House Bill 225 and the changes coming to the FHSAA

[Jambun82]

3 hours ago, Perspective said:

Why would I want to move somewhere else when I can live rent-free in your head?    

 Pinstripes, if you moved to one of the other states, the great accomplishments being done in the Free State of Florida to put parents and children's rights before teacher's unions and leftist ambulance chasers desires would not live "rent free in your head" Big Shot. 

[ExplorerHomer2]

9 hours ago, Jambun82 said:

 Pinstripes, if you moved to one of the other states, the great accomplishments being done in the Free State of Florida to put parents and children's rights before teacher's unions and leftist ambulance chasers desires would not live "rent free in your head" Big Shot. 

 

I don't know, man but you sound like a real dick. 

I know this forum is slow this time of year, but your schtick is tiring.

[Jambun82]

13 minutes ago, ExplorerHomer2 said:

 

I don't know, man but you sound like a real dick. 

I know this forum is slow this time of year, but your schtick is tiring.

Yeah, just remember that you support a private school that I believe is all-boys, so you don't need to say anything about public schools and complaining about being treated unfairly.  What I post on this message board is not a schtick, it is absolute facts and truth, not that I have to explain myself to you anyway. If you have a problem with what I post, you can ignore me and never speak to me or about me ever again. 

[Perspective]

The law of unintended consequences seems to be playing out in other states in the arena that should matter to everyone who is on this forum - athletics:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/football-forfeits-coming-against-gray-114000262.html

 

 

[Ray Icaza]

1 hour ago, Perspective said:

The law of unintended consequences seems to be playing out in other states in the arena that should matter to everyone who is on this forum - athletics:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/football-forfeits-coming-against-gray-114000262.html

 

 

No intent to demean any football program, but Bolles was an example of this with that horse leaving the barn 3 decades ago.  Thus, my steadfast opinion of a public league and a private league as anyone can pull the stats to see how the dominance of the privates has only grown during subsequent years in our state to the detriment of publics.  Especially with those privates in high density population zones. 

[Perspective]

3 minutes ago, Ray Icaza said:

No intent to demean any football program, but Bolles was an example of this with that horse leaving the barn 3 decades ago.  Thus, my steadfast opinion of a public league and a private league as anyone can pull the stats to see how the dominance of the privates has only grown during subsequent years in our state to the detriment of publics.  Especially with those privates in high density population zones. 

At least with most of the private schools (Bolles, STA, CCC, Jesuit, etc.), there's a price tag associated with the privilege of attending - regardless of who's actually paying the tuition.   As I'm slowly coming to understand the concept, that's not the case with charter schools, as apparently the state picks up the cost of attendance and the entrance gate is not monitored nearly as closely.  While it might be tough to imagine a charter school winning titles in the top two classes (3 and 4), I could see them winning titles in the smaller classes, much like those mentioned in the article from South Carolina.

[Ray Icaza]

7 minutes ago, Perspective said:

At least with most of the private schools (Bolles, STA, CCC, Jesuit, etc.), there's a price tag associated with the privilege of attending - regardless of who's actually paying the tuition.   As I'm slowly coming to understand the concept, that's not the case with charter schools, as apparently the state picks up the cost of attendance and the entrance gate is not monitored nearly as closely.  While it might be tough to imagine a charter school winning titles in the top two classes (3 and 4), I could see them winning titles in the smaller classes, much like those mentioned in the article from South Carolina.

If this particular post was really about concern for the "State of Athletics", none of your analysis regarding costs, scholarships, school size, etc... matter when the unfair competitive advantage is staring you in the face.  Restricting access to a better education will do nothing to fix the mess we are already in.   For "Education Reason", parents should be able to decide how to use their tax dollars for the school of their choice.  If we had separate leagues and simply re-instituted the 1 year waiting period for athletic participation at out of zone public, it would eliminate the vast majority of questionable transfers. 

