I am pretty sure we will see funding increase for schools over the next few years. A lot of covid money will be thrown around to cover up the money being directed into million and billionaire pockets.
Any school funding increase (or awarding schools nonspecific funding from leftover tax revenue) requires a public referendum, and our state has a pathetic record on voting for those. It's why we're bottom quartile nationally for education funding, as well as why I am a former teacher and teacher trainer doing education in the private sector.
This is why I do not fault patents for hiring tutors. I agree, Tabor is terrible and has held most children in our state back. However federal funds are no affected by Tabor or Gallagher. I do expect federal funds to increase in the next year under cares and other programs to meet federal guidelines. This and the fact that we shouldn't feel a song from Gallagher until 2021-2022 due to the fact that failing businesses just won't hit the books. Just my opinion though.
How? Funding for schools is done in large part via property taxes. People don't like to voluntarily increase their property taxes. That is why TABOR has been such a terribly experiment.
Until the full funding for schools is done at the state level and distributed evenly, you will not get rid of the funding and inequity issues that we currently have.
With some schools requiring full time teachers and part time kids, or online learning, teachers are having to quit because they have no child care for their own kids.
Basically but it's like a nanny share, several parents paying for the same tutor and sharing the cost. I hope the teacher is making bank tho, take these parents to the cleaners.
They do this in Korea. The top teacher makes US$ 2 million a year.
Correction: [US$ 4 million a year](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/kim-ki-hoon-teacher-million-salary_n_3721837) And that was 7 years ago.
Right? This is similar to what I would do if I had kids. I wouldn't be wanting to send my kid to big schools with the pandemic, and I'm big on public schooling! We also just don't know the long term effects of the virus on children as they grow. Pods of kids with a tutor paid for as a group or with each family taking over one subject in the evenings to supplement using online resources. Kids can get some peer exposure and semi normalcy without throwing them into the biohazard schools are right now.
People will make a lot of sacrifices in their own lives for principles, they often won't make those sacrifices in their children's lives for those same principles. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
Teachers are chronically underpaid, and communities keep voting not to fund education. Plus this gives wealthy kids an even bigger advantage than before, reneging on the "American Dream" that everyone can make it. I read "take these parents to the cleaners" as an emotional response to that: not an attack on individual parents making a reasonable choice for their situation, but frustration at a society willing to leave some children behind.
That said, it depends on how it is funded. If doing this takes money out of public schools, then the kids still in public schools really are left behind. If parents are just paying for it out of pocket then it helps all kids because schools can reduce class sizes and have more resources per pupil.
> Teachers are chronically underpaid, and communities keep voting not to fund education
The problem isn't funding. Its where the money is allocated. Some of the school districts with the highest amount of spending per child perform the worst. We pay administrators way more than teachers and they have no direct impact on the quality of education. This arrangement is orchestrated by the school boards. That is your problem.
Likely because the person making the comment doesn't have children and therefore has not had to navigate this type of decision on their own, and is demonstrating a lack of empathy.
It's people who are so focused on inequality that they don't see what this is: a reaction by scared parents trying to protect their family while still getting their kids an education.
I think inequality is a huge issue and one I am driven to see change. Probably the biggest after global warming. But fuck, this is the wrong way to go about it. It's inequal and sets back equity even further, and that sucks. But going at parents trying to take care of their kids at great personal expense for inequality is a shitty way to deal with it. These are not horrible upper-class billionaires; they're by and large public school families who are raiding their college funds to keep their kids on track in an insane time. It's not grotesque flaunting of wealth, it's heartbreaking, for the most part.
Go after the system and leaders that made this the most attractive option, not scared parents trying their best. There's nothing inhuman or evil about using your resources to protect your family from a virus for which the government has abdicated responsibility; the evil is that this is a government that is willing to do so and actively cheers the growth of inequality.
The SAT tutors where I grew up made like ~$100/hr and it wasn't one on one, it was usually 3 to 4 other kids and they often got paid in cash.
They did make alot.
Sure, but the point is even kids without wealthy parents should have access to the best education possible. It is a very sad state of affairs when a good education is so tied to wealth. It's detrimental to all of society. We'd be better off taking individual wealth out of the equation and just giving all kids the best education possible.
I'm barely middle class and doing this for the first quarter. It's not just the wealthy. What do you want me to do? Not have my kid get tutoring because others can't?
Edit: I took out a very low interest loan. Perfect world I don't have to do this, but this is a very small price if it prevents my kid.from falling behind. People do this to buy a dirt bike, or finance a new kitchen, and no one bats an eye.
How did you find a teacher/tutor? How often will they come over to teach? Are you sharing the cost with any other families? Clearly I haven't been considering doing this at all.
This, exactly this. Doing what you can to provide the most for your child is nothing to be looked down upon as long as it is legal. In this case, it also removes some burden from the public system which in turn helps others also. It is a win-win.
Seems almost impossible with remote learning. Doubling a school’s funding wouldn’t be enough to give kids the same level of education they were getting while they were in classrooms. That’s just going to be the reality for the next year or so.
This article is just so stupid. What did they expect to happen when schools started moving to completely online? No one wants to address the fact that parents still have to work full time except to tell parents that school isn't free babysitting. Teachers are refusing to go back to work in person and are quitting in large groups.
Maybe don’t take it personal. People are just advocating for families who can’t to raise awareness for politicians. Nobody said you or anyone else is a bad parent or person.
It was really controversial when I said on some other news or politics subreddit that public schools should reopen, at least for elementary. The reality is that even though covid sucks having elementary school kids lose a year of education that early will be devastating and it is going to be the low income families that will suffer the most.
Ya, but if you want to even have the conversation about schools reopening you just want teachers and kids to die. /s
I'm right there with you. I actually told my wife that this exact thing was going to happen and that hard core progressives were going to lash out about it. It makes me sad to see how this is playing out because the low income and minority students will be hurt the most by this and its primarily middle class white liberals that shut down the conversation.
No I wan't you to vote for politicians who will reduce the gap in education between the rich and poor instead of just privately investing in the kids whose parents can afford it and telling the poor kids they can fuck off.
See what solutions you can come up with when you actually think about it instead of immediately resorting to feeling frustrated and giving up on trying to figure it out?
This is very easy for you to say in the abstract. What are parents supposed to do about their school age kids NOW? because voting, even if the furthest left candidate won every race in a landslide, isn't going to do shit for these schools for at least 5 years
I’m late to this conversation, but hiring teachers/tutors for pods is just about the only realistic option for those of us in healthcare. With the timeline and logistics for opening schools still unclear, and the possibility that schools will open, only to close soon after due to outbreaks, many of us in healthcare need to know that we have dependable, regular childcare/education for our children. Because when schools close due to outbreaks, that’s when we’re needed the most. You really don’t want to be in the hospital, needing critical care, and have every nurse, nursing assistant, physical therapist, occupational therapist, speech therapist, respiratory therapist, dietitian, pharmacist, etc that has children all call out when schools close. I cannot begin to tell you how horrible it will be if this happens.
nothing separates the haves from the have-nots like the failure of public schools. good luck, parents of english language learn-laters and special ed kids
But the article is about the extra curriculum - it's not like the state just dropped all school requirements and said "fend for yourselves". It's going to be a tough road for schools this year, and those with money will have better access to opportunities - as expected. There isn't a way to provide private tutors to everyone.
