Giving school choice to low-income and special needs students. He would make Title I and IDEA funds portable "so that eligible students can choose which school to attend and bring funding with them. This plan will allow the student to choose from any district or public charter school, or a private school where permitted by state law, or to use funds toward a tutoring provider or digital course."
Providing incentives for states to increase choice.
Expanding the District of Columbia's Opportunity Scholarship Program, reversing Obama's "efforts to eliminate this popular and effective program."
Providing better information for parents, as a tool to hold school districts accountable for student results.
Attracting and rewarding strong teachers using flexible block grants. States getting the grants would need to promote teacher quality with teacher tenure and evaluation reforms.
Eliminating some certification requirements that may prevent talented individuals from entering the teaching profession.
Simplifying federal aid for college finance, including new efforts to help borrowers have useful information about the costs and their likely future earnings"
SO people who are already in a school will quite possibly find their school failing due to lack of funding making it necessary for them to move to another school, possibly further away (if they can afford the commute) that is ridiculous, schools should not be concentrating on trying to one up each other or attract more students but on giving kids the best education and certain geographic areas with bad education should not be made even worse by depriving them of funding.
So say you have a school in a very poor area with poor results and quality, lots of people move their children to other schools, because the original school is out competed by them, thus the school loses out on funding and the kids at the school get a terrible education thus making them even more disadvantaged. The ones who will be staying are the poorest ones who cannot afford the commute to a school further away because another difficulty is just what they need. This is a terrible idea.
I disagree. I'm a retired public school teacher, and I know what goes on in schools. I think parents need more choices. It's not fair for a student to have to attend a school a couple of blocks away that's crappy, when there's a much better school six blocks away. The commute wouldn't be a problem with buses. Many on the left supported busing back in the 70s, when it was necessary for integration. I think a quality educaton is just as important.
In my state, only 7.4% of funding comes from the federal government. 51.26% comes from the state, and 41.34% comes from local funding.
Sure when there is a school a few blocks away, not so in regional areas, more importantly that will result in schools shutting down while others get too full to teach effectively and have to limit their numbers this will mean a few lucky schools with great funding and many schools with insufficient funding for their kids. It makes way way more sense to simply improve the schools which are under performing.
Improving bad schools is a great idea, but it's hard to put into practice when there's no incentive. If there were competition, schools would be forced to improve. My Dem daughter has two young sons who have to attend a less-than-stellar school, while my other grandchildren are in great schools. She doesn't think it's fair that her very bright boys might not reach their potential, while their cousins in the same county probably will. There's a group of retired public school teachers in my county who are pushing for a charter school because they've seen the effects that sub-par schools have on kids.
So the solution is to take away funding from schools already doing badly to improve them...
I don't mean to offend but that is the most baffling bit of supposed logic I have ever seen.
Throwing money at schools does not improve them. That's been shown time and time again here. And what funding would be taken away? If it's fed only, the schools could still survive, but I'm not sure they should. At least, they shouldn't continue to be "bad." Does it concern you that US students aren't doing well compared with other nations? Something has to be done. If a low income student could attend a stellar school instead of an inner city school, how is that a bad thing?
Well what you are doing is specifically taking away funding from bad schools thus making them even worse so ensuring that the people in them will get a terrible education rather than just a bad one. I am a citizen of Australia the country with the second best education in the world according to the UN HDI report and they most certainly don't do this. They have instead focused on improving the worst schools by sending them the best teachers, the best principals and plenty of funding. Not by intentionally creating a school caste system that makes already bad schools even worse.
There is another thing, parents decide where their kids go to school so this system would ensure that kids with inattentive and negligent parents would also go to the worst schools because their parents would not take the time to send them to a higher ranked school. Thus abandoning the kids who already have it worst.
We'll just have to agree to disagree. My opinions are based on my experience with the inside workings of American public schools and how so many are failing our kids.
So what about parents who don't pay attention to what school they send their kids?
That's already happening, so I don't see it getting worse with choices for parents who DO care. Counseling could be provided for parents, showing them the advantages and disadvantages of each school. For example, if a high school has fewer AP classes but better vocational classes, that school might be a better choice for a teen wanting to become a draftsman, auto mechanic, electrician, welder, etc.
