Comments on: Educrats Accused Of Diverting Federal Tax Dollars http://www.fitsnews.com/2008/09/28/educrats-accused-of-diverting-federal-tax-dollars/ Politics, Sports and Pop Culture Tue, 14 Feb 2012 23:47:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: baker http://www.fitsnews.com/2008/09/28/educrats-accused-of-diverting-federal-tax-dollars/#comment-37453 baker Mon, 29 Sep 2008 03:10:55 +0000 http://www.fitsnews.com/?p=5974#comment-37453 This is a fascinating issue. First of all, many conservative (and liberals) can't stand the fundamentals of No Child Left behind -- largely that the law tells local and state school systems what they have to do. Seems that the conservative position is generally that the federal government ought to stay pretty much out of the way. At the same time -- and understandably -- districts that defy NCLB regulations and requirements to create more choice and offer additional services to poor kids come under fire. It demonstrates just how complex the debate over education really is. A few other observations -- 1. "The State" newspaper reports this: "In Clarendon 1 (Summerton) - where 30 percent of students live in single-parent households and 25 percent of parents never finished high school - (there were) several letters sent home in 'parent-friendly language,' follow-up phone calls, home visits and churches spreading the word. Still, fewer than five parents attended each of the district's information fairs. Last school year, 35 of its middle school students received tutoring, said assistant superintendent Barbara Ragin." Is Ms. Ragin telling the truth or not? If she's being truthful, it seems that that school district did a pretty solid job of trying to make sure people knew about services offered. Maybe more should have been done. But while "blaming the parents" isn't a true solution to anything, it's nonetheless a fact that some parents do very little to help get their kids' education on track. 2. In the same article (http://www.thestate.com/statewire/story/532775.html), there is a report that very few parents are choosing the transfer option. My sense is that the school districts aren't wild about that option. They don't like too much movement within the system, they don't like creating numerical imbalances between schools, they don't like bad publicity for particular school. I'm not condemning or defending any of this....it's just my take on things. But this does not mean the transfer option isn't being properly offered (at least in the majority of districts). What appears to be the case is that a lot of parents don't really want to move their child all that much, or there may be other issues at play: **Maybe they like their neighborhood school despite its problems -- that's pretty interesting to consider, in my opinion. Indeed, I've talked to parents before whose kids go to 'rough' schools, and the parents have mostly positive things to say. They praise the teachers, and think the educators are doing a good job. I've talked to dissatisfied parents, too. But the idea that all parents "want out" of struggling schools isn't necessarily correct. **Maybe transportation is a problem in some cases. That would obviously be a hurdle to making private school choice work. **In rural counties, there may literally not be choices within a school district. There may only be one or two elementary schools, just one middle school, just one high school. **Mr. Cassidy (and Will Folks) are talking about the small numbers of students transferring to another school. Again, maybe not that many parents were interested, and maybe there were a range of barriers. But Cassidy's concern about choice (or supposed lack of it) within the system would seem to lend support to the open-enrollment plan Jim Rex pushed and that Mark Sanford opposed. 3. The state article quotes a fed guy as saying that SC tutoring participation rates are lower than the national average but "nothing extreme." So what's going on here may not be all that uncommon. In any case, it does raise interesting issues about what strategies might work best for reaching struggling students. It also raises questions about where NCLB money is going -- where does it go if local districts aren't (for whatever reason) signing up kids for tutoring or for transfers? I'm not among those who assumes corruption or whatever, but there's obviously a question of waste and accounting for massive NCLB spending. This is a fascinating issue. First of all, many conservative (and liberals) can’t stand the fundamentals of No Child Left behind — largely that the law tells local and state school systems what they have to do. Seems that the conservative position is generally that the federal government ought to stay pretty much out of the way. At the same time — and understandably — districts that defy NCLB regulations and requirements to create more choice and offer additional services to poor kids come under fire. It demonstrates just how complex the debate over education really is.

A few other observations —

1. “The State” newspaper reports this: “In Clarendon 1 (Summerton) – where 30 percent of students live in single-parent households and 25 percent of parents never finished high school – (there were) several letters sent home in ‘parent-friendly language,’ follow-up phone calls, home visits and churches spreading the word. Still, fewer than five parents attended each of the district’s information fairs. Last school year, 35 of its middle school students received tutoring, said assistant superintendent Barbara Ragin.”

Is Ms. Ragin telling the truth or not? If she’s being truthful, it seems that that school district did a pretty solid job of trying to make sure people knew about services offered. Maybe more should have been done. But while “blaming the parents” isn’t a true solution to anything, it’s nonetheless a fact that some parents do very little to help get their kids’ education on track.

2. In the same article (http://www.thestate.com/statewire/story/532775.html), there is a report that very few parents are choosing the transfer option. My sense is that the school districts aren’t wild about that option. They don’t like too much movement within the system, they don’t like creating numerical imbalances between schools, they don’t like bad publicity for particular school. I’m not condemning or defending any of this….it’s just my take on things. But this does not mean the transfer option isn’t being properly offered (at least in the majority of districts).

What appears to be the case is that a lot of parents don’t really want to move their child all that much, or there may be other issues at play:

**Maybe they like their neighborhood school despite its problems — that’s pretty interesting to consider, in my opinion. Indeed, I’ve talked to parents before whose kids go to ‘rough’ schools, and the parents have mostly positive things to say. They praise the teachers, and think the educators are doing a good job. I’ve talked to dissatisfied parents, too. But the idea that all parents “want out” of struggling schools isn’t necessarily correct.
**Maybe transportation is a problem in some cases. That would obviously be a hurdle to making private school choice work.
**In rural counties, there may literally not be choices within a school district. There may only be one or two elementary schools, just one middle school, just one high school.
**Mr. Cassidy (and Will Folks) are talking about the small numbers of students transferring to another school. Again, maybe not that many parents were interested, and maybe there were a range of barriers. But Cassidy’s concern about choice (or supposed lack of it) within the system would seem to lend support to the open-enrollment plan Jim Rex pushed and that Mark Sanford opposed.

3. The state article quotes a fed guy as saying that SC tutoring participation rates are lower than the national average but “nothing extreme.” So what’s going on here may not be all that uncommon.

In any case, it does raise interesting issues about what strategies might work best for reaching struggling students. It also raises questions about where NCLB money is going — where does it go if local districts aren’t (for whatever reason) signing up kids for tutoring or for transfers? I’m not among those who assumes corruption or whatever, but there’s obviously a question of waste and accounting for massive NCLB spending.

]]>