Week 6: Jigsaw Group

"My comment centers on four ideas that struck me while reading his essay. All are more or less connected with his main claim that school choice is, and should be, not primarily about markets but about equality and social justice” (Viteritti, 2005, 162).

“One of the most important goals of the public-school system is to provide societal cohesion. The Supreme Court has stated that the public-school system is "the most pervasive means for promoting our common destiny.” (Fuller, 1994, pg. 88)

“During the Colonial period of American history, there existed a common assumption that the purpose of life was to promote Christian faith.” (Fuller, 1994, pg. 88)

Vieteritti

Politics As the Answer

"Choice advocates in the first generation saw politics as the problem in education and the market as the solution. By the third generation, only the naive and the misguided speak of solutions in the realm of education policy. If politics is the problem, then politics, albeit a different politics, is a large part of the answer." (Vieteritti, 2005, p.150)

The Next Market

“It is what parents think that will matter. Children will attend a particular school because their parents believe it to be the one that best accommodates their particular wants and needs—be it a district, charter, independent, or religious school. These choices will not be limited to families that are well off. The next generation of schooling will promote both liberty and equality. That will be a great improvement over what we now have.” (Viteritti 156)

"The availability of funding for disadvantaged families could encourage the pastors from African American and Latino churches to open their own schools, as many already have despite overwhelming financial limitations," (Viteritti p.155).

"A voucher program would enable them to do so. Moreover, in a world characterized by publicly supported choice, these same parents would have more options from which to choose than they now do." (Vieteritti, 2005, p.154)

Over 400 Catholic schools shut down due to financials and that parents cannot afford it anymore.

"IF we are to believe the surveys taken of parents whose children participate in public voucher and private scholarship programs, three factors attract them to the participating schools: academic standards, safe environments, and, to a lesser extent, religious values," (Viteritti p. 151).

The Market Concept

"The central principle animating his argument was freedom." (Viteritti, 2005, p.139)

“Furthermore, the voucher concept failed to resonate with the very population that stood to gain the most from it, the poor. It was bad enough that vouchers became associated with a Republican president who was determined to eliminate the welfare state that many poor people believed served their needs; politicians who represented the poor automatically lined up against any plan that would challenge the public schools. To most people the market concept was an inaccessible abstraction.”(Viteritti 139)

"Friedman wanted to give all parents a voucher so that they could choose their children's school from an assortment of public, private, and religious institutions. He believed that the ensuing competition would force the closure of low-performing institutions, and the appropriation of public funding for nonpublic schools would create a market of new educational providers." (Vieteritti, 2005, p.138)

An Emerging Consensus

“The other major finding to emerge from the choice research speaks more directly to the normative demand for granting school choice to disadvantaged families. Parents whose children participate in choice programs believe their children are better off than they were in district-run public schools. This is true across the board, for all types of programs that have been studied—charters, vouchers, and private scholarships.” (Viteritti 149)

“Granting parents the opportunity to choose the schools their children attend is a worthy goal in itself, especially in a society in which choice is a function of income (itself a correlate of race and class).” (Viteritti 148)

The Demand For Equality

"By the last decade of the twentieth century, the civil rights movement that had given hope to poor and minority parents reaped, instead, disappointment," (Viteritti p. 142).

"Targeted choice made public funds available to disadvantaged people so that they could purchase private goods to which they supposedly were entitled- all of which would contribute to the better good of society. Middle-class parents, after all, enjoy educational choice as a matter of course, either because they can afford private schools or because they have the residential mobility to move to communities with good public schools." (Vieteritti, 2005, p.143)

"After the Revolutionary War, however, the sense of common destiny and purpose of public schooling began to change. the public educational system was seen as a way to instill and develop those characteristic necessary to perpetuate and advance a democratic society. The First Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance which stated in article three, '[r]eligion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to a good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.' The Northwest Ordinance evidences the subtle yet, important shift from schooling for spiritual growth purposes to schools for civil stability purposes." (Fuller, 1994, pp.89)

Fischel + Murray

Fischel

“One-room schools went from more than 200,000 early in the century to near zero in 1972. The decline in the total number of school districts appears to have been largely accounted for by the decline ofrural, one-room schools. Most one-room schools were the only school in the district,6 so consolidation of several one-room schools almost always meant consolidation of several districts” (Fischel 178).

“Age grading is an idea whose origins were once hotly debated.5 What is not debated about age grading is that it was first adopted incities.2 Cities had sufficient population density to enable a large num- ber of children to be assembled in a single school building and dividedby age group into classrooms of homogenous age groups” (Fischer 183).

