I also could not agree more. Actually educating people is likely not even on her list of priorities (low or otherwise).

Holykarma, Thanks for the reference. I listened to the clip. But I got the impression. that Sen Franklin was just interested in grandstanding than actually trying to address the issue. I guess that is what they are all doing.

You're welcome. I can't tell you how much force my molars have had to withstand in order to write anything remotely neutral regarding this particular cabinet nominee.

In light of my experiences as a parent with an HG+ child in a virtual charter school, and the daughter of a dedicated career educator, I find this nomination abhorrent in every way.

We have endured the kind of "choice" that she is apparently championing. It's what got my daughter 32 hours of scheduled instruction the year that she took second year German in high school. Oh-- and about 15 hours of instructional support of any kind the year that she took AP Statistics. Yes, I said "year."

We worked around it because we literally had no other realistic options if we wanted credentialing-- but I'll be the first to say that our solution space likely could not exist for most families in the first place, and it was one that was fast-closing even for us-- leading us to an additional acceleration in high school simply to get DD out sooner. Yes, it was that bad after the Pearson acquisition. {ahem}

I'd go so far as to say that typical online education via so-called virtual charter schools which are for-profit money making MACHINES is near-fraudulent. Most such entities promise the moon knowing full well that they can't deliver, have student-teacher ratios of at least 100 to 1, and also want state regulators off their backs so that they can do as they please without any oversight. Minimal to zero transparency is the rule rather than the exception, I'm sorry to say.

One only need look at Michigan's dismal record with school choice outcomes-- and Mrs. Devos' input into that situation-- to see how this particular road map is no way to educate children, at least not as national policy. Sure, in some narrow circumstances, it makes sense, but those situations surely require more oversight, not less?

It likely comes as no shock to learn that I am vehemently opposed to anyone that thinks that there is wiggle room to consider alternatives to enforcement of Title IX, either, and yes-- she said that too, in her confirmation hearing.

It may well just be a dog and pony show, the confirmation hearings-- it is certainly the case that the opposition party has no power to stop the confirmation since they lack a majority in either house-- but for the nominee to be so ill-prepared is a fairly ominous sign even so.

Nope. Not a fan of Mrs. DeVos for this cabinet post. At all.

Is it just me or does this appointee's ideas of vouchers, charters and private schools not really go with the rest of the MAGA "brand". I'm talking about this idea of returning to "how things used to be".

Do charter schools pay for football teams? Because if they don't, that whole middle red part of the country is not likely to be on board.

I would think someone like Mike Rowe would fit better with the "brand". He is a TV personality, has a social media following, and has an interest in education but not government or education experience.

It's not just you. I think she intends to return us to the Good Old Days of Plymouth Colony, where all the schools were private, and most taught just the one book.


Those of us who prefer secular education can have You Tube and Khan Academy for our kids, since PBS is about to get its funding gutted.


Does Mike know anything about federal education laws?

Not sure I entirely follow here. When I look outside-in Detroit has a history of miserable public schools which doomed generations of kids. My understanding of the concept Devos championed is of allowing parents to pull kids out and send them to private schools with vouchers. Seems like something is better than nothing. It especially allows gifted kids some alternative. Am I missing something fundamental?

I think Mike Rowe might be too much of a straight shooter for the incoming president.

A preferable alternative to me, given the importance of research based education to our country's future, is fixing public education so it works for all children, rather than allowing situations like Detroit to continue. She has advocated for all those alternative (i.e. charter schools) to be unregulated... so there are no oversights. I don't find that a preferable solution to our current system.

That's before heading into what happens when profits get involved at large scale. Our kids are the outliers, not the norm. Is a profit-based education system really going to serve their small segment of the market? If so, will it be at an affordable price, even with vouchers?

I'm not sure how factually accurate this video is (about DeVos) but still found it interesting. http://www.alternet.org/video/brave...g-betsy-devos-becoming-next-us-secretary

Quite possibly--

The basic math only works if you aren't low income-- and by low income, I mean that your income is not in the bottom half of incomes, likely--

average private school tuition is over 9K, and voucher programs at best come in at about 4K. So assuming that even with scholarships, you're still looking to PAY to send your child to a private school-- and for a family struggling to pay their utilities, that's just not happening. Even if you can scrape together the resources to pay tuition, if the school isn't in your neighborhood, there are massive logistical challenges involved.

Of course, the families that are already sending their children to private schools can use the extra cash to pay for things like club sports. But they probably aren't the ones needing the help.

Her record on charter schools is what I was referring to, however. My daughter, being a student with a disability, was decidedly unwelcome at local schools that COULD reject her. We know, because we looked into that. I can't tell you how painful that was to admit, even a decade later. If they didn't accept federal funds (and even a few who did-- they just BELIEVED that they didn't have to comply with federal mandates regarding access); they could and did just tell us to pound sand. Or refuse our calls and ignore our e-mails.

If we heard anything at all, it was--

"Upon reflection, we believe that our program is probably not well-suited to {my child's name}."

"After consideration, we have decided that {schoolname} can't provide {my child's name} with a safe learning environment..."

So it was public school (obligated under federal law to provide FAPE to my child) or no school at all. Even so, the charter school(s) often balked, threw up roadblocks-- it took years of wrangling, and believe me, I know what I'm doing as a parent advocate.

What of those parents who don't??



So yes, for children who are from desperately poor households, for those who have disabilities, this nomination is (in my opinion) an imminent disaster in every way.

All her policies do is leave kids who have no other options in schools that are then less financially capable of meeting their obligations to those remaining children.

There are problems on both sides.

In many ways, our public education system has created its own mess. The US funds schools at a higher level than most other countries, but much money is misspent. Around here, they come back for bond money for the same projects every few years, while little gets done. Then there are overly generous pension plans. I have a friend who only had to work for 10 years at a community college in order to qualify for a full pension including full paid health insurance for the rest of her life. That's just plain wrong. It used to be worse --- for a long time, you only needed to work for 5 years in San Francisco public schools to get those benefits. Public universities hire too many administrators and then "save" by hiring adjuncts.

If the public schools here were as good as public schools in other countries, people like me wouldn't pay for private schools/universities.

On the other side, the right wing appears to want to gut the system under the guise of fixing it. For example, they talk about "access," which sounds great. But IMO, this word means, if you have enough money, you're in. So vouchers provide access, but only if you can afford what the voucher doesn't cover. (They may increase enrollment in religious schools, because their fees are relatively low.) And of course, wealthy people will save money because of them. I suspect that vouchers will mostly benefit people who were already sending their kids to private schools, making access not really what the ad implied --- a few thousand bucks won't allow a middle class family to send Mary to Choate.

De Vos clearly isn't qualified for this job except as someone who can turn education into a profit center via charter schools. But at the same time, the public schools need to admit their failings and move past them to find constructive solutions, or the right will continue to have all kinds of reasons to howl about "reform."

Agree privatisation is the core of her competence. But given the state of some the public schools it might be the only real option left. Not sure anything else will fix the bad schools. But it is a brave new world. A lot of change ahead.

But coming back to the original point I hope someone gets through to her. If a poor parent wants to spend money on an AOPS class there needs to be a way to make it happen.

I have read that schools are required to provide an "appropriate" education, meanwhile parents may want "the best" education. I found this on an advocacy webpage provided by wrightslaw... here and here. From the US Department of Education, whether led by DeVos or others in the past, parents might receive something deemed "appropriate", not necessarily what is "best".

Clearly with a federal debt over $19 trillion (over $60K per person), the amount of taxes collected falls far short of government spending. Increasing the federal debt (which children will then be required to pay in future years) may not be sound or sustainable practice.

There is often a tradeoff between things being "free at point of service" and people being "free".

To live within personal family budgets, many families find cost-effective alternatives. To use AoPs as an example, rather than "Plan A" purchasing an AoPS online class... a family might develop "Plan B" purchasing a used AoPS book, or even finding a book through inter-library loan.

I can't help but wonder if it may be the only real option left, and I tend to think that most of the schools are bad. It's just that some are horrible.

I was talking about this general idea with a friend over lunch, and he felt the same way. My biggest concern is that De Vos et al. will just make things worse, and the next person to come along in 4 or 8 years will want to revert to the current status quo. I don't know.

But the core issue isn't access to private solutions for public school problems. The core issue is that the public schools simply aren't educating youth. They're producing widgets, and the widgets aren't even graduates. They're test scores.

Which gives us excerpts instead of novels, minimal teaching of grammar, minimal meaningful essay writing (and essays may end up being graded by peers or simply given credit for being turned in), "core competencies" over depth of knowledge, and so on.

It's as though we've become so used to the badness, we've started to accept it, and and have lost the ability to be outraged at the need for homeschooling and Mathnasium and Russian School of Mathematics and Sylvan Learning and Essay camp and a long list of other entities that do the school's jobs for them. It's one thing to WANT to use these things, but the NEED for them is outrageous.

