Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Oldmanladyluck

Cleveland: School News & Discussion

Recommended Posts

Student flight puts district's construction plans at risk

10-year enrollment could fall by 14,000

Saturday, March 12, 2005

Ebony Reed and Janet Okoben

Plain Dealer Reporters

As the Cleveland public schools face building closings and additional layoffs in coming months, a rising number of students are transferring out - and leaving behind tough questions for the $1.5 billion construction project.

 

About 2,200 students left district schools between August and January, compared with 680 who left during the same period last school year, according to the district. Researchers at Cleveland State Univer sity recently predicted that, in a worst-case scenario, enrollment could plummet from the current 65,000 students to 51,000 in 10 years.

 

More at cleveland.com http://www.cleveland.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points, but Cleveland's not unique in this area (sadly).  Our haves/haves-not country doesn't place the emphasis on educating all its young (just like it tells working class folks to fend for themselves for health care) anywhere near the way it should – as in, the way practically every industrialized nation in the world does!!!!  Unfortunately our infrastructure in human beings – and not buildings, bridges, etc. -- suffers greatly because of this.  The after effects?  try drugs. crime. social stratification. fear. guns. and killing.  We didn't need Michael Moore's excellent flick "Bowling for Columbine" to tell us that even though, per capita, or Canadian neighbors have a much higher gun ownership per capita, we have a much higher rate of murder -- we're off the charts.  And the root of this is that we look at those who have lesser than us as our enemy who we must protect ourselves from rather than reaching out to them and realizing that, as goes the least of us, so goes the rest of us… 

 

And the fact that we educate kids based on how much $$ their parents have has mushroomed into all sorts of social ills -- off of soap box, cause I could go off on this for hours if you had some good jazz and a few cups of coffee...

 

I lived in Philly for years and just visited Chicago -- both towns with schools that suck, but neither of them are hemorrhaging population like we are (central-city Chicago actually even grew slightly in the 2000 census).  Hell, the rich parents (among the dominant young singles) in Chicago's Lincoln Park and River North areas (just to name a few) aren't sending their kids to Chicago Public Schools any more than Warehouse District or Ohio City middle/upper middle class residents are sending theirs to Cleve public schools... So while our crappy schools certainly aren't helping our situation, I think it's a bit simplistic to think the schools are the sole or even main cause to our flight of middle class/young professionals. … (and I'm not saying you are so this isn't my taking a shot at you)... It's worthy of discussion, though.   I tend to think jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs are the thing our city needs to lure to keep people here moreso than better schools, although I am quick to recognize there’s a tie between the 2.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I'm going to say it. The problem is not really the schools themselves, the teachers or even the administrators. Its the STUDENTS and PARENTS, or lack thereof. Without order, discipline, and a sense of security, education cannot take place. A teacher can't give lessons when all their time is spent breaking up fights, squelching arguments, and attempting to keep school property from being destroyed. In any given classroom in an inner city school, there are at least a half-dozen kids who because of their behavior are basically un-teachable in a traditional setting. Yet more often than not, there is nothing that can really be done about them because there is no money or staff for remedial action.

 

Inner city public schools have the hardest job with the most difficult students, so they need proportionally the most resources. Instead of deperately needed help, they get criticism, budget cuts, and calls for more and more testing.

 

You're right - the battle for the future of our core cities is being fought in the schools, and the fact is that we (as a society) aren't putting up much of a fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inner city public schools have the hardest job with the most difficult students, so they need proportionally the most resources. Instead of deperately needed help, they get criticism, budget cuts, and calls for more and more testing.

 

If Jesus were alive, he'd kiss you.


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, things are getting better in Cleveland Schools!  I just think there are less children in Cleveland.  Actually, BBB credits better record keeping as one reason, thus maybe Cleveland thought they had a lot more students a few years ago than they actually did.

From today's cleveland.com

 

NEWS UPDATE

2:40 p.m.

 

Cleveland Schools grad rate tops 50 percent

 

The graduation rate for Cleveland high school students has topped 50 percent for the first time in years and is now more than 20 percentage points higher than it was six years ago.

 

J.C.Benton, a spokesman for the Ohio Department of Education, cautioned that the number's have not yet been verified and won't be official until August, but said the education department is hopeful the jump is real.

