Published: Sunday, Nov. 18 2012 10:10 p.m. MST
Equality in education in Utah has never been nor ever will be their goal. The
per pupil budgeting system is based on property taxes of the rich and poor. The
higher end homes with higher end incomes are usually paying more property tax to
education and it is an entitled argument that they pay more into the board of
education so their children schools are entitled according to social status
rather than per pupil standards. Per pupil is an average not an
actual reality to disillusion the masses of equal education, there is no
equality in education or spending at all. There is enough money for all, but 50%
of the budget goes to 5 or 6 schools in Utah and SLC.This is the
grand lie of education and why per pupil spending is out dated method for an
education system to use. Per pupil funding has created this gap and will always
be the road block of equality in school funding.Equality in
education for all schools must mean every school has equal shares of our
invested funds and all should give proportionally to our income level. Abolish
property as method of taxation for education.
Too many forget that how a school performs has a much to do with the engagement
level of the local community as it does with anything that happens inside the 4
walls of a classroom. Many kids don't have the same "at home"
resources that other kids enjoy. To really fix the problem, you need to go
outside the walls of the school, and fix the community. Diversified communities
are one way that ensures you don't end up with deep pockets of kids with
little outside support.My wife was a teacher for many years, across
many grade levels in elementary school. It was really obvious to see which kids
had support systems at home that could help them learn to read. It made no
difference which color or race they were - if the kids didn't have parents
that were engaged in the process, the child usually fell behind.... not
always.... but far to often. At schools with deep community engagement - these
effects were drastically diminished. When there were other kids parents in
class that helped all kids, those kids who needed extra encouragement fell
behind far less often.
I live in an area that is somewhat in the poorer economic area, mainly because
of apartments. As I didn't have children, the school boundaries don't
worry me, but as I am a retired teacher, who taught at a school with a more
affluent population and a lot less poverty, that is where my chidren would have
gone. I would have moved before I would have allowed my kids to go to the
schools in our boundaries. I've noticed that most of the children in my
area either go to charter schools, or they have applied to attend other schools
that are in a nicer area. Can't say I blame them. Unfortunately, this does
leave the schools within my boundaries lacking in parental support and
leadership from other students in their classrooms. It is very sad, but parents
want school choice and are using it.
It's really disappointing to read an article about mixed neighborhoods and
school performance written by a Deseret News reporter who overlooks the fact
that Salt Lake City School Board more than 15 years ago made a bold,
controversial high school boundary decision to balance ethnic and income of
families as part of their setting high school boundaries. Having a local angle
to this article and not report on it seems a dismal omission. This reporter
didn't seem to do their investigative homework every well and took the easy
way out by just focusing on the readily available national reports. It must the
Deseret News cutbacks and the overworked reporters they may be the real problem
The researchers are dumb. The answer is something that they, along with so many
educators, don't realize that the success of students come from their
parents and the peers' parents. Just look at the story presented here.
When her child was going to a low-income school filled with kids who's
parents don't place a high priority on education, all of the children
suffer. When she enrolled her child in the school filled with more affluent
kids, he did better. His mom cared about the education, and so did the parents
of the other children.Tell us liberals, how do you mandate a change
in society's attitudes?
"Tell us liberals, how do you mandate a change in society's
attitudes?"Really... there are no poor conservatives, whose kids
go to demographically poor conservative schools. Lets just stop with the
political demigodary. There are poor, low performing kids from every political
orientation.... perhaps it is these attitudes that treat each issue as though it
were a political point making opportunity rather than working on actual
solutions that have us in the mess we have.And the funny thing is -
pretty much no one disagrees with your first points. But educators don't
have the option of picking or choosing which kids they educate. Educators have
very few levers they can pull.... their charter very limited in scope. The options we have is we can run around name calling, blaming, trying
to score points.... or we can work to fix issues with the tools we have. If you
have a bright idea - share it. Give us that "conservative - non
liberal" magic bullet.
To "UtahBlueDevil" again, you are wrong. Educators do have a choice
about the the type of kids that they teach. When a teacher is looking for a
job, they can choose which schools they want to teach at. The better schools
will choose the better teachers because more teachers want to teach at the
schools where the parents care about education.Think of it this way.
Would you work for a company if it was located in a very poor area with high
crime rates, or would you work for a similar company located in the suburbs in a
low crime rate area? (the job is the same, with the same pay and duties)My solution is simple, but impossible to do because the lawyers would
never allow it.Let students fail. If they don't pass 2nd grade
they don't go to 3rd until they do.Allow teacher to discipline
students.Allow kids to drop out at age 16 if they want.Raise standards for what is to be taught. Eliminate any teaching software
from the classroom. Cut testing to 1 standardized test per year.Fire all bad teachers. Bad teachers are determined by parents, students, and
administration. Eliminate districts.
Redshirt has some good ideas. In a nutshell, turn all schools into charter
schools, with parent/teacher boards in charge. I think a lot of parents feel
totally powerless to do anything about the schools. Especially in poorer
neighborhoods, people are used to having little control over their lives. Put
them in charge and a lot could change.
I know everyone likes the mantra of local control, especially in the Red states?
But would local control mean that students of color would not be segregated?
Would those students with special needs (ESL, Special Ed) get resources? By the way, these things didn't come in some places easily, it
actually took the federal government sending in troops to some states to enforce
integration. Then conservatives used the neighborhood school concept to create
de facto segregation which we have all across our country. And
unlike many professions many teachers do choose to go the hardest schools. Not
all, but many. But creating mixed wealth neighborhoods might be a way to take
on the wealth gap and some of these issues.I have to look no further
than my own community to find the dangers of local control, where two high
schools exist that are light years away from each other in resources. Even
their feeder middle schools show the dearth that exists in resources and
facilities. Local control can be good but it can also be dangerous. Hopefully
in Provo, a new set of leaders can do better as it seems this is happening.
What is often not said in opinion pieces like this is the effect the poor
children have on the middle class kids. While the poor kids are reaping the
supposed benefits from the middle class kids (via Osmosis?), the middle class
kids often suffer from the presence of poor children woefully unprepared for
studies. Often they are impacted by poor impulse control, behavioral issues and
the very real reduction in curriculum quality that occurs when schools need to
compensate for special ed. I don't see a poor child's future to be
more important than a middle class child's future. What harm is being done
to the middle class child in these situations?
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments