Bumbling charter high school boots unruly students

A careful reading of today's Oregonian profile of the Leadership and Entrepreneurial Public Charter High School tells you all you really need to know about charter schools, beyond the  fact that the school's originators didn't know what they were getting into (which is almost always the case with charter schools.)

First, charter schools aren't obligated, like real public schools, to deal with students with "persistent behavior problems":

" 'They weren't letting anybody who was putting a big downer on our school stay there for long,'  Nath [an LEP student] says."

Now, wouldn't it be nice, for teachers anyway,  if all public schools could just "dismiss"  unruly students?   

The second thing is that charters are small --really small-- compared to other public schools.  So when Rashika Nath fled the chaos at LEP for Grant and its 1800 students, she lasted all of two weeks:

" 'The teachers didn't care if I was getting caught up or not,' Nath says. 'I kept trying to talk to them, but basically, you were on your own. At (the charter school), they'd help you for hours after school to finish a project.' "

Rashika Nath, by the way, apparently lives in the Jefferson attendance area.  Why she chose Grant for her two week respite over Jeff --low enrollment, small class sizes--  isn't addressed in the O's article.

I'm the first of the baby boomers.  My high school (Cleveland) was larger then than any district high school is now, but it had fairly reasonable class sizes.  I don't remember any classes (other than band) larger than 25 students.  Funding didn't seem to be a problem back in the 60's.  And there were so many electives to choose from.  My older brother actually took Russian.  Me? German.  And, as I've mentioned before in a long ago post, I played trumpet (which I learned to play in elementary school) in the band, stage band, pep band, and orchestra.  My senior year, the school staged Rodgers and Hammerstein's Carousel, still my all time favorite musical.

But back to charters, and their cousins, the various niche schools and so-called 'academies' which are supposedly the answer to all the problems which plague traditional public schools.  Most offer mighty slim pickings in terms of music, art, elective offerings in general.  That's because they're specialized and highly focused and, yes, small.  And unless they are fortunate enough to have wealthy patrons --parents-- who can raise huge sums of money through massive fundraisers, they are also underfunded.

Instead of talking about ridding schools of unnecessary red tape and bureaucratic obstacles --that's the appeal of the charter school movement-- we should be talking about adequate funding (along with good leadership) for all our schools.  And all our students.

Even the unruly ones.

Comments

[Idler]

Even if you're right about charter schools in general, why shouldn't schools boot kids who are spoiling the educational experience for their peers?

[Himself]

...why shouldn't schools boot kids who are spoiling the educational experience for their peers?

Um, maybe because as public schools they have an obligation to serve everybody?

That's the problem with this whole privatization trend. People forget about the common good.

[Terry]

And that brings up the more important question: Why should a charter school be funded by public money if it has no obligation to serve the common good?

Long ago I wrote that the creation charter schools was the first step toward the privatization of public, taxpayer-funded education, a system that has served this country well for more than a century.

I don't mean to be too flippant about this. I've worked with teachers who agree with Idler. But I've also been fortunate enough to work with educational leaders who made it clear that the expulsion of any student was a betrayal of the fundamental mission of public education. I agree with them.

Were students ever expelled? Yes, in rare cases. But such expulsions were always temporary. After a period of time, expelled students were always welcome to come back.

That doesn't seem to be true of the bad apples at LEP.

[Idler]

Um, maybe because as public schools they have an obligation to serve everybody?

That's the problem with this whole privatization trend. People forget about the common good.

Himself, how is the common good served by some kids being allowed to spoil the educational experience for other kids?\

Terry, why on earth is it a "betrayal" to expel a child (or adolescent) if that individual isn't there to learn. I'm open to arguments that other services be available to him or her, but why should the quality of education enjoyed by children who are there to learn be spoiled by children who aren't?

[Himself]

Himself, how is the common good served by some kids being allowed to spoil the educational experience for other kids?

This makes the assumption that there are bad kids who need to be excluded. How about we start from the assumption that there are no bad kids, only kids who aren't getting what they need from our schools?

If we hadn't cut funding for counselors, for example, or if we didn't have such bad student-teacher ratios, maybe we could help these kids rather than just dumping them on the streets. It's much cheaper for society to educate "difficult" children when we've got the chance than to incarcerate them later.

I certainly don't advocate allowing disruptive behavior in the classroom. But there is a full spectrum of options between allowing it and just giving up on the kids who need extra help.

My "radical" idea is that we take a middle-ground position, keep them in school, and get them what they need.

[Terry]

The hardest thing about teaching, Idler, is dealing with the many students who show up seemingly uninterested in the lessons a teacher has crafted. In fact, it's probably the only hard thing.

No one likes disruptive behavior in the classroom, least of all the teacher. But that's part of the job. Pedagogy in a public school involves a great deal more than simply knowing a lot about the content of what's presented to students. Good teachers also know how to engage students, regardless of their attitudes and backgrounds.

To do any less is indeed a "betrayal" of the teaching mission.

[Steve Buel]

Another terrific post. This is one of those topics I need two hours on the phone to fully explain my ideas. Basically, in lower economic neighborhood schools, particularly middle schools, behavior is the number one problem. A good teacher can engage kids better, but in those schools maybe 25 of the 30 kids in a classroom are disruptive. I worked in one of those schools and every classroom had way, way, too much disruption. Didn't make much difference how good you were. I had a terrific teacher across the hall from me; his classroom was disrupted. When he moved to an upper middle class middle school, he had almost no behavior problems. It isn't the teacher -- it's Different Kids! We need to recognize this and take steps to correct it. I have talked a lot about the things we could do. But nobody cares and for the same old reasons -- nobody in the power structure cares about these schools. In their kids' schools it is not much of a problem.

High school is a different animal. In the poorer neighborhoods kids who are not engaged and have goofed off and are unmotivated often drop out, lots of them. So there are way less problem students in the high schools. In the upper middle class high schools the engaged parent's kid is often in AP classes where by their very nature there are way less disruptive kids. (Works this way in the suburbs too.) While these are the parents who will be supportive but also critical of the schools, they don't have much of a complaint because their kids' classrooms (the AP ones) are fine. Hence, in the last 20 years I have only seen one or two comments about discipline in the schools, yet it is the #1 problem in many of them. The new idea in education is when a kid does poorly it is the teacher's fault. But I believe, just as most experienced teachers I know, that when a kid does poorly it is his or her fault. (With some exceptions, of course.) Until we recognize this we won't be able to rectify the poor education in these poor neighborhoods. And until we understand that the school has to be set up to both engage kids and hold them responsible for their behavior, both things, then we will continue to turn out undereducated students who end up doing drugs, alcohol, getting in gangs, becoming pregnant, and becoming criminals in huge numbers when we could begin to make progress getting these same kids involved in society as good and successful citizens.

[marcia]

This is a link to an interesting article about a charter school movement in L.A. Very interesting!
http://www.susanohanian.org/show_atrocities.html?id=7368

[Steve Buckstein]

Funding didn't seem to be a problem back in the 60's.

Terry, according to the The National Center for Education Statistic, per pupil expenditures, adjusted for inflation, rose more than 400 percent from 1949-50 to 1993-94. If funding is the major problem now in public schools, why wasn't it a much bigger problem 50 years ago?

[Idler]

Himself wrote:

This makes the assumption that there are bad kids who need to be excluded. How about we start from the assumption that there are no bad kids, only kids who aren't getting what they need from our schools?

I only hypothesize that there are kids who are disruptive. You don't deny this. I think it's fair to ask whether it's school that some kids need when they are persistently disruptive and unresponsive to ordinary discipline. Education is one thing, counseling or behavioral therapy another.

My "radical" idea is that we take a middle-ground position, keep them in school, and get them what they need.

I think that's a reasonable approach, but at some point what's happening is not education. I also fear that the non-educational ambition can distract from the educational one. All I'm asking for is that diligent students' opportunity not be spoiled by kids that are not oriented to learning.

Terry wrote:

No one likes disruptive behavior in the classroom, least of all the teacher. But that's part of the job. Pedagogy in a public school involves a great deal more than simply knowing a lot about the content of what's presented to students. Good teachers also know how to engage students, regardless of their attitudes and backgrounds.

I agree wholeheartedly, having done a little teaching myself. Even gifted students can be unruly when unengaged. All I'm saying is that the ethos should be one of refusing to sacrifice the experience of diligent students to kids who don't want to be students at all.

As Steve Buel suggests, education is a two-way street. Not only do teachers need to be faithful to their job, students do too. Those kids who are faithful shouldn't be sacrificed to those kids who don't. To sacrifice them is indeed a betrayal to the educational mission.

I happen to believe that it's bad enough that all kids are lumped together and teaching is, in effect, done to address the lowest common denominator. That in itself guarantees that some more motivated and intelligent children will be disengaged. But at least if all kids are lumped together, let there be a commitment to the reason they are supposed to be there. And if that is to teach and learn rather than simply to be baby-sat or do therapy, then there should be firm behavioral standards. It's not about authoritarianism, it's about minimal standards necessary for a given purpose.

It seems to me that if kids aren't coming to school to do their part, then there is a larger cultural problem that teachers can only do so much to correct. And if they try to hard, they're likely doing it at the expense of students who are there to learn. No doubt in the real world, teachers have to have a little bit of many kinds of competence, but their prime responsibility should be to excellence in education, not excellence in social work.

Parents of reasonably well-disciplined children who have a choice may elect to avoid schools that are more interested in a salvific social mission than in pursuing high standards of academic achievement. Can you blame them?

[marcia]

The support needs to be there for teachers, and many times it is not. Kids with major emotional or mental problems are put in classrooms and the help is not forthcoming. This is unfair to teachers and to the other students. This is especially true in the early primary grades. The inclusion model in PPS has only made this problem worse. I could tell you some nightmare stories, but I won't go into it....I'll only just say, parents who have kids in class with these out of control kids do not like it. They ask that their child not be put in the same class the next year, or they start looking at other schools, including the charter schools down the street.

[Steve Buel]

At the risk of sounding too strident, which hopefully I am not, teaching, one of the most important things we do as a society, is the only thing we allow people to constantly disrupt. Even the malls are beginning to eliminate disruptive kids. Can you imagine if kids came into any business or professional office and acted like they do on a bad day in a classroom that they wouldn't be asked unceremoniously to leave. "Hey, kids, keep it down, we are trying to operate on this guy here." or "Hey, kids, keep it down we are trying to have witnesses testify in a murder trial here." :)

[gidget]

Truth be told, the parents of these "disruptive kids" have been suing the socks off school districts nation wide. Even if they don't "win" districts are trying to avoid the problem and crumbling to parent demands. The districts need to get together and come up with better protocols that can not be challenged in court.

BTW, I don't want my public tax dollars supporting a "private charter" school. If they create a school with public dollars they should not have the luxury of eliminating students they don't want (for any reason). That gives them an elite status over neighborhood public schools. First they eliminate discipline problems, next will be learning difficulties. The private school in our community uses our public school every week for special ed support. Their kids come to our school and have remedial support from our resource teacher, without any support to our school.

I know that more and more kids are coming into our schools with problems. It is a sad reflection on our society and lack of parental control.

[Himself]

Idler, I don't think we have a major disagreement here. Nobody here is suggesting that lost-cause children should be allowed to chronically disrupt classrooms.

The original post was about a tax-funded charter school cherry-picking its students. Part of the idea of charter schools is providing "competition", a "free market" or "choice" in public education. Isn't the playing field uneven if they get to cherry pick students but neighborhood schools competing for the same tax dollars don't?

This is one way we are creating a multi-tier education system in Portland.

My point is simply that with funding cuts causing larger classes and eliminating resources like counselors, it's easier to just give up on troubled kids. Of course there are some kids who will never finish school. But if we adequately funded education in this state, we'd have a lot fewer slipping through the cracks. (And that goes for the higher achieving kids, too.)

Listen, teaching is a form social work, like it or not. As long as we have persistent poverty, public schools will be a first line of contact for poor families. We have a societal obligation to serve them. It costs us more in the long run if we give up when they are young.

[Mary]

"Even gifted students can be unruly when unengaged."

And unengaged they are in PPS, which has run afoul of the State Ed. Dept. several times over in not appropriately serving "gifted students."

Can you really blame their parents for looking for a school where they WILL be engaged, even if it is not their neighborhood school? This is yet another factor in the popularity of focus options. Let students study what they are interested in, and behavior will take care of itself (most of the time). Unfortunately, NCLB is now the determining factor of what children study and how much time they spend on it per day, and lately we had a Superintendent who decided to overrule teachers on how they study it.

In case anyone is interested, my opinions are backed up by experience: 15 years as a public school teacher, spread across 4 different states.

[Terry]

We have a remarkably interesting and intelligent conversation going on here, including observations by the Republican Idler and the libertarian Steve Buckstein.

Let me say first to Steve Buckstein that the operative word in my mention about funding back in the 60's was "seem". I went to high school before collective bargaining. I actually saw one of my favorite teachers working on the loading dock at Meier and Frank after school one day, presumably to augment his meager salary. Now that teachers make close to a living wage, funding for schools includes those higher salaries as well as the expense of the skyrocketing cost of health care (which is why I say that education and business would both benefit greatly from single payer national health care.)

That said, I witnessed first-hand the effects of Measure 5, the property tax limitation that made the legislature a de facto state-wide school board. In the early 90's, shortly after the passage of Measure 5, the school where I taught cut a full course from the school day. That was the first step in the gradual elimination of elective offerings, including art and music, from our secondary schools.

The conversation about unruly, disengaged students is eerily reminiscent of faculty room discussions I remember. On one side were the academics, those who saw their duty as simply providing skills and knowledge. On the other were those concerned about the entire child --his brain, his heart, his psyche. In my school in Hillsboro, the latter, what Himself calls the "social workers", eventually won out --in loco parentis. It was at that point that I became a "good" teacher.

Bottom line is that schools are where the kids are. During the school year kids spend more time with their teachers than with their parents. I've actually argued that social welfare and health services should be located in the schools where they can do the most good.

Two other points to remember. Education can't cure all social ills, therefore it's unfair to hold teachers --and education-- alone accountable for them. Secondly, misbehaving and disengaged students will always be with us, even in magnet schools. Even beyond race and ethnicity and class, they're part of what makes a school truly diverse. Further, they're part of a fully rounded education. Well-behaved and eager students need to know about the ones who are aren't. It's a good lesson in understanding and empathy and tolerance, not to mention democracy.

P.S. Mary, I didn't know you were a teacher.

[Mary]

Well, friend, you never asked! But, if you recall, the very first time I ever posted here on your blog, I hinted that we probably had more common ground than you realized. Do you believe me now? ;)

[Sherry]

As a teacher, I am not totally averse to the concept of charter schools. However, I am concerned about the "cherry picking" that has occurred in some of the programs. I don't get to pick and choose the students that attend my school and are in my class. I also don't have the option of throwing them out if their behavior is not appropriate or their learning style is challenging. We can't just dump the "bad" kids. (A local private school has been doing it to us for years.) If charter schools want to exist and have a specific focus, then they play by the same rules. As a fifth grade teacher, I have had many students head out to charter middle schools. Some are wonderful and some are lacking the program that they promise.

As far as gifted students, I've raised two, and taught many. Personal experience has shown me that enrichment is all around, you just have to tap the resources.

[howard]

Terry wrote (in part): "Let me say first to Steve Buckstein that the operative word in my mention about funding back in the 60's was "seem". I went to high school before collective bargaining. I actually saw one of my favorite teachers working on the loading dock at Meier and Frank after school one day, presumably to augment his meager salary. Now that teachers make close to a living wage..."

A couple years ago there was a Gresham Public school teacher moonlighting in a convenience store to keep up with her growing video poker debts. 60's teachers undoubtedly moonlighted for a variety of reasons as well.

In the 2003-04 school year over 60% of Oregon's public school districts ended the year with reserve funds amounting to 20% or more of their general fund budgets. Portland district 1J is a perpetual budgetary basket case for a variety of reasons. If Measure 5 and statewide school funding were the sole culprits, a large majority Oregon public school districts should also be budgetary basket cases.

[Terry]

Fortunately, Howard, there was no state sponsored gambling back in the 60's.

Reserve funds aside, point me to a district that hasn't cut programs due to Measure 5 and the shrinking corporate tax. Remember also that state mandated equalization has diverted funds from property rich districts like Portland to outlying rural areas.

Sherry, I wholeheartedly agree with you that the "concept" of charter schools is sound. The problem is in the selection of students. I think the only solution is to make all neighborhood schools charter schools. Free 'em up to allow them a little more autonomy.

[Steve Buel]

1st, Measure 5 has been devastating, just like Matt Prophet said it would be. Add to that NCLB and we have pretty much stripped Oregon education of any genuine quality and common sense. I don't have to go into how much superior Washington (particularly Vancouver) schools are to any, ANY Oregon district again do I?
That said. My point on behavior is that in the schools in PPS, partcularly the lower economic middle schools, we need serious strategies aimed at lessening classroom disruptions because they are way, WAY out of hand. Why should poor kids have to go to schools with their classes massively disrupted while upper middle class kids don't??? We have the same obligation to educate all the children in Portland, not just the wealthier ones. We also have an obligation, which is "always", a strong word, but I think it nearly fits here, overlooked, to teach kids that disruptive behavior is not accepted, note I did not say acceptable, but accepted. This message would be much more helpful to disruptive kids than the message that this type of behavior is tolerated in society. Kind of reminds me when Ronnie Herndon said at a communtiy meeting that the residents of North Portland needed to quit tolerating kids shooting out of cars. Evidentally, a lot of people were seeing that behavior as unacceptable, but still accepted it, since it was their kids. It is the same idea. Kids who are disruptive need to be taught it is not accepted. And there needs to be serious strategies to do this. This not only would give a much better chance for kids to learn in these schools, but also give the disruptive kids a better chance to make it in society.

[howard]

Steve: You should know better than to make statements you can not support such as: "I don't have to go into how much superior Washington (particularly Vancouver) schools are to any, ANY Oregon district again do I?" --- Oregon's Riverdale school district stands out among districts nationwide. Beaverton, West Linn, Lake Oswego, Eugene and Corvallis are also superior to most Washington districts and compare favorably with most Vancouver districts. And Washington spends less per student per year than Oregon.

Since you made no distinction between schools and clusters, I will also point out that Portland district 1J has some outstanding schools within clusters such as Grant, Lincoln, Wilson and Cleveland.

Also, Matthew Prophet vastly overstated the number of pink slips he would be handing out if Measure 5 passed.

Terry:

I agree that lottery dollars are a strong reason why it is unwise to generalize about "underfunded Oregon (public) schools.

[Billy Bane]

As regards the cost of education, in terms of public investment, in the 1960s, let's not be simple to the point of being stupid. Women filled the majority of teaching jobs in the 1960s, while men earned enough in manufacturing and similar jobs to support a family. Real wages, inflation adjusted, have been crushed in the past thirty years.

Additionally, health care costs have vastly outstripped inflation.

We know, or should know, that in a society with such divided labor, some people are paid handsomely to argue that everyone paid by the public should be paid a miserly wage.

[Sherry]

Seems like everyone has a piece of the lottery pie. Anyone know where to find out how much money actually makes it to the classroom? Total percent, not after everyone is paid. Not special educational projects. So for each dollar put into a machine, what comes back to the public education classrooms, K-12 and beyond in Oregon.

[Steve Buel]

Howard, here is some of my support. I am going to take middle schools as the weak link in Oregon. High Schools and elementary schools are pretty comparable. I am talking about the system as a whole. Washington is far superior because they generally don't have this weak middle link (one fourth of a child's education and the main place kids get the idea that education is irrelevant). Beaverton, Riverdale, Lake Oswego etc. are excellent schools in elementary and high school but lose out when you compare middle schools. Find me an Oregon public middle school in an urban area that can compare to what they have in the middle school where I teach -- in maybe the poorest economic area in Vancouver. We have a full range of after school sports with paid teacher coaches and full uniforms which get on buses and play in a league with all the other schools in the district. This includes several football teams, several boys and girls basketball teams, girl volleyball teams, a wrestling team, a gymnastics team, and a track team. Tons of kids participate in these sports. There is a full complement of intramural sports headed up by paid teachers for 6th graders. There is a full parks department program after school like the Portland Sun Schools. We have three counselors, five secretaries, an attendance officer, full range of school psychologist, speech teacher, and school nurse. We have a full music program which includes a large marching band, a large choir, and a strings program. We have cheerleaders and a dance team. Both with paid coaches. We have two security officers who also handle discipline. We have two vice principals. We have both a math and a literacy coach. We have the regular special ed. and English as a second language classrooms. We have a full-time (certified teacher) librarian and a full-time library asst. We have a computer lab which is staffed by a full-time person and a class set of wireless computers for classroom use. Each room is wired with a machine which allows the teacher to put up whatever is on their computer on the screen as well as a document camera, a phone, and a sound system which allows for the use of a microphone. We have a special program which is staffed by a full-time person that I don't even know what he does, some sort of mentoring I believe. We have a classroom for kids with learning difficulties. We have an all day inhouse suspension room. We have a brand new building (one year old) which includes full athletic fields and a paved track. We have an exercise room which is full, chocked full of exercise equipment. We have two gymnasiums. We have a huge lunchroom and a full stage stocked with lots of equipment. We have a large range of electives including art and two more rooms full of computers.

I suggest you take this paragraph and make a checklist and call Beaverton schools, or Lake Oswego schools and check off what they have in comparison. Heck, start with the full range of sports run through the school so they "connect to the classroom". I'll save you the trouble with PPS. No middle school has any sports which are administered solely by the school district that I am aware of. Marching bands? I saw the P.I.L. marching band in high school in the Rose Parade. Three counselors -- no. Etc. Etc. I taught in Portland for 10 years, in the Beaverton area for 14 years, in Woodburn for 5 years, and believe me they don't compare at the middle school level. Because of this I say Washington is far superior.

[Mary]

My 7-year-old currently attends a PPS school. I feel a sudden urge to move to Vancouver within the next three years.

[howard]

Steve Buel: Nice try but no sale. Your statement was: "I don't have to go into how much superior Washington (particularly Vancouver) schools are to any, ANY Oregon district again do I?" Where Riverdale is concerned, your "ANY district" claim for absolute Washington superiority can not be overcome.

The Vancouver middle school you work in sounds very nice. I doubt that very many middle schools in Seattle or the rest of Washington are comparable. Are you now collecting PERS from Oregon and a teaching salary from Vancouver? If so and if you reside in Vancouver, those are two tax-free incomes. Oregon's costly and generous PERS System is providing a nice source of still vigorous Oregon retired teachers for Washington public schools.

I have been told that Washington public schools pay considerably less for retirement benefits than Oregon public schools. That could account for the difference in spending on projectors, athletics, etc.

Many of the after school activities you describe for junior high schoolers are delivered in Portland by the Parks and Recreation Department, Self Enhancement, etc.

[Steve Buel]

Howard, thanks, nice to hear I am still vigorous. I like to think so. But Howard, so Riverdale is all you have to offer? Talking about PPS after school activiites through the parks is like comparing a Rembrandt to some graffiti on the side of a railroad car. They are not tied to the school. They are not anywhere near as extensive or well done, or benefit the school in the same way. Ditto most of the other activities in the parks, which Vancouver has also on top of the school stuff. Remember I compared the lowest economic school in Vancouver to Lake Oswego. Riverdale is no doubt a good school, but it is an exclusive district of very wealthy people. And even so, you gave no reason why it is better. I am sure it is intellectually superior by a long ways since I am somewhat familiar with it. But my point stands concerning resources in the schools at least. And yes, I am double dipping in Washington and work only 5 hours a day. Pretty nice job. But I have stayed living in Portland and Oregon because that is where my heart is. You are correct that Washington pays less than Oregon as I understand it for both regular salary and retirement and I assume this accounts for much of the extra resources etc. But Vancouver is also allowed to pass a tax levy on its own, which it has done for several years now. In fact, it passes the levy and doesn't have to raise its property tax rates because of the new construction. This levy is what really puts the extras in the schools.