 

Cleveland schools CEO Barbara Byrd-Bennett said better record keeping and intervention for students have boosted the numbers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it is indeed good to hear that the school system is posting a rise in the graduation rate!!!  :clap: :clap:

 

Cleveland graduation rate soars

Number edges past 50 percent

Wednesday, March 16, 2005

Janet Okoben

Plain Dealer Reporter

The graduation rate for Cleveland high school students has topped 50 percent -- more than 20 percentage points higher than it was six years ago.

 

The 50.2 percent graduation rate for last year's senior class, still much lower than the state average, "is not at all where we need to be" but is reason for optimism, said schools CEO Barbara Byrd-Bennett.

 

More at cleveland.com http://www.cleveland.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately it's sorry we celebrate the fact graduation rate is at 50%.

 

About the only thing worse is the graduation rate from D1A NCAA basketball programs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The schools in America are very well funded.  I lived in India for a year, and during that time I went to school in what was basically a mud hut, with no fans, no lights, no blackboard, and a dirt floor.  The temperatures during the daytime would hit 100 degrees.  During lunchtime, it was a struggle to keep the cockroaches off your food.  And if you answered a question incorrectly during class, the teacher would beat you with a stick  :whip:, in accordance with Indian pedagogical traditions.  :drunk:  Still there are people studying in that environment, and going on to become doctors, lawyers, engineers, and what not.  All this talk of inner cities schools iin America needing more money is garbage.  Those who have the propensity to study will get ahead, even in 3rd world conditions.  Therre is perfectly sufficient funding in inner city schools.  In many of these schools, they get more money altogether (with federal and state grants and what not) that the overall spending per student exceeds that of nearby suburban districts (e.g. Washington DC).  It's not fair to say the schools are crap.  The schools have crappy performance because the kids they take aren't that bright to begin with.  That may not be a PC thing to say, but those are the facts.

 

The teaching in urban schools gets dumbed down because most of the students need to be taught at a lower level, and taught more slowly.  That was what my friend told me who worked in inner city schools in MI after graduating from college.  So parents whose kids are bright and show academic promise pull their kids out of the urban public schools and put them in private schools or they move to the suburbs.  Also, a lot of the urban kids are just troublemakers.  They get violent and beat people, especially the "nerds" who do well academically in class.  That's even more incentive for people to flee the cities.

 

So called "poor" people here in America complain about how hard they have it, but pretty much all of them except the most destitute panhandlers have it better off in terms of material wealth and opportunities here in the "ghettos" of America than my relatives back in India, who are rich by Indian standards. 

 

When it comes to poor performance of urban American students, I agree that something needs to be done.  But the solutions offered by the Republican and Democratic parties are not going to work.  The Republicans talk of increased "Accountability" from school teachers is meaningless, because the schoolteachers aren't the problem, its the kids they have to deal with.  And the Democrats talk of putting more money into the districts (as a payoff to schoolteachers unions) isn't going to deliver results either (e.g. Washington DC schools still have poor performance).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Locutus,

 

I disagree.  There is a big difference between material, spiritual and psychologial health.  How can you compare a completely different culture to the US inner city?  Spending time in India, you should realize that there are many types of poverty.  I taught in Peru for a few years and had over 40 students in a classroom.  It was fine. The kids were poorer than anyone in the US, but their cultural values provided a much better classroom experience.  If you had 40 kids in a classroom in Cleveland, it would be chaos.  You are dealing with a completely different situation.  You seem to place the onus completely on the individual child.  Somewhat of a predestination argument.  So, there is no hope for these kids, I guess you would say.  So, why even send them to school if they are bound to fail?  Its their fault, right?  C'mon. 

 

 

The amount of funding is sufficient?  It all depends on the results that you wish to have.  Ask any inner city public school teacher what needs to be done to improve the education. I guarantee you that 9 of 10 will say that class size needs to drop.  As you said, it is all about the type of students that are handed to you.  Well, if they have learning and behavioral issues, then a teacher needs to spend a lot more time with the individual students.  If you had a teacher with 10 kids in a room, we would have a vastly different result.  However, the public will never agree to hike taxes to the degree that would be necessary to make that happen. 

 

Your argument seems to say that the school and teacher have no effect on a student.  If those that have a propensity will get ahead no matter what (as you claim), then lets lower the school funding to about $1 per school. Have the students sit in a public park in a circle around the teacher. All 50 of them.  Funding doesn't matter at all, you're right. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything you've stated sounds like propaganda from the teachers unions.

 

In NYC, lots of Asian immigrants come in speaking little English each year, but eventually outperform the American born blacks and HIspanics studying in the same schools.  How are the former able to outperform the latter under the same allegedly crappy conditions? 