[Jambun82]

4 minutes ago, Ray Icaza said:

If this particular post was really about concern for the "State of Athletics", none of your analysis regarding costs, scholarships, school size, etc... matter when the unfair competitive advantage is staring you in the face.  Restricting access to a better education will do nothing to fix the mess we are already in.   For "Education Reason", parents should be able to decide how to use their tax dollars for the school of their choice.  If we had separate leagues and simply re-instituted the 1 year waiting period for athletic participation at out of zone public, it would eliminate the vast majority of questionable transfers. 

Great points as usual, Ray. 

[Ray Icaza]

24 minutes ago, Jambun82 said:

Great points as usual, Ray. 

 

24 minutes ago, Jambun82 said:

Great points as usual, Ray. 

Just to be clear, I see this as two separate matters of athletics on the one hand and education on the other.  In addition, I am not advocating that privates, charters, Christian schools, etc... are "BETTER" than any public.  Quite the opposite, as at my advanced age if I were to do it all over again, I would prefer a "SOLID" public like OHS vs any private in my area.  They offer significant AP classes, work diligently to promote and enforce discipline/respect, offer tons of extracurricular activities and most importantly the diversity there is more REAL world.  But not all publics are the same, even within our own county thus my premise that it be left up to the parent to decide what is the best fit for their child.  Most parents hold the belief that you are or become who you hang around with.  Certain schools, public or private are a disaster and I shouldn't be mandated to send my child into an environment knowing the poor conditions for learning.  Hope this helps clarify where I stand. 

[Perspective]

19 minutes ago, Ray Icaza said:

 

Just to be clear, I see this as two separate matters of athletics on the one hand and education on the other.  In addition, I am not advocating that privates, charters, Christian schools, etc... are "BETTER" than any public.  Quite the opposite, as at my advanced age if I were to do it all over again, I would prefer a "SOLID" public like OHS vs any private in my area.  They offer significant AP classes, work diligently to promote and enforce discipline/respect, offer tons of extracurricular activities and most importantly the diversity there is more REAL world.  But not all publics are the same, even within our own county thus my premise that it be left up to the parent to decide what is the best fit for their child.  Most parents hold the belief that you are or become who you hang around with.  Certain schools, public or private are a disaster and I shouldn't be mandated to send my child into an environment knowing the poor conditions for learning.  Hope this helps clarify where I stand. 

Ray, I wouldn't argue with anything that you've just said.  And while families have always had "other options" if the public school to which they were zoned was not adequate, I also understand the position that they should not necessarily have to pay private school tuition in order to get a quality education - especially when they already are paying their fair share of the taxes needed to operate the public school.  

But you hit the nail on the head when you say that athletics and education are two separate matters . . .  although, if you've ever attended a high school event in Florida and paid attention to the FHSAA announcement, sports are considered "an extension of the classroom, with lessons learned on the field as important as those learned in the classroom" . . . or something like that.  And generally speaking, I agree with that concept. 

I don't really have a strong opinion on charter schools just yet because, as I have acknowledged, I don't really know much about them.  My kids have all graduated from high school so this is somewhat new to me.  I'm seeing it from a different 'perspective' now.   So, if you look back at my posts in this thread, most of them are seeking information, not arguing in support of a position.   I still don't see how the state can afford to pay for both public schools and charter schools unless and until they know how many kids are going to each. 

But putting aside the funding issues, and even before I read the article about charter schools in South Carolina, I was concerned that there will be people/groups out there that will establish charter schools primarily to attract athletes to compete on sports teams.  If the academic side of those schools is on par with the public school education that they would otherwise get, that softens the blow.   But if these charter schools are just acting as sports academies dressed up like schools, and the academic side is essentially non-existence, then I don't like it.  I don't like it as a taxpayer who is subsidizing the 'school' and I don't like it from a sports competition standpoint.   (Although, perhaps it won't be long before the FHSAA has separate classifications for public schools, private schools and charter schools . . . let's see, 4 classes of each times 3 would yield 12 championship games/teams, which would make even more money for the FHSAA).  But most of all, I don't like it from the standpoint that kids won't get a good education.  And when their sports lives come to an end (as will be the case for the vast majority of them once high school ends), what then? 

