In case your interested in some other stories of parents attitude toward charters and vouchers, you might consider checking out one of my recent posts:

http://a-teachers-view.blogspot.com/2009/05/to-many-charters-in-north-denver.html

Since you’ve seen the data, you can certainly check Pew, Rand, and Gallup. Though you’d ignore what you find as you note, “since parents have no better criteria on which to judge the schools their own kids attend then they do the system in its entirety.” They’re incapable of judging, but you’re omniscient and correct, and you clearly know what works for three quarters of the country? Better than they do? Interesting world in which you live.

Your claim that If “they’re opinion of their own school is valid then their opinion of the entire institution is valid – Or the reverse” is fundamentally flawed. They could obviously know their own personal experience and judge it well, but be making generalizations based on ignorance of “the system.” It’s most probably that way. Additionally, I have, again and again, agreed with you about urban populations, and the need for assistance, and I support charters and choice.

In terms of the “twilight of the public education system,” that is the heart of what I initially asked of Greg. Your judgment is such a fantasy – though it’s not surprising considering your standard mantra of a true lassez-faire, libertarian world where the free market operates to create a utopia. It’s simply not going to happen because it shouldn’t and few people would want to live there because the reality would be far from “satisfied” or “very satisfied,” but it’s fascinating that you believe it.

Keep in mind that charters are pubic education, and three-quarters of the country (and most likely more) will not be seeking vouchers because government education works for them – like it works in every country in the world, for which we regularly lament not being more like them (I do concede the countries like Singapore and Sweden that allow choice of private schools).

Yet, as I’ve noted extensively in postings, I concede that reform is necessary, and I have no problem with choice of private schools. The public system is somewhat slow to adapt to needs in terms of vocational education, dual credit, high tech high schools, and school to work readiness. But they will adapt as the communities make it happen in their government run schools that they always have and always will overwhelmingly support.

“There is no denying the feelings of voters when 75% of Americans are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with their schools. This is most true among populations that vote the most.”

Provide a citation and we’ll take a look at all the data not just this particular factoid. As I wrote, I’ve seen the data as well and it’s inevitably matched with similar levels of disatisfaction with the public education system as a whole. It’s immaterial whether that’s because of “what they’ve heard” since parents have no better criteria on which to judge the schools their own kids attend then they do the system in its entirety. If they’re opinion of their own school is valid then their opinion of the entire institution is valid. Or the reverse.

And do try to keep your shirt on Mike. You didn’t refute much of anything because what I asserted was that widespread parental dissatisfaction with the schools their own kids are attending is found primarily among urban, particularly lower-income, blacks. Feel free to offer proof to the contrary but charters are found in majority black, urban areas primarily because of widespread dissatisfaction with the education offered by district schools in those areas, to those kids.

Also, I believe we’re approaching the twilight of the public education system because we’re entering into a time wherein the “good enough” standard that’s inevitable with an organization unresponsive to its clientèle, a hallmark of any monopoly and certainly common to the public education system, just won’t do any more. The ever-rising demands of the job market, driven by the ever-increasing capability of the technology are putting those “good-paying manufacturing jobs” from the halcyon days of American labor’s preeminence in the past and the education system that was good enough for those times is rapidly showing that it can’t change to meet the new requirements. That realization is part of what’s driven forty-four states to adopt charter laws and charters are the first, solid step to the end of the public education system.

Secondly, I refuted your assertion of widespread dissatisfaction, which you acknowledge. Though you see the disconnect – the critics are always referring to “other people’s schools.” They make the same statements about Congress, and when criticizing the education system, they are referencing mainly urban schools. Thus, that’s clearly a conclusion drawn from a perception that is not based in reality.

People like their schools, but criticize the system based on “what they’ve heard,” often from agenda-driven people like John Stossel – not that he doesn’t have some good points, he does. However, they don’t hear the average kid who achieves his expected objective and lives a quiet of contentment because those stories are familiar and obvious to so many that they don’t make for compelling television.

I’ve heard the criticism of voucher parents not being trusted – and I’ve also heard you argue against it. And, I completely agree with you on the need to meet the urgent demands for reform at the bottom 30% of our schools. But, as I noted to Greg, it’s not about it being government run, and it will always be so for the three quarters of Americans who want it that way and feel well served by the system

I’m referring to a politically dangerous demographic that has a much higher percentage of dissatisfaction with their neighborhood schools – urban black parents – not parents nationwide. That’s a significant part of the political force that’s driving vouchers and charters – evidence the recent failure of voucher opponents to shut down the D.C. voucher program – and the constituency that’s starting to split the Democratic party along the lines of the education debate.