 

We can raise the income taxes until they are 90%.  We can tax people in the suburbs to the point that they practically starve to death.  And we can put all that money into city schools hiring new teachers.  But there is no proof that that is going to make the kids perform, when they are not as smart to begin with and have little interest in learning.

 

If those that have a propensity will get ahead no matter what (as you claim), then lets lower the school funding to about $1 per school. Have the students sit in a public park in a circle around the teacher. All 50 of them.

 

Well there's no need to do that here in America because the GDP per capita is much higher.  It's easy to give students all kinds of opportunities here that are impossible in the 3rd world :clap:  The point is that even our ghetto schools have more resources than schools in the rest of the world.  But they are not producing results.  Why?  Because of the students, that's why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^well.....

 

it has nothing to do with how "bright" the kids are. all kids are equally bright in that respect whereever they come from.

 

another issue i have in your own analogy is that everyone in your school in india was indian. an ancient monoculture. you schoolmate's mother's-mother's-mother, etc were from india! not so in america, which is a recent conglomoration of many cultures. so there is no cracking the kid over the head when they get a wrong answer here--we don't want to offend anyone so there is no order!

 

if there is anything similiar to a monoculture here like that or japan or wherever---it is the monoculture of lawyers---that will sue the state, county, city , school district, principal , and teacher back to the stone age if they can get away with it. schools (and cities) are easy picking for lawyers!

 

so i would say in a nutshell the root of the problem in big city schools are mostly the social, economic and multi-cultural issues and the wildly varying family values about discipline and education. the schools themselves are just a reflection.

 

ps--as for the graduation numbers. it looks like good news, but realistically take it with a grain of salt at this point. enrollment and grad rates over the next five years, now that they are paying closer attention, will give a better overall picture.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I'm going to say it. The problem is not really the schools themselves, the teachers or even the administrators. Its the STUDENTS and PARENTS, or lack thereof. Without order, discipline, and a sense of security, education cannot take place. A teacher can't give lessons when all their time is spent breaking up fights, squelching arguments, and attempting to keep school property from being destroyed. In any given classroom in an inner city school, there are at least a half-dozen kids who because of their behavior are basically un-teachable in a traditional setting.

 

I totally feel where your coming from. There are no easy answers to this problem. Inner city schools like Cleveland Public usually do spend more propotionately per student, but it still doesn't pay off. There are a lot of kids screwing themselves. I say just make them a seperate part of the school like "The Dungeon" they had on "Boston Public." They may not learn as much as the motivated students, but at least they won't have as many oppurtunities to pull others down by being in regular classes. Of course, the faculty's biggest badass would have to be in charge of this section of students remediated for disciplinary reasons. That'd be the only way it'd work.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also disagree.  There are bright individuals in all social classes from all walks of life.  It isn't the stupid who got left behind in the city of Cleveland, it's the poor.  If an individual who lived in the city could AFFORD to send their kids to private schools, then they probably would.  "The schools have crappy performance because the kids they take aren't that bright to begin with.  That may not be a PC thing to say, but those are the facts".  Whose facts are these?  Where did you get this information?  Have you ever stayed on E.30th and Central in Cleveland?  I have, and the residents of that neighborhood on average make $5000 a year (of course, there is a large underground economy in the nieghborhood).  Does that mean that they're dumb?  No, but it does mean that they're poor.

 

"The teaching in urban schools gets dumbed down because most of the students need to be taught at a lower level, and taught more slowly."  Again, where did you (or your source) get this information?  I personally went to Euclid city schools, and had many friends who moved from the Cleveland school district to Euclid.  Were all the students from the Cleveland school district somewhat behind in their schooling?  Absolutely not.  Were there some students who seemed behind in their schooling?  Yes, there were.  It depends on the student, and just because the student isn't on the same level as the rest does not mean that he or she isn't bright.  I have friends who were behind in their schooling who came from the Cleveland school district when I was in school.  Were they dumb?  No, they are definately bright individuals, just misguided.  If you had a parent who was on crack and your neighborhood is full of drug-dealers, do you think that you would be in a stable living/learning environment?

 

"Also, a lot of the urban kids are just troublemakers.  They get violent and beat people, especially the "nerds" who do well academically in class."  Once again, where did you or your source get this information?  My girlfriend graduated from East Cleveland city schools not too long ago.  I knew the valedictorian of her class, and he graduated from the district with a grade point average above 4.0.  Was this kid a whimp because he was a "nerd"?  Hell no.  This kid was strong and didn't have problems in school (he went to Shaw High, which some would call a rough high school, but probably not as rough as East Tech or Glenville).   