“Cities had sufficient population density to enable a large number of children to be assembled in a single school building and divided by age group into classrooms of homogenous age groups.”(Fischel, 2009, p. 182)

Many historians of public schools would assign a different direc- tion to the role of property values. They would rightly point out that one of the most frequent objections to consolidation that rural voters voiced was that removal of the old district school would reduce their property values.

Weighing the benefits of a small, one- room district (democratic control, shorter distances, the possibility of part-time schooling) against the costs of remaining outside the system (the less-specialized instruction, the difficulty in accessing high school) almost all voters eventually agreed to the necessary school district consolidations.

“But tax savings were seldom realized by consolidating schools and restoring the larger student-teacher ratios in an age-graded setting."(Fischel, 2009, p. 181)

Having a uniform Carnegie-unit schedule allows reasonable comparisons of cover- age, if not accomplishment, by students from various schools. It makes it easier to integrate new students who transfer from another school into ongoing courses, and it simplifies the preparation of teachers who change jobs.

Age grading is relevant to school district consolidation because it required coordination between classes within the same school and among other schools. All of the teachers in a multigraded school had to agree to the curriculum in each grade

“Age grading required regular attendance, and its logical culmination was high school. Ungraded one-room schools were cheaper not just because the teacher and building were less expensive, but because students could take as much or as little as they wanted of what the school had to offer” (Fischel, p. 182).

“A student who missed two weeks of school was in this setting a far greater liability to the rest of the class. The teacher would have to spend time with the truant to get him up to the level of the rest of the class, and this attention subtracted from the overall pace of the class” (Fischel, p. 183).

Murray

“In regard to equality, vocational education has a direct impact upon a child’s future ability to garner the resources required to compete effectively in our modern economy. Presumably, we are concerned that each of us, within a modern democratic society, has equality of opportunity. If this is true, then we should worry whether some children are unfairly advantaged over others in acquiring the skills necessary for equal opportunity.” (Murray 2009 p. 49)

“1) parents advocate measures to reduce funding for schooling in their own district; 2) they move away from their current residence to a district in which lower property taxes are paid; or 3) they ally themselves with like-minded citizens within their community to break away from their current district and thus form their own school district, or join one in which they will pay less in property taxes (Kozol, 1987: 54–6).”

“Secession involves a pair of conditions: 1) it is the redrawing of political boundaries in such a way as to allow for a change in jurisdiction over a territory and 2) the new political unit takes territory with it. School district secession meets both of these requirements in the most basic sense.”

“It is a government’s obligation to provide compulsory education for its future citizens because it crucially shapes children and prepares them to be autonomous persons and viable citizens.”(Murray, 2009, p. 53)

“There is no principled reason why school district secession proposals should be exempt from the first requirement of minimal realism. If certain members of the community or the school board promote secession, they should not only show why such a break is necessary, but also should demonstrate that it is going to be viable in the immediate future.”

“There is another more principled and convincing justification for school district secession, which unfortunately is sometimes referred to in a confused manner by actual secessionists. Many concerned parents are alarmed by their own impotence in affecting the decision-making process within school districts. These citizens believe that school district secession will allow them options for more direct democratic control over their children’s education.”(Murray 2009 p.57)

“Even when poorer districts tax themselves at much higher rates than richer districts to better fund their home district’s schools, they still must make do with fewer resources because of their more impoverished tax base” (Murray, p. 48).

“One disturbing pattern is reflected in the demographics of the groups that attempt school district secession. In the overwhelming majority of attempts at redrawing the boundaries of school districts, its advocates are mainly Caucasian, fairly to very affluent, and currently joined in the same school district with a community of a racial or ethnic minority, whose members garner a much lower per capita income.”

“These citizens believe that school district secession will allow them options for more direct democratic control over their children’s education.”(Murray, 2009, p. 57)

“Some readers may resist my calling school district secession by that name. Their hesitance is more than likely rooted in what appears to be a weak analogy between the attempt by a people or nation to break from a large political unit in the name of attaining full sovereignty over all political and economic matters, and the effort by a small group of citizens exercising what amounts to ‘white tax flight’.” (Murray 2009 p.52)

Over the past 25 years,there have been a number of separate efforts at breaking away from LAUSD,not only by San Fernando more generally, but also by Hollywood and Carson.