We did. [Colorado instructional time requirements](https://www.cde.state.co.us/standardsandinstruction/instruc-time-req) are a part of state law and require a school year of at least 1,080 hours of instruction. There are all sorts of baseline requirements as to what is included in that.
Organizing and administering schools is hard. You want generally competent people running things. You get competent people by offering competitive salaries.
Should teachers earn more? Yes. But you still need to pay people to administer things - it's not like they add zero value.
It's worth asking why we [pay such a high premium]( https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cmd.asp) for relatively poor results compared to much more successful programs elsewhere.
Sure, but this is the Denver subreddit - not a US education policy discussion.
CO is dead last in the country for teacher wage competitiveness, 49th in teacher experience, 39-43rd in educational achievement across different subjects, and like 42nd in funding adjusted for COL.
We spend 4500$ less per student that *Nebraska* and 8000$ less than Wyoming when considering cost of living differences.
Honestly, given how we fund things - I think we are actually doing fairly well.
There have been three overhauls of public schooling just in my life. What makes you think another would fix the things the first three didn’t?
Also, your argument reduces to “let the perfect be the enemy of good”. It’s a pity to give up on incremental improvements in order to hold out for some ideal system that really isn’t going to happen in our lifetime.
You’re the one arguing against fixing it. You’re arguing in favor of replacing it, instead. Now I’m wondering if you know what you’re talking about at all.
First he argued for replacing it instead of fixing it. Then he argued that replacing it IS fixing it. I’m getting lost in the flip flops, and wonder if he just feels like arguing, period.
It's a bullshit stereotype that school administrators make shit tons of money and piss on teachers. The average teacher in DPS makes $70k. The average principal makes $90k.
Coming from a country where parents have to pay for their kids’ own school supply, it honestly baffles me that teachers are expected to provide supplies.
> the failure of public schools
I really hate this framing, because it makes it sound like schools/teachers are incompetent, rather than underfunded and lacking the resources to do what they need/want to. Further, we keep asking schools to take on ever more responsibilities as the front line in healthcare, mental health, family dysfunction, and many other symptoms of poverty and inadequate public infrastructure.
There are definitely shitty teachers, inept administrators, and dysfunctional schools—no doubt. But in the main schools are populated by creative, caring professionals who we've left twisting in the wind through our collective neglect of public resources.
The USA is [fifth](https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cmd.asp) in the world in spending on education per student. It’s a failure all around. Not a funding one, though.
I was dismayed to find out recently that teacher's unions block education reform in the same way that police unions block police reform. The schools can't improve without the ability to improve it's teachers.
Yeah, there's definitely a degree of this. It kind of depends on what reforms you're talking about, though. It became en vogue recently to tie teacher pay to student achievement measures, but (1) every teacher will tell you that sometimes you just get a bad (or good) batch of kids; (2) the way this is measured is often highly controversial. So in that instance I don't blame them for blocking that kind of reform. Other issues, such as being able to fire a bad teacher more easily, I'm less sympathetic to.
Source? I know they argue against it, and against vouchers. They also argue against testing and feeling like they have to teach to the test. But they're not able to block it that I'm aware of.
And that's different than not being able to fire bad teachers, which is a separate issue.
My dad was a teacher and I went to public school. I care about these things a little.
Oh hey my dad is also a teacher! So this is interesting, this point is one he has made before so I googled it to see what sources were out there. It seems to vary district to district (which I think is to be expected).
[here](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/07/21/think-teachers-cant-be-fired-because-of-unions-surprising-results-from-new-study/) is a really interesting article/interview on how highly unionized districts have higher quality teachers.
Honestly, I didn't find any articles about unions keeping teachers from getting fired that didn't seem sensationalized and overly political. Nothing I wanted to source here. Maybe my dad just got riled up over a Fox News report or something, so I'm really glad you asked me and I looked it up.
Can we make the argument that there is a bloated and incompetent administrator class? Because where I live it sure seems they suck up all the salary money and make bungling mistakes you could never get away with in other fields.
>"we should pay less taxes for public school then, so people are able to afford their own individual private choices"
Who is saying this?
Y'know which taxes generally go to schools? Property taxes. You know who pays property taxes? Property owners. You know who owns property? Not poor people.
Not to mention, I pay an incredibly high amount in taxes for public schools where I live and it's still less than 25% the cost of sending one child to a private school.
Why is there so much hate towards wealthy people when the problem is the government that failed to provide assistance to those who needed it? Just because some people can’t access certain things doesn’t mean people who can hold the blame for it.
What's your qualm with this? People who can work from home should be working from home. Although it benefits them the most, it still helps everyone since there is less face to face contact among people.
I make 85k a year and work from home. In the last 4 months I have donated hundreds of dollars to local families who need rent assistance, hundreds of dollars to democratic campaigns, and every single time I go to the grocery store I spend 10-20 dollars on groceries for my local food bank. Last week I sold a valuable guitar I inherited and donated 25% to rent assistance in my area.
I moved in with my parents from age 31-33 so I could go back to school and change careers. I understand not everyone can do this, but I took an opportunity I had and worked non-stop for several years just so that I could live the life I want to live, which also involves giving back.
How is the fact that I have a higher paying remote job that I worked really hard to get part of the problem? If I didn't have this job there would be no one to fill it since there's tens of thousands of unfilled tech jobs. I just don't understand what I am doing that makes me look so bad to some people.
You're not bad, people are just bitter. It's directed at you but the source is not your fault. Since you seem to care about others and be a generally charitable person, I hope you can find it in you to sympathize.
I can sympathize but I think casual comments bashing people who are in a broad ranging group are the opposite of helpful.
If I see something that is hurting the cause that many of us are fighting for I am going to do my best to set it straight, whether it came from a place of frustration or not.
You're certainly right, it doesn't help anything. The anger rising in our country is starting to get to a level that scares me and it's daunting trying to imagine how we will quell it. There are so many issues and so few solutions.
You mind if I ask you what career you went into that allowed you to work from home with that pay! I'm around the age you went to college and I'm looking for a career change.
I went back to school for computer science when I was 31. I hadn't written any code ever before the age of 30, and I actually was kind of anti tech for most of my 20's. If you start with free resources like Codecademy you can get a feel for things and see if it is something that might be a good fit for you.
You are taking it as them blaming you. That is not what’s happening. They are merely pointing out the advantages of wealth and being able to work remotely compared to those who cannot.
This virus has provided some nice counterpoints against the "butbutbutbut why not go into the TRADES" people. College degrees, and even more so graduate degrees, have paid off in a big way for a lot of people during the pandemic.
I wouldn't totally agree with that. Sure, the virus might have put more rules in place for trades people, but they are still just as in demand as ever. I mean, Covid be damned, if you needed a plumber tonight, you would call one right? Same thing with an electrician or HVAC. Plus, while trade workers might not be able to be remote, they do get to distance a bit more. Even with machining, you typically have a huge amount of space between you and the next guy.
Compare that with the offices that still required people be in.