 

"So parents whose kids are bright and show academic promise pull their kids out of the urban public schools and put them in private schools or they move to the suburbs."  A child does not have to be "bright" to be in a private school.  A child only needs parents who can afford to send them to private schools.  We know sociologically that those with high income usually get a better education.  But why is that?  Because individuals with lower income might have to help take care of their families earlier, which can interrupt their schooling.  Sometimes, also, parents just don't want their children in the school district for whatever reason the parent feels.  Lets take the Cleveland school district as an example.  As freeways were built and racial tension mounted, the population declined in the city through the 60's.  Then student bussing came around, trying to force the integration of the school system.  What did the parents do?  They voted with their feet, and left the school district (and the city) all together if they could afford to.  During the 70's, Cleveland lost an average of three households A DAY.  Between 1970 and 1980, the city's population fell from 750,829 to 573,912.

 

"So called "poor" people here in America complain about how hard they have it, but pretty much all of them except the most destitute panhandlers have it better off in terms of material wealth and opportunities here in the "ghettos" of America than my relatives back in India, who are rich by Indian standards."  Though Americans might have more in poverty than other countries, poverty still stings.  There is less shame in a country like India because so many people are poor.  Poverty can be more difficult in a rich counrty than in a poor one.  Those in America who live in poverty are continuously face to face with wealth, and are blamed for their own suffering (no matter how unfair it may be).  I'm sorry, but you have proven this last fact. 

 

So before bashing students and calling them not bright to begin with, look at the aspects of the city and the community that the child grows up in.  Cleveland is the poorest big-city in America, and the state of Ohio's funding of schools is unconstitutional.  These two aspects don't bode well for students in the school district, but I believe that the schools are a major piece of the economic fabric of the city.  These students are not only the future of the city, but the region as well (along with all the other school districts).     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything you've stated sounds like propaganda from the teachers unions.

 

In NYC, lots of Asian immigrants come in speaking little English each year, but eventually outperform the American born blacks and HIspanics studying in the same schools. How are the former able to outperform the latter under the same allegedly crappy conditions?

 

We can raise the income taxes until they are 90%. We can tax people in the suburbs to the point that they practically starve to death. And we can put all that money into city schools hiring new teachers. But there is no proof that that is going to make the kids perform, when they are not as smart to begin with and have little interest in learning.

 

If those that have a propensity will get ahead no matter what (as you claim), then lets lower the school funding to about $1 per school. Have the students sit in a public park in a circle around the teacher. All 50 of them.

 

Well there's no need to do that here in America because the GDP per capita is much higher. It's easy to give students all kinds of opportunities here that are impossible in the 3rd world :clap: The point is that even our ghetto schools have more resources than schools in the rest of the world. But they are not producing results. Why? Because of the students, that's why.

 

Locutus,

 

I have never belonged to a teachers' union.  In fact, I no longer teach. But, if want to know what is wrong with schools, I suggest asking a teacher.  They would know a lot more than you would.  No one is suggesting taxing the suburbs at 90% in order to produce a better school system.  But, do you think that smaller class sizes would not help the situation?  Have you ever taught a room full of 40 teenagers?

 

Secondly, you are not stating anything new by saying that the problem with city schools are the students.  But, you are incredibly oversimplifying the situation.  Might you ask why the students are the problem?  What creates the problem?  You state that they are not as bright.  Is that a racist generalization?  These are enormously sweeping statements that you are making about our inner cities and their youth.  Might there be damaging influences present in US inner city neighborhoods that are not as prevalent in Indian communities?  This is a a pretty deep issue.  It cannot be solved by holding a grudge against a taxation system and laying the blame on the supposed inherent intellectual inferiority of minority youth.

 

I don't really understand why you compare the US inner city with India.  Do the worst Indian schools provide a great number of doctors, lawyers, etc?  I would assume that the elite of India generally recycles itself, just as is true in almost all countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voters reject school levy

65 percent say 'no' to Cleveland tax

Wednesday, August 03, 2005

Janet Okoben

Plain Dealer Reporter

Despite a low-key campaign intended to bring out only supporters, the Cleveland schools tax was crushed in Tuesday's election by angry West Side opponents.

 

Thirty percent of all votes cast on the issue came from Old Brooklyn and the city's far West Side, neighborhoods known for their aversion to school tax increases. Only about 43,000 voters turned out at the polls, or about 13 percent of those eligible, which shows that a core group on one side of town sealed the fate of the issue.

