Comments on: Obama’s blueprint for California http://toped.svefoundation.org/2010/03/15/obamas-blueprint-for-california/ Analysis, opinion and ruminations on California education policy Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:45:40 +0100 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: John Danner http://toped.svefoundation.org/2010/03/15/obamas-blueprint-for-california/comment-page-1/#comment-7728 John Danner Sun, 21 Mar 2010 00:04:26 +0000 http://educatedguess.org/blog/?p=1562#comment-7728 In response to Mike's question "What is wrong with the idea that not everyone should go to college?" my answer would be: If the same number of poor students go to college as middle-class students, then the equity half of the problem would be solved. If you aren't ok with that piece, good luck to you. There are two more reasons beyond equity that all kids need to be prepared for college even if they choose not to attend. The reality for individuals is that nationally we are going to offshore an awful lot of jobs which don't require college degrees so the unemployment rate and pay differential is dramatically worse at each step between high school dropouts -> high school grads -> college grads. So, I can't imagine a president who wouldn't set college graduation as the goal, since it is leads to a far better economic situation for people. The reality for the country is that our capacity to compete with much larger countries like China and India is going to depend a lot on having enough well-educated people to drive the knowledge-intensive industries of the 21st century. So each college grad will have a multiplier effect on employment, because they are more likely to keep companies based here rather than overseas. Anyone who is still complacent about any of these should really make sure they are ok with the economic future for people and the country if we aren't getting all kids college ready. In response to Mike’s question “What is wrong with the idea that not everyone should go to college?” my answer would be: If the same number of poor students go to college as middle-class students, then the equity half of the problem would be solved. If you aren’t ok with that piece, good luck to you. There are two more reasons beyond equity that all kids need to be prepared for college even if they choose not to attend.

The reality for individuals is that nationally we are going to offshore an awful lot of jobs which don’t require college degrees so the unemployment rate and pay differential is dramatically worse at each step between high school dropouts -> high school grads -> college grads. So, I can’t imagine a president who wouldn’t set college graduation as the goal, since it is leads to a far better economic situation for people.

The reality for the country is that our capacity to compete with much larger countries like China and India is going to depend a lot on having enough well-educated people to drive the knowledge-intensive industries of the 21st century. So each college grad will have a multiplier effect on employment, because they are more likely to keep companies based here rather than overseas.

Anyone who is still complacent about any of these should really make sure they are ok with the economic future for people and the country if we aren’t getting all kids college ready.

Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

]]> By: Mike http://toped.svefoundation.org/2010/03/15/obamas-blueprint-for-california/comment-page-1/#comment-7604 Mike Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:48:31 +0000 http://educatedguess.org/blog/?p=1562#comment-7604 What is wrong with the idea that not everyone should go to college? We lost the whole idea of vocational studies which are very good jobs these days; plumbing, electricians, car repair etc. This is one of the reasons why we "lag" the world, in many countries they still have vocational schools and these kids are not part of the standards that we compare against. So no wonder we lag the world. "No child left behind" is impractical and, worse yet, is detrimental to kids that aspire to vocational careers. What is wrong with the idea that not everyone should go to college? We lost the whole idea of vocational studies which are very good jobs these days; plumbing, electricians, car repair etc.
This is one of the reasons why we “lag” the world, in many countries they still have vocational schools and these kids are not part of the standards that we compare against. So no wonder we lag the world. “No child left behind” is impractical and, worse yet, is detrimental to kids that aspire to vocational careers.

Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

]]> By: TomC http://toped.svefoundation.org/2010/03/15/obamas-blueprint-for-california/comment-page-1/#comment-7527 TomC Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:17:18 +0000 http://educatedguess.org/blog/?p=1562#comment-7527 The prospect of this “blueprint” becoming reality is frightening. In California we have enough trouble with public policy trickling down from Sacramento or Los Angeles into our schools. More Federal mandates are not what we need. What are these folks in Washington thinking? Central planning doesn’t work. Though they may have fooled their sycophants with a few ARRA dollars, the thought of this camel getting his nose into the tent is not promising for the future of our schools. The reforms that may be needed in Chicago may not be appropriate for Los Angeles, Stockton, or San Bernardino. No matter how wise the expert is in Washington, DC; that person cannot know the needs and the unique challenges of every small community in the nation (or large urban city, for that matter). Having some bureaucrat from Washington “equalizing funding” in California schools would be a nightmare, regardless of how well intended that action might be. California would be wise to “pass” on any Federal dollars for education, but should always be willing to incorporate ideas that appear useful in improving our schools. BTW, the $200 million that could be on the table for California in the next round of ARRA funding doesn’t even cover one-third of the anticipated budget deficit for Los Angeles Unified next year ($640 million, and counting...). The prospect of this “blueprint” becoming reality is frightening. In California we have enough trouble with public policy trickling down from Sacramento or Los Angeles into our schools. More Federal mandates are not what we need. What are these folks in Washington thinking? Central planning doesn’t work. Though they may have fooled their sycophants with a few ARRA dollars, the thought of this camel getting his nose into the tent is not promising for the future of our schools. The reforms that may be needed in Chicago may not be appropriate for Los Angeles, Stockton, or San Bernardino. No matter how wise the expert is in Washington, DC; that person cannot know the needs and the unique challenges of every small community in the nation (or large urban city, for that matter). Having some bureaucrat from Washington “equalizing funding” in California schools would be a nightmare, regardless of how well intended that action might be. California would be wise to “pass” on any Federal dollars for education, but should always be willing to incorporate ideas that appear useful in improving our schools. BTW, the $200 million that could be on the table for California in the next round of ARRA funding doesn’t even cover one-third of the anticipated budget deficit for Los Angeles Unified next year ($640 million, and counting…).

Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

]]> By: Suz http://toped.svefoundation.org/2010/03/15/obamas-blueprint-for-california/comment-page-1/#comment-7474 Suz Tue, 16 Mar 2010 19:07:06 +0000 http://educatedguess.org/blog/?p=1562#comment-7474 .."The Obama plan would inject flexibility and, for most schools, more autonomy with more federal money"... Well that would be a start. When Duncan went before the House recently, Rep Kline (R-Minn) pointed out that districts all over this country are struggling to meet the obligations of IDEA/Special Ed as mandated. The Feds are *supposed* to fund 40% of these services. Duncan's proposed increase raises the current level from 12% to 17% -- far short of the required level. No one disputes the importance of serving all kids, but the burden falls unfairly on school districts. While we're penalizing struggling schools and rewarding top performers, schools in the middle are slashing budgets, raising class sizes, cutting services and laying off teachers. In our district, we face a $5 million reduction to balance our 2010-11 budget. Our IDEA underfunding for 2009-10? $8 million. Over $1200 per regular ed student comes out of the general fund to meet this obligation. The blueprint that would work for kids in our schools is one that fully funds the federal IDEA obligation. ..”The Obama plan would inject flexibility and, for most schools, more autonomy with more federal money”…

Well that would be a start. When Duncan went before the House recently, Rep Kline (R-Minn) pointed out that districts all over this country are struggling to meet the obligations of IDEA/Special Ed as mandated. The Feds are *supposed* to fund 40% of these services. Duncan’s proposed increase raises the current level from 12% to 17% — far short of the required level. No one disputes the importance of serving all kids, but the burden falls unfairly on school districts.

While we’re penalizing struggling schools and rewarding top performers, schools in the middle are slashing budgets, raising class sizes, cutting services and laying off teachers. In our district, we face a $5 million reduction to balance our 2010-11 budget. Our IDEA underfunding for 2009-10? $8 million. Over $1200 per regular ed student comes out of the general fund to meet this obligation.

The blueprint that would work for kids in our schools is one that fully funds the federal IDEA obligation.

Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

]]>