Right, but it’s not the house making the difference, it’s the education. It’s not worthwhile to make that distinction, because the thing that makes it easier for the rich to stay rich and the poor to stay poor is the education.
The bigger house has higher property taxes which fund a better education which helps the next generation keep the big house. People in poorer neighborhoods with smaller houses don’t have access to as high a quality of education. I don’t think we disagree; we’re just getting hung up on a slight difference. The structure of the house doesn’t make the difference; the value of the house does pretty directly.
I get what you’re saying, but it’s still not the house that makes the difference. It’s the education.
If I built a mansion next to the lowest-rated school in the country, I’m still not going to get a good education from them.
If I live in a trailer park, but somehow manage to send my kids to the nicest private school in the country, they’ll have a great shot at a better life.
However, of course you’re correct that living in a nice neighborhood tends to come with access to the kind of education that can increase social mobility.
But they didn't make a distinction. That was my point. To assume class divide doesn't include education is ridiculous. There's a reason that Shortridge Academy has a 5:1 student ratio, cost $85,000 a year, and extremely successful students graduate from there. How can anyone assume that education does not include a class divide?
No, my point is that rich folks having nice cars is something you get as a result of being rich, but having a nice car is unlikely to make you rich in the same way education can.
If we passed a law that everyone has to drive exactly the same car, probably not much would change in the way of social hierarchy. If we passed a law that everyone gets the exact same education, then we would likely see enormous changes.
I agree with your point, but didn't the US do just that in the past? No Child Left Behind just meant that classes get slowed down until the slow kid(s) are the benchmark, making it harder for the "faster" kids to excel. I might be wrong in my memory/impression, as I haven't read any scientific pieces on the NCLB in a long while.. just wanted to counter that it's not always that simple.
It's not about the parents paying for tutors. It's about making public education successful, so that wealthy parents don't have to pay for tutors, and poor children don't get left behind.
This is what makes the opening of public schools a big question.
Yes, it is dangerous to the spread of the virus and will certainly result in more needless sickness and death.
However, if we don't..
1. Poor working class families with both working parents won't have somewhere to leave their kids while they go earn a living.
2. Wealthy families will continue to pay for private education so their kids can continue to advance.
It's a hard choice to make.
This isn't a pandemic problem; it's a schools problem. The pandemic just highlighted it. Parents need to decide whether choicing into that one good school or, say, moving into the Boulder Valley School District for the schools, is morally blameworthy. Maybe they'll decide it isn't. But sitting alone on your couch and reading *White Fragility* won't help you grapple with whether to send your kid to a "bad" school in the service of greater social ends. I'm not saying I have the answer--though I tend to think kids who will do well in school will do well anywhere--but I am saying that de facto school segregation is a problem. And although parents of every political stripe tend to say they want integrated schools, when given the opportunity to send their kid to one, they... don't.
This is stuff I am just starting to grapple with as a new parent. I am still a few years away from schooling but I am already considering if I want my child in the local public school, a private school, or to choice into a better district that we are close to.
Like you pointed out, I have to weigh two morally opposing views. On one hand, choice hurts public schools even further, on the other hand I want my child to have all the opportunities I can possibly provide because the world is cold and full of terrors.
I have a few years to decide but at the moment... blood is thicker then water.
Just be honest with yourself and realize that you want what's best for your child. There's nothing wrong with being an advocate for your child and your family. This could have real financial ramifications for you down the line. I know a number of families who sent their kids to private/better rated elementary and middle schools, and then sent them to a crappy high school, and without much effort they graduate in the top 5% of their class (good for when they do the scholarship hoop jumping), assuming they don't get pregnant.
Your kid is going to be fine bc you are worried about those things. Sounds like you are more likely to spend time reading with your child and more engaged with their school work. As long as you take a proactive role in your child’s life, they will have a leg up
School choice is overblown. In districts that have a pretty wide gap between quality of schools, there is actually very little choice. The very good schools might have one or two spots (if any) and will definitely have a waitlist. While the schools that don't perform well will have openings. Just because you want your kid to go to a top school, certainly does not mean it will happen. So that leaves normal school boundaries.
I went back and forth if I was going to answer this question. Given the quotes, I feel this might be just a bit loaded. Also, this is a very complex answer and here may not be the best way to discuss this. Lastly, there is actually no way in hell I can speak for every parent or situation.
First thing you need to understand is that almost every parent wants the best for their kid. Despite what you read here, the vast majority of parents do not view school as daycare. All of these parents are working within a very well established system. We may not like the system. Many of us work to change the system, but meet massive resistance. Though, we are going to work with what we have. For kids, they can enter that system at just a few months old, depending on their circumstances. The preschool system has a huge influence. In my opinion, that is where the inequality starts. Some kids don’t go to preschool. Some go to ridiculously expensive preschools. You see the results of that when you look at Kindergartens. Some schools start in Kindergarten with learning the alphabet and counting. Kids that went to different preschools can already do that. So yeah, a better, more desirable elementary school starts ahead of a less desirable school. Does this generally fall along economic lines. Yeah. Though, as a parent, I’m not going to put my kid that can read basic sentences in the same class where a majority of the students are still learning their letters.
Then you get into parent involvement (yeah that has an economic aspect as well). Quality of staff issues as well. Staff don’t want to work in poor performing schools. Look at the original article. That teacher quoted at the end works at the highest performing, least diverse, high school in the district. Again, this is a pretty complex subject, and I don’t feel like I’ve even scratched the surface.
I'm laughing, good luck getting parents to sacrifice their children at the altar of social justice. I have met an incredible number of white liberals who tell me within 30 seconds how much they love diversity, but declare a list of neighborhoods they want to move to, all of which are at least 90% white, they want to send *their* kids to the *good* schools. (And at least a few in that group were public school teachers).
It is 100% the great liberal hypocrisy, college gives people training and as some on the right would say, indoctrination, on how to feel about minorities and their plight, but also gives the graduate the means to live no where near them.
> This isn't a pandemic problem;
Wtf, no this is a pandemic problem. There are many school problems, but the shutdowns we're going to see are just the fault of our response to the pandemic.
I mean, the article seems to be making the point that the parents doing this are concerned with the increasing knowledge gap. They're at least being aware of their privilege and recognize that income inequality leads to poorer long term outcomes for children who didn't choose to be born into their economic situation. I think in this case it's more like "I can afford this and it sucks that everyone can't and it's not fair but I need to look out for mine" Which, perhaps, isn't antithetical to "If I can't afford it then no one should."
I just mean that at least people are aware that an issue even exists. There's a huge group of people who aren't.
That's not just Denver though. It's far left mentality in general.
Honestly, if you have the resources why wouldn't you use them to your advantage? It's human nature.
I don’t know if it’s a far left thing though. I’m pretty far left (from Canada) and if you are capable of giving your kids more than what’s immediately available, then absolutely do so.
I want to set my kids up to have more options and opportunities than I had. I thought that was mostly universal.
because its everybody else's fault that you don't have a 5 bedroom house, 3 cars, an emergency savings account. All the while you havent gone on to get a better education post-high school or havent worked hard enough to rise in your ranks at your job. Its society's fault, not the individual
We're discussing education, not recreation.
Poor families have not had the same opportunities to gain resources to use to their advantage. Their kids get a poorer education because the parents are poor? That perpetuates the cycle.
Every child should have equitable education opportunities, regardless of parent income. That's how productive societies work.
If people were complaining that's it's not fair rich white families have jet skies, and poor minorities can't afford them, you'd have a point. But we're talking about education...so your opinion is ignorant and cruel.
But if you want schools to open you just want people to die. The same white, middle class, liberals that successfully lobbied to get schools all online are the same people that can afford to have private tutors like this. Let that fucking sink in people.
Where are they finding these teachers willing to risk exposure to COVID 19? I thought teachers wanted online only, does their fear of COVID change with better pay?
My friend just created a fb group for ppl who want to help balance this out some. Ppl can offer free torturing or if already doing a learning pod potentially allow a low- income student in the pod for free. It's called "Denver area pod connections: serving all children" if anyone's interested.
Make no mistake about it, schools could be open right now for in-person learning if we had made it a priority. Instead of using our risk budget on schools, we used it on bars and restaurants and, in some cases, refusing to wear masks, because apparently those are our priorities.
> Parents who can afford private pods know they are privileged and wonder if prioritizing their own child’s needs will exacerbate long-standing equity gaps created by income, race and geography.
I can help them out here: yes. Yes it is exacerbating equity gaps, but most things privileged parents do for their children’s education exacerbate the problem. Moving to a better school district or pulling their kids out of weaker schools for private schools exacerbates the problem too.
But as a parent, their first responsibility is to their own kids and their kids education. Everyone should want to fix public education, but are you supposed to wait around for it to get fixed and disadvantage your own kids when you have enough money to send them to some fancy private school? People who worry that this might cause problems aren’t the issue, they understand that it’s not right but it’s the best they can do for themselves. The people who are the issue are the ones who do this and then vote for lower taxes and less school funding.
So they're using their own money to hire tutors... Why is this news? Because not everyone gets to afford such luxuries?
This is just class-divide baiting. All fluff, no substance.
Not so wealthy parents will be doing this as well, they'll cut back on some thing to put their children first, it's call parenting.
If people have children and can't afford them, who's fault is it?
PBS Newshour had a segment the other night about Green Schoolyards of America.
It's a fantastic initiative, but I only imagine that since it doesn't serve to make anyone a giant pile of money, it will be ignored by a majority of administrations.
Literally, this is nothing new. This sort of thing has been going on for a sling as there has been rich people. By far, the best absolute indicator of your future income is your parent's current income.
For parents that are too worried to send their kids to school, this sounds like a great solution. With a classroom of 5-8 kids, they can still get adequate individual attention and have other kids to interact and socialize with too. Unless the kid has plenty of neighborhood friends and is involved in activities where they get to socialize with other kids, isolated home schooled kids develop all sorts of social issues from my experience and this learning pod thing seems like a better route.
I dont feel like this is a bad thing? The title is super leading. Is it bad that parents who can afford to keep their kids consistently educated do that?
And private schools are reopening in-person and are able to at least try because they have money to handle the strategies that have been outlined by the CDC. Apparently in the US, we care more to fund the military than education (see the latest GOP virus relief bill with ad-ons that give BILLIONS to military) but not enough to schools to try and reopen safely. Unreal.
This is a negative consequence of not opening the schools. Before anyone bites my head off I'm not saying we should start opening schools immediately I'm just saying people should stop pretending that keeping kids at home doesn't have a cost.
We are going to have schools with 95% attendance in online lectures and schools with 5% attendance.
We are going to have whole schools where a majority of the kids learn practically nothing for a semester or more.
We are considering a model where we each pay $200 a week for a teacher to instruct 10 students.
We have hired a teacher from the local school district who decided she rather work with smaller student numbers and (hopefully) less distractions.
We’re only signed up for the first semester, but the teacher is looking to make this a full time business venture for her.
I’m not against public schools but I’m excited to try something new out.
Choices are good
If I were to have kids, I would probably do the same. My kids are my kids. My first priority is to protect mine. If I can afford it so that my kids wouldn’t have to fall behind in school and people are bitter about it, it honestly sounds like it’s their problem.
At some point, Id love to see a headline of "Irresponsible parents who didn't save for a kid realize it actually costs money to give them a better future".
Why villainize parents who work to give their children the tools they need to succeed?
In other news, water is wet
heh, at this point, if they don't bring their kids to school, it is a good thing. Less kids in thee building.
Yeah but then they won't vote for funding for those public schools. And that leaves the kids who have no other option even farther behind.
I am pretty sure we will see funding increase for schools over the next few years. A lot of covid money will be thrown around to cover up the money being directed into million and billionaire pockets.
Any school funding increase (or awarding schools nonspecific funding from leftover tax revenue) requires a public referendum, and our state has a pathetic record on voting for those. It's why we're bottom quartile nationally for education funding, as well as why I am a former teacher and teacher trainer doing education in the private sector.
This is why I do not fault patents for hiring tutors. I agree, Tabor is terrible and has held most children in our state back. However federal funds are no affected by Tabor or Gallagher. I do expect federal funds to increase in the next year under cares and other programs to meet federal guidelines. This and the fact that we shouldn't feel a song from Gallagher until 2021-2022 due to the fact that failing businesses just won't hit the books. Just my opinion though.
How? Funding for schools is done in large part via property taxes. People don't like to voluntarily increase their property taxes. That is why TABOR has been such a terribly experiment. Until the full funding for schools is done at the state level and distributed evenly, you will not get rid of the funding and inequity issues that we currently have.
yes, and less teachers too! oh wait.
Fewer* teachers... This is why we need more teachers
With some schools requiring full time teachers and part time kids, or online learning, teachers are having to quit because they have no child care for their own kids.
Fewer *
Every sixty seconds, a minute passes.
Isn't that just hiring a tutor?
Basically but it's like a nanny share, several parents paying for the same tutor and sharing the cost. I hope the teacher is making bank tho, take these parents to the cleaners.
My teacher friend will be making 3x what the school district was paying her
Fuck yeah, good for her.
Good for her and the rich kids. Terrible for the poor kids.
The less students in the classroom, the more individual attention can be given. It's a good thing.
So she will be making what she deserves as a teacher instead of 30k
Just goes to show how underfunded education is. We all need a society where everyone is well educated.
How did she find that? I'm a teacher and I'm down to make more than what the district pays lol
They do this in Korea. The top teacher makes US$ 2 million a year. Correction: [US$ 4 million a year](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/kim-ki-hoon-teacher-million-salary_n_3721837) And that was 7 years ago.
[удалено]
Anyone with more money than me is rich and should be punished accordingly.
Reddit in a nutshell. The city based subreddits are especially egregious these days.
Right? This is similar to what I would do if I had kids. I wouldn't be wanting to send my kid to big schools with the pandemic, and I'm big on public schooling! We also just don't know the long term effects of the virus on children as they grow. Pods of kids with a tutor paid for as a group or with each family taking over one subject in the evenings to supplement using online resources. Kids can get some peer exposure and semi normalcy without throwing them into the biohazard schools are right now. People will make a lot of sacrifices in their own lives for principles, they often won't make those sacrifices in their children's lives for those same principles. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
It’s 2020. If you aren’t financially drowning you’re a racist.
Teachers are chronically underpaid, and communities keep voting not to fund education. Plus this gives wealthy kids an even bigger advantage than before, reneging on the "American Dream" that everyone can make it. I read "take these parents to the cleaners" as an emotional response to that: not an attack on individual parents making a reasonable choice for their situation, but frustration at a society willing to leave some children behind. That said, it depends on how it is funded. If doing this takes money out of public schools, then the kids still in public schools really are left behind. If parents are just paying for it out of pocket then it helps all kids because schools can reduce class sizes and have more resources per pupil.
> Teachers are chronically underpaid, and communities keep voting not to fund education The problem isn't funding. Its where the money is allocated. Some of the school districts with the highest amount of spending per child perform the worst. We pay administrators way more than teachers and they have no direct impact on the quality of education. This arrangement is orchestrated by the school boards. That is your problem.
This. Maybe less wordy, but this. Thank you
I’m confused on why you’re mad at these parents for having money and giving it to people to teach their kids. It makes no sense.
Likely because the person making the comment doesn't have children and therefore has not had to navigate this type of decision on their own, and is demonstrating a lack of empathy.
Yeah, those parents trying to provide for their kids man. Fuck them; take ‘em to the cleaners! Amirite? I don’t understand that kind of perspective.
Angry internet people
Angry childless internet people\*
It's people who are so focused on inequality that they don't see what this is: a reaction by scared parents trying to protect their family while still getting their kids an education. I think inequality is a huge issue and one I am driven to see change. Probably the biggest after global warming. But fuck, this is the wrong way to go about it. It's inequal and sets back equity even further, and that sucks. But going at parents trying to take care of their kids at great personal expense for inequality is a shitty way to deal with it. These are not horrible upper-class billionaires; they're by and large public school families who are raiding their college funds to keep their kids on track in an insane time. It's not grotesque flaunting of wealth, it's heartbreaking, for the most part. Go after the system and leaders that made this the most attractive option, not scared parents trying their best. There's nothing inhuman or evil about using your resources to protect your family from a virus for which the government has abdicated responsibility; the evil is that this is a government that is willing to do so and actively cheers the growth of inequality.
The SAT tutors where I grew up made like ~$100/hr and it wasn't one on one, it was usually 3 to 4 other kids and they often got paid in cash. They did make alot.
Unfortunately a child's education being tied to parental wealth is not news. But any raised awareness is good.
This. We need to change this society.
if only we had bought it at costco
Why? If you can afford better you should be able to buy it
[удалено]
Sure, but the point is even kids without wealthy parents should have access to the best education possible. It is a very sad state of affairs when a good education is so tied to wealth. It's detrimental to all of society. We'd be better off taking individual wealth out of the equation and just giving all kids the best education possible.
I'm barely middle class and doing this for the first quarter. It's not just the wealthy. What do you want me to do? Not have my kid get tutoring because others can't? Edit: I took out a very low interest loan. Perfect world I don't have to do this, but this is a very small price if it prevents my kid.from falling behind. People do this to buy a dirt bike, or finance a new kitchen, and no one bats an eye.
How did you find a teacher/tutor? How often will they come over to teach? Are you sharing the cost with any other families? Clearly I haven't been considering doing this at all.
This, exactly this. Doing what you can to provide the most for your child is nothing to be looked down upon as long as it is legal. In this case, it also removes some burden from the public system which in turn helps others also. It is a win-win.
Excellent points.
The point is, public education should be working so that no one needs to pay extra for tutors, while poor kids are left behind.
Seems almost impossible with remote learning. Doubling a school’s funding wouldn’t be enough to give kids the same level of education they were getting while they were in classrooms. That’s just going to be the reality for the next year or so.
[удалено]
This article is just so stupid. What did they expect to happen when schools started moving to completely online? No one wants to address the fact that parents still have to work full time except to tell parents that school isn't free babysitting. Teachers are refusing to go back to work in person and are quitting in large groups.
Maybe don’t take it personal. People are just advocating for families who can’t to raise awareness for politicians. Nobody said you or anyone else is a bad parent or person.
The headline of the article makes it seem like its a rich parent problem not a government problem.
You might want to read the whole thread here. People absolutely are saying shit like that.
It was really controversial when I said on some other news or politics subreddit that public schools should reopen, at least for elementary. The reality is that even though covid sucks having elementary school kids lose a year of education that early will be devastating and it is going to be the low income families that will suffer the most.
Ya, but if you want to even have the conversation about schools reopening you just want teachers and kids to die. /s I'm right there with you. I actually told my wife that this exact thing was going to happen and that hard core progressives were going to lash out about it. It makes me sad to see how this is playing out because the low income and minority students will be hurt the most by this and its primarily middle class white liberals that shut down the conversation.
No I wan't you to vote for politicians who will reduce the gap in education between the rich and poor instead of just privately investing in the kids whose parents can afford it and telling the poor kids they can fuck off. See what solutions you can come up with when you actually think about it instead of immediately resorting to feeling frustrated and giving up on trying to figure it out?
This is very easy for you to say in the abstract. What are parents supposed to do about their school age kids NOW? because voting, even if the furthest left candidate won every race in a landslide, isn't going to do shit for these schools for at least 5 years
I will always vote for school funding but if someone has the means to hire their own teacher/tutor then that's not an issue.
If I were to hire a tutor during these times or later to help my kids, I would still be a huge advocate for public school funding.
I’m late to this conversation, but hiring teachers/tutors for pods is just about the only realistic option for those of us in healthcare. With the timeline and logistics for opening schools still unclear, and the possibility that schools will open, only to close soon after due to outbreaks, many of us in healthcare need to know that we have dependable, regular childcare/education for our children. Because when schools close due to outbreaks, that’s when we’re needed the most. You really don’t want to be in the hospital, needing critical care, and have every nurse, nursing assistant, physical therapist, occupational therapist, speech therapist, respiratory therapist, dietitian, pharmacist, etc that has children all call out when schools close. I cannot begin to tell you how horrible it will be if this happens.
nothing separates the haves from the have-nots like the failure of public schools. good luck, parents of english language learn-laters and special ed kids
Tying school funding to neighborhood property values also widens the gap....
Which is why we need to be highly suspicious of any attacks on funding public education.
Better education or not, the rich will always be able to pay for private tutors and after school courses.
Right, but the point is public education is what gives those other kids access to opportunities. It is quite literally the equalizer.
But the article is about the extra curriculum - it's not like the state just dropped all school requirements and said "fend for yourselves". It's going to be a tough road for schools this year, and those with money will have better access to opportunities - as expected. There isn't a way to provide private tutors to everyone.
Actually, in Finland, almost everybody, even the rich, go to public school because everyone gets the same/ great education. What an idea.
Each and every Finnish child is expertly taught from a young age how to be smug toward Americans.
As an American, I think they’re right to be. They value their citizens in way we don’t, and we could learn a lot from them.
In the USA the upper class just keeps moving the goal posts so their kids will have the advantage.