Val, I hear you. I agree in principal with much of what you have expressed. Raising awareness of various experiences on the forum is helpful. So far, these experiences have been occurring under a different administration.

While any education system is falling short, I believe that we (as parents, as a gifted community, as people who care about others) must collectively continue to do several things:
1) Advocate at a national level (contacting Senators, NAGC, DeVos, etc), if we feel we are knowledgeable, among those called to do this, and up to the task.
2) Advocate locally for opportunities within our State, county, district, and/or school if we believe we have armed ourselves with facts and information.
3) Advocate individually for a child's unseen and/or unmet needs, gathering tips, expertise, and advocacy advice as we do so.
4) Educate our kids... even when that means outside the system, supplementing a child's learning... homeschooling, etc.

As mentioned upthread, from the US Dept of Education, whether led by DeVos or others in the past, parents can expect an "appropriate" education, not necessarily the "best" education.

Our public district is funded for about $13,000 or $14,000 per pupil (a large part of that being because of a generous community that supports levy requests) yet the claim they don't have enough and need to cut cut cut. For a while they were talking about going to a 4 day school week, cutting all extracurriculars, etc. They did actually cut from special ed, support staff, increased class sizes, etc. Yet, the AVERAGE teacher salary is about $70,000 plus generous benefits and the administrators and principals are paid anywhere from $120,000 to $180,000 (the super) plus $40,000 in benefits. It's ridiculous. We are in an average cost area, not San Francisco or New York. We are in a state which allows for a lot of school choice. So a large number of students do not attend their neighborhood school, they go to other public districts, or to charters. The district is now closing multiple schools because they don't have enough students to fill them and they are "half empty". This makes parents mad and even more students flee for other options. It's a downward spiral. The charters are overall not performing well (although a small minority are high performing). I'm not sure what the answer is, but our public district has a horrible attitude and they don't care about community input. I am thankful we have choices. But at the same time those choices are destroying our local schools. The schools actually seem to embrace all the standardized testing. They hyper-focus on math and reading scores to the detriment of everything else. They seem to buy into it, it's not just about money and they don't particularly care about attracting students either. They truly believe that if they get those scores to budge they are doing their jobs. Not the gifted kids, the kids who are right below proficiency. They want to get them up a couple points, right over the line. They push kids into AP who shouldn't be there. All of the stress is another reason students flee. Kids are either bored or pushed too hard. Kids simply aren't happy.

I hear you, blackcat, and see the same things you describe, happening in many States and many districts. These trends have been occurring under a different administration.

Yet I believe we cannot look to the selection of DeVos or any other individual to head the US Department of Education as the cure. There are a few things which "everyone should know"...

1) The 10th amendment to the US Constitution echoes an earlier provision of the Articles of Confederation: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". The federal government has not been granted the power to direct public education; That power belongs to the States and to the people.

2) The League of Women Voters provides a decent timeline and history of scope creep: federal encroachment into local education policy and practice.

3) The US Department of Education (USDoE) was first created in 1979. Its functions have largely been to provide funding with strings attached.... States and districts willingly accept the money... and then must comply with a growing set of rules and regulations, thereby "willingly" giving up local control. For example: Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems, US DoE factsheet, July 2009. Schools are therefore no longer accountable to students, parents, and local community taxpayers... but are accountable to federal government.

4) A law of physics which states "An object in motion will stay in motion until force is applied" seems to apply to this type of government encroachment as well... it will continue until force is applied. The "force" would be our communication to Senators, NAGC, etc... largely a voice foregoing federal funding and the attached federal control... thereby truly having local control over all aspects of public education for children in that geographical area.

uhh-- let me be a counterpoint to that--

the "strings" attached to federal funding are the only thing that allows some children to have access to reasonable education at all.

Check out the 2e forums here if you don't believe me. ALL of the 2e children here would be kicked to the curb by one or more potential schooling options if those institutions weren't on some level afraid of noncompliance with the feds.

I for one am not one bit sorry for ADA and IDEA.

I had clearly not criticized IDEA and ADA.

It is my understanding that IDEA and ADA are laws; They are NOT examples of schools opting to accept funding from the US Dept of Education, then finding they must comply with rules and regulations attached to those optional funding dollars.

An example is: Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems, US DoE factsheet, July 2009.
While DeVos might inherit this, it was created under a different administration.

Errr, I think so... IDEA and ADA are laws, but if let's say private schools accept federal assistance funds like my DS private school then they have to honor reasonable accommodations on the IEPs. DS private school currently believes they have the right to ignore DS IEP for things like extended time and foreign language exemption, even though they offer those exemptions to other students, because they want to decide. I had previously filed a State complaint to get District compliant for DS IEP (reevaluations were behind and IEP had not reconvened in the past 12 months). Then I asked who enforces the IEP? I was told that I had to file an Office of Civil Rights complaint. IEP is a Federal document. Sounds OTT, but that's the procedure.

I think the thread is straying off-topic from DeVos and the Department of Education. Rather than hijack a thread, some may wish to create a new thread to discuss specific legislation and sub-agencies.

I do not think the point is around ADA/IDEA or Title IX. It is the way that an administration goes about these issues. When all the power is given to the Bureaucracy the results are pretty predictable as Val pointed out. There has to be a way of putting more power to the parents of the children. To be honest, Vouchers are the only real idea anyone has come up with to put power into the hands of the parents.

As noted earlier, I suspect that vouchers would or do mostly help people who already send their kids to private schools.

There are very serious problems in public education. Some are due to bad policies beyond the control of the schools (e.g. high stakes testing and NCLB, fads pushed on teachers). Some result from a teaching corps that's generally not knowledgeable about subject matter and that enjoys too much protection from the consequences of poor performance. Criticism is often met with "Stop bashing teachers!" No one is above criticism, and mine here is amply documented.

I don't believe that Betsy DeVos has the welfare of students in mind, and I also think that she'll do a lot of harm to our public schools. At the same time, IMO, the US public school system as a whole won't enact meaningful change without being forced to. Reforming the tests and hiring people who know their subjects would be a good start. I don't know if vouchers will do that. I don't know about charter schools, either. It's been shown that many of them are no better than the public schools. Certainly, the one my son attended for a year was such a disaster, it bled students (enrollment didn't increase in spite of adding a grade every year, and it eventually closed for a variety of reasons).

Agreed.
- Making one's voice known to legislators and advocacy groups is one way in which parents can exercise their power.
- Advocacy at various levels is another way for parents to exercise power.
- Knowledge is power. Reviewing the Federal Register may help acquaint parents with current issues, on a timely basis.
- Running for office, from school board to alderman to State and National offices is another way for parents to exercise power.
- Creating micro-schools is another.
- Exercising one's power by homeschooling is another.

Vouchers may put another choice or option before parents, and in some cases these may be viable options... in other cases the voucher schools or charters may present a distinction without a difference for the children who attend them.

There is good and bad in everything. The current educational system arose under a previous administration, and the current administration has indicated it wishes to place "outsiders" in many roles. It remains to be seen how much DeVos may change the Department of Education, and how much the Department of Education may change her.

Well said. But from all I have read she wants to do the right thing. Why else would she try to spend so much of her own money in tangling with this thankless problem. She could do as so many others do, send your kids to private school/wealthy district and ignore the problem.

DeVos is a huge proponent of charter schools.

Speaking of Detroit:


It sounds to me like charter schools are not exactly saving education in Detroit --- in spite of not having to follow all those burdensome regulations the public schools have to follow, like taking all comers.

IMO, there's a lot of ideology driving the "school choice" movement. Certainly, the facts aren't driving it, given the above and the performances of many other charters (e.g. Magnolia Science Academy, which has closed 3+ schools due to financial irregularities).

Not to mention VR00's disparaging of Detroit public schools while sparing the charters' equally bad performance. Unless I've missed some alternative facts ( ), this is ideology talking.


Yes, there are problems in public schools, and they're caused in part by factors I noted above. But it seems to me that lack of oversight in charter schools creates problems with equivalent results (poor education). Yet advocates for charter schools will still make excuses for them, because...ideology.

We will never fix our education problems until we stop looking to free market solutions on one side or the status quo on the other. But as I said, I don't think that Betsy DeVos cares about fixing problems so much as...something else. Perhaps, something like building God's kingdom. Gee, I didn't know that Jerry Falwell was Trump's first pick for Secretary of Education.

Val, Are you disagreeing about the assessment of Detriot schools?
I never argued that all charter schools are going to be great. My only experience with one is Davidson Academy which would not exist if they had to accept whoever applies.

The argument is for putting the choice in parents hands. One needs to believe that parents know what is good for their children. I cannot count how many times I have stood before a school official who says "They know what is best for the kid". You and I can walk and pay for any number of alternate options as you described. What choice does a poor parent have?