 

More at cleveland.com http://www.cleveland.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this totally sucks for the kids who want a better education.  The school are improving but i feel this will keep them at a stand still.  I feel so sorry for the thousands of kids who will be affected by this.  Hopefully corporate donations will increase.

 

Some of my neighbors thought it was another tax and some were unmoved/unmotivated because they have the option of sending their kids to shaker public schools.

 

Although I don't have any adorable tax deductions of my own...I did my part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a city with a declining population like Cleveland, what possible justification could there to be to jack up spending on education?

 

Backers of the tax ran no television or radio ads and mailed fliers only to a carefully screened list of likely supporters, hoping that opponents would forget about the vote. The tactic failed.

 

I love the attitude these liberals have.  They're so convinced they're right, they'll take any means necessary to force their agenda.  And if people don't go along with it, well then obviously they were just "confused".

 

This sort of shenanigans ain't no different in Toledo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Backers of the tax ran no television or radio ads and mailed fliers only to a carefully screened list of likely supporters, hoping that opponents would forget about the vote. The tactic failed.

 

I love the attitude these liberals have.  They're so convinced they're right, they'll take any means necessary to force their agenda.  And if people don't go along with it, well then obviously they were just "confused".

 

This sort of shenanigans ain't no different in Toledo.

 

jeez, i'm sure we could switch conservative for liberal in that sentence and i'd sound just as "correct"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who really thought this thing was gonna actually pass??  makes me wonder when they're gonna reduce the tax abatement stuff or when some of whats been already built will start getting taxed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like we have another decade until the abatements start to sputter out.  I wonder what the financials will look like once a bunch of these pricey townhomes and condos are added to the taxroll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a city with a declining population like Cleveland, what possible justification could there to be to jack up spending on education?

 

Backers of the tax ran no television or radio ads and mailed fliers only to a carefully screened list of likely supporters, hoping that opponents would forget about the vote. The tactic failed.

 

I love the attitude these liberals have.  They're so convinced they're right, they'll take any means necessary to force their agenda.  And if people don't go along with it, well then obviously they were just "confused".

 

This sort of shenanigans ain't no different in Toledo.

 

I will agree with you here Locutus. There really is no good reason to increase spending in a shrinking school district. It's bullshit plain and simple. Cleveland Public (and Toledo Public) spend more money per pupil (the true measure of how a school district manages its money) than most of the suburban schools which do much better in the state rankings. In other words, more money does NOT equal more education. The reason central city schools suck all over America is not a lack of funding, but simply the attitudes of the staff/students. It has less to do with how much money the schools get, and more to do with how much money the parents make. Many people are not educated on this issue, but as citizens grow more aware of the wasted money spent at central city schools, they will vote these levies down time and time again. The really poor schools are out in the country, not the city. Also, it makes sense to lay off teachers in a shrinking school, and it's not like these jobs are moving very far away. Check out these links.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/vouchers/howbad/crisis.html

 

http://www.cleveland.com/education/agate.ssf?/education/charts/042602.html

I've posted this one before. Although it's a bit old, it gets the point across.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Of course it is going to cost more to educate students who are more difficult to teach!  You are comparing suburban and inner city students?  You are comparing apples and oranges. You should spend the amount of money that will get the job done.  Suburban schools have an easier job. They have parents who generally are more supportive of education.  The whole idea about a good education is that you try to break that cycle.  The argument could be made that suburban schools should get less because they do not need as much money to produce a satisfactory result.  C-Dawg, you are not educated on this topic.  You fail to see the purpose of education.  Are you a teacher?  Do you know what it takes to provide a good education?  The Cleveland schools have a shrinking budget due to lower tax revenue, they needed the levy to provide the same level of services.  I also find it ridiculous that you can comment on the motivations of the staff.  There are many many motivated teachers who choose to work in Cleveland schools because they want to make a difference.  Many young and talented teachers were let go because of the cuts.  It is sad because Cleveland has lost a lot of teaching talent.  On the flip side, there are teachers who are unmotivated and just waiting for retirement.  This is true inner city and suburban environments.  Yes, motivation is a problem in that respect, but it is not particular to one part of the city.

