Schools (probably should be politics)

[minx]

So yet again the state has come out with a rating system for schools, so you know if you're child is in a 'good' school or a 'bad' one.

And as always, the ratings don't take in things like demographics, balance of students, ect.  The idea is that if your school is 'bad' then you can move to a 'good' one.  Of course, YOU have to pay to transport your kid to the new school, which only helps those with the ability to do so.  OTOH, it's a huge boost for charter schools, which operate outside of the whole rating system.

Here is my issue.

If your school is ranked as unacceptable, you lose funding.
If it's good, you gain funding.

How exactly is this helping?  Shouldn't we be looking at the bad schools and assessing more than the passing rates?  Are their buildings on par with the good schools (if not why)?  Do they have the same materials and parental involvement as the good ones?  Why is one school good and the other bad?

I'm not saying that we should automatically dump money into the 'bad' schools just because.  But the state needs to take a harder look at why they are failing.  Is it the quality of teaching, or is it other things, such as a lack of supplies, or not being able to do basic repairs due to lack of money?  Because it's damned hard to learn when your history textbooks end shortly after the moon landing, and the roof is leaking in the corner of your classroom or worse (and there are many schools in Richmond in this situation).

I think a huge part of the school 'problem' needs to start with the physical structure of the school itself - is it in good repair, and is it up-to-date on supplies such as textbooks and technology?  And if not, it needs to be brought up to date.  Then we can look at things like the quality of teaching and the amount of parental involvement.

[Dave's Not Here Man]

I think a huge part of the school 'problem' needs to start with the physical structure of the school itself - is it in good repair, and is it up-to-date on supplies such as textbooks and technology? And if not, it needs to be brought up to date. Then we can look at things like the quality of teaching and the amount of parental involvement.

I have it the exact opposite. It's kind of like some people's idea of church. Is the Crystal Cathedral a better place to practice and learn about your religion than in a tiny little chapel without heat or air conditioning? 

In my opinion the answer is always the same in terms of where it starts. Parents provide the tools which require effort, involvement, and commitment to raising children that exercise good habits with a solid moral compass. No 50 million dollar school with golden book bindings can build that kind of foundation any better. Further, if the teachers and administrators aren't reinforcing the values, especially the ones specific to a structured learning environment, then you as a parent should have the ability to put them in one that does. 

Grading schools is nothing new but the way they are graded needs to change.

[minx]

I agree that it starts with parents, but as a parent, it was a lot easier to feel confident that my child was getting a good education when they were attending a school that had the proper resources. Didn't matter that the building was old and needed renovations, but it did matter that the library was well-stocked, textbooks were updated on a regular basis, and they had a working computer lab (even those those computers were old).

That's why I say the baseline should be a school in working condition with adequate supplies, and teachers who are getting paid decently - this is something that the *government* should be supplying. Once you have that, then you need parents who value at least a basic education and will teach their children to respect that.

So start with a level playing field in terms of infrastructure and staff. Then you can start looking at performance and other metrics.

And if that happens, I don't have a problem with being able to switch schools, but I don't want public money going to public or charter schools unless they have to play by the same rules that public schools are made to play by.
No more 'cherry-picking' to get the most motivated parents and students. Your enrollment has to be open to all students, regardless of their abilities (and that would go for religious schools as well - I am 100% willing to make an exception to say that they are explicitly allowed to reject students who will not agree to respect their religious beliefs during the school day. If you're signing your kid up for a Catholic school, don't complain if the curriculum requires Bible study and weekly mass).
And all of those schools have to follow the same rating system and meet the same metrics that all public schools have to meet.

Don't like it? Then refuse to accept public money.

[Dave's Not Here Man]

I agree that it starts with parents, but as a parent, it was a lot easier to feel confident that my child was getting a good education when they were attending a school that had the proper resources.

If we're going to have public schools and a sec of education then yeah, the "government" is absolutely responsible for ensuring the proper resources, ie adequate infrastructure including facilities, staff, instructional materials, and a standards for all the above in every single public school. As far as I know the individual (public) schools don't hire anyone for any position, so in terms of staffing strengths and weaknesses in any given school district you'd have to take that up with the school administration. If it's doing it's job, then the performance of the schools in the district should be consistent with each other and no one school underperforming the others. If the grading system is needed to identify that school then I'm fine with it, especially since the locale probably won't advertise it on their own, since I'm probably not the only one that looks at it as a top down problem.

If everyone is doing their jobs, including the very important job of parenting, then the whole thing takes a giant leap for mankind.

[minx]

Agreed.