[Ray Icaza]

1 hour ago, Perspective said:

Ray, I wouldn't argue with anything that you've just said.  And while families have always had "other options" if the public school to which they were zoned was not adequate, I also understand the position that they should not necessarily have to pay private school tuition in order to get a quality education - especially when they already are paying their fair share of the taxes needed to operate the public school.  

But you hit the nail on the head when you say that athletics and education are two separate matters . . .  although, if you've ever attended a high school event in Florida and paid attention to the FHSAA announcement, sports are considered "an extension of the classroom, with lessons learned on the field as important as those learned in the classroom" . . . or something like that.  And generally speaking, I agree with that concept. 

I don't really have a strong opinion on charter schools just yet because, as I have acknowledged, I don't really know much about them.  My kids have all graduated from high school so this is somewhat new to me.  I'm seeing it from a different 'perspective' now.   So, if you look back at my posts in this thread, most of them are seeking information, not arguing in support of a position.   I still don't see how the state can afford to pay for both public schools and charter schools unless and until they know how many kids are going to each. 

But putting aside the funding issues, and even before I read the article about charter schools in South Carolina, I was concerned that there will be people/groups out there that will establish charter schools primarily to attract athletes to compete on sports teams.  If the academic side of those schools is on par with the public school education that they would otherwise get, that softens the blow.   But if these charter schools are just acting as sports academies dressed up like schools, and the academic side is essentially non-existence, then I don't like it.  I don't like it as a taxpayer who is subsidizing the 'school' and I don't like it from a sports competition standpoint.   (Although, perhaps it won't be long before the FHSAA has separate classifications for public schools, private schools and charter schools . . . let's see, 4 classes of each times 3 would yield 12 championship games/teams, which would make even more money for the FHSAA).  But most of all, I don't like it from the standpoint that kids won't get a good education.  And when their sports lives come to an end (as will be the case for the vast majority of them once high school ends), what then? 

Currently in our country about 10% attend privates (5 million vs 50 million in publics).  Most studies without getting in the weeds indicate standardized test scores (SAT, ACT, etc..) as well as long term success are typically higher for students in private schools.  Yes, I understand some want to do away with those scores???  Most agree it isn't just the teachers, but class size, environment, higher educated parents, etc... but regardless, the outcome is clear.  If my dream came true and we would divide athletics between privates and publics, I would envision only 2 divisions for privates and 4 total for publics for 6 championships.  With the one year waiting rule before eligibility at another public which would definitely slow the transfer chaos down, we could return competition again between metro and suburban since it would be a more level playing field.  Last caveat would be BIG FINES for cheaters.   My namesake grandson, Tre was zoned to a poorly performing elementary school so my son and daughter-in-law eventually moved him to St. Thomas Aquinas Catholic School in St. Cloud to make sure those early years drilled the fundamentals he would need later.   His zoned middle school was Neptune (public) that ranked high in our area academically, so he went there before continuing at OHS.  He has postponed college and enlisted in the Coast Guard while taking online courses to hopefully get his AA degree prior to completing his military commitment.   Point being, his parents knew what would be best for HIM and they decided it was worth the sacrifice paying double for a few years when that shouldn't be.  They were able to do it, others may not be so fortunate thus my take on choice. 

[Nulli Secundus]

On 6/9/2023 at 2:41 PM, Ray Icaza said:

Sorry to disagree that even public schools are NOT FREE and more problematic is they aren't created equal either.  As an old retiree with no kids or grandkids (youngest just graduated) in HS, my ad valorem taxes haven't gone away rather keep creeping up and a big chunk is for schools.   My daughter and son-in-law moved out of Kissimmee to the east side of St. Cloud over a decade ago so their two daughters would attend the highest rated (academic) public HS in Osceola County, Harmony HS.  Both graduated at the top of their class, but if the programs in place today for school choice were available back then, they may have taken their voucher $$$ and put them in a private school requiring no move.  That is the difference between then and now.  More parents are taking advantage of this benefit mostly for academic and other reasons outside of sports, but if that choice involves a school with no sports program, they have an alternative .  Yes, lots do it for sports also, but I completely agree with you that EDUCATION should be at the forefront of this conversation and I believe it is the impetus for these changes. 