You claim that money is being wasted.  Tell me exactly where the money is being wasted.  Are you trying to say that inner city students deserve less money because they don't work as hard?   Isn't that the point of education?  More does need to be invested in these schools to break the chain.  You break that chain now so that the next generation will be more susceptible to an education.  That is the whole point.  You are missing that point.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
C-Dawg, you are not educated on this topic.  You fail to see the purpose of education.  Are you a teacher?  Do you know what it takes to provide a good education?

 

You have made true, exactly what I said.  You think people are stupid, especially people who might espouse some conservative principles, and you believe that the only opinion on this issue that should count is your own.

 

What proof do you have that spending more money on education produces proportionatly better results?  As smart as you seem to think you are, you obviously have no idea of the concept of diminishing marginal returns.

 

Also, where do you think money comes from?  From your post, you make it seem as if we should be spending an infinite amount of money per student.  You make it seem as if we should just take all of the economic output of society, (i.e. tax everyone 100% of their own income) and spend all that money on education, because the school teachers think that you can never have enough spending on education.

 

Reality check: Cleveland is a poor city.  Cleveland is losing population.  Cleveland is an aging city with fewer and fewer students each year.  Cleveland is an overtaxed city that hardworking people continue to escape in droves, because the tax burden is unbearable.  To jack up the taxes on people so that tens or hundreds of thousands of more Clevelanders leave the city in the next ten years, and spend all that money on education which will produce marginal or no benefits is of no good to the city.

 

And that's why people in Cleveland voted against it.  They voted against know-it-all liberals like you trying to pull the wool over their eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have made true, exactly what I said.  You think people are stupid, especially people who might espouse some conservative principles, and you believe that the only opinion on this issue that should count is your own.

I recall a tale of a pot and kettle... :roll:

 

It's hard to be sypmathetic to the "conservative" side in this kind of thing, because the typical attitude is "why should I pay taxes for schools when I don't use them?", as though the kids should fend for themselves.

 

That said, I'm inclined to agree that throwing more money at the schools isn't going to improve education given the factors mentioned.  I also don't see how spending money is going to help when the kids and their parents just don't give a shit about education.

 

On the other hand, I could see more spending being justified, depending on the asnwers to a couple questions:

-Is the enrollment in Cleveland schools dropping at the same rate as revenue?  Taxpayers may be disappearing faster than students.

-What was the money needed for?  Things like buildings that are falling apart and 40-year-old textbooks deserve some money, for instance.

And there are probably other things that would justify it for me.  I don't know anything about Cleveland schools in particular, so it's hard to truly take a side here, but those are my general attitudes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard to be sypmathetic to the "conservative" side in this kind of thing, because the typical attitude is "why should I pay taxes for schools when I don't use them?", as though the kids should fend for themselves.

 

Those people already are paying taxes for schools.  Nice distortion of the issue.  This is exactly why it didn't pass, because those who wanted it to pass probably used the same old, simple-minded "IF YOU DON'T VOTE FOR IT, YOU'RE AGAINST THE CHILDREN YOU EVIL PEOPLE!" type arguments that even the most clueless Democrat nowadays is smart enough to not fall for.

 

When people already are paying a lot of taxes for schools, can you imagine how insulting it is for them, when people like you start accusing them of being selfish for not supporting even more unjustified increases?

 

The real question here is how much money do you have in your pocket?  How much money do you have in your bank account?  Before you accuse other people of being greedy by not supporting your favorite cause, you should go and donate all of your money to that same cause.  Otherwise you are nothing but a hypocrite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Locutus,

 

Quit putting words in our mouths.  You address arguments that I am not making.  It is very frustrating to argue with you because you don't address the issues.  You conveniently mention a weak argument that no one is making and then supposedly refute it.  Its easy to refute poor arguments that you conjure up yourself. No one said that an endless amount of cash should be put in the schools.  i will respect your arguments when you stop dissorting what others say. 

 

The west side Catholics are the ones who defeated this measure.  The West Park area of Cleveland is strongly middle class and generally send their kids to catholics schools.  I know, I was one of those kids.  I have understood the mindset for a long time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard to be sypmathetic to the "conservative" side in this kind of thing, because the typical attitude is "why should I pay taxes for schools when I don't use them?", as though the kids should fend for themselves.

 

Those people already are paying taxes for schools.  Nice distortion of the issue.  This is exactly why it didn't pass, because those who wanted it to pass probably used the same old, simple-minded "IF YOU DON'T VOTE FOR IT, YOU'RE AGAINST THE CHILDREN YOU EVIL PEOPLE!" type arguments that even the most clueless Democrat nowadays is smart enough to not fall for.