Introduction

“Religion and public education are perhaps the two most
pervasive facets of American life.” (Fuller, 1994, pg. 87)

“Unfortunately, yet understandably, the Supreme Court has complicated this process by failing to give an exact definition of
religion.” (Fuller, 1994, pg. 87)

“This paper will analyze the Court's attempts at resolving the delicate balance of maintaining an effective public-school system that neither alienates nor establishes one religious’ group over another.” (Fuller, 1994, pg. 87)

“In order to understand a public-school system's effectiveness, one must first know what a public-school system should effect, thus, part II of this paper will discuss the purposes of public schools and how the Supreme Court has applied the Establishment Clause to help accomplish those purposes.” (Fuller, 1994, pg. 87)

“This section will suggest that because defining religion is so difficult, the Court should revise what constitutes establishment and incorporate a coercion standard such as that used in freedom of speech analyses.” (Fuller, 1994, pg. 88)

"Promoting democratic principles did not mean that religion needed to be absolutely excluded. Instead, religion was viewed as a necessary component of "good government." Moreover, schooling was seen as a means of transferring religion, as well as the happiness of mankind." (Fuller, 1994, pp. 90)

-Beginning with these first public schools and into the Eighteenth Century, public and private schools taught from a religious perspective, apparently to promote a common destiny of Christian conversion.

-Thus the pragmatic effect of pluralism was that the needs and desires of each sect would negate the other. If religious indoctrination remained the sole aim of education, the public schools, failing to agree on one sect, would fail.

-Regardless of the purpose behind the term "voluntary prayer" the Court is hypocritical in its definitions of religion. Clearly, the Court ruled that a state cannot set aside a moment of silence for the stated purpose of prayer. This, the Court reasoned, endorses prayer.

-Public schools are necessary to promote cultural adhesion and foster individual growth, thus creating a more productive society. Moreover, the schools want and need to promote a free marketplace of ideas. Morals or values are a fundamental part of any culture and are necessary to the well-being of the individuals within that culture

"Religion and public education are perhaps the two most pervasive facets of American life. The Supreme court has consistently interpreted the First Amendment to mean that these two areas should not intersect. The difficulty is in the application of the First Amendment to everyday life. Unfortunately, yet understandably, the Supreme Court has complicated this process by failing to give an exact definition of religion. Such a necessary to viable society and leads to anarchy; a definition too marrow constrains the conscience of one person while establishing the religion of another. America's pluralistic nature accentuates this problem." (Fuller, 1994, pp. 87)

Comment by Herbert J Walberg

Choice schools raise achievement and satisfy peers

Private schools surpass public schools in achievement

In contrast, interviews and observations in Catholic schools revealed an atmosphere of courtesy, fairness, and respect. The schools had strong principal leadership with a clear mission for learning. Most decisions were made at the school site. An academic curriculum was taught well to whole classes. 160

Choice benefits regular schools

In Greene’s study, achievement test score gains, controlled for median household income, per pupil cost allocation, and ethnic minority ratios in each state, were significantly correlated with the degree of total weighted choice in the state.

Choice benefits students with special needs

Contrary to some commentators’ fears, school choice is effective for students with disabilities. In Florida, the McKay Scholarship Program enrolls ninety-two hundred students with special learning needs in private schools chosen by their parents. The amount of the scholarship is equal to the tuition of the receiving school or the amount the state and district allocate to educate a person with that specific disability 162

Choice works best on a large scale

Open, competitive markets tend to bring about greater competition and lead to greater achievement overall, and competition from newly created independent schools improved achievement in Sweden’s public schools. The reforms, moreover, had none of the negative consequences some critics had feared. The evaluation uncovered no indication that high-income families chose independent schools to a greater extent than low-income families, nor that choice led to increased economic segregation. Furthermore, nothing in the research showed that independent schools had any fewer students with special educational needs

Private vouchers may work in the United States

What is not in dispute, however, is the unmet demand for private voucher programs and the high satisfaction of parents whose children have transferred. Howell and Peterson’s research may be the beginning of a larger corpus of studies that is required before the effects of vouchers can be definitively judged. 161

Parents choose schools well

Caroline Hoxby also presents a sophisticated (econometric) analysis showing that parents prefer schools that have better academic achievement, emphasize academic standards, and promote a relatively structured (disciplined) school atmosphere.50 158

Comment by Patrick Wolf

The Inevitability of Markets in Education

"He somewhat obliquely hints at another important reality about education in the United States that needs to be stated clearly and unequivocally: School choice and residential assignment are both market-based methods for allocating students to schools” (Viteritti, 2005, 164).

"Stephen Gorard has established that even the highly restricted school choice system in England and Wales produce schools that are better integrated by socioeconomic status than under the previous system of residential assignment” (Viteritti, 2005, 165).

"iv. “One way or the other, market mechanisms will determine where students go to school. Low-income students are less disadvantaged by education markets that are designed and regulated by the government than by unfettered and often discriminatory real estate markets” (Viteritti, 2005, 165).

"The purchase of real estate is clearly more wealth constrained than any other commercial transaction an average family makes. Thus it is worth considering whether low-income families are more likely to gain access to effective schooling through school choice policy markets than through wealth-driven real estate markets” (Viteritti, 2005, 164).

The Basis for a Social Justice Defense of School Choice

“A second possibility is that under the status quo low-income families are being denied the chance to match their children to an educational environment that is a particularly good fit for that child.” (Viteritti 167)

"If greater access to effective schools for poor families is the social justice motivation for school choice, then a strong research component should be attached to new choice policies and program” (Viteritti, 2005, 168).

One possibility is the restriction on parent empowerment and self-esteem

"Finally, it might be that low-income students are being denied equal access to effective schooling” (Viteritti, 2005, 167).

Education Market and the Closing of Schools

Viteritti makes the perfectly reasonable claim that the pure market model of education is not politically viable

"Viteritti rightly notes that supporting schools is not necessarily the same as supporting students. However, that equation appears to be deeply entrenched in the public psyche” (Viteritti, 2005, 163).

The Obsession with Test Scores

“Why are test score impacts given so much attention to the exclusion of other widely reported school choice outcomes? This phenomenon is clearly driven more by demand than by supply.” (Viteritti 166)

Divvy (Hutt, Labaree)

Hutt

GED

Used as a way to test veterans ability to go to high school

[D]evised a battery of five tests: Correctness and Effectiveness of Expression; Interpretation of Reading Materials in the Social Studies; Interpretation of Reading Materials in the Natural Sciences; Interpretation of Literary Materials; and General Mathematical Ability (American Council on Education, 1945). (Hutt,2014,7)

In February 1948 the New York State Senate and Assembly passed a law officially recognizing the GED as a means for measuring the experiences of all adult citizens of the state and as the basis for issuing an equivalency diploma with the same legal standing as the state’s traditional Regent’s Diploma (NY SL New York State Assembly, No. 2044, Int. 1942; Feb 12, 1948; New York State Senate, No. 1539, Int. 1471). (Hutt, 2014, 12).

Labaree

PISA

PISA emerged from a series of other international efforts to assess school achievement that arose after the Second World War. The main precursor organization was the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), an offshoot of UNESCO, which conducted a 12-country pilot study in 1959, followed by the First International Mathematics Study in 1964, the First International Science Study in 1971, the second version of each of these studies in 1982 and 1984, and the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) in 1995 (IEA, n.d.). (Labaree, 2014, 3)

The PISA was created after World War 2 to compare and rank the education of individual countires

Stefan Hopmann (2008) summarizes the findings of a five other researchers with this devastating assessment of [t]he assumption that what PISA measures is somehow important knowledge for the future. There is no research available that proves this assertion beyond the point that knowing something is always good and knowing more is better. There is not even research showing that PISA covers enough to be representative of the school subjects involved or the general knowledge-base. PISA items are based on the practical reasoning of its researchers and on pre-tests of what works in most or all settings—and not on systematic research on current or future knowledge structures and needs. (p. 438) (Labaree, 2014,5).

In other words, they just made it up. “We assert that these are the skills people need to have,” they seem to be saying, “and we assert that schools should be held accountable for how well students learn these skills.” (Labaree, 2014,5).

NCLB

Evolved into the common core.

Started in the 1980's and George W. Bush pushed it to become what it is today.

NCLB, however, in both its current and its future (Common Core) phases, is content to focus entirely on measuring how well students learn key elements of the content that schools teach in English, math, science, and social studies. It assumes that this academic subject matter constitutes human capital—providing the knowledge and skills that students will need in order to increase economic productivity, the gross domestic product, and national power.(Labaree, 2014,9)

They want to see if they can still remember what they need to know to get a good high school education

They started testing adults to se if they still remember what they learned in high school, and applying it to everyday life like they were told they would.

Everyone started to like thee tests and realized how use-full they truly were.

Bush liked the idea of improving our educational system so he did what he thought was going to do the best job of that.

These tests wanted to compare each-other around the world and try to see where they can improve on.

They want to see what skills they learned in school and what skills they already had before they stepped foot into the classroom.

This didn't just stop at the United States everyone around the world wanted to get in on the action.

This doesn't make sense to me because of coarse they will forget most things and only remember what is important to them.

I AGREE that younger adults will certainly remember more than the elderly but still not remember everything that was taught to them.

I agree with this because you have to test your product to see how useful it is before you put it in every school in the country or world.

This doesn't make sense because I feel like if you truly are making the schools better by this test then you should be making the kids smarter too as the program develops and then those kids are smarter and get good jobs and make the world a better place.

This makes sense because obviously a president is going to do what only he thinks is gong to help the country and not only that make himself look like a better president.

This makes sense because you get to compare what they already knew walking into the classroom and what else they learned and they leave the classroom.

The tests not only wanted to improve but it rated the school and showed what their weaknesses were and how to fix those weaknesses.

This makes sense because if it helped out America and was a success you might as well not stop there and keep going to the rest of the world.

I don't believe that this will make the system or tests better because you aren't really testing schools knowledge you just testing that individuals memory which could be misleading.

Again I don't believe this will work because of the same reason as testing the elderly, your just testing their memory and not the high school or whatever school your trying to test.

I believe if the test gets better the students and the school will too which will help America dramatically for those who want a good education and want a good life.

I agree that this system will work because you can not only get a rate of how that school is doing in teaching their students but you also get a feel for the neighborhood and what that can be like, whether its rough or peaceful.

This makes sense because if you want to not only improve as an individual but as a company and get yourself out there the ore the better.

This surprised me because I didn't think they would test veterans for a high school test.

I feel like this would improve not only America but the world because if everyone is going to take it then the same situation will appear for every country which is that the students should be smarter

I feel like I understood this the most out of everything in the article because it just makes the most sense in the fact that you are literally testing what you knew before and how much you know after if any.

I disagree with this because your only doing this to improve the school, which means your eventually trying to improve the kids knowledge. Yes it might take money to get to get that point but sometimes you have to spend money to get more of it.

They wanted everyone including the teachers to follow the way of the Lord and not believe anything else.

Sciences and other things were not taught because they did not believe in the evolution and thinks like that.

Everyone was welcome and everyone's ideas were welcomed and talked about.

Public schools want to better society and the people that live in it. The best way it to start when people are young and bring them up the right way or the way society wants them too be brought up.

Its become much easier to teach the kids a science and something physical then just a belief

They want to get to know the school and the neighborhood around it first before they walk in and act like they know everything and try to critique that school.

Every school around the nation had to be a Christian and understand their ways and believe in god, and they thought that if you did this you would get a better education.

The public schooling system was a way to get better education and a way for "everyone" to fit in.

This believes that politics disrupts the educational system by everything new that they are trying to put into it compared to the religion side of education.

This survey will make things easier compared to the religion education and scholarships give kids an extra advantage.

Children don't know which school has the best education but their parents can find that out and send their kids their.

Other than financially becoming a problem the other religious schools want to become more popular.

The voucher was more for poor people to try and help them out in a slightest way.

This wants to help families with disabilities and are poorer than most which will give their kids the same advantages as those financially unstable

Helped the poor from worse to a little better which made it a little bit better to live in and made them have high hopes for their future.

Wanted every family to have the same chance to give their kid the best education as possible and giver everyone an equal chance to graduate and become whoever they want to be.

Demand is much greater than the supply.

Kids that missed class had to make up that world and became part of the bottom of the class and looked at as a weak link

It's the government responsibility to make sure the students get the best education they can possibly et.

The more options the better, and the more they will be allowed to put more control into their education.

Letting students and their parents choose what school to go to is huge and makes the educational system that much more efficient, and after all we are in the land of the free.

Kids can get more accomplished and met more personal goals when they get to choose their own school wether that be for academic reasons or sport related reasoning.

After all social justice is whats going to turn this country around and start heading in the right direction.

This makes sense because when you are bringing outside experiences into the classroom it helps give the student more options to think about and lets that student grow more mentally on a specific subject.

This didn't make sense to me because at what point and time was someone like okay this doesn't make sense anymore lets start teaching these kids something new and completely different than what weve taught for hundreds of years.

This makes sense because For a long time if you weren't catholic and didn't believe in God you weren't even allowed to go to school at all.