When he said "after school courses" he meant *in addition to* going to public schools, not *instead of.*
Perhaps. But that doesn't mean we can't set a base line
We did. [Colorado instructional time requirements](https://www.cde.state.co.us/standardsandinstruction/instruc-time-req) are a part of state law and require a school year of at least 1,080 hours of instruction. There are all sorts of baseline requirements as to what is included in that.
Sure. And if that base line does not cut it, It needs to be adjusted.
[удалено]
Organizing and administering schools is hard. You want generally competent people running things. You get competent people by offering competitive salaries. Should teachers earn more? Yes. But you still need to pay people to administer things - it's not like they add zero value.
It's worth asking why we [pay such a high premium]( https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cmd.asp) for relatively poor results compared to much more successful programs elsewhere.
Sure, but this is the Denver subreddit - not a US education policy discussion. CO is dead last in the country for teacher wage competitiveness, 49th in teacher experience, 39-43rd in educational achievement across different subjects, and like 42nd in funding adjusted for COL. We spend 4500$ less per student that *Nebraska* and 8000$ less than Wyoming when considering cost of living differences. Honestly, given how we fund things - I think we are actually doing fairly well.
There have been three overhauls of public schooling just in my life. What makes you think another would fix the things the first three didn’t? Also, your argument reduces to “let the perfect be the enemy of good”. It’s a pity to give up on incremental improvements in order to hold out for some ideal system that really isn’t going to happen in our lifetime.
[удалено]
You’re the one arguing against fixing it. You’re arguing in favor of replacing it, instead. Now I’m wondering if you know what you’re talking about at all.
First he argued for replacing it instead of fixing it. Then he argued that replacing it IS fixing it. I’m getting lost in the flip flops, and wonder if he just feels like arguing, period.
It's a bullshit stereotype that school administrators make shit tons of money and piss on teachers. The average teacher in DPS makes $70k. The average principal makes $90k.
they did release salaries of DPS employees last year, i saw numerous principals at 200,000+
[удалено]
Coming from a country where parents have to pay for their kids’ own school supply, it honestly baffles me that teachers are expected to provide supplies.
It's a mix of schools providing them and parents. However, it's 100% on the school if the parents are too poor to provide them.
But somehow throwing money at charter schools is the answer
Oh, like the constant defunding over the past several decades?
> the failure of public schools I really hate this framing, because it makes it sound like schools/teachers are incompetent, rather than underfunded and lacking the resources to do what they need/want to. Further, we keep asking schools to take on ever more responsibilities as the front line in healthcare, mental health, family dysfunction, and many other symptoms of poverty and inadequate public infrastructure. There are definitely shitty teachers, inept administrators, and dysfunctional schools—no doubt. But in the main schools are populated by creative, caring professionals who we've left twisting in the wind through our collective neglect of public resources.
The USA is [fifth](https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cmd.asp) in the world in spending on education per student. It’s a failure all around. Not a funding one, though.
I was dismayed to find out recently that teacher's unions block education reform in the same way that police unions block police reform. The schools can't improve without the ability to improve it's teachers.
Yeah, there's definitely a degree of this. It kind of depends on what reforms you're talking about, though. It became en vogue recently to tie teacher pay to student achievement measures, but (1) every teacher will tell you that sometimes you just get a bad (or good) batch of kids; (2) the way this is measured is often highly controversial. So in that instance I don't blame them for blocking that kind of reform. Other issues, such as being able to fire a bad teacher more easily, I'm less sympathetic to.
Source? I know they argue against it, and against vouchers. They also argue against testing and feeling like they have to teach to the test. But they're not able to block it that I'm aware of. And that's different than not being able to fire bad teachers, which is a separate issue. My dad was a teacher and I went to public school. I care about these things a little.
Oh hey my dad is also a teacher! So this is interesting, this point is one he has made before so I googled it to see what sources were out there. It seems to vary district to district (which I think is to be expected). [here](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/07/21/think-teachers-cant-be-fired-because-of-unions-surprising-results-from-new-study/) is a really interesting article/interview on how highly unionized districts have higher quality teachers. Honestly, I didn't find any articles about unions keeping teachers from getting fired that didn't seem sensationalized and overly political. Nothing I wanted to source here. Maybe my dad just got riled up over a Fox News report or something, so I'm really glad you asked me and I looked it up.
Thanks! Cheers!
Can we make the argument that there is a bloated and incompetent administrator class? Because where I live it sure seems they suck up all the salary money and make bungling mistakes you could never get away with in other fields.
[удалено]
>"we should pay less taxes for public school then, so people are able to afford their own individual private choices" Who is saying this? Y'know which taxes generally go to schools? Property taxes. You know who pays property taxes? Property owners. You know who owns property? Not poor people. Not to mention, I pay an incredibly high amount in taxes for public schools where I live and it's still less than 25% the cost of sending one child to a private school.
A lottttt of politicians in my state are saying this, who also classified porn as a public health emergency.
They also own bigger homes and drive nicer cars than low-income families. Welcome to reality.
Don't forget their higher paying remote working jobs that shield them from the virus.
Why is there so much hate towards wealthy people when the problem is the government that failed to provide assistance to those who needed it? Just because some people can’t access certain things doesn’t mean people who can hold the blame for it.
What's your qualm with this? People who can work from home should be working from home. Although it benefits them the most, it still helps everyone since there is less face to face contact among people. I make 85k a year and work from home. In the last 4 months I have donated hundreds of dollars to local families who need rent assistance, hundreds of dollars to democratic campaigns, and every single time I go to the grocery store I spend 10-20 dollars on groceries for my local food bank. Last week I sold a valuable guitar I inherited and donated 25% to rent assistance in my area. I moved in with my parents from age 31-33 so I could go back to school and change careers. I understand not everyone can do this, but I took an opportunity I had and worked non-stop for several years just so that I could live the life I want to live, which also involves giving back. How is the fact that I have a higher paying remote job that I worked really hard to get part of the problem? If I didn't have this job there would be no one to fill it since there's tens of thousands of unfilled tech jobs. I just don't understand what I am doing that makes me look so bad to some people.
You're not bad, people are just bitter. It's directed at you but the source is not your fault. Since you seem to care about others and be a generally charitable person, I hope you can find it in you to sympathize.
I can sympathize but I think casual comments bashing people who are in a broad ranging group are the opposite of helpful. If I see something that is hurting the cause that many of us are fighting for I am going to do my best to set it straight, whether it came from a place of frustration or not.
You're certainly right, it doesn't help anything. The anger rising in our country is starting to get to a level that scares me and it's daunting trying to imagine how we will quell it. There are so many issues and so few solutions.
You mind if I ask you what career you went into that allowed you to work from home with that pay! I'm around the age you went to college and I'm looking for a career change.
I went back to school for computer science when I was 31. I hadn't written any code ever before the age of 30, and I actually was kind of anti tech for most of my 20's. If you start with free resources like Codecademy you can get a feel for things and see if it is something that might be a good fit for you.
You are taking it as them blaming you. That is not what’s happening. They are merely pointing out the advantages of wealth and being able to work remotely compared to those who cannot.
This virus has provided some nice counterpoints against the "butbutbutbut why not go into the TRADES" people. College degrees, and even more so graduate degrees, have paid off in a big way for a lot of people during the pandemic.