 

When people already are paying a lot of taxes for schools, can you imagine how insulting it is for them, when people like you start accusing them of being selfish for not supporting even more unjustified increases?

 

The real question here is how much money do you have in your pocket?  How much money do you have in your bank account?  Before you accuse other people of being greedy by not supporting your favorite cause, you should go and donate all of your money to that same cause.  Otherwise you are nothing but a hypocrite.

That's not what I mean.  The point is not about how much money people are paying; it's the attitude toward school taxes.  I only mean to say that there is a certain segment of the population that seems to feel it owes nothing to schools, regardless of wether the spending is justified or not or even whether they can afford the taxes; they don't seem to weigh the merits of a levy at all.  I wouldn't call them selfish or greedy, and it of course makes sense to oppose increased taxes that are not going to do any good.  But it bugs me when people oppose the school levies simply on the grounds of not having children in the system or whatever.  I wouldn't advocate placing an excessive burden on citizens, but in the end sometimes people have got to make peace with the way taxes work:  sometimes you pay for something that you personally aren't using.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Of course it is going to cost more to educate students who are more difficult to teach!  You are comparing suburban and inner city students?  You are comparing apples and oranges. You should spend the amount of money that will get the job done.  Suburban schools have an easier job. They have parents who generally are more supportive of education.  The whole idea about a good education is that you try to break that cycle.  The argument could be made that suburban schools should get less because they do not need as much money to produce a satisfactory result.  C-Dawg, you are not educated on this topic.  You fail to see the purpose of education.  Are you a teacher?  Do you know what it takes to provide a good education?  The Cleveland schools have a shrinking budget due to lower tax revenue, they needed the levy to provide the same level of services.  I also find it ridiculous that you can comment on the motivations of the staff.  There are many many motivated teachers who choose to work in Cleveland schools because they want to make a difference.  Many young and talented teachers were let go because of the cuts.  It is sad because Cleveland has lost a lot of teaching talent.  On the flip side, there are teachers who are unmotivated and just waiting for retirement.  This is true inner city and suburban environments.  Yes, motivation is a problem in that respect, but it is not particular to one part of the city.

You claim that money is being wasted.  Tell me exactly where the money is being wasted.  Are you trying to say that inner city students deserve less money because they don't work as hard?   Isn't that the point of education?  More does need to be invested in these schools to break the chain.  You break that chain now so that the next generation will be more susceptible to an education.  That is the whole point.  You are missing that point.     

 

In both suburban and inner-city schools, most teachers are trained in the same way (part of the problem), there is not much of a difference in funding, and they have the same set curriculum and standards. It's just that suburban schools are largely meeting those standards and inner-city schools are not. Comparing public schools to private schools is apples to oranges. Many private schools spend way less money than publics and blow away their performance. It's all about what's going on outside of school. Also, there are inner city schools that produce a ton of good students that do go on to college, just not as many as the suburbs. The problem is rarely funding, but the demographics of the area the school is in. When parents are poor, they are less likely to motivate their students to learn, and throwing all the money in the world at the school will do nothing to change that fact. Even so, there are inner city schools in poor areas getting the job done in spades. Take Bowsher High School in Toledo- a public school in a slightly lower income area (mostly working class) that makes many suburban schools look like sh!t. It has Latin and Japanese and every AP class. The reasons for this have nothing to do with money. The teachers at the school motivate their students, and make college a real option for these kids. Good leadership can work miracles even in some areas. I also think that it's the teacher's job to tailor their teaching to the inner-city. It makes no sense for teachers not to have some accountability. That's sending the wrong message to kids about the way our society functions. How many of public schools let their students do in-depth teacher evaluations each semester? In universities everywhere, that's standard practice, but not in public K-12 education. That's bullsh!t. Kids have a right to be heard. I don't care if they are 6 or 26, ghetto or suburban- their opinion matters.

 

You ask where money is being wasted? What's the salary of the superintendent of Cleveland Public? What's the average salary of a teacher at Cleveland Public in comparison to the suburbs, and is it justified? How much are the schools spending on high-tech security? What are janitors getting paid? Is per pupil spending more than some of the top performing schools in the area? How does it compare to the private schools that send more kids to college?

 

The problem with Cleveland Public is that it's poorly managed and the standards have gotten so low, they don't drive their students to anything but a continued life in poverty. Welcome to public education in the inner-city. It's a joke. They can bitch all they want about money, but they need to get hard and make do with what they have like everyone else. Find me one school that doesn't bitch about funding. There's a good reason why Cleveland has a voucher program.