I am not sure why there is so much venom against a person who wants to provide this choice. If the parents want to spend the money on parochial education why should we stand in their way? Some of the best schools in the country started as parochial schools. The answer is some reasonable form of accreditation.

No idea why the Jerry Falwell boogieman argument is thrown in here.

Val, interesting article.

1) I would tend to agree that low test scores would be a red flag. But not under all circumstances... For example: Many people are opposed to excessive "standardized testing" and "teaching to the test". One of the functions of standardized testing is to influence/persuade/pressure schools to adopt CCSS (or else the school's test scores would be low). Some teachers have stated that children with the readiness and ability to work on advanced curriculum are not allowed to do so, as studying advanced material which is not on the grade-level standardized test may result in a lower score.

I would want to know more. For example:
- Does this school teach to the test?
- Does this school use a curriculum which is not aligned to the standardized test topics and timing?
- Does this school follow a different set of standards which is believed to serve the local community well?
- Is there project-based learning?
- Are students developing and exhibiting internal locus of control? (Do they "own" their educational decisions?)
- Are there other measures which indicate learning and growth? (Writing essays, presenting speeches, etc)

If the educational progress truly is substandard, are there environmental factors which may be exhibiting a negative influence? (Specific to Detroit, MI... is any delay in educational progress directly attributable to lead which has been found in drinking water?)

2) IMO, An excessive salary, which is not commensurate with experience, credentials, and results is a red flag. I would want to know more. For example:
- What are the job's minimum and preferred qualifications?
- What is the industry salary range and mid-point for the position?
- What is the job description?
- What duties does the job entail?
- What are the goals for the position?
- What are the expectations for learning curve, performance review, feedback, follow-up, accountability, dismissal, etc?

3) Financial irregularities are a red flag. I would want to know:
- was one person embezzling?
- was there a widespread, pervasive, systemic problem?

4) Because there is good and bad in everything, for each decision made, I would want to know:
- Who benefits?
- Who is empowered?
- What are the constraints/parameters?
- Who are the decision makers?
- What are the PROs and CONs?
- How to minimize the downside/drawbacks/negatives?
- How will we know if the decision is achieving the desired results?
- How frequently will the decision be reviewed? By whom?
- Who will be notified of decisions? By what means?
I believe the focus must always be on the benefit to the student, and by extension, the student's family. A focus on benefiting or growing anything else (such as data collection, research, government, business profit, union salary and benefits) is a red flag.

5) There may be over-paid individuals in both the private sector and government. Ideally, in a perfect world, each entity may provide balance and a reality check for the other.

6) The current education system was developed under a series of different administrations. It remains to be seen how much DeVos may change the Department of Education, and how much the Department of Education may change DeVos.

I believe it is important to encourage parents in this.
- Some people may begin development of this skill in childhood, effortlessly as if by osmosis while casually observing their parents... and later as parents themselves leverage these memories in being supportive to the next generation.
- Other parents, without having had the benefit of someone to emulate in developing this skill, may learn as adults how to identify what their child needs to flourish.

Or strong local control... holding a school accountable specifically to students and parents. In this context, strong bottom-up local control may somewhat minimize top-down influence of DeVos and/or Department of Education.

I'm saying that you criticized the Detroit public schools for failing students, but ignored the fact that charter schools have a bad-to-rock-bottom record in Detroit. Charters are heavily promoted by DeVos, yet you've said she's a good choice who wants to "do the right thing."

Surely, someone who wants to do the right thing would be critical of these poorly performing schools. But she defends them. Alternative facts?

"School choice" is a myth for a majority of Americans that's promoted by people with an agenda all their own.


NB: The DA isn't a charter school. It's a public school with an IQ cutoff (like the HG+ schools in LA and many other similar public schools in the US).

What exactly are charter schools? Because here, they are public schools and they have to take anyone who applies if there is space (if there isn't, they hold a lottery). They have to do the State standards and they have to give the State tests. The main difference is that the school board is pretty much hand-selected rather than elected and if there is a property tax referendum (which can be as much as 15 percent of a district's budget, maybe more), they are not eligible for that. Kids are even bused to charters, if they live within the school district boundaries where the charter is located. I always find it ironic how public school districts claim they are going to have to cut basically everything if a referendum doesn't pass, yet charters do fine without that money. Many charters don't have a lot of extracurriculars though, the way most public school districts do.

Our public district was threatening all sorts of cuts if voters didn't approve the latest levy...like cutting special ed, teachers, increasing class sizes (many elementary classes now have more than 30 kids, even though they DID pass the levy), eliminating music programs, eliminating sports, etc. etc. Most of those cuts ended up happening even though the voters gave them the money. Our Super is paid about $230,000 if you include benefits, which is ridiculous considering how much they gripe about their budget issues. With salaries like that, then it makes sense they can't afford to have school 5 days per week and need to put 40 students in a class if a levy doesn't pass. So even public districts are subject to corruption. Ours is a classic example and there are multiple lawsuits from a parent group currently pending against the district for conflicts of interest, violating open meeting laws, closing school buildings even though they don't have a valid reason and financially don't need to, etc. People complain about laws and mandates but I would actually like to see more. For instance, they can't give themselves salary raises if they are cutting programs, cutting teachers, increasing class sizes, closing schools, etc.

Here is the full description of charter schools from wikipedia. While the entries on wikipedia are crowd-sourced and anyone can contribute to them, the entries often contain a bibliography of meaningful, credible, authoritative source documents in their "References" section, located at the end of the entry.

Here is the wikipedia entry on school vouchers.

Here is a research report on school choice:
Empirical Evidence on School Choice, 4th edition, by Dr. Greg Forster Ph.D., May 2016, Friedman Foundation.
This is one of many available on the website edchoice.org.

The current US public education system has developed under other administrations; It remains to be seen how much DeVos may change the US Department of Education and how much the US Department of Education may change DeVos.

This rule is usually true on paper, but not in practice. For example, see this report by Reuters about the many ways that charter schools get around it. The quoted information bellow is only a small portion of what the journalists learned.


It's a lack of oversight thing.

It may be helpful to provide source documents to substantiate points made, so that people are being well-informed by reading the forums... to that end, I will share the following (others may have more to share):
1) The DA "About Us page" has a "History/Timeline" which points to Nevada legislation: Revised Statute 392A, updated to 388C.
2) The Nevada legislation can be found several places online. Findlaw is one of these: Nevada Revised Statutes Title 34 Education. This shows Charter Schools defined and governed by 388A, Achievement Charter Schools defined and governed by 388B, University Schools for Profoundly Gifted Pupils defined and governed by 388C.
3) In their State publication for charter school compliance,
CHARTER SCHOOL - Reporting Requirements Manual - July 2016, 388A (Charters), 388B (Achievement Charters), and 388C (University Schools for Profoundly Gifted Pupils) are all mentioned.

This type of research and sharing of source documents may also be helpful in regard to discussion points on DeVos and the US Department of Education.

To be fair, the Reuters special report also stated Alongside a special report such as this, it may be helpful to see a summary of charter laws by State (similar to information available on the web summarizing such things as gifted legislation by state, homeschool legislation by state, etc).

The Reuters special report was written in 2013... this was under different administration. Time will tell what changes DeVos may make to the US Department of Education, and what changes the US Department of Education may make to DeVos.

From the DA's home page:


As for some charter schools targeting low income students, this fact is irrelevant to the fact that many charter schools are bending and breaking laws to avoid taking students who won't make them look good. Ideology doesn't change facts.

"Alaska, Delaware and North Carolina, for instance, permit charter schools to give admissions preference to students who demonstrate interest in their particular educational focus. Some schools use that leeway to screen for students who are ready for advanced math classes or have stellar standardized test scores."

Reminds me of the charter in our area which REQUIRES calculus in order to graduate. So they are effectively cherry picking students who are motivated and bright enough to complete calculus. The school is grades 6-12. In the middle school, many kids have IEPs but I noticed that in the high school, none of them do. So is the school making things so difficult for kids with special needs that they drop out and go back to their regular public school? Or are they getting kids off IEPs? What turned me off was that at the presentation they stated that they give kids 2 1/2 hours of homework per night, even in the middle school. So they are cherry picking only kids who are highly motivated. From reading reviews from parents/students, they give poor grades to the students who don't perform, those kids become demoralized, and drop out. The charter is one of the top rated schools in the state, but that's because they have only good students, not necessarily because their instruction is all that spectacular.

It appears these sources agree.

Agreed, ideology does not change facts... however it may influence which subset of facts one chooses to focus on... while other facts may be overlooked or ignored.

Fact 1: The context of this article was a special report on difficulties which some students of low SES may have in applying to charter schools, due to complex application requirements.