This makes sense because for kids the question "why" comes up a lot when your just trying to tell a kid something but when you can actually show them something through science and hw things actually work then they can get a better understanding.

this makes sense because its basically like studying for a test and you know if they got something wrong while they were trying to tweak there system they would've said "Should've gotten your facts straight first."

This doesn't make sense because if you didn't believe in God what were you suppose to do? Even if you are way smarter than the average student you aren't allowed to go to school on that simple reason which is not fair or socially justice at all.

This makes sense because the schools just want to help the kids and their families out a little bit and give them an advantage.

This makes sense because kids are way smarter than there 4 or 5 year old child which means the difficult decisions should be made by them.

This makes sense because any type of school should want more kids in their program and want to help out anyone who needs it, thats what religion is for.

This makes sense because you want to help out as many people as you can so you look better as a program, which could lead to having more students which could lead to having more money coming into your school.

This wants to help students become equal and give ever body the same oppertunities.

This just wanted to give the poor something to look forward to and of coarse they just wanted to help anyone who needed it.

I agree with this because every student should have the same oppertunites as the next and no child should be treated differently.

I agree with this because if your going to want more people to fit into your school your going to have to open a lot of doors and become more socially diverse.

This makes sense because you cant change a students opinion once they are older, I man you can with facts but its a lot easier to change their minds while their young.

This doesn't make sense to me because you cant really have one without the other so to say that one is greater than the other is just wrong to me.

This makes sense because there can be any reason and multiple reasons why a kid would want to either change schools or go to a certain one like sports or the type of teachers that teach there.

I agree with this because we cannot be the great "freedom" country that we say we are if we don't truly give that freedom away.

This does make sense to me because it was the same way at my school and i'm sure it was the same way everyone else that has students missing assignments, which it truly puts them behind when they miss assignments because they wont know what going on in the future.

I think this makes sense because other than the student actually trying and caring for their education who else is going to teach these kids.

This makes sense to me because theres only so many people that have control of the students education other than themselves, and that of coarse the school and also the students parents or gardians.

This doesn't make sense because if they have a good thing going for them why can't they just stick together and become well known together instead of trying to break away and try and take all of the fame for themselves.

This doesnt make sense to me in the simple fact that no matter how many times I read it, it just simply does not make sense to me. I dont get the text and I dont get what the author is trying to say.

This makes sense because there is only one most important person in this equation and that is the student themselves, and if they don't care abut learning or getting better then the whole system is messed up.

This makes sense because your only going to learn about what you actually care about. You wont learn something very well if you dont give a damn about it.

I believe that this is the right and only way to look at education. A student is simply only going to learn if he or she cares about the subject. The rest will be forggot after the test is taken

I believe this makes sense because middle class poeple are usually always middle class of everything and this case being the test scores which totally make sense

I believe that students control everything in this whole subject and they have to actually care and they have to actually want a good education in order for this to work, and they have to work TOGETHER

I believe that if schools cant afford to keep rolling in money then they have no bussines being a school anymore at all.

I believe bringing us together is only going to make us stronger as a nation which can not be a bad thing comparing us to other countries. For years our plan is to be the best and work harder to become the best, and we can only do that if we work together instead of at each-other.

I believe that a student who wants to learn will learn. and a student who doesn't care will only learn things at their home life.

I believe you are only helping the students by giving them more options and letting them choose and have the freedom to go wherever is most comfortable for them.

I think the key to success is having other there with you willing to have your back when you fall. If you make a mistake and you fall and you don't have anyone there to save you then your don for good and thats how a lot of schools go out of business.

click to edit

I disbelieve that this should be how things are run and I'm glad we switched, I believe in God but not everybody else has too and thats okay, You should still leave the door open for others thoug so You can have a booming bussiness.

I believe that giving kids an extra advantage will make a huge difference and will make the nation work a lot better because it will give those young adults the confidence they need to succeed

I disbelieve that polotics disrups the educational system, because i feel like the politics add a whole other side of compatition and that will only better the system.

I feel like its only right fo the school to not try and become popular but focus on becoming great first with the students it has no and then looking to become more popular.

I feel like once you hit rock bottom the slightest help will go a long way.

I feel like the middle class is just the average of everything

I feel like this is the best scenario possible because not all students and parents are going to feel the same way about something and they will all have different goals.

I disagree with this and I feel like instead of being so worried about money they should take care of the problem on hand and that feeding a ton of knwledge into their students and making sure they get smarter for the test at the end of the year that will reflect on how well they did as a school.

I disagree with this, if a school wanted to start its own beliefs they would have just as much to back them up as a Christian school would.