Well done, Mr. Llewellyn. Unfortunately, I think the almighty teacher's union would put up quite a fight.

School vouchers are a "divide and conquer" tactic that are nothing more than a private school discount for those who can afford it. 

Why not just get rid of school districts/zones and let kids pick any public school of their choice?  I hate the idea of relegating a child to a bad school just because he lives in a certain part of town.  Increasing or decreasing enrollment numbers would speak more about performance than a standardized test.  This would also give schools an opportunity to have specialties instead of trying to be cookie cutter and offer the same programs (what ever happened to the vocational/trade programs?).

There is a huge "Industrial Arts" building at BHS.  Does anyone know what they do with that building?  Do they actually teach shop, technical drawing, welding, woodworking, ag??

Or have those classes been supplanted with classes such as  "how to put a condom on a banana", or "It is perfectly normal little Johnny has two mommys"?

Vouchers, where they have been tried here in the US, and in Chile (as the foremost country that embraced this Milton Friedman concept) have shown no neglible improvement over public school performance. Yes, much should be done to better our public schools and to raise education achievement, but vouchers are not the answer. Vouchers are just another way for those with capital to get subsidies from the taxpayer to fund their private business ventures with little risk.

To promote vouchers is to promote the current plutocracy inherent in our US system today that finds fewer and fewer with more and more. Public schools not that long ago in California offered excellence, and through most of the 1970s our state ranked near the very top in public school performance. Proposition 13 ended that excellence, and the underfunded public school system we have today faces more cutbacks. We now spend more on prisons than we do for higher education in this state. How about reducing our incarceration levels drastically and putting the money saved there to work on our schools?

The argument for vouchers targets one of the last powerful unions in this country. The Teachers Union is a place where current workers enjoy decent livable wages and good benefits. Those without those benefits who have seen the private sector reduce unions to an afterthought in today's workplace seem intent on dragging down to their miserable condition the last remaining few in the middle class who have them. From a high in union membership  within the private sector of 35.7% in 1953 the United States has less than 10% unionized people working in the private sector today.

I am not sure how anyone can argue that today's workers are better off than their counterparts 56 years ago. Workers today have nearly no benefits in small businesses throughout America. Only 44% of all small businesses (under 50 employees) offer health care to their workers.  So by all means blame the unions instead of the draconian law and order manifestos, which has made the US the prison king of the world and targeted the neighborhoods your voucher program purports to aid.

Also, the private schools which curiously benefit the most from a voucher program are religious in nature and promotes one type of ideology. The separation of church and state was put in place for a very good reason, and vouchers foster a climate of religious indoctrination over fundamental American principles.

Finally, if business competition is what you desire, then let us tax church organizations like we do other businesses. Maybe we the people would finally have enough money in the coffers to fully fund our public school system.

There is a huge "Industrial Arts" building at BHS.  Does anyone know what they do with that building?

They're doing very little Industrial Arts in that building.  I think they turned it into a gym for the football team.  It housed some of the offices for administrators for a while.

I'm all for the voucher program. I was rather a little dismayed that The Anointed One a few months ago would scrap D.C.'s voucher program. He had no problem sending his little girls that he hope would not want to be "punished" by an unwanted pregnancy to an elite private school in that area while pulling the rug out from underneath quite a number of unprivileged children who had suffered from shoddy education in the public schools.

I don't think a voucher program is necessary. You see, in the United States EVERYONE is entitled to an education. Whether they can learn easily or not, whether they want to or not. I think we would be better of with more vocational education and more magnet school programs. If you open more private school-type educational institutions, they get to pick and chose who gets in. Public schools do not. So, you will end up with the higher performers all attending the private-type school (and not getting any better education than they were before) and all the harder-to-educate students at public schools.

I think it would be great if some private entities doled some some scholarships for some students to go to private schools. Especially in areas where the schools are truly challenged.

I might suppot a voucher system if it had the same qualification requirements as, say, food stamps.  Otherwise it's just another public subsidy of the rich at the expense of the poor.

Hey Ric, do you have any data about the mess and failing schools in Kern County? The Kern High School District sends students to Annapolis, West Point, the Air Force Academy, Harvard, Stanford, UCLA, USC, UC Santa Barbara, and many other fine colleges nationwide. Academic Decathlon participation and History Day always see Kern students perform at the highest levels.

A top ranked chess player, a nine year old Hispanic girl, attends a Bakersfield City School.

Sure, there are plenty of poor students, but for those who want a great education and have parental support, Kern County public schools are second to none.