 

On 6/9/2023 at 3:22 PM, Perspective said:

So, I need someone to help me out:  as I understand it (from a bird's eye view), the government (state or county??) is going to provide vouchers for families who choose for their kids to attend a private school instead of a public school, right?  But there is a limited amount of money that can/will be spent on education.   County school boards try as hard as they can to stay ahead of the development and growth.  Developers are required to set aside land (or at least give the school board the opportunity to negotiate for the purchase of land) before single-family houses can be permitted.  OK.  That makes sense.  

But don't the schools have to be built with the assumption that every kid in the new neighborhood will be going to the public school (because that could happen)?  And the cost of the land and the cost of building a school (and all the facilities that go along with it, such as gyms, football fields, baseball and softball fields, etc.) are, for the most part, fixed costs.  If a school board buys the land and then builds a new high school with the expectation that 2,000 kids will attend (using the taxpayer money that is needed to build that facility), but then only 1,200 show up, will that same taxpayer-supported school board then have to provide vouchers so the other 800 can attend private school?   The government (i.e., the taxpayers) will then be paying for both the public school system and the private school system.   How is that economically feasible? 

I'm not looking for an argument; just an explanation. 

 

On 6/9/2023 at 8:23 PM, Ray Icaza said:

Studies estimate that public schools may lose up to 15% of population as opposed to the 40% number in your question.  In addition, they are funding the student, not the school.   Using your 2000 number when a new public school opens, that number quickly balloons beyond that as the community grows and the excess is moved from several adjoining schools to build a new one.  That seems to imply it was deemed productive at 2000, can handle 2500 so what difference does it make where that excess population goes?  Some leave to charter, Christian or private and the number goes back to the original estimate that it was designed for.  At least, that is the logic my simple mind tells me they are using.   Undoubtedly, there will be additional cost to fund this program.  But I harken back to your original question, why is the FDOE doing this?  Is it remotely possible that many public schools are failing us?

It's Friday and I didn't feel like responding to everyone individually.  Here are the estimates under the expanded voucher system for Polk County:  

Expanded Voucher System Could Cost Polk Schools Up To $70 Million

[Ray Icaza]

4 hours ago, Nulli Secundus said:

 

 

It's Friday and I didn't feel like responding to everyone individually.  Here are the estimates under the expanded voucher system for Polk County:  

Expanded Voucher System Could Cost Polk Schools Up To $70 Million

This news outlet like many around the state have made claims that have proven to be erroneous so forgive me if I am skeptical of their take.  Only time will really tell us how this all shakes out.  

[Jambun82]

22 hours ago, Ray Icaza said:

This news outlet like many around the state have made claims that have proven to be erroneous so forgive me if I am skeptical of their take.  Only time will really tell us how this all shakes out.  

Taxpayer-funded employees of the public school system are upset because they no longer have a monopoly on Education. Parents have choices now, and they can't stand that fact. 

[Ray Icaza]

On 6/24/2023 at 8:57 PM, Jambun82 said:

Taxpayer-funded employees of the public school system are upset because they no longer have a monopoly on Education. Parents have choices now, and they can't stand that fact. 

There is clearly a political divide that has evolved over the past few years regarding public schools and that is unfortunate.  It used to be either party when polled if they were satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the quality of education were both around 50%, not a reassuring number.  Today, one party is closer to 30%, while the other has remained in the low 50's.  I will leave it at that but have attached the "Nations's Report Card" that was recently released to show the decline in education is REAL.  So, it is quite understandable that parents are looking for options regardless of politics.  Had trouble attaching the link so have just copied and pasted the verbage. 

 

Embargoed for Release June 21, 2023, 12:01 a.m. ET

Contact: Stephaan Harris, (202) 357-7504, Stephaan.Harris@ed.gov

New Data on Pandemic-Era Learning from the Nation’s Report Card Shows Steep Declines in Math, Falling Scores in Reading Lower-performing students saw even greater declines in math, highlighting need for urgent action

Washington, D.C. — The Long-Term Trend results out today showing trends for 13-year-olds provide further evidence that U.S. students are struggling academically amid achievement declines that worsened during the pandemic, particularly in math.