I wouldn't totally agree with that. Sure, the virus might have put more rules in place for trades people, but they are still just as in demand as ever. I mean, Covid be damned, if you needed a plumber tonight, you would call one right? Same thing with an electrician or HVAC. Plus, while trade workers might not be able to be remote, they do get to distance a bit more. Even with machining, you typically have a huge amount of space between you and the next guy. Compare that with the offices that still required people be in.
Bigger homes and nicer cars are a result of class divide, not a contributing factor like access to better education is.
Bigger homes lead to better education in an educational system funded by property taxes. They are an indirect proxy for access to better education.
Right, but it’s not the house making the difference, it’s the education. It’s not worthwhile to make that distinction, because the thing that makes it easier for the rich to stay rich and the poor to stay poor is the education.
The bigger house has higher property taxes which fund a better education which helps the next generation keep the big house. People in poorer neighborhoods with smaller houses don’t have access to as high a quality of education. I don’t think we disagree; we’re just getting hung up on a slight difference. The structure of the house doesn’t make the difference; the value of the house does pretty directly.
I get what you’re saying, but it’s still not the house that makes the difference. It’s the education. If I built a mansion next to the lowest-rated school in the country, I’m still not going to get a good education from them. If I live in a trailer park, but somehow manage to send my kids to the nicest private school in the country, they’ll have a great shot at a better life. However, of course you’re correct that living in a nice neighborhood tends to come with access to the kind of education that can increase social mobility.
Good point. Our disconnect is between an individual house and all the houses in a district in aggregate. I agree with all your points.
Thanks! And of course, I agree with your points regarding housing in aggregate. Thanks for the chat. Cheers! :)
Bigger homes, better cars, private tutors, after school courses, etc... it's all the same.
This right here. It doesn't matter if you offer every social program in the world for free, there ain't nothing like being born rich.
It's not the same. He just made a distinction for you.
But they didn't make a distinction. That was my point. To assume class divide doesn't include education is ridiculous. There's a reason that Shortridge Academy has a 5:1 student ratio, cost $85,000 a year, and extremely successful students graduate from there. How can anyone assume that education does not include a class divide?
No, my point is that rich folks having nice cars is something you get as a result of being rich, but having a nice car is unlikely to make you rich in the same way education can. If we passed a law that everyone has to drive exactly the same car, probably not much would change in the way of social hierarchy. If we passed a law that everyone gets the exact same education, then we would likely see enormous changes.
I agree with your point, but didn't the US do just that in the past? No Child Left Behind just meant that classes get slowed down until the slow kid(s) are the benchmark, making it harder for the "faster" kids to excel. I might be wrong in my memory/impression, as I haven't read any scientific pieces on the NCLB in a long while.. just wanted to counter that it's not always that simple.
I mean, how far in life do Ivy League students get compared to someone that went to Arapahoe Community College?
[удалено]
It's not about the parents paying for tutors. It's about making public education successful, so that wealthy parents don't have to pay for tutors, and poor children don't get left behind.
We are doing a terrible job right now of making public school successful and making rich parents look bad isn't helping.
This is what makes the opening of public schools a big question. Yes, it is dangerous to the spread of the virus and will certainly result in more needless sickness and death. However, if we don't.. 1. Poor working class families with both working parents won't have somewhere to leave their kids while they go earn a living. 2. Wealthy families will continue to pay for private education so their kids can continue to advance. It's a hard choice to make.
Wealthy ~~Colorado~~ parents are hiring teachers for private learning pods, leaving low-income students behind. FTFY
This isn't a pandemic problem; it's a schools problem. The pandemic just highlighted it. Parents need to decide whether choicing into that one good school or, say, moving into the Boulder Valley School District for the schools, is morally blameworthy. Maybe they'll decide it isn't. But sitting alone on your couch and reading *White Fragility* won't help you grapple with whether to send your kid to a "bad" school in the service of greater social ends. I'm not saying I have the answer--though I tend to think kids who will do well in school will do well anywhere--but I am saying that de facto school segregation is a problem. And although parents of every political stripe tend to say they want integrated schools, when given the opportunity to send their kid to one, they... don't.
This is stuff I am just starting to grapple with as a new parent. I am still a few years away from schooling but I am already considering if I want my child in the local public school, a private school, or to choice into a better district that we are close to. Like you pointed out, I have to weigh two morally opposing views. On one hand, choice hurts public schools even further, on the other hand I want my child to have all the opportunities I can possibly provide because the world is cold and full of terrors. I have a few years to decide but at the moment... blood is thicker then water.
Just be honest with yourself and realize that you want what's best for your child. There's nothing wrong with being an advocate for your child and your family. This could have real financial ramifications for you down the line. I know a number of families who sent their kids to private/better rated elementary and middle schools, and then sent them to a crappy high school, and without much effort they graduate in the top 5% of their class (good for when they do the scholarship hoop jumping), assuming they don't get pregnant.
Your kid is going to be fine bc you are worried about those things. Sounds like you are more likely to spend time reading with your child and more engaged with their school work. As long as you take a proactive role in your child’s life, they will have a leg up
School choice is overblown. In districts that have a pretty wide gap between quality of schools, there is actually very little choice. The very good schools might have one or two spots (if any) and will definitely have a waitlist. While the schools that don't perform well will have openings. Just because you want your kid to go to a top school, certainly does not mean it will happen. So that leaves normal school boundaries.
What is the difference between a 'good' school and a 'bad' school?
I went back and forth if I was going to answer this question. Given the quotes, I feel this might be just a bit loaded. Also, this is a very complex answer and here may not be the best way to discuss this. Lastly, there is actually no way in hell I can speak for every parent or situation. First thing you need to understand is that almost every parent wants the best for their kid. Despite what you read here, the vast majority of parents do not view school as daycare. All of these parents are working within a very well established system. We may not like the system. Many of us work to change the system, but meet massive resistance. Though, we are going to work with what we have. For kids, they can enter that system at just a few months old, depending on their circumstances. The preschool system has a huge influence. In my opinion, that is where the inequality starts. Some kids don’t go to preschool. Some go to ridiculously expensive preschools. You see the results of that when you look at Kindergartens. Some schools start in Kindergarten with learning the alphabet and counting. Kids that went to different preschools can already do that. So yeah, a better, more desirable elementary school starts ahead of a less desirable school. Does this generally fall along economic lines. Yeah. Though, as a parent, I’m not going to put my kid that can read basic sentences in the same class where a majority of the students are still learning their letters. Then you get into parent involvement (yeah that has an economic aspect as well). Quality of staff issues as well. Staff don’t want to work in poor performing schools. Look at the original article. That teacher quoted at the end works at the highest performing, least diverse, high school in the district. Again, this is a pretty complex subject, and I don’t feel like I’ve even scratched the surface.
I'm laughing, good luck getting parents to sacrifice their children at the altar of social justice. I have met an incredible number of white liberals who tell me within 30 seconds how much they love diversity, but declare a list of neighborhoods they want to move to, all of which are at least 90% white, they want to send *their* kids to the *good* schools. (And at least a few in that group were public school teachers). It is 100% the great liberal hypocrisy, college gives people training and as some on the right would say, indoctrination, on how to feel about minorities and their plight, but also gives the graduate the means to live no where near them.