 

http://www.schoolreport.com/schoolreport/articles/cleveland_03_02.htm

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C-Dawg, Locutus, what do you guys know about the management of the Cleveland Public School systems.  How do you know it's poorly managed?  Is it the increasingly clean audits it has received over the past couple of years, or the continually improving bond rating that it now has, allowing it to borrow money more cheaply?  Perhaps it is the rising test scores or the improving (I admit, still low) graduation rate.  Or is it the fact that 70% of those who do graduate go on to college?

 

I'm not saying that CPS are up to the standard of a quality education yet, but they have made HUGE strides in terms of management and education in recent years, in the face of declining income and state support.  And I don't appreciate people who don't know what the hell they are talking about thinking that they really know what's up with the schools.  Can either of you can back up your contention that the problem is with the actual management of the schools?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C-Dawg, Locutus, what do you guys know about the management of the Cleveland Public School systems.  How do you know it's poorly managed?  Is it the increasingly clean audits it has received over the past couple of years, or the continually improving bond rating that it now has, allowing it to borrow money more cheaply?  Perhaps it is the rising test scores or the improving (I admit, still low) graduation rate.  Or is it the fact that 70% of those who do graduate go on to college?

 

I'm not saying that CPS are up to the standard of a quality education yet, but they have made HUGE strides in terms of management and education in recent years, in the face of declining income and state support.  And I don't appreciate people who don't know what the hell they are talking about thinking that they really know what's up with the schools.  Can either of you can back up your contention that the problem is with the actual management of the schools?

 

I have to ask if you actually went to Cleveland Public (and recently). If not, then you don't know what you are talking about anymore than I do. The students of this district are the ones we need to be hearing. And where are these "strides"? Their test scores are still deplorable and if I'm not mistaken the school district is still "Academic Emergency." If their test scores are rising, how do they compare to other schools? This means a hell of a lot more than the raw numbers. If you compared any inner city school district today to the best suburban school district 20 years ago, the inner city of today would probably blow it away. Education is improving everywhere, but if there's still a huge gap between the top and bottom, then nothing in our society changes. This is a capitalist society, and how you compare to others is more important than basic math. Standards always should rise. Give me the suburban results too and then we'll talk seriously. Otherwise you are discounting the improvement of suburban districts. I would wager many ot them have improving test scores and graduation rates too. They might actually be improving faster than Cleveland Public which only widens the gap.

 

I won't even start on the actual graduation rate in Cleveland. Bad management? Read my link. Cleveland pays janitors way more than teachers- bad financial decision in my mind. 25% percent of students are absent any given day- sounds like they really got their shit together. At my school, if you skipped, the cops could come to your house and take you back to school. I'm happy to hear there is improvement, but Cleveland Public, like public education in general is not so great. I don't think the real education starts until college- hence why I'm a huge backer of PSO.

 

When schools like those in Cleveland get the money they do and produce their results, it naturally comes back to the leaders in the district. That's how most of our society works. Someone has to be accountable. The high ranked suburban schools that get less money than Cleveland Public per pupil must be doing something better. Yeah, they have an easier job teaching kids out in the suburbs, but no one likes to hear excuses- only solutions. I think Cleveland's only possible solution lies in the leadership (school board, principals, and teachers), because the culture that produces their "problem" students isn't going anywhere. Cleveland Public needs to motivate these kids, offer more alternatives for their kids who are not graduating, which thankfully they are doing, and still some more. More power to Cleveland Public if they have a good bond rating, but I don't think that will change teaching techniques. It's not simply a money issue. Should our society pay teachers more? Maybe some of them, but as long as there are public schools making the grade in the suburbs, this probably won't happen.

 

Personally, I think public K-12 education in this country is laughable. I went to a decent public high school, and it still was pretty weak in my mind. Very cut and dry- not designed to produce creative individuals who will become leaders.

 

I come from the hard-ass school of education where teachers have to be parents, because in our culture someone needs to motivate kids to learn. Many kids see their teachers more than their blood parents. This is sad and represents a major problem with our culture, but I don't see any change soon. Families are getting less attention than ever.

 

I was kicked out of school when I was 13, forced into remedial classes at my new school, and worked my way back up to advanced course in just a couple of years. If it wasn't for a few of my teachers who took their jobs very seriously, this wouldn't have happened, so I'm always quick to blame the countless bad teachers, school board members, and principals in school districts for failures. And in some instances the kids are to blame too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...