Average scores for 13-year-olds on this administration of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Long-Term Trend Assessments (LTT), declined 4 points in reading and 9 points in math compared to the LTT assessments administered in 2020. When compared to a decade ago, scores slid even further — 7 points in reading and 14 points in math.

Lower-performing students saw greater declines than higher-performing peers in math on the recent LTT assessment, a trend found on other recent NAEP assessments. Students at the 10th and 25th percentiles fell by 14 and 12 points, respectively.

A nationally representative sample of thirteen-year-old students in seventh and eighth grades took the LTT assessments in the fall of 2022. These findings emerge about a month after the release of the U.S. history and civics results, which also showed steep declines.

“U.S. students are struggling across the board. Educators, policymakers, and families need to work together urgently and decisively to address this generation’s learning needs," said Beverly Perdue, National Assessment Governing Board chair and former North Carolina governor. The National Assessment Governing Board sets policy for the Nation’s Report Card, the only nationally representative assessment of achievement for U.S. students.

The LTT assessments manifest trends in education data over five decades and are distinct from the main Nation’s Report Card assessments, last released in October, which also showed steep declines in reading and math among fourth- and eighth-graders.

Today's release of LTT findings for 13-year-olds follows last September’s report on LTT for 9-year-olds, another data point that showed substantial slides in achievement.

The LTT assessments in reading and math measure fundamental skills among nationally representative, agebased cohorts and have been administered since 1971 and 1973, respectively. Students were generally making progress until 2012, when scores started declining. Scores took a sharp downturn during the pandemic. Today, the average score for 13-year-olds on the LTT reading assessment is about where it was in 1971. Despite the large decline in math, the average score in 2023 remains higher than in 1973.

Student survey data released along with LTT points to additional areas of concern.

The percentage of 13-year-olds who said they read for fun is lower than ever previously reported. Just 14 percent of students reported that they read for fun almost daily, down 3 percentage points from 2020 and 13 percentage points from 2012.

Among lower-performing students, 42 percent indicated they never or hardly ever read for fun.

As for absenteeism, an area of widespread concern, the percentage of students who reported they missed five or more days of school in a month has doubled since 2020.

### The National Assessment Governing Board is an independent, nonpartisan board whose members include governors, state legislators, local and state school officials, educators, business representatives, and members of the general public. Congress created the 26-member Governing Board in 1988 to set policy for the National

[LakelandGator]

Public education is on the decline for the same reason the gap between the rich and poor has widen.

It's not hard to figure out for anyone who is honest enough to admit it.

[Dr. D]

And this may possibly explain the interest in charter schools and vouchers:

"Charter Schools Now Outperform Traditional Public Schools, Sweeping Study Finds"

EducationWeek; By Libby Stanford — June 06, 2023

Summary:  Charter schools have evolved over the course of two decades, and their students now show greater academic gains than their peers in traditional public schools, according to a new report from a group of researchers who have studied the evolution of charters since 2000.

The study, which examined student performance in 6,200 charter schools from 2014 to 2019, marks a turning point in the understanding of charter school performance. It’s the third study of its kind from researchers at the Center for Research on Education Outcomes, or CREDO, after the center’s earlier studies found that charter school students performed either worse than or about the same as their peers in traditional public schools.

From 2014 to 2019, charter school students gained, on average, the equivalent of 16 days of learning in reading and six days in math over their peers in traditional public schools. Eighty-three percent of charter school students performed the same as or better than their peers in reading, and 75 percent performed the same as or better in math, according to the study, which includes data from 29 states, New York City, and the District of Columbia.

Entire article here:  Charter Schools Now Outperform Traditional Public Schools, Sweeping Study Finds (edweek.org)

[Ray Icaza]

25 minutes ago, LakelandGator said:

Public education is on the decline for the same reason the gap between the rich and poor has widen.

It's not hard to figure out for anyone who is honest enough to admit it.

Some are of the opposite view which is the decline in education as a major factor in the gap between rich and poor.  It is considered an important factor in both weak economic growth and income inequality.  Guess it's the old adage of which came first, the chicken or the egg. 