Fact 2: The report states "Many..." and "Most..." charter schools have a simple application process. In other words, the complex application processes outlined/detailed in the report would not apply to "Many... " and "Most..." charter schools.

Fact 3: The anecdotes provided in the report are not necessarily provided in the context of the applicable laws. Therefore in several instances it is difficult to know whether a law is being bent, a law is being broken, or the author does not like or agree with the law.

Fact 4: The article does not provide statistics regarding the number of students/families facing burdensome application processes or the number of schools employing application processes which may be burdensome.

Observation: The article appears to be written emphasizing persuasion, and uses anecdata... rather than being written to objectively and impartially inform, using statistics. This is not to discredit the article. There is good and bad in everything, and the article is pointing out that charters are not necessarily a panacea... it indicates areas where further investigation/research could be done, to provide more information/facts.

Compare/Contrast:
report - "Many charters, backed by state law, specialize in serving low-income and minority children."
post - "charter schools targeting low income students"
"Specialize in serving" tends to have a positive connotation; "Targeting" tends to have a negative, almost predatory, connotation.

As mentioned upthread, the present US education system was developed under previous administrations. It remains to be seen what changes DeVos may make to the Dept of Education, and how the Dept of Education may change DeVos.

Some may say your post is a positive example of a parent being empowered to make the decision regarding the type of learning environment which would - or would not - be a good "fit" for their child.

As previously mentioned, the present US education system has developed under previous administrations. It remains to be seen what changes DeVos may make to the Dept of Education, and how the Dept of Education may change DeVos.

This report from the ACLU showed that 21% of SoCal charter schools had discriminatory admissions policies. And this is only admissions policies. We don't know what they were doing once the students were enrolled (e.g. requiring donations, which is a common practice and happened at the charter my son attended for a year).

But you could have found this yourself if you'd really been interested in statistics. Instead, you attacked the Reuters article and wrote a message that tried to make things look blurry.

I'm not defending the status quo by any means. But the "choice" movement is a fiction whose goal is to gut public education in favor of privatization. If allowed to continue as people like DeVos seem to want, it will turn education into a profit center or an arm of the brand of religion the DeVos's and Falwell promote.

Meaningful reform that benefits the US as a whole won't happen when the people driving changes are acting for the wrong reasons (i.e. self interest).

The "choice" proponents lie and obfuscate in order to advance their goals. The twisting of facts on this thread is an example.

1) What, specifically do you see an "attack"? Please note that my post states "This is not to discredit the article..."
2) I presented 4 facts on the article. Do you disagree with any of the facts which I presented on the article?
3) I presented 1 Observation on the article. Do you disagree with the observation on the article?
4) I presented one compare/contrast regarding phraseology in the article/report and your post.
5) To clarify, in what way did my post "make things look blurry" to you?

Some may say it is a rather big allegation to claim that the goal of educational "choice" is to gut public education.

As an alternative, some may say the goal of educational "choice" is to provide an option or opportunity which may be right for some students; Unfortunately among both government and private sector there may be found individuals whose focus is not benefiting the students (and by extension, their families) but may be on such things as benefiting/growing data collection, research, etc.

Under a previous administration, Common Core was ushered in, with book companies, test companies, and technology providers standing to profit greatly... Pearson and Gates come to mind.

I would seek reforms which "benefit each student" rather than "benefits the US as a whole" as I see the latter as being somewhat nebulous.

It is possible that "outsiders" may make positive reforms which empower parents and students. The current educational system was built under prior administrations. It remains to be seen what influence DeVos may have on the US Dept of Education, and what influence the US Dept of Education may have on DeVos.

Which "choice" proponents? What goals... are they concrete, written, measurable goals? Which facts have been twisted on this thread?

I see us agreeing:
- There is good and bad in everything.
- More students/parents would like to benefit from educational "choice"; Demand exceeds supply; There are waiting lists and lotteries.
- Some people/companies/government benefit from educational "choice".
- Educational "choice" is not a panacea.
- More information/data/statistics may be needed.
- More oversight/accountability may be needed.

I'm uncertain whether we agree:
- Some students benefit from educational "choice".
(This reminds me of the Star Thrower, by Loren Eiseley) To clarify, is it your position that the students most likely to benefit are those students who you believe do not need further educational benefit?

We may disagree:
- Whether further educational oversight/accountability should be accomplished bottom-up or top-down.. through State legislation... Federal legislation... grassroots parent efforts... etc... or a combination of approaches depending upon local circumstances.
- Whether an "outsider" may provide more options for parents/students. (To clarify, my view is: time will tell... I cannot predict this.)

Homeschooling is legal in all 50 states.

I don't really mean that with any snark intended, by the way.

Also-- the post above that one is an example of what I mean--




I have observed personally both with my own child and many like her-- charter schools and private schools often feel that they simply don't have to-- when it comes to appropriate educational opportunities, appropriate accommodations, or even basic safety or removal of disability-based barriers to access.

They truly don't think that the federal laws about such things apply to them in the first place. This IS precisely what such schools are obligated for once they accept federal funding.


I don't see the federal bureaucrats as my enemies. They've got the backs of families like mine, and I've been able to leverage that to get my child an education in the public school system as a result of knowing what those laws say, and insisting that schools have those obligations. I've encouraged them to consult their own attorneys and to reach out for the help of the feds, in maintaining compliance. Not advice-- just saying that it has definitely worked for me.

Without someone who is willing to BACK those laws (like OCR), kids like mine have got nothing preventing schools from telling us to pound sand, we're too much trouble.

You'll have to take my word for it-- they can, and they DO.

I think that this is central to the discussion. Because it answers the question of why decentralization, local control, etc. is not necessarily a great idea.

She...


did?



I'm seriously confused about this. My understanding is that the DeVos children all attended private schools. As did Mrs. DeVos herself, I believe?

Her major goal seems to be to get more kids access to religious schooling who might otherwise find this out of reach, and she would prefer to do it through vouchers funded by taxpayers. I object to this for several reasons, only one of which is the non-establishment clause, but I think that is not an entirely unimportant factor.

She has also made statements in support of removing any oversight from charter schools-- to free them from standards regarding content, teacher certifications, and/or financial oversight, even of local or state norms. This has been a disaster in most instances-- not just in Michigan, where Mrs. DeVos has implemented some of these policies, but anywhere else that it has been attempted.

The fact is, she hadn't considered that there is an ongoing concern about which standard is appropriate as a goal to meet for each public school student-- one year of "growth" for a student, or a standard of grade level "proficiency"?

It seems to me that anyone qualified for this job-- heck, any parent HERE-- could have answered that question without one bit of preparation. Just by offering their opinion and thoughts on the subject.

This question is particularly germane to those whose children are atypical for one reason or another. In other words-- OUR kids, both those who are 2e and those who are gifted without disability.

As Val has noted above, it is commonplace for charter schools to elicit information about disability (and about academic ability, too) from prospective students, in spite of the questionable legality of such practices in a public school. Every school-of-choice I ever spoke with asked those questions about my child. Private, charter, out-of-district/zone, and online-- and most wanted to have the conversation in person, even when I'd made my inquiries in writing-- presumably so that they knew I'd have no proof it had occurred.


We have not applied to Davidson, but I expect that the application there has criteria which are rather clearly explained in terms of which students are eligible to apply.

Beyond that, I seriously doubt that Davidson is ignoring the applications of some children who meet those criteria. Charter schools which are run by educators seldom suffer from this type of problem (again, in my experience). It is mostly those in the for-profit sector which do.

Some charters have also been dinged in my own region for cherry-picking students from higher SES, which no doubt helps when it comes time to raise funds. That might explain why some such schools don't seem to struggle with funding the way that their conventional brethren do.

But the big one is that they can exempt themselves from providing pricey "services" to eligible students with IEP's. Well. Not legally. But they do seem to have a disturbing pattern of doing just that.

Let's put it this way-- if your child were attending a "school of choice" and didn't have something very basic, very fundamental-- like a chair, or any learning materials in their own language-- how long would you put up with that before just... leaving? You know-- your CHOICE. That's what I've seen happen to a lot of 2e and disabled students in charter schooling. The student's needs just get ignored, or parents get excuses about poor staffing, so-sorry-too-busy-for-a-meeting-maybe-next-month, etc. etc.

High turnover is the biggest red flag in charter schools-- and it's a figure that most charters are very secretive about, in my experience.




I am curious to learn exactly how the magic of privatization is supposed to result in a functional system of education in a broad sense-- can anyone explain why they think it is an idea with a high chance of success?

Yes, I understand that although her children attended private school, she did not ignore the problems in the local public schools; Members of the family have donated millions to the Grand Rapids public schools over the years.

I see an inherent clash in the requirements being discussed on the forum today:

- On one hand, schools are not to ask for demographic information. (Thank you, Val, for posting this link.)

- On the other hand, schools are to collect demographic information, into the Statewide Longitudinal Data System.