The point is that it would make certain schools worse by reducing their funding, and many parents will send their kid there regardless (school being compulsory) and those kids will be robbed of the opportunity of a proper education, what do you think the odds are those schools will be the ones in the poorest areas? Many countries have successfully tackled failing schools and made them work but it has never been one by taking funding away from them.
I don't think a cookie-cutter approach should be used in deciding which schools are "best." This would allow some schools to "specialize," which could draw and benefit certain students. A school with mediocre test scores might have a wonderful music or art program, while another school without great test scores might have an amazing sports program that serves as a vehicle to scholarships. Education needs to become more student oriented, IMO. Not every student needs or seeks the same qualifications or offerings in a school.
So as a school teacher you're for bringing back segregation? Because that's exactly what would happen. If teachers were allowed to teach, instead of teaching to the test, our kids wouldn't be behind the curve. Fund charter schools and close public schools at the expense of poor families? I don't get your reasoning at all.
Huh?? This would be more of an anti-segretation situation. Low income students in poor neighborhoods would have opportunities to attend better schools. If you study school districting, you'll see that it contributes indirectly to segregation, in many cases. At least, that's the way it his here in the South. Being from GA, I'd figure you'd understand that.
Georgia has one of the worst public school systems in the country. Heck pick a county and most elementary schools get a C+ grade at best. And by your own admission some of your grand children's schools are better then the others. That's a problem that needs to be fixed, not ignored as so many districts do. All schools, regardless of state, should have the same level of education available to them thru the public school system.
Some of the worst schools in the nation? Not in math and science:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/1 … 94528.html
GA has some great schools and some terrible schools. When I was teaching, most of the best schools were in affluent white neighborhoods, and the worst schools were in inner-city minority neighborhoods. Sorry, but to me, that's a type of segregation. Why shouldn't the poor kids get the same public advantages?
It would be great if all schools in the US were equally great, but that's not going to happen, realistically. There are just too many variables: administrators, teachers, parents, community, education partners, etc. Parents should have more choices.
BTW, I tend to agree with you that too much $ is spent on sports. BUT much of that money comes from private sources - parents, boosters, local businesses, etc.
My oldest daughter is a Democrat, but she really likes Romney's ideas on charter schools and school vouchers. Since she also opposes abortion, I'm hoping she'll "switch teams." lol
I like the idea. It's funny, competition is such a good thing, no reason we shouldn't have schools competing for students. We already do that with higher education.
Seriously, I'm very hopeful if Romney can get elected... a lot of the things he's going to do might hurt for a while, but surgery always hurts.
I can see it now, Pennsylvania in all the states. Public schools going to the wayside hurting our low income kids. If they would let teachers teach, we wouldn't need charter schools. And vouchers? I don't see the average person being able to make up the difference for private schools. Another Romney idea with little to no merit. Right up there with healthcare vouchers. Again, low to middle income families for the most part still would be without health insurance.
Josak, another Republican way to go back to the 60's and reintroduce segregation! And after reading some of the responses here, I'm amazed how anyone concerened about our nations kids could endorse it!
WIth Ga schools ranking so low compared to other states, we need to attract the best of the best to "ALL" school. There is no reason any one school should be better then another. If that happens the district has the obligation to fix it, but they don't. They pump money into football and band, and how nice the school looks, rather then educating our kids.
I'm a bit militant on this topic so please forgive me in advance... but the inherent danger I see in this is a loophole to provide public assistance to faith-based schooling.
From a personal viewpoint it would be peachy for me to have someone provide me funding to hire a tutor... I would love to not have to spend time learning...oh say Spanish... if that was the language my child wanted to learn... but since my decision to home-school is based on faith (even if my curriculum is not) I don't really feel right having the tax-payers pay for my decision.
If however the plan was amended to exclude faith-based education I would be all for it... even though it means that me or my children would never benefit from it. I have chosen to forgo public school specifically to avoid religious influence -irony sucks I know- and by doing so have also chosen to shoulder the cost of their education completely on my own... so I'm not expecting anyone else to do what I wouldn't. However I strongly object to paying for my kids education and also the religious education of other children whose parents have made the same decision but wish me to pay for it.