[Perspective]

3 hours ago, Dr. D said:

And this may possibly explain the interest in charter schools and vouchers:

"Charter Schools Now Outperform Traditional Public Schools, Sweeping Study Finds"

EducationWeek; By Libby Stanford — June 06, 2023

Summary:  Charter schools have evolved over the course of two decades, and their students now show greater academic gains than their peers in traditional public schools, according to a new report from a group of researchers who have studied the evolution of charters since 2000.

The study, which examined student performance in 6,200 charter schools from 2014 to 2019, marks a turning point in the understanding of charter school performance. It’s the third study of its kind from researchers at the Center for Research on Education Outcomes, or CREDO, after the center’s earlier studies found that charter school students performed either worse than or about the same as their peers in traditional public schools.

From 2014 to 2019, charter school students gained, on average, the equivalent of 16 days of learning in reading and six days in math over their peers in traditional public schools. Eighty-three percent of charter school students performed the same as or better than their peers in reading, and 75 percent performed the same as or better in math, according to the study, which includes data from 29 states, New York City, and the District of Columbia.

Entire article here:  Charter Schools Now Outperform Traditional Public Schools, Sweeping Study Finds (edweek.org)

Dr D, I don't have the time right now to read through the report, so I am in no position to challenge the findings or the report.   I was curious, however, about who or what the Center for Research on Education Outcomes is and, more importantly, where they get their funding.  It didn't take me long to see that this particular report (the one you've cited above) got its funding from The Walton Family Foundation and The City Fund. 

With respect to the Walton Family Foundation, its own website says this:  "The Walton Family Foundation was one of the first philanthropies to support the expansion of high-quality public charter schools. John Walton — who pioneered this work — believed charter schools could provide options and opportunities and fuel needed innovation in America's schools."

And with respect to The City Fund,  it reportedly "uses over $100 million in grants to grow charter and charter-like schools"   (See https://www.chalkbeat.org/2020/2/21/21178789/a-major-new-player-in-education-giving-the-city-fund-uses-over-100-million-in-grants-to-grow-charter).

Again, I'm not in a position to challenge the findings, but at first blush, this appears to be one of those situations where data was collected and analyzed and the findings just happened to match up with the goals of those who funded the study. 

Just remember what they say:  There are three types of lies -- lies, damn lies, and statistics. 

My shoot-from-the-hip concern is that a state-funded charter school system will ultimately lead to a tiered educational system where the 'haves' continue to prosper and the 'have-nots' continue to flounder and the chasm between the two grows wider and wider over time. 

[Dr. D]

I agree 100% that you should consider the source.  That is why I used the word "possibly" in my initial post to explain the interest in charter schools and vouchers -- people may read a headline and not delve into the details.  I cannot attest to the scientific validity of the findings and have no desire to do a deep dive, but the article does acknowledge there were three separate studies undertaken.  The first study (2000-01 through 2007-08) showed that charter schools performed worse than traditional public schools.  The second study (2006-07 through 2010-11) showed slight improvement in the performance of charter schools.  Only in the third study (2014 to 2019) did charter schools outperform traditional public schools.  It also notes that not every charter school is succeeding, noting the failure of full-time online charter schools, and the failure to serve special needs students.  Other studies that I have looked at produce conflicting conclusions as to the effectiveness of charter schools.  But there is also a lot of evidence to suggest that at least some public schools are failing in their mission. 

I personally feel that the success or failure of a democratic, capitalistic society hinges significantly on the success or failure of an education system(s) that serves and educates all students.  

[Ray Icaza]

25 minutes ago, Dr. D said:

I agree 100% that you should consider the source.  That is why I used the word "possibly" in my initial post to explain the interest in charter schools and vouchers -- people may read a headline and not delve into the details.  I cannot attest to the scientific validity of the findings and have no desire to do a deep dive, but the article does acknowledge there were three separate studies undertaken.  The first study (2000-01 through 2007-08) showed that charter schools performed worse than traditional public schools.  The second study (2006-07 through 2010-11) showed slight improvement in the performance of charter schools.  Only in the third study (2014 to 2019) did charter schools outperform traditional public schools.  It also notes that not every charter school is succeeding, noting the failure of full-time online charter schools, and the failure to serve special needs students.  Other studies that I have looked at produce conflicting conclusions as to the effectiveness of charter schools.  But there is also a lot of evidence to suggest that at least some public schools are failing in their mission. 