- When demographic information exists for a particular student in the SLDS, the ability must exist to share data from preschool through postsecondary education data systems. Therefore it appears that other schools to which a student applies would have access to this data.

The specific data to be collected and stored is: US DoE factsheet, July 2009.


While DeVos might inherit this, it was created under a different administration.

Asking for demographic data from enrolled students is one thing and is legal. The data is used to analyze student outcomes.

Asking for it from applicants and using it to make admissions decisions isn't legal, yet some charters appear to do so.


You may wish to consider using this as a tagline so as to avoid retyping it every time.

I would want more information, including:
- how does one prove the allegation that information collected for the SLDS was utilized to make admissions decisions?
- what incentive is there for a student/family to provide demographic information for the SLDS, once enrolled?
- is there a law which specifies the timing of collecting demographic data into the SLDS?
- for students whose data already exists in the SLDS, how is that data safeguarded from other schools, when there is a requirement that it must be shared?

In my observation and experience, our local public school district requires this demographic information plus a record of immunizations up-front, even for a visiting homeschool student who would like to shadow for a day. As I recall, school security and knowing who is in the building were the reasons given.

The current US public education system was created under a different administration. It remains to be seen how much DeVos might change the US Department of Education, and how much the US Department of Education might change her.

http://www.oregonlive.com/education/index.ssf/2017/01/portland_schools_hit_with_civi.html

Clearer, yet?

Ahh, pet peeve of mine. There is actually a big heap of research about the fact that school quality is directly correlated to the human factor - teachers, students, and to the extent they can be considered separately from students, parents.
The one thing that administrations can control is teachers. Apparently they are making a fairly poor job if it, but there are some system wide problems with that, which I will get to later.
The one biggest determining factor in how a student will do, though, is parental SES level if the student. The one biggest factor in how a school will do, on aggregate, is student SES level on aggregate.
If poverty levels in a school, on aggregate, go up, outcome goes down. Inexorably. Researchers have tried to determine a tipping point, somewhere between 20 and 40%, and the downturn accelerates. Someone's got the statistics for Detroit schools?
(I offer no citations, btw, I'm on a train, feel free anyone to offer up alternative facts).
There is also a huge heap of research on why private schools tend to do better than public schools. Turns out again that if you control for parental SES levels, they don't do better at all. Only they just tend to happen to have higher parental SES, duh.
Privatization as such means NOTHING.
Choosing a good school means, first and foremost, choosing a school with high parental SES levels on aggregate. By residential selection, testing into magnets, going private, whatever you do, that's what you are doing she trying to find a good school.
So if you have a lot of residential segregation, lots of school choice with the attendant power given to high SES parents, high SES families will cluster I one set of schools and low SES levels families will cluster in another. Which is what has been happening for decades in most industrialized countries and which accelerates when power is given to parents who can actually wield that power. Not sure what school exactly a poor family in Detroit should choose, if they are trying to find a school which is not majority low SES. As long as you have a system that creates high poverty schools, you will have poor schools.

There is one systematic factor that researchers have found that high performing national school systems have in common, which is a seamless system aligning content taught in schools, content tested in schools, content tested and or expected in higher education access, content (and the teaching of that content) taught in teacher training. So, for complete local control, every single district needs to design their own curricula, run their own teacher training college, create their own testing, and somehow aligns that for ease of access with the expectations of higher education institutions across the country.

Sounds reasonable? Not to me.
Maybe there IS a place for higher centralized control of intakes, content, testing and teacher training,

Tigirle what is SES level?

socioeconomic status

Interesting reading:

https://www.johnlocke.org/update/why-do-liberals-send-their-children-to-private-school/

A liberal sending their child to private school? Oh, I'm one of them (parochial school, in our case). I do my best for my child in the system as I find it. Considering that all our children on this board are extreme outliers by definition and uniquely vulnerable, I'm not sure personal anecdote counts for anthing, but I will say that it is absolutely NOT up to individual children or families to improve a system, a school or even a classroom. (I think the Obama daughters probably were as vulnerable as it gets), Teach every child at their level, using appropriate grouping, as is always being promised? And serious, functional anti bullying measures? Public school, here I come. Just find an appropriate group for my kid, just another two or so in his grade/age with a similar cognitive profile would suffice. Considering this is a fairly large metropolitan area, they might even have found them. Excuse me while I don't wait.
Does that make me a hypocrite? Possibly. All I can say is that my criteria were met in a public gifted program for middle school and DS10 is back in the public system, and I prefer it that way,
I like to think that I do walk the walk.

It isn't clear to me how saying, "We need to have a strong public education system" is inconsistent with sending a child to a private school.

The inconsistencies in the following, however, are very clear: "We need charters to replace failing public schools, like the ones in Detroit!" when the charters in Detroit are effectively as bad as the public schools.

But alternative facts are what count when you're playing this game, and so Barack H. Obummer's kids went to private school, which makes him a hypocrite. Right. Whereas Betsy DeVos, who pushes charters in Detroit, is NOT a hypocrite because...personal choice, that's why.

Tigerle, I think you make the choice that you as a parent are believes is right for your child. I think the article was making the point on hypocrisy in denying funding to a choice program for poorer families who might want to send their children to a different school. Just like all of us those parents should be allowed that choice.

Val, we can argue how good or bad the charters in Detroit are with respect to the public schools. But that is not the point. The point is the parents should get to make that choice.

I haven't seen a voucher program that would actually pay for tuition at a top tier private school. In the Seattle area tuition at the really good private schools (on par with Sidwell) is around $30,000 a year.

The whole thing seems like a pitch to get the government to pay bible school tuition.

Well, I am with Richard Kahlenberg and other educators who have found, in the trenches, that schools need to have a critical mass of high and middle SES children to work - and that you mustn't tell a middle class parent faced with a majority low SES school to send their child to that school to "lift it up", because "middle class kids have the right to go to a middle class school as well" as I believe he put it.
I believe that if you tell can tell parents convincingly that middle class children (or middle and high SES children, it's just a shorthand) WILL be in the majority and their needs WILL be met, parents WILL choose that nicely free public school almost all of the time, and that happens to help the low SES children who go to that school, too, most of all, because the quality of what happens in that schools classrooms will be so much higher. That is what magnet programs, gifted programs etc do and it works for many places. It takes a lot of effort, of course. Vouchers as a nice subsidy for people who are thinking of opting out anyway are a wonderful solution that works for people who actually have access to meaningful choice, means there is F all to do for people who should actually work on improving the public system. All it ends up doing is funneling money into the private sector.
If that is your ideology that is fine (General you, not anyone on this board). But be honest about it, it does squat for public schools, squat for poor people. There's evidence.

Sorry. I think i have now gone way off topic as far as gifted ed is concerned. These ideas really have no bearing on gifted ed at all, because statistically a gifted kid will be always in the minority, usually as a minority of one, and our HG+ children may be a minority of one in the whole school. So the answer to the trope of putting gifted children in the regular classrooms in order to lift standards and improve the experience for all is that if you want children to do heavy lifting, put them in the majority LOL.
Similarly, if you remove the statistical 0.5 gifted children from the regular classrooms, it doesn't change composition in any meaningful way.
I imagine that for someone like Devos, the need for public gifted ed does not compute at all. If you're so smart, why don't you just go to private school?!?

Well said, VR00. Parental choice.

I value parental empowerment.

Yet I see a potential downside, as schools accepting government money may become subject to governmental interventions which may substantially change features of the school to no longer resemble that which the parents chose. In this way, accepting government money may be a Trojan Horse and take down high-performing schools. However at this point it is pure conjecture.

The current educational system whose end-goal is equal outcomes was created under previous administration. Time will reveal how much DeVos may influence the US Department of Education, and how much the US Department of Education may influence DeVos.

Why must it be top-tier, or nothing?

As far as the amount of a voucher, there may be different means of calculating this. I'm familiar with voucher programs tending to allocate the amount of tax money which a public school district lists as its "expenditure per student", although this may be divided into fixed costs or sunk costs (such as buildings) and variable costs (such as teacher salaries), with only the variable costs "following the student" as a voucher payment to the new school.

Parental choice.

The current educational system including existing school choice was created under previous administration. Time will reveal how much DeVos may influence the US Department of Education, and how much the US Department of Education may influence DeVos.

Voucher Discussion Crucial, Richard D. Kahlenberg, January 2017, The Atlantic
Most of the article is anecdotal. Here is one of the few refernces to research:
The article mentioned the failure of over $7Billion of educational programs under Obama and Duncan. When schools of higher SES were mentioned, underlying behavioral factors were cited, such as academically engaged students, and involved parents.

Tigerle, are you able to point us to the evidence which you allude to?

I mentioned a research study in this post upthread... which found the preponderance of evidence to be supportive of school choice.