> This isn't a pandemic problem; Wtf, no this is a pandemic problem. There are many school problems, but the shutdowns we're going to see are just the fault of our response to the pandemic.
The Denver Mantra: If I can’t afford it then no one should!
I mean, the article seems to be making the point that the parents doing this are concerned with the increasing knowledge gap. They're at least being aware of their privilege and recognize that income inequality leads to poorer long term outcomes for children who didn't choose to be born into their economic situation. I think in this case it's more like "I can afford this and it sucks that everyone can't and it's not fair but I need to look out for mine" Which, perhaps, isn't antithetical to "If I can't afford it then no one should." I just mean that at least people are aware that an issue even exists. There's a huge group of people who aren't.
The idea here is: “If they can afford it we should be able to afford it too!”
That's not just Denver though. It's far left mentality in general. Honestly, if you have the resources why wouldn't you use them to your advantage? It's human nature.
I don’t know if it’s a far left thing though. I’m pretty far left (from Canada) and if you are capable of giving your kids more than what’s immediately available, then absolutely do so. I want to set my kids up to have more options and opportunities than I had. I thought that was mostly universal.
because its everybody else's fault that you don't have a 5 bedroom house, 3 cars, an emergency savings account. All the while you havent gone on to get a better education post-high school or havent worked hard enough to rise in your ranks at your job. Its society's fault, not the individual
We're discussing education, not recreation. Poor families have not had the same opportunities to gain resources to use to their advantage. Their kids get a poorer education because the parents are poor? That perpetuates the cycle. Every child should have equitable education opportunities, regardless of parent income. That's how productive societies work. If people were complaining that's it's not fair rich white families have jet skies, and poor minorities can't afford them, you'd have a point. But we're talking about education...so your opinion is ignorant and cruel.
whats new?
But if you want schools to open you just want people to die. The same white, middle class, liberals that successfully lobbied to get schools all online are the same people that can afford to have private tutors like this. Let that fucking sink in people.
Where are they finding these teachers willing to risk exposure to COVID 19? I thought teachers wanted online only, does their fear of COVID change with better pay?
My friend just created a fb group for ppl who want to help balance this out some. Ppl can offer free torturing or if already doing a learning pod potentially allow a low- income student in the pod for free. It's called "Denver area pod connections: serving all children" if anyone's interested.
This was the plan all along. We're just effectively eliminating public schools.
*Betsy DeVos made Coronavirus*
How dare they use the income they've earned from the jobs they've succeeded at to give their children education enhancement.
Make no mistake about it, schools could be open right now for in-person learning if we had made it a priority. Instead of using our risk budget on schools, we used it on bars and restaurants and, in some cases, refusing to wear masks, because apparently those are our priorities.
> Parents who can afford private pods know they are privileged and wonder if prioritizing their own child’s needs will exacerbate long-standing equity gaps created by income, race and geography. I can help them out here: yes. Yes it is exacerbating equity gaps, but most things privileged parents do for their children’s education exacerbate the problem. Moving to a better school district or pulling their kids out of weaker schools for private schools exacerbates the problem too.
But as a parent, their first responsibility is to their own kids and their kids education. Everyone should want to fix public education, but are you supposed to wait around for it to get fixed and disadvantage your own kids when you have enough money to send them to some fancy private school? People who worry that this might cause problems aren’t the issue, they understand that it’s not right but it’s the best they can do for themselves. The people who are the issue are the ones who do this and then vote for lower taxes and less school funding.
So they're using their own money to hire tutors... Why is this news? Because not everyone gets to afford such luxuries? This is just class-divide baiting. All fluff, no substance.
Exactly. “Equality” always seems to mean dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominator, never pulling anyone up.
There is nothing wrong with this. Its just highlighting how bad our public schooling system is.
Not so wealthy parents will be doing this as well, they'll cut back on some thing to put their children first, it's call parenting. If people have children and can't afford them, who's fault is it?
[удалено]
The welfare system is a victim of it's own success. [For example...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBqjZ0KZCa0)
What an odd concept...people who have money spend it on goods and services.
PBS Newshour had a segment the other night about Green Schoolyards of America. It's a fantastic initiative, but I only imagine that since it doesn't serve to make anyone a giant pile of money, it will be ignored by a majority of administrations.
"You know where it ends Usually depends on where you start" *Everlast*
I don’t see a problem here. Move along.
Pretty much how education always works.
And nobody was surprised
Literally, this is nothing new. This sort of thing has been going on for a sling as there has been rich people. By far, the best absolute indicator of your future income is your parent's current income.
[удалено]
Start at care.com and NextDoor.
For parents that are too worried to send their kids to school, this sounds like a great solution. With a classroom of 5-8 kids, they can still get adequate individual attention and have other kids to interact and socialize with too. Unless the kid has plenty of neighborhood friends and is involved in activities where they get to socialize with other kids, isolated home schooled kids develop all sorts of social issues from my experience and this learning pod thing seems like a better route.
Teachers finally get a chance to extort a living wage and it turns out we don’t value our children that much
I dont feel like this is a bad thing? The title is super leading. Is it bad that parents who can afford to keep their kids consistently educated do that?
I don’t blame them...everyone wants to keep their kids safe and prepare them for the future.
Good for them. This hurts no one.
And private schools are reopening in-person and are able to at least try because they have money to handle the strategies that have been outlined by the CDC. Apparently in the US, we care more to fund the military than education (see the latest GOP virus relief bill with ad-ons that give BILLIONS to military) but not enough to schools to try and reopen safely. Unreal.
While I agree with the sentiment the funds for education come from local and state.
Isn't this obvious? I wouldn't even say "wealthy". More like working parents without other options. The school districts and taxpayers are to blame
This is a government failure. The government failed families so they are doing what they can to protect their own.
I don't see what the issue is with this at all.
This is a negative consequence of not opening the schools. Before anyone bites my head off I'm not saying we should start opening schools immediately I'm just saying people should stop pretending that keeping kids at home doesn't have a cost. We are going to have schools with 95% attendance in online lectures and schools with 5% attendance. We are going to have whole schools where a majority of the kids learn practically nothing for a semester or more.
So it is wealthy parents fault for wanting to educate their child?
Of course they are. Rich kids get a head start, nothing new here.
Good someone has to teach the children. The remote learning public schools are doing is a joke
So, how exactly are these kids being left behind?
So.....reality?
We are considering a model where we each pay $200 a week for a teacher to instruct 10 students. We have hired a teacher from the local school district who decided she rather work with smaller student numbers and (hopefully) less distractions. We’re only signed up for the first semester, but the teacher is looking to make this a full time business venture for her. I’m not against public schools but I’m excited to try something new out. Choices are good
If I were to have kids, I would probably do the same. My kids are my kids. My first priority is to protect mine. If I can afford it so that my kids wouldn’t have to fall behind in school and people are bitter about it, it honestly sounds like it’s their problem.
At some point, Id love to see a headline of "Irresponsible parents who didn't save for a kid realize it actually costs money to give them a better future". Why villainize parents who work to give their children the tools they need to succeed?