Random, that's a great idea, but you know as well as I do that republicans would no longer support vouchers if they only went to the poor. They want to send their kids to private schools and not have to pay for them. Your idea ruins their whole plan.

Funny, the article above first says the giving more money to the schools didn't work (really?) so instead we should take money away from them. Yeah, I'm sure that'll fix everything. I wonder if that logic would work for my car too.

i will point out a couple of things here

Mr. Llewellyn, before you wrote this piece, did you happen to visit a few schools to form your opinion, or were you going off the top of your head?  As a teacher, there is only one difference between the schools that are above and below the pass/fail line, and that is parent participation in their children's education.  Had you visited a few schools in the Rosedale District, then went and contrasted them to schools in Mcfarland, Arvin, Edison, ..ANY school in the lower SES areas of town, you would have seen that. (and not just pop in for a couple hours and leave...actually talking with several teachers, administrators aides,  and janitors.

second and lastly...KHSD does something similiar, taking students who live closer to foothill and east high, and bus them clear across town to Liberty high.

Its really disadvantagous to the students, even the good ones with parents that are educationally envolved.  these students live farther away from the place of learning.  they have to get up earlier in the morning, and arrive home later in the afternoon.  they cannot stay after school or come earlier because only one bus run is available to their area, and also due to the proximity of the school.

i would also recommend you look at the students test scores that are bussed across town, and compare / contrast them to similiar SES students that attend neighoborhood schools.  the studies i have seen regarding this issue paints a bleak picture that shows it doesnt work.

Students that do not have the home support for their education at their neighborhood schools, still wont have it when the go across town.  This would also put the schools across town in a rather bad position too, because they seldom deal with students whose parents dont support their education.

all you have to do to witness this first hand, is visit a few schools, which you probably didnt do before you wrote this

Funny....the politicians dont visit the schools to see what the problems are before the legislate law either

Learnem, you hit the nail on the head!  Couldn't have said it better myself.

I'd like to see Mr. Llewellyn spend some time as a volunteer in several different schools -- as a reading coach, a parent helper, a teacher's aide -- then I think he'd have a totally different take on what needs to be done about improving/changing the educational program.

i think the time has come to scrap the public school system as it starts, and make the parents pay to have their child educated.  If the students grades are decent at the end of the year, they get money back...all A's 100% back....take their gpa and turn it into a percentage that amounts to what the parent gets back

the only reason private schools do so much better than public isnt the teachers...it has nothing to do with the schools actually...its the sheer amount of money the parents pay to send their child there.  you can best bet that those parents are involved in thier kids education

unfortunately, the left, with all the free handouts, has taken the will to achieve away from people, and the above idea wouldnt fly

I bet a few on this board would love to see a "parents that dont support their child's educaton pride" month

This sentence: "I'm all for the voucher program. I was rather a little dismayed that The Anointed One a few months ago would scrap D.C.'s voucher program. He had no problem sending his little girls that he hope would not want to be "punished" by an unwanted pregnancy to an elite private school in that area while pulling the rug out from underneath quite a number of unprivileged children who had suffered from shoddy education in the public schools."

says it all as far as the pro-voucher minority goes.

Criticize the president for using private schools at his personal cost and use this criticism as an explanation for wanting the taxpayer to pay for their children to do the same.

Pay for your own kids if you want a private education for them!

Public schools are a public good. Private schools are a private good. If you use them, you pay. Simple.

Thanks for the feedback. Sorry I don't have time to maintain running conversations. Here are some brief comments.

vanityfair--Thanks. If the CTA has a problem with "vouchers," there should be MORE converstion; not less.

jfrancais--In essence, I agree with your observation. Except the thing about divide and conquer....

adampayne--Milton Friedman, Nobelaureate? Thanks. I also despise shielding the rich from financial risk. Isn't the current public school system part of the situation that has established what you perceive to be a plutocracy? Union, health bennies, and taxing churches -- off topic. I alluded to the solution to underfunding encompassed in a voucher system.

paxchristi3--At least the kids in the pipeline will keep the vouchers... as of a day or so ago.

witbee--That's the old paradigm. What I'm saying is the "can'ts" and "won'ts" are like that BECAUSE OF the pub ed system. Adapt to catch their interest and/or meet their needs. Your scholarship idea is what's going on in DC that paxchristi mentioned.

elginphelps--I don't think you really care. Anyway, what's a good API? Go look at our performance as a County for 07-08. What's a good CAHSEE number? Check out Kern's CAHSEE rates. I said nothing about failing schools. Doubtless there are many fine students who excel in spite of the pub ed system. Neverthless, overall the system is overwhelmed with shortcomings.

randomfactor--the CURRENT system negatively impacts the poor! See the CAHSEE results mentioned above.

ProgressivePete2--Is there a reason Dems don't want to send their kids to private schools? I don't propose taking money away from schools; I propose letting it float around so it can settle naturally where parents and students want it to.

learnem--Lots of typing! I don't have time to to cover everything. Why are schools in Kern so disparate? Yet this is our pub ed system. Busing and vouchers are not similar, and I don't support busing. Clearly there is a problem. What's your solution? Your second post: in essence, I agree.

Rettchr--I just might.

dirtyshirt--So, if you can't afford a private school, tough. You get whatever the government can afford to provide.

Like I said, I can't carry on a conversation here. Thanks for taking time to provide your feedback, and pardon my typos. I'm not an ideologue; I like to hear other opinions. You may be surprised on where I come down on other issues. Keep reading!

--Ric Ll.

Ric, the fact of the matter is that the public school system is a mess- for everbody!  Relegating funds to school vouchers does not solve the national issue.  It only solves the problem for those with teh means because they can afford it.  Is that the answer to America's ills?  Solve it if you can afford it?  We still have to deal with those kids that will eventually become adults and be expected to contribute in society.  Public schools failing, is a public problem.  We can't just fix it for a few and call it a day.  That's what I mean by divide and conquer- 'Fix' the problem for a few (that actually vote) and the problem goes away (-not really). 

It would be nice if a parent could just enroll their kid in another school and not have to be relegated to the local school in the neighborhood.  Who wants their kid to go to a school knowing they are receiving a subpar education?  When I was in elementary school, I was bussed over to Bessie Owens (a school in the ghetto) for their all day GATE program.  It was sad, in retrospect, to see the difference in resources just between the GATE and non-GATE students.  The GATE students had a computer lab (this is 1985), science lab, and computers in each class.  The non-GATE classes did not.  There was a distinct difference in the treatment of students.  I believe if all the students had access to those resources perhaps it could have made a world of difference.  A lot of my GATE friends are now lawyers, professors, teachers while I can think of at least four non-GATE guys doing 25 to life in prison that were not afforded those opportunities. Do I think a computer and a science lab would have saved them all?  No, but it would have at least exposed them to something other than a life of crime and drugs.  Perhaps if they had the option of attending a school outside the ghetto, they could at least dream of a life outside the ghetto or outside of prison.

Heh, I refused to be bussed to Bessie Owens (or to Highland for high school) for the GATE program when the district offered it to my parents. I didn't want to spend all day cloistered away from the "general population". I liked having mostly regular classes where I could socialize and the once-a-week GATE classes to do nifty stuff. Even without all those dedicated resources at Bessie Owens, I still went on to get my PhD because my parents supported my education and let me make decisions about it. Having both support and independence from my parents went a long way to fostering my innate talents. If you don't have that, you could throw all the resources in the world at the problem and only help a fraction of the students (those that are self-motivated to succeed educationally, they do exist, but are rare).

For example, in graduate school, a student failed a class that I TAed and his parents wrote a nasty letter to the campus about it. This student never showed up to discussion sections or office hours. I don't know about his lecture attendance since the professor for the class covered that, but I suspect it was equally poor. But did the parent acknowledge that it was the lack of effort on the part of the student that caused the student to fail the class? Nope. It was instead a tirade of excuses, misplaced finger pointing and accusations of discrimination. And this was a student attending a UC campus. Can you imagine what elementary and secondary school teachers go through?

I didn't like it for the reason you just said (being outside of the general population) but it was great that my parents had the choice of which school they wanted me to attend.  I wasn't relegated to one school just because of where I lived.  I actually prefered my old school to Owens.  I saw a huge difference in the general population of Owens compared to the general population of Roosevelt.  Not to mention, you didn't see drunks and gangsters fighting or shooting across the street from the playground. I wish every parent had the option of choosing which school their kids attended.

For example, in graduate school, a student failed a class that I TAed and his parents wrote a nasty letter to the campus about it.

That borders on the absurd.  Did you let them know it was okay to cut the umbilical chord?  Actually, I wouldn't even respond to them since they aren't in the program.  I knew of a few snuffys in undergrad but that's beyond laughable at the graduate level.

Spam code: shift