The current US public education system was developed under prior administration. The impact of DeVos on the US Department of Education, and the influence of the US Department of Education on DeVos remain to be seen.

As I've said before on this thread, those asking for evidence ignore what's put in front of them and segue to another topic. This is what argument from ideology does.

There is no amount of evidence that will convince people whose agenda isn't what they claim it to be. It's the whole point of their position. They present fake facts from biased sources and tell you, "See!?"

When that point gets brought up, the response is to find a new segue or a way to attack.

The best approach, I think, on a forum like this one, is not to engage them.

Indigo, I have always appreciated your deep answers which reference a great variety of sources. Thank you.

While some may ignore evidence, others may analyze and categorize (anecdotal evidence vs. empirical evidence from research or literature review) before determining how heavily to weigh it.

Different research may yield different results, and correlation does not mean causation. It is good, I think, on a forum like this one, to exchange experiences and sources of information which inform various views... in a manner which seeks to understand both common ground and differences.

One worthy agenda may be to shed light that there is good and bad in everything. Tradeoffs. Opportunity costs.

We cannot presume to have a common knowledge base simply by virtue of being gifted individuals. This is why some people choose to share experiences and/or sources which inform their view, and to ask others to do the same. If one believes a fact or set of facts to be "fake", one might choose to discuss that... for example: budgeted/estimated/projected vs. actual; outdated data replaced by more recent data; more comprehensive study with more subjects and/or a longer time period, etc. This may facilitate conversation amongst gifted individuals in a way that simply claiming "fake" unfortunately cannot.

Seeking context, sources, or delving deeper with questions for clarification are not attack. However accusations and allegations, casting aspersions on individual's motivations is an attack. Ad Hominem.

This statement sounds like relational aggression, also known as girl-bullying. I know the considerable talents of members can be put to better use on the forum.

For example, discussing DeVos and the US Department of Education which she is inheriting... how much might she change its direction... how much might it change her?

LOL, thank you! I find I often have more questions than answers... and every answer (which others may hope would bring closure) leads to more questions...

I'm behind on this convo, but I'd like to add to this list:


At the charter my DD attended briefly:
--Required tour of the school held only a few times, the JANUARY before your child enrolled, not announced anywhere so you had to be "in the know," with limited spots
--Mandatory volunteer hours (I believe it was 40/year)
--No afterschool care (selects for wealthy families with SAH parents)
--"Art fee" of $100+/year
--Hours not the same as other public schools--again, selects for families with a SAH parent because this is very hard to deal with if you have another child at a public school who is not on the same schedule and you work

A few interesting takes on this:

1.Betsy DeVos Confirmed as Education Secretary
by Anya Kamenetz
NPR
February 7, 2017
Read the article for info on upcoming legislation.

2.The job of the Education Secretary...
by Mark Bauerlein
Vox
February 7, 2017
Lots of facts, figures, and statistics in this article.

3.Betsy DeVos is qualified to be Education Secretary
by Michael Petrilli
Fordham Institute
February 8, 2017

Personally I think Davos is exposing the long standing dogma which has permeated public education in many regards. A perfect microcosm has presented itself if you will. From my view point the responses from the NEA say it all:

http://www.nea.org/home/69582.htm

http://www.nea.org/home/69641.htm

Vouchers create competition between schools and give children opportunities which they otherwise would not receive in a public setting. Yet people are unanimously disparaging Devos simply because she does not hold the same views as they do- saying the exact opposite of what would happen under a voucher program. What they really want is another education secretary who can peddle the same old failing views. Maybe I am biased; but in my state magnet, charter and the like schools seem to be doing well with students. Many parent actually prefer them for the better.

Sorry but from where I am standing, Americans by and large do not care about their schools one iota.

(Almost) Every H1(b) printed is a searing indictment of the American public schools.

Were American actually concerned with their schools they would be asking the most obvious question:

How is that American schools cannot produce adults with the skills needed to fill the spaces purportedly unfillable to such an extent that thousands of H1(b) visas need to be stamped every year?

Worse still, many of those H1(b) visa go to foreign born graduates of US tertiary education institutions. So the failure must rest with the US primary and secondary educational institutions.

While I can see that niche technologies will always need to freely hire from a global pool so there should always be H1(b) visas issued I cannot help thinking that the current system is way abused and that healthy public school systems around the country should be producing high school graduates of the right calibre to render them obsolete for the most part.

Given what we actually do have in our public schools - a system where the people with the most potential are the most underserved . It should not be too surprising that employment agencies and their Washington lobbyists can claim that often borderline competent people (there are, of course outliers who are fantastically competent and awesome to work with as I know from personal experience) from half way around the world speaking almost unintelligible English show more promise than American candidates.

I cannot help but conclude that Americans as a nation, irrespective of the Secretary of Education du jour, must not really care about their public schools.

I agree with madeinuk that our education system is partially the problem. I also think that kids are not getting to do enough problem solving on their own and are not allowed to make mistakes.

Our educational system does not tolerate failure-there is not enough growth mindset. The schools are under pressure to teach to the test, so they do not have time to allow the kids to learn from failure. Parents are worried if their kid fails that they will fail at life- there are no second chances. Add in a nation dependent on media for entertainment and you have a lot of passivity and adversity to risk.

The problem with DeVos is not really about charter or public - it is that she has no background and no ideas on what our educational system needs. She is woefully ignorant, and if you don't even know what is broken you can't fix it. Plus her solution did not work in the area where she applied it. I have charters, magnets, privates, online school, etc. in my area and we do not feel like we don't have choice. Private schools in our area have financial aid and reduced tuition to help students with less funding to attend.

All just my opinion though- I am not qualified to lecture any time soon

@madinuk,

I regret to say you are spot on and I fully agree 100% having seen it first hand. Schools in this country paint high potential as those students which can fulfill the given standard curriculum with success (which is really based on average to slightly above average IQ). Yes there is advanced level and honors in some public schools, but it still does not challenge high, very high and profoundly high IQ. Anything outside of that narrow conformity is not taken into consideration, or cared for.

@LAF, Id say you are more qualified to lecture then I am However, IMHO, having an educational secretary with no experience can either be really bad, or really good. A person with an open mind, and with the right skills, is more likely to see the problem at hand then educators with set-in-stone, pre biased thinking. My point is- how many educators even grasp what gifted really is? How many educators recognize US schools do not teach enough STEM? I may be wrong, and my opinions are strictly limited to my own experience, but the well educated educators we have thus far have not produced results that rival schooling in other countries.

Since the subject of other countries' excellence came up--


https://www.theatlantic.com/nationa...ng-about-finlands-school-success/250564/


Maybe the secret sauce isn't what we Yankees keep thinking it is. Pretty sure that DeVos isn't all that interested in what Finland has discovered works, though.

Edward, you assume that American educators are well-educated. In my experience, a dreadful percentage of them are not-- and they may wind up in education majors in college because they aren't well-suited to other things, and not because they are impassioned, smart, and well-suited to education in particular. That's not to say that those educators don't exist-- they do, and they always have-- but that they are rare, always have been, and are in fact often driven out of the profession by the misguided pressures placed upon them in actual classrooms.

Privatization isn't going to fix this.

Trust me, I see it the same way. In fact I whole heartedly agree. As taboo it is to say, US educators overall are not well educated. But when it comes to executing misguided and backward principals in our schools (like mandated testing) they do it well.

Privatization won't fix the core issue, but it might at least give a few students a chance at something other then public. I Personally would have given my major organs to attend a magnet school. Or at least anything that wasn't public.

Magnet schools ARE public schools, just with special programs and open to more than just a specific school base.

Because of the DeVos selection our very successful magnet program may lose funding.

Teacher's actual choices, when faced with toxic policy changes from on high, are: to walk away from the students and communities that need good educators (because the most capable have other options than being in classrooms), or to do the best they can within those 'guidelines' without being fired for insubordination.

Blaming teachers for the state of education makes just about as much sense as blaming doctors for failing to fix the medical system's runaway costs and inequities. Both groups of professionals largely hate what the modern pressures of their workplaces have done to the profession, by the way.

With all due respect, Edward, why "anything that wasn't public?"

Why not "life in a place where the public schools were higher quality?"

Why not "I wish my parents had made better life choices?" Let me be clear-- I'm not suggesting that your parents had a lot of better choices in front of them, but this would have been a problem anyway.

Why was it that you weren't attending a magnet school? Such institutions have existed since the 1960's and 1970's.

Why is it about how awful the public schools were?

I was also publicly educated. I am EG. I could not have received a better education given where I lived, at the time I was being educated, with my parents' somewhat limited options-- not at any other school option, save perhaps homeschooling (which my parents did consider). Even with nearly unlimited financial resources, my educational options would have been only marginally better-- and the reason is that I attended very good public schools. Which my parents chose when they made decisions about where to live.



