Kansas schools chief

In its recent editorial on Kansas schools and the state department of education (1/14, “Kansas curriculum is heading back on track”), The Star recommends that “the new administrator be, first, dedicated to public schools, and second, experienced in education administration.”

Solid experience as an administrator is valuable to anyone overseeing a budget of several billion dollars. But nontraditional administrators have served school systems well in cities ranging from Seattle to New York.

While being open to new forms of leadership is important, being innovative in how we think about “public education” is even more so. Public schools are part of public education. But so are home schools and privately run schools and new models such as charter schools and virtual schools.

Education is the goal; diverse schools are the means. Lawmakers and citizens alike should be open to alternative sources for administrators — and alternative ways of delivering education.

John R. LaPlante
Education Policy Fellow,Flint Hills Center for Public Policy
Wichita

Comments

[CRD]

""It's not clear to me how public schools are "answerable" to "us" in a meaningful way.""

Subject to federal educational standards, including federal special education laws -- from which parochial schools are currently exempt.

[tomw]

A huge percentage of this...

" however, that puts the number in the late 1990s at $11,700."

...is buildings, maitenence, etc., which are not included in these...

St. Pius X -- 5100
Maranatha Academy -- 5590
Lutheran High school -- 5750
Bishop Miege -- 5975 (or 7225)
St. Teresa -- 8590
Sion -- 8950
Rockhurst -- 9125
Pembroke Hill -- 16,880

Comparing apples and oranges.

"It's not clear to me how public schools are "answerable" to "us" in a meaningful way."

Voting, whether you have children in school or not. If you do, there are a multitude of ways-attending PTA meetings, meeting with your teachers, meeting with your principal, volunteering in your child's class (actually you can do much of that even if you don't have children in school). The list goes on.

[Chris40]

It's not clear to me how public schools are "answerable" to "us" in a meaningful way. In KC, at least, most of the suburban school districts do a fine job, whereas KCMO and KCK do a depressing job.

Providing a good education should be a chief criterion for our schools. In cases where public schools do a poor job, there should be other options. Money is not often the issue, because, as I pointed out below, private schools often cost less, but provide a better education.

It seems to me that those who have posted against vouchers do so more out of ideology instead of a pragmatic approach to giving our children the best possible education. I cannot agree with that approach.

[CRD]

I'm glad we have publicly funded education -- but the difference between public schools and private schools is that the former are answerable to us, the taxpayers who fund them. I don't see the sense in using our tax dollars to fund schools that aren't answerable to us.

[jack]

Apparently locobreath thinks he must enlighten everyone else as to the existance of the Bill of Rights. Must be fun to stand up on a pedestal and look down on all those stupid people beneath you.

[Chris40]

Here is the tuition information for some local private schools.

St. Pius X -- 5100
Maranatha Academy -- 5590
Lutheran High school -- 5750
Bishop Miege -- 5975 (or 7225)
St. Teresa -- 8590
Sion -- 8950
Rockhurst -- 9125
Pembroke Hill -- 16,880

I had trouble finding the current spending per student in KCMO. I found this report, however, that puts the number in the late 1990s at $11,700.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.html

I wonder who got a better education for the money: Rockhurst or Sion student, or Southeast or Central student.

[elizabethie]

Loco1901--
I personally don't think vouchers will work for one reason...Most parents who send their children to private schools do so to keep their kids away from certain aspects of public schools. In most cases crime and violence often found in poorer public school districts. So my question is what will keep private schools from increasing their tuition to keep the "bad elements" out of their schools.

For example, if Rockhurst High School charges $10,000 a year for tuition now; and we decide to give parents $5,000 in vouchers each year, what is to keep Rockhurst High School from increasing their tuition to $15,000 a year, in essence making vouchers useless?

[locomotivebreath1901]

One rebuttal for two inquiries:

Public funds are made possible by tax paying citizens. Let those citizens have the option to use those funds as they see fit for the education of their children - be it private, government or alternative school. Government school monopoly - bad. Liberty and freedom of choice - good. Period.

And Harvard is out of the purview of this discussion since it is a university and an elective form of education. BUT, if you insist on including Harvard, et. al, most, if not all, universities and colleges are subsidized to a large portion on the public dime and some government funds (such as money from the G.I. bill) can be used to finance private - even religious- educations.

"Give the money back to the people who earned it and let them decide how best to spend it." It's called 'liberty'.

And speaking of liberty and the rights to guarantee those liberties; there is such a thing in this nation called the Bill of Rights. The first one includes a guarantee to freedom of religion and the free exercise there of (funny how most folks forget that second part), so, yes, Muslims have that liberty to educate their children as they see fit without ALSO being forced to subsidize a government school monopoly.

"Give the money back to the people who earned it and let them decide how best to spend it."

It's called 'liberty' and I love it!

http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/schoolchoice/index.html

[CRD]

Public funds should fund public schools. End of story.

Let the Catholic Church fund scholarships for its students.

[wellpaidscientist]

loco1901,

So if parents want to send their child to Harvard, the taxpayers should pay for it so the parents are not denied a "choice".

I don't think my tax dollars should go towards parents sending their kid to a religious school.

Would you still favor vouchers if it meant your tax dollars could pay for an American student to attend a madrassas-type school in the US?

[locomotivebreath1901]

Hear, hear! Well said, Mr. LaPlante. I say, "Vote school vouchers - vote school choice."

The goal is to provide a high quality education to all of our children. Government schools should simply be one of the avenues of choice. Choice being the key word - and aren't all progressive minded people 'pro-choice'?

The ideal choice is to include home schools, privately run schools and new models such as charter schools and virtual schools with the tax payer supplied funding following the child to the school of the parent's choice via vouchers.

Choice is the choice of all progressive minded people. How could anyone deny the right of choice to a parent when it comes to the educational welfare of their child?

Vote school vouchers - vote school choice.
http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/schoolchoice/index.html

[jack]

Does this mean being "open" to stripping the public school system of money in order to "fund" privatly held schools? Funny how the author doesn't say, isn't it?