[Jeff]

At first glance a charter school may seem like an attractiive addition to a community. However, unless parents and teachers unite to stop this creeping trend toward privatization in PPS, charter schools will continue to snuff out our neighborhood public schools.

There are plans underway to locate an invasive Ivy Charter School in North/Northeast Portland supposedly to "bring peace and diversity to the community." The group has already submitted its proposal for a 1st-8th grade Montessori charter school to the Portland School Board for approval. The school board has previously approved at least 3 charter schools in the N/NE community (Waldorf Village School, SEI, Trillium), and closed at least 4 neighborhood schools (Meek, Applegate, Kenton, Tubman).

The organizers of the invasive Ivy School are currently branching out into the N/NE community to plant seeds of doubt about our existing neighborhood schools, and to cultivate support for their charter school which is proposed to take root in Fall 2008. The next scheduled community meeting is on Thursday August 9th at 3000 NE Alberta Street.

For more info about the invasive Ivy School and other noxious weeds go to: www.theivyschool.com
www.ivyout.org
www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=40356
www.noivyleague.com
www.handsonportland.org/projects/viewProject.php?_mode=occurrenceView&_action=load&ixActivity=1333&_clearFlag=specialevent&_clearFlag=course&ixAffiliateRegion=&sZipcode=&bAvailable=&dtBegin=&dtEnd=
www.handsonportland.org/projects/viewProject.php?_mode=occurrenceView&_action=load&ixActivity=1332&_clearFlag=specialevent&_clearFlag=course&ixAffiliateRegion=&sZipcode=&bAvailable=&dtBegin=&dtEnd=

[howard]

Steve Buel: Again, here is the hole you dug for yourself in writing above: "I don't have to go into how much superior Washington (particularly Vancouver) schools are to any, ANY Oregon district again do I?"

Your anecdote about inputs to an unnamed Vancouver public junior high school does not even begin to dig you out.

Thus far you have weakened your case by suggesting you were referring only to junior high schools and neglecting to prove that all Washington junior high schools enjoy inputs at the level of your Vancouver junior high.

[Steve Buel]

Well, Howard, you have probably won this argument. I wonder if our 8th grade football team will win the league again this year?

[marcia]

http://www.susanohanian.org/show_atrocities.html?id=7390

I didn't quite know where to put this, but here is a link to a story on Susan Ohanian's website about Vicki Phillips starting her new job with Gates.

[howard]

Steve Buel: I hope your school's 8th graders continue doing well in the classrooms and on the fields.

If the public school students are not the winners of education discussions, there are no winners. Current discussions imply that public education in the U.S. is homogeneous. In reality it is a three-tiered system of mostly excellent schools in affluent communities (Dunthorpe,Lake Oswego, Portland West Side, Winnetka, IL;Scarsdale, N.Y.; Palo Alto, Ca; Bellevue, WA etc.) good enough schools in middle-class neighborhoods and mostly bad schools in low-income communities/neighborhoods. This 3-tier description originated with author/commentator Jim Merrow.

Until public education discussions face up to the reality of the situation, the real public education problems will get worse. I agree with Thomas Jefferson when he said of public education: "We must dream of an aristocracy of achievement arising out of a democracy of opportunity" and of Horace Mann, the noted 19th century educator who believed that public schools were supposed to "serve as the great"equalizer". Mann believed that in order to give all students a chance to achieve and do well in life, public schools had to be "common schools"; schools which educate both disadvantaged and advantaged children under one roof. Separate schools for poor and working-class kids on the one hand, and middle-class and wealthy children on the other, are inherently unequal, he believed. Taxpayers should provide "common" public schools for all who wish to attend. Kids should receive the same basic common school education regardless of economic class. If affluent parents want more than taxpayers can afford or if others want religious schools, they should pay for that choice in private schools.