What isn't clear to me is why playing a zero sum game that allows some children to 'win' while others simultaneously lose is a good idea. Why isn't it a higher priority to figure out how to fix this for all children without taking anything away from some of them at the same time? Look at Finland again. The top PISA and TIMMS performers are-- surprise, surprise, mostly from collectivist cultures, and those which have decided to get serious about addressing child poverty.

Linda McSpadden McNeill's op-ed about the absurdity of privatization(LMM is a professor at Rice U):

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/c...s-educational-marketplace-concept-absurd


She's right about that part of her message. While I understand when individual parents make a choice to avoid a local public school (we did it too), you are then at the mercy of those market forces, which is basically the equal of having made a bargain with the devil.

Again-- parents ALREADY have the choice. ANY parent can homeschool-- from a legal standpoint, I mean. From a functional one, not so much, I know. But that is the same thing as saying that school vouchers and "choice" can work as an option for everyone. No. They can't.

Maybe I am just not a fan of the notion that you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet, or that the best way to fix a problematic system is to drive it to failure and destroy it before rebuilding it along better lines. In the case of children, commoditizing human beings is just immoral, in my opinion-- the children thus harmed by this exercise will suffer literally irreparable harm in the process.



We've tried holding schools "accountable" for student performance-- and the only thing that has really emerged form all that data is what educators were saying in 1965, and have never really stopped saying-- that student performance is a great proxy mostly for SES.

My experience with government subsidies in NZ is that when the subsidy goes up so do the fees. Those schools where the voucher will meet the costs are keeping their fees down with difficulty. When the parents have a voucher to offset the costs the fees will go up. If the parents are lucky they will go up less than the voucher but people who couldn't afford it before vouchers still won't be able to. The more expensive schools will also increase their fees by the voucher amount but they will use the money to provide extras that make rich parents even more willing to enrol. The poor kids will still be at poor public schools because that is all the voucher will cover.

This may be cynical but it is what I have seen time and again.

If there is a cap put on fees people will find ways round it - donations where children a shamed if their parents can't pay, compulsory school meals at $5000 a year have been used in NZ but I am sure there are other ways.

My apologies, I should have been more factual. Technically they are, but in performance to me they come across as a whole other world.

What about Devos would cause a loss of funding? I am against if that is the case.

To this I do not disagree, I concur.



But doctors are only as strong as their education. Look at it like this: How many US teachers are specifically trained to identify gifted or high potential students?


You make a good point again. At the time all I saw anything outside of public as being a better option, but I guess what I really wanted all along was a better public school.


And what life choices would make the outcome better for students? My parents did the best with what they had, and their control over the public school was limited. You can't fix a whole system, no matter how good you are as a parent.



Good question. I simply did not meet any of the criteria. The openings in my area were limited and I did not win the lottery like admission process. That and the fact my school did not see me a gifted- my grades were poor.




Well said. While my area has a very broad range of private schools to choose from, in some communities the options for private are not that much better than public. Either because the public is really good, or the private is lack luster. But I do feel I am painting with a broad brush. What is good for one student is poor for another and visa-versa.



The lottery system says so much about being so wrong. It openly admits we do not have the resources at the moment for all students.



I do not flat out dispute her, but look at it like this: what gives better consumer results? A monopoly or capitalism? In theory vouchers for various private schools create a competition between schools forcing each school to strive to out do the other.

However, I am not closed off to the down falls others are aware of.



But what if there are plenty of good schools for everyone willing to take those vouchers?

Home school vs public. I know home-school has worked out great for some kids, but does it work for all kids? For some kids home school is no better than public. Yes in home schooling a child can learn at their pace, but social isolation becomes a problem for some. As much as I did not like public, and many times actually wanted solitude in middle and early high school, 2 years before I graduated I actually went (motivation wise) just for social contact. I made a few friends, and it was the small group, but that group probably gave me the most fulfillment out of all the years I attended. It was much needed for my psychological well being- as well as social skills.

Of course please do not assume I am knocking on home schooling- I am not. Rather that for some (like myself) the social contact in public is desired regardless of the educational aspect.




Considering that public schools also do irreparable harm for some, a radical fix is needed.



What is SES? (sorry lol)

As for accountability, that will never work. And everyone knows it. When I was in high school I got into a lengthy conversation with my school psychologist about it. He simply laughed and said it would never work out because every kid 'has a varying IQ' and 'It simply is not possible to bring every child up to the same academic level.' I myself would further add to the above: some kids simply do not want to be students. I've been in rooms during mandated testing where kids were goofing off and launching crumpled paper with rubber bands despite the emphasis being put on taking such tests seriously. Simply put their are students who cognitively can't score high and another group who could care more about what the teacher is making for dinner.

Socio-Economic Status. (LOL, this has been asked and answered up thread, a few weeks ago.) Possibly this thread is attracting posts from some who are not frequent posters on the forum; It is encouraging to see increased active participation among the gifted community. Here is a thread on common abbreviations and acronyms. Wikipedia has a page on socioeconomic status.

That said, this thread is veering off topic from the subject of DeVos' confirmation to a rant on past experiences with the US public education system, developed under other administrations. Possibly a new thread could be created to discuss past public education experiences and/or beliefs about public education in general?

Angie, could you explain this further? For example, is this based on DeVos backing vouchers... is your concern that parents may choose other schools for their children, those families would receive vouchers (the money would follow the children), thereby leaving a smaller budget for the magnet school to work with?

It seems unlikely that the magnet would lose students (therefore dollars) if it is "very successful"...?

Thank you for the clarification on that acronyms and the links to the other thread as well I am an infrequent poster, and a bit aloof, hence the midway miss.

LOL, no need to apologize... it's nice to have more members reading and posting... I've personally enjoyed several of your posts, including this one... well said!

Time will tell what changes DeVos makes in the Department of Education, and the ways in which the Department of Education may change DeVos.

Thank you. This means a lot to me coming from a member of this forum



Something I will be monitoring in depth as time goes on. In any case I hope for the best.

Thanks for your responses, Edward. That helps me to understand where your positions are originating, and yes, I believe that we are on similar pages for similar reasons.



The reduction of education to a commodity is simply incorrect, in my opinion. My parallel with the healthcare system was deliberate, because this is another sector in which viewing the 'goods and services' as a simple economic construct is a false equivalence.


If I wish to purchase a pair of shoes, buy a nice dinner, hire a musical ensemble, or read a particular book-- those are all subject to those sorts of economic evaluations. They are transactional, and I can have either good, not-so-good, or bad choices in front of me, and I can choose on the basis of my purchasing power and those choices.

In that instance, giving me a voucher to use costs my neighbor absolutely nothing, except perhaps in the end, it could cause inflation in the sector, I suppose.

However, if I am having a heart attack, "hospital choice" means very little. This is why encouraging patients to be "responsible consumers" has failed to rein in costs in that sector, at least in part. It's not the same as other commodities. If you close the local hospital because you incentivize non-emergent care to OTHER settings, you've effectively gutted something that served a unique role in the community.

Education, similarly, is not the same as other commodities. I have a pretty clear idea what Angie meant about her local magnet school.

ANY siphoning of funding from public education is going to shave "extras" which are not legally obligated from the public system. It will not "improve" public schools-- but it could serve to make them environments where only low-income, transportation-limited, and disabled children are educated. THOSE are the children that private schools don't have to accept or accommodate. So they don't.

Looking at school funding as a simple "let the dollars follow the child" is very simplistic, and it ignores something fundamental. It's patently ridiculous to expect equal "achievement" from diverse individuals, yes?

Well, it is likewise patently ridiculous to expect that each child requires $10,000 annually to educate. Maybe that is what a funding allocation gives to the local school for each student. But the reality is that an "average" student may cost only 6,800 and some medically fragile, 2e students might cost that same school 45,000 annually.

Private schools will not take on such students. What happens when public schools are left only with students whose needs can't realistically be met for the funding that they receive?

Magnet schools, enrichment, specials for all kids-- all of that WILL go, because they are legally obligated to that medically fragile child.

Classmates who CAN leverage other options will at that point.

That is how vouchers endanger public schools.

Make it illegal for private schools to accept vouchers unless they comply with non-discrimination, disability accommodation and LRE requirements that public schools have to follow, and then I might support vouchers.

I probably still wouldn't support them for religious instruction, from a non-establishment stance, but that is me personally. Economically, I might be more on board if the playing field were level. As it stands, however, letting private schools cherry-pick lower-cost students is a horrible idea.

I am not entirely opposed to vouchers in instances where both the local public school and parents jointly, and unanimously decide that a child's needs may be better met in another setting-- be that home school, private, or a charter.


Charter schools (mostly) already DO have to do those things that public schools must under the law. Some of them find ways to skirt those laws, however, in order to juice their stats and-- at least in some cases-- to siphon money from local educational provider (LEP) to a corporate contractor who provides a turnkey "system" for the charter's use on some annual/term-by-term basis.