By the way, one of the objections of voucher opponents is that parents can’t be trusted to judge the educational quality of a school which if true casts some doubt on the value of parental satisfaction with their neighborhood schools as a worthwhile indicator of the quality of the public education system. Once again, you can have it one way – parent’s can’t judge the quality of the school to which a voucher opens the door – or the other – parental satisfaction with their neighborhood schools is a worthwhile indicator of the quality of the public education system – but you can’t have it both ways.

Secondly, you mention “plenty of parents (from what source I don’t know) who look back on their neighborhood schools as the institutions that deprived them of the sort of life they envy. You won’t find a lot of satisfaction among those parents.”

Yet, the same polls I mention reveal that 85% of Americans are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with their own education.

85%, Allen, proven by polling data in the past two years. Just who are you talking about, and where is your evidence?

Either it’s a political entity for which education is the ostensible raison d’etre or it’s an education institution.

It’s not that the two are mutually exclusive so much as it is that as a political entity for which education is the ostensible raison d’etre, politics becomes the forge upon which decision are hammered out. The constituency with the most influence is the constituency that will bend the organization to its ends. Issues which don’t have a politically-potent constituency will get the leavings. They’ll always be an afterthought.

Unfortunately, education is, in most districts, especially large, urban districts, just such an afterthought.

The constituency most likely to be urgently concerned with education – parents – are largely rendered irrelevant.

The single decision with regard to education parents have to make is where to live. Once that decision is made all other decisions are the province of the elected representatives. Since they’re politicians their decisions are, necessarily, politically-driven and the most powerful constituency in most school districts are the professionals. The professionals may be the teachers and their union or it may be the superintendent and the administrative organization the superintendent heads but it isn’t the parents. The interests of the professionals are job security, future advancement and pay which is why educational performance is seen as largely irrelevant but financial considerations are always front and center.

That’s why the indictment of “government schools” isn’t misplaced so much as it’s poorly focused.

The dissatisfaction with district schools is what’s driving the on-going interest in vouchers and charters. That interest is strongest where the education system is least worthwhile, those large, urban school districts. While you may like your neighborhood school, Mike, there are plenty of parents who look back on their neighborhood schools as the institutions that deprived them of the sort of life they envy. You won’t find a lot of satisfaction among those parents.

The larger issue is the indictment of “government controlled” schools and how you envision the system working. While Greg says, “as long as schools are government owned and government run,” we should note that some, and probably most, will always be government owned/run for the majority of Americans because it works for them and they like it. There is no denying the feelings of voters when 75% of Americans are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with their schools. This is most true among populations that vote the most.

While I’m not opposed to charters, or even vouchers to take money elsewhere, including private schools, the reality is this. I, like most Americans, really like my neighborhood school, and I’m not giving it up. I live near and work for one of the top high schools and school districts in the country. It is the pride of our community and representative of the collective efforts and commitment to excellence of our community. While the state has open enrollment, and students can take their state money wherever they want, our students stay where they are because they want to, and the schools are full, and voters would not be inclined to take on other students who are dissatisfied with their home school – even as we might sympathize with their plight. That is, no doubt, true through two-thirds to three-quarters of the country.

That said, I lament the state of about 30% of the schools in this country, and society should seek to alleviate the problems for those who seek success. However, this in no means an imperative to move away from “government run schools” as that is not the factor in the success or failure of most. There will always be a government system of public education because it works for most, and most want it that way.

A disruptive student is still a source of funds so for the administration, especially the district administration which is isolated from the need to deal with disruptive students, one student is pretty much the same as another; they’re all just walking bags of money.

Getting rid of a source of income obviously requires a very good reason but the people with the power to execute the expulsion are largely insulated from those reasons. Only when a student becomes sufficiently disruptive to come to the attention of and to inconvenience those with the power to expel them do they run any likelihood of being expelled.

So the solution is to put the power to expel in the hands of those who have to deal with the disruption.

Of course those people have to have an offsetting reason to be temperate with the power to expel but that ought to be self-evident.

The answer is politics. As long as schools are government-owned and government-run, they will be beholden to politics first and foremost, and reform efforts will continue to have at best a very limited impact.