Romney on "Education" -
PARAPHRASE - "If kids would like to go to school or open a business, let them go borrow the money from their parents"
But if you need an unnecessary, multi-billion dollar tax payer funded subsidy for your oil & gas refining plant, please allow us, as hard working American contributors, to gift you the financing immediately -
More "Romney Values", principles evidently shared by his wife Ann as well - "The Romney's", a story which gets worse by the minute as more of the concealed truth is uncovered -
Obviously when you were a teacher you were able to teach. Problem today is, teachers are TOLD to teach to the tests. Kids today aren't able to use their imagination, be challenged and excel.
Is it just me, or do many of the 'solutions' being touted by Romney supporters involve moving?
Move to another state to get better health benefits -- that's so easy!
Move from your neighborhood school to a distant charter school to get a good education -- that's so convenient!
How about if I want quality healthcare right here where I already live?
What if I don't want to drive or bus my kids to the next county to school?
Seriously, I'm beginning to get tired just thinking about all this frenetic movement.
Not only that, but Romney's plan includes making the teaching profession more accessible by lowering teacher certification. What planet are we living on? Our country doesn't need a president who wants to lower teacher certification requirements. He also wants to get rid of any kind of federal oversight when schools fail to perform. So, what happens to those schools? Where are the incentives/consequences that sometimes are necessary to put a plan in action.
Districts have already been slammed with budget shortfalls. I don't see this as a viable plan to help the education system as a whole.
I also don't see some private/charter schools embracing this plan. They often pride themselves on reaching a certain segment of the community. Their only incentive would be $$$, a federally funded profit. HMM, sounds vaguely familiar.
He's using the 'help needy children' to bring profit to more private (including religious) institutions while our public schools will falter even more with less federal funding and lower teacher requirements.
Do we have our head in the sand?
More like up our butts.
(If we believe that these are anything other than recycled, regurgitated Bush-era failed plans).
No - Bush touted No Child Left Behind, which is a joke in the teaching profession. lol
"Mitt Romney, the presumptive GOP nominee, on Tuesday unveiled his Education Policy Advisory Group. It features at least ten education experts who served during the George W. Bush administration, most notably Rod Paige, who was education secretary during Bush's first term. The short bio of Paige released by the Romney campaign states that he once was superintendent of Houston's schools. But it fails to mention that Paige, once he was in Bush's cabinet, became mired in an ugly scandal, when the news broke that the Houston school system, the seventh largest in the nation, had falsified its dropout stats during Paige's tenure."
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/05 … ut-scandal
Teacher cert could easily be lowered in some disciplines and actually enhance learning. Take welding, for example. I'd rather learn the skill from someone with years of hands-on experience than from someone who spent four years in college and had little actual experience. These are called "provisional certificates," and they can be very beneficial.
I am right behind you on that one... there are too many teachers in my area that are teaching subjects they don't know because they have 4 years of education in college...
on the other hand SOME degree of education education or experience would be nice... there is a certain amount of skill needed to get knowledge from your head to someone else's.
"One of the overlooked accomplishments of President Obama's term is the reform of the student-loan system -- an effort that was decades in the making, but had been blocked by Republicans and bank lobbyists until 2010.
Yesterday, Mitt Romney unveiled a new education agenda, which vows to bring the middleman back."
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2 … ation?lite
by CWanamaker3 years ago
Public or charter school, which would you send your kids to?
by Steven Escareno15 months ago
According to CNN, Betsy DeVos was picked to be President Trump's Secretary of Education. If you want to know more about her, then click on the link below:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D34AJ2gCzxcAssuming you saw...
by Ralph Deeds7 years ago
Charter schools are being oversold as a way of solving public education problems. "Waiting for Superman" is a prime example of the propaganda efforts promoting charter...
by Shawn McIntyre4 years ago
Teachers often complain about low pay; the claim to be overworked and under-compensated. The say that they deserve to be paid more, since they are responsible for teaching the next generation. Yet, when the subject of...
by ngureco5 years ago
What’s The Difference between Charter Schools and Traditional Public Schools?
by Roxanne Lewis5 years ago
What is the real deal with Charter Schools?I live in one of the few states that do not yet have Charter Schools. I am really interested in learning about the real benefits or drawbacks from people who have experienced...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.