So they take on children who are disproportionately not low-income, disabled, etc. The kids who cost 6800 annually to educate, in my example above. Only the corporate partner gets all of the 10K that "follows the child" in such cases.


I don't know what the answer is, and I agree that the system as it is now fails a fair number of students-- but--

it also provides for an even larger number of them. That is why I think that undermining it or 'radical disruption' is a bad idea in this sector-- much as it would be in healthcare.

If you're having a heart attack, you don't want to be turned away from the nearest hospital because "we're rebuilding a better hospital, the old way wasn't working."

I have been following this thread and topic for some time.

HowlerKarma, that reads and explains your view perfectly.
You presented some issues I have never fully considered.

Could you please march yourself to DC and explain these things to the people in charge. Somehow I believe you would come up with better answers then they would.

Hear, hear, HK!

Dear VR00,

As others have taken your thread away from your original focus (asking DeVos about gifted education), please indulge me as I consider some facts which may refute recent hypothetical scenarios posted.

Fact set 1:
- According to wikipedia, about 87% of children in the US are educated in public schools. The number 81 million was given.
- The number of students attending private schools was given as approximately 5 million. (See footnote 5.) Figures may not add up perfectly due to these resources providing data from different years.

Fact set 2:
- According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), about 13% of all public school students receive special ed services. The number 6.5 million was given.

Analysis:
If 13% of public school students have a disability, doing the math would indicate that about 87% of students (70-75 million students) in public schools do not have a disability.

To quell the fears of those concerned that having DeVos as head of the US Department of Education may result in draining public schools of all students except those receiving special ed services... there simply is not capacity for approximately 70-75 million students to leave public schools for voucher-subsidized opportunities in other schools. Private schools (currently serving approximately 5 million pupils) would need to more than double... more than triple... more than quadruple... they would need to increase capacity 10-fold to 12-fold. This is logistically unlikely.

Does anyone have other facts which make this scenario seem likely to occur? If not, there may be no need to worry, panic, or catastrophize.

Possibly we might be able to channel our energies toward seeing what may be done to support the growth of gifted kids under this administration.

I'm pretty sure what HK is saying is that in a district with 12k spending per student per year if even 5% of those kids were to go to a charter there would still be 12k available per remaining student, but the special ed population would now be a significantly larger percentage of the whole and therefore each special ed kid would get significantly less funding than they would have previously. The only way to fix this would be to raise taxes.

Also, your stance does not take into account growth of the private school sector and assumes that there will be no new schools. If this is the case then the vouchers would just be used students currently at private school who can obviously to some extent already afford to attend.

Personally I would probably benefit from vouchers. We send our son to a private gifted school we can't really afford and could use all the help we can get. I still am against vouchers. I would never want my kid to have a better education at the expense of another. In fact, the way things are now, the money the district would be spending on my son this year is now extra they can use to educate the other kids. I would also rather return my son to an inadequate public school education than have a penny of taxpayer money go towards education at a religious school. I firmly believe in separation of church and state as an indispensable aspect of our constitution.

I'm not sure if I follow your math...?

If 13% of students receive special ed services (13/100)...
and 5% of students NOT receiving special ed services leave...
there are 13/95 or 14% of students receiving special ed services...
some may say 1% is not a significantly larger percentage of the whole.

This was neither stated nor implied. What was stated was that in order to drain public schools of the approximately 87% of students not receiving special ed services, private schools would need to grow 10-fold to 12-fold.

I am not aware of any proposed requirement to utilize a voucher; It is my understanding that parents are empowered to make a personal choice for their families.

Would you treat a student and their family differently if you learned that the student attended your child's school, utilizing a voucher?

Yes and no. In general, this would be reflected in the school district's "expenditure per pupil"... regardless of how that money is spent (it may not be spent on academic education of students per se, but may be spent on a range of items, from sports equipment to payment of union contract pensions and health benefits for retired teachers, etc). Interested families can review their public schools' budgets.

It remains to be seen, how much DeVos may influence the Department of Education, and how much the Department of Education may influence DeVos.

I am a product of public schools... but not public schools of today. Frankly, I don't see why education is a federal government concern. (just like I don't see why school calendars are based on the old farming calendars of the past when today's work places are on a year round schedule - how many of us deal with the endless summer planning agony every year?)

I would like to see the school administration bloat gutted and teachers that are more enabled on a local level. What works for a community in a large city is not going to be the same for a small town in the heartland.

I would support school choice regardless if people want to use it for a religious school or not as long as the school meets the federal standards - even religious people pay taxes, why shouldn't they have an option for vouchers for a religious school if they don't want to have their children in a public school where their beliefs are not supported when they have to pay their taxes for education too? I personally grew up in a non-religious home (with one parent from an Eastern religious background while other grew up in a Christian community - so my exposure to religion is very non-traditional) but just because I don't strongly support any religious school, to me, does not invalidate vouchers for religious schools...

That is what I resent on a personal level - that I have to pay taxes and then be expected to blindly accept the influence of public schools on my children's education with very little say in their education there. I can support some taxes I pay for the general funds to run a school locally (and not the administrative bloat) but allow some of the money to be used to support my children's education as I see fit, with a school whose view points fits mine. I resent that someone in DC tells ME what they want my children to learn and at what pace they should learn it at, and disregard whether that fits in what I want my children to learn or their natural learning curve.

I'm not following the projections on how charter schools might supposedly impact the public schools or special education in remaining public schools.

I am a governing board member for a charter school. I'm not the most versed in education finance because I haven't gone through that training yet, but I can see some flaws in logic as compared to what I know.

A charter school functions within a district. The district provides support services, things like insurance, legal review of contracts, personnel advice, payroll, interpretation of confusing educational laws to ensure compliance, technology support, etc. The district receives payment for these services. In my experience, the district receives X amount of state dollars per in-district student, and the charter school receives a contracted amount of it.

Every student received the same amount of funding, however extra money for Title 1 is received through grants. It's separate from the amount per student the district receives form the state.

Students transfer in and out between charter and public all the time, it's a wash as far as funding.

As far as charter schools growing, virtual charter schools have the capacity. They need a teacher or a learning guide per X number of students. When open enrollment periods end, the school knows how many staff to hire for the coming year.

If there was a mass exodus, in my state, schools would have a major problem the first year because teacher contracts are renewed unless they get written notice - which is due before the open enrollment period ends. If a school had more teachers under contract than they had enrolled students, there would be a big problem. It would be hard for charters to staff to meet the needs of larger enrollment too when teachers are under contract to teach elsewhere (although many virtual charter teachers are also fulltime bricks&mortar teachers)

Well said!

I agree with many of your thoughts, however I am personally a fan of summer break. I highly value having 2 months for child-driven learning, camps, veggie gardening, travel, family time, vacation...

That said, I must reflect once again on what changes DeVos may bring about in the Department of Education...

I agree with what you have said.

However I think some of the conversation and concern was about using vouchers for private/independent/parochial schools (thereby having dollars "follow the child" out of the public sector government school system and into the private sector.)

That said, I await news from DeVos and the Department of Education...

A properly designed voucher system may indeed result in less total money going to traditional public schools. In this case though the traditional public school will actually get more money per capita as the amount of the voucher is still typically less than the fully loaded average cost per child at the public school.

Ach, I'm sure we'd most of us love 2 months off for child-driven learning, camps, veggie gardening, travel, family time, vacation... Trouble is, people who are dependent on public schools mostly can't afford it. It's not about you, or people like you.

The thread about the impact of a voucher system has go somewhat derailed by the financial aspect. However, read HKs superb essay on the Impact it may have on school composition and student demographics - in the communities in which it would actually mostly be implemented.

The areas in which the system were to have an impact are not areas where there are only 13% special needs students. The areas in which the system were to have an impact are areas in which there is a parallel system of private, parochial and charter schools in place and where new ones can easily be opened. It's not about Nebraska.

According to wikipedia figures cited upthread, 87% of US school-age children attend public schools (are dependent on public schools); Are you suggesting that nearly 87% of US families cannot afford some type of out-of-school summer activities?

This appears to make assumptions about me, personally... which may not be correct.

However, since you opened a conversation about who the system's impacts are "about"... Some may say that a US voucher system, a US school-year schedule, the US Education Secretary, and the role of the US Department of Education are "not about you, or people like you", as your profile states that your location is outside the US... in Europe.

It is my understanding that the use of vouchers would most likely be utilized in the communities where parents want to exercise a choice of another school option or learning environment for their child(ren)... whom they believe would benefit by leaving their current school or learning environment.

Do you have a source for this?

It remains to be seen what changes DeVos may make in the Department of Education, and how the Department of Education may change DeVos.

Hi everyone - it looks like this thread has run its course, so I'm going to lock it for now.