I personally feel that the success or failure of a democratic, capitalistic society hinges significantly on the success or failure of an education system(s) that serves and educates all students.  

Democracy only survives with an "Informed Electorate".   One can quibble with the studies you presented, even doubt any study supporting this view but the results of failing public schools is irrefutable based on National Assessment Governing Board findings.  To ignore that and just be okay doing the same thing is irresponsible, while attacks on those looking for better outcomes for our kids is sad.

[Perspective]

16 hours ago, Ray Icaza said:

Democracy only survives with an "Informed Electorate".   One can quibble with the studies you presented, even doubt any study supporting this view but the results of failing public schools is irrefutable based on National Assessment Governing Board findings.  To ignore that and just be okay doing the same thing is irresponsible, while attacks on those looking for better outcomes for our kids is sad.

Ray, I believe that if and when something (like our education system) is broke, it needs to be fixed -- if it can be fixed.  

I remain concerned that our state simply cannot afford to fund two separate kinds of education and that we're simply setting ourselves up for failure by believing otherwise. 

[Ray Icaza]

1 hour ago, Perspective said:

Ray, I believe that if and when something (like our education system) is broke, it needs to be fixed -- if it can be fixed.  

I remain concerned that our state simply cannot afford to fund two separate kinds of education and that that we're simply setting ourselves up for failure by believing otherwise. 

Government spending or overspending is always a concern and this years budget for education tops $27.9 billion which includes the additional spending to support the voucher initiative.  And therein lies the rub.  The FL legislature estimated that additional cost in the $200-$500 million range, while progressives are claiming it to be over $4 billion.  At least by next year we can see who is right.  As of now, our state is sitting on a very comfortable budget surplus with lots of Covid relief money from 3 separate federal pieces of legislation that doled out almost $200 billion to the states.  I like the idea of vouchers as opposed to new ventilation systems. 

[Jambun82]

5 hours ago, Perspective said:

Dr D, I don't have the time right now to read through the report, so I am in no position to challenge the findings or the report.   I was curious, however, about who or what the Center for Research on Education Outcomes is and, more importantly, where they get their funding.  It didn't take me long to see that this particular report (the one you've cited above) got its funding from The Walton Family Foundation and The City Fund. 

With respect to the Walton Family Foundation, its own website says this:  "The Walton Family Foundation was one of the first philanthropies to support the expansion of high-quality public charter schools. John Walton — who pioneered this work — believed charter schools could provide options and opportunities and fuel needed innovation in America's schools."

And with respect to The City Fund,  it reportedly "uses over $100 million in grants to grow charter and charter-like schools"   (See https://www.chalkbeat.org/2020/2/21/21178789/a-major-new-player-in-education-giving-the-city-fund-uses-over-100-million-in-grants-to-grow-charter).

Again, I'm not in a position to challenge the findings, but at first blush, this appears to be one of those situations where data was collected and analyzed and the findings just happened to match up with the goals of those who funded the study. 

Just remember what they say:  There are three types of lies -- lies, damn lies, and statistics. 

My shoot-from-the-hip concern is that a state-funded charter school system will ultimately lead to a tiered educational system where the 'haves' continue to prosper and the 'have-nots' continue to flounder and the chasm between the two grows wider and wider over time. 

Of course, you would have this kind of response Pinstripes. Are the teacher's unions one of your clients, Pinstripes? AFT, NEA, or both Pinstripes? 

[LakelandGator]

5 hours ago, Perspective said:

I remain concerned that our state simply cannot afford to fund two separate kinds of education and that that we're simply setting ourselves up for failure by believing otherwise. 

They are slowly funding their side while slowly eroding and destroying the other side.

This won't end well for the masses. History doesn't not lie.