Pass For Pay Selected Feedback

Representative feedback on Pass For Pay from a variety of viewpoints is inserted below without any comments from me.

We are 100% for the whole idea.

Our kids are grown but if they were still in school, we would be hopping up and down for joy if something like this was put into place. This is exactly what we need - what our kids need. We are 100% for the whole idea.

There are other less measurable things gained by the education system.

That makes the assumption that the book knowledge that a student gains is all that education tax dollars buy. For children that cannot fit into a regular school structure that would be a useful tool but it should be an exception. There are other less measurable things gained by the education system.

Even getting beat up by the school yard bully is an element of education that testing doesn't measure, just as an extreme example. A few others; children that get free meals that otherwise wouldn't, employment of teachers, janitors, principals, etc.

Most school districts are the largest employers in city, and it is a pay for work and value delivered system, not a welfare system. After wars end, some of the most effective money spent in putting a country back together is starting schools. It gives the children needed structure, frees their parents to work, gets them at least a meal a day.

Your idea is even better ...

From: Robert Canright Plano Parents

Date: Sep 16, 2009 10:07 PM

Subject: Re: Pass For Pay

I believe you have found a practical improvement to the school vouchers suggested by Milton Friedman. Here is a link to a WikiPedia article about Friedman:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman

In summary, he received the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1976. The volunteer army was one of his suggestions that has been good for our children (he helped get rid of the draft). School vouchers are another of his suggestions. He started the Milton Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice:
http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/

He raised good points and if we paid attention better our children would benefit.

Your idea is even better because it is related to results and would add home schooling as an option.

Robert Canright Plano Parents

Terrible.

Terrible. Paying a family for completing steps in primary education, which should be a general expectation of society, is a terrible practice. Being paid to learn is for individuals recruited into top-tier PhD programs; its presumed that their research will further world knowledge and possibly create advances in technology that will benefit industry and education.

My tax dollars are already mismanaged ($1mil+ budget shortfall in my town's school district); the last thing I want to do is, in effect, pay the 5th grader down the street
for going to school.

If we need to find uses for public funds, put the money into teacher salaries. That's if we have the funds to spend at all.

It's a bad idea.

Thanks for asking my opinion, even though I have not had an opinion {on your emails} in a long time. This is something that I don't have completely worked out in my mind but I do have some opinions that I have thought about.

First, I think the more the govt gives, the more control they have. The less they are involved in my child's education the better! It is not worth any money to me.

If a child has to pass an exam, what about mentally challenged or physically challenged children. Are they out? How will it be decided what level test they will take, especially home schooled children?

My son had a friend who never has passed the TAKS test and therefore never got a diploma. I think the testing idea is a miserable failure in his case. I also saw a friend's child not score well and was humiliated in front of the whole class for not passing to the next grade because of a test (TAKS).

One of my daughters has friends in college who fret over calling their parents because they dread the conversation about grades. These parents unknowingly have pushed the student to a point of them not wanting a relationship with the parent because of the pressure of grades.

How would parents of low scoring students treat these children? I watch some parents of children in public that are very mean and awful in the interaction with their children. If you attach a dollar amount to their child that is a recipe for trouble!

Where will these testing centers be and who will pay for them? Some students do not test well in an unfamiliar setting.

My idea: "It's a bad idea".

I think that you are on the right course here

I think that you are on the right course here but please don't lose sight of one big component. I would rephrase the way I present the proposal to:

"Parents should be paid [by] State and other public funds for the education of their children"

To me, this somehow infers that the State has money to pay out. It does not have any money of its own. It only has money that it has taken from someone, in this case for the purpose of giving it to someone else, and I would want to make sure that this reality is not forgotten. Granted, I think even the most ardent Libertarians can compromise on public school education to some degree. But, if you are married, have two children, and only make $30K per year total family income, you won't have the option of paying $8K a year to send your children to private school.

But, you do hit a point. Regardless, if we are going to publicly fund education, and we are a free society, then we should get to choose how and where that education takes place. Education is the one life path that can change lives. Government funding for food, shelter, clothing or the like can certainly make a difference day to day, and it can be argued that charity should not be the work of government, but education can change history.

Abraham Lincoln is very good example of that, and as a society we do not want, and cannot afford, to inhibit the opportunity for any child that has the talent and intellect, from getting the best possible education. This does however have to be done by choice, not by edict.

So, I agree with your premise, and I have proposed this in public meetings and with political party groups attended by government representatives. There are some that would support this.

A very simple concept. The state of Texas, spends say, $6,700.00 per year on average for each student and let the parents be responsible for the rest. After all, the "school" is not responsible for the children, the parents are.

The only detail to be debated is how the payments are to be disbursed to avoid fraud. Parents MUST carry full responsibility for seeing the payments are made to the "school". No pay, no play must be strictly adhered to, just as laws exist that require you to pay for any service you contract for with any company. Home schoolers would take the same exams to meet the same standards. This would be a competitive environment but it would likely raise the achievement levels on average across the entire state, or country for that matter. Parents may then begin to realize that more emphasis and time would be better spent on school work.

Yes, this would dramatically change the education system, but education would be the better for it. There would be more and smaller schools. Less consolidation and some chaos would ensue and I am sure that the concept of tenure would go right out the window. Teachers would have to compete for work, as the rest of us do, and would likely have to get better as a result. Gee, sorry about that, there are no guarantees in life. That makes it all better.

But, specialty programs would begin to develop a new crop of the best physicists, mathematicians, scientists, and chemists, such as this country has not seen in decades.

Want your child to play sports? Pay for it. I know Plano tried to do this and found much resistance but it was a great idea, and I speak from some experience. My wife and I have both coach for our local school system before we moved to Texas. We were lay coaches, not school staff. My wife was good enough that the school system actually found or created an "aide" position for her so she could coach above grades 7 and 8 without protests from the local Union. Parents actually went to the school board to get her the Junior Varsity position the Teacher Union prevented that. (Another stupid concept as the student athletes are the ones that suffer.) I digress.

My point of pay for play here, is that ANY coach, and ANY school, and most knowledgeable parents, will tell you or admit, that if your child has the potential to be a top tier athlete, they MUST go to a "Club" sports program. That is where the best athletes are, that is where the best coaches are, and that is where the college scouts are, with some exceptions of course. Boys sports are not dominated by club sports at the high school level to extent of girls sports, but they still are at the younger ages. Girls volleyball and softball are heavily influenced at the club level. Completely paid for by the parents. No $20M football stadiums either.

Schools should educate. Sports programs, which both of my children, and their parents, participated continually in, should be paid for, at least to some extent, by the parents, not the school budget. I do not consider most, band, theater, 4H, etc, totally separate from the school curriculum, and many expenses are already paid be parents whose children participate in these type programs.

But, parents would have the option of sending their children to facilities where those programs exist, and by default, they would become more independent from the "school" administration, and budget, through choice of participation. Or perhaps over time, facilities might demand more fees for participation to maintain facilities. It would better the participants because they must make an effort, choose to be there, and more would be expected.

.