School Super Asks Governor To Make His School District a Prison

quipalicious writes "A Michigan school super asks the state governor to make his school district a prison, highlighting the various rights and privileges that prisoners get and public schooling students don't."

Comments

Very well written

[gomiam]

Sometimes I would like to be able to give +1 Insightful to articles outside Slashdot :)

Re:Very well written

[digitalaudiorock]

Well written maybe, but the comparison is ridiculous. Of course it's expensive to keep people in prison. I mean they live there with access to nothing else. Is he suggesting, for example, that we don't provide health care for inmates? If he wants to gripe about prisons and money, complain about the fact that 2/3 of all that money is for people in prison on bullshit drug changes...there's your biggest waste of money.

Re:Very well written

[eln]

Most kids in the worst-performing schools DON'T get that stuff at home. The worst performing schools are almost always in the poorest areas, and it's not because poor people are naturally stupid or because teachers in those schools are naturally incompetent.

Parental involvement is the most significant single indicator of student success. Parental involvement also decreases as income decreases. Sometimes it's because parents have to work multiple jobs. Sometimes it's because the cycle of poverty creates despair which leads people to make bad decisions like turning to drugs and crime, which often lead them into our well-funded prison system. Schools have gotten worse as the gap between rich and poor has widened. This is not a coincidence.

It's wrong to say all schools are failing. In wealthier districts, schools are by and large doing very well, even the public schools. The ultimate solution to repairing schools is reducing that gap between rich and poor back to a more reasonable level. Unfortunately, since any attempt to help the poor is seen as socialism and there's a pervasive feeling in this country that poor people are poor for a reason and don't deserve any help, we debate endlessly over symptoms rather than fighting the root cause.

Re:Very well written

[TheRaven64]

Actually, looking more closely, that's not true - my mental approximation of inflation was off by a long way. In the UK, state schools receive around $8700 per pupil and the fees for the school where I went are now a shade over $15000. My mother taught at a state school, and the funding was really tight (it's increased by about 85%, ignoring inflation, since then, about 50% factoring in inflation). So $7000 per pupil is probably below the minimum I would expect. My mother was having to teach classes of over 40 pupils, with one textbook between two and a lot of them so old that they were falling apart. With $7000, maybe they could afford a few new textbooks, but class sizes would still be too large.

Re:Very well written

[causality]

It seems like the districts we spend the most on are the WORST ONES. For example, D.C.'s public schools spend over $24,000 per student, yet they graduate fewer than half. Meanwhile, the students in the voucher program went to private schools costing less than $14,000 per student and I don't think any of them failed to graduate. The voucher program cost less money and was more successful, so naturally OBAMA KILLED IT. Draw your own conclusion about this man.

That one would not depend on who is President. The most powerful group opposing vouchers is the NEA. Not only is the National Education Association the largest union in the USA, it's also the most powerful and most politically well-connected. They say "jump", the politicians ask "how high" and are careful to ask that nicely. If these people don't like you, you're really going to have one hell of a time having a career in politics.

Just about anything that would substantially improve the USA's schools would also reduce the power of the NEA and they will not tolerate that. The welfare of the students is their last concern. The perpetuation of their jobs and of the union's power is the primary concern. Vouchers would make private schools more accessible to more families, making it easier for private schools to compete against state schools. Whenever unfettered competition is allowed, the state schools do poorly both academically and in terms of expense. The NEA knows this. The movement towards private schooling would mean that merit and actual ability to teach become more important than how much seniority a teacher has acquired. It would end up weakening their power base.

Remember that these are people who will take to the streets and protest over salary but not a peep is heard about the fact that we're teaching the students crap, that in so many places fewer than half of them graduate, that they read and write at pathetically low grade levels, that other basic skills are lacking, etc. If that doesn't explain their priorities, if that doesn't tell you who these people are and what they are about, I am not so sure what would.

Schools are Prisons

[Anonymous Coward]

Public school teachers are in much the same position as prison wardens. Wardens' main concern is to keep the prisoners on the premises. They also need to keep them fed, and as far as possible prevent them from killing one another. Beyond that, they want to have as little to do with the prisoners as possible, so they leave them to create whatever social organization they want. From what I've read, the society that the prisoners create is warped, savage, and pervasive, and it is no fun to be at the bottom of it.

In outline, it was the same at the schools I went to. The most important thing was to stay on the premises. While there, the authorities fed you, prevented overt violence, and made some effort to teach you something. But beyond that they didn't want to have too much to do with the kids. Like prison wardens, the teachers mostly left us to ourselves. And, like prisoners, the culture we created was barbaric.

from "Why Nerds are Unpopular"

Clever but inane

[SniperJoe]

While I appreciate the point that the superintendent was trying to make (especially given the relative funding difference per person), I'm sure that the students would have some things to say about being forced to remain inside the school for 24 hours a day. Prisons spend so much money and provide items such as health care, exercise facilities and food because those people are forced to be there. You can't really just offer lunch in prison. Besides, I think the dollar argument is disingenuous. Comparing dollar figures for people that are in prison 24 hours a day / 365 days a year to those that are in school for 180 days a year / 8 hours a day on a per capital basis isn't exactly fair. From the article itself, $35,000 a year for a prisoner divided by 8,760 hours (24 hours * 365 days) is roughly $4.00 an hour. $7,000 a year for a student divided by 1,440 hours (8 hours * 180 days) is $4.86 per hour. By that metric, they are spending 22% MORE per student on an hourly basis than they are on a prisoner.

Hey Republicans:

[circletimessquare]

If you don't fund public education, what do you think the kids will do?

I mean, they've committed the crime of being born poor.Obviously, only people who can afford private school should be able to educate their kids, right? This must be the meritocracy I keep hearing you talk about. You do understand a true meritocracy requires you to SPEND to make sure everyone starts out on equal footing right? Oh i"m sorry, nevermind, that's "socialism."

Oh I agree, there is a lot of waste in the system and teachers and administrators are paid too well with too many perks. But with that valid complaint, instead of trying to REFORM where public school funds go, you just want to defund it. Those evil poor people, trying to get educated. Tsk, tsk. Let us keep our focus on where our concerns should naturally be: keeping taxes low for the rich. Those poor rich, people trying to rob them of the money they made completely by themselves, without any input from the infrastructure their country made possible, right? (The country they SAY they love.)

Anyway: I'll tell you what those kids will do without good public education: they'll become criminals. You've taught them with your priorities that poor Americans should hurry up and die as far as you are concerned (healthcare anyone?). With that kind of leadership, the poor will hear you loud and clear and return the amount of respect you give them: it's not about helping each other as Americans, it's about "I got mine already, so fuck you." That's a perfect segue to a gun in your backside and a request for your wallet, no? You reap what you sow Republicans. The quality of your society is dictated by your policies and your attitudes towards your fellow American.

See, the funny thing about education costs, healthcare costs, is that if you don't pay these expenses, they don't just go away. They still COST you, but in terms of the quality of the society you live in instead. What, too "socialist" for you? Reality. Learn it.

Of course, Republicans are "tough on crime." So this principle will get what he wants in jest, in reality: more prisons, less schools. No costs there, right Republicans? It's what the poor deserve: prisons, not schools, right? Tells us all we need to know about your love for your country and your fellow citizens. Just stop believing anyone buys your lies anymore, you selfish shortsighted assholes.

Re:Hey Republicans:

[circletimessquare]

the poor shouldn't be rewarded the same as the rich, you should be more rewarded for working hard and achieving in life. but by the same token, the poor shouldn't be doomed to substandard healthcare and education, just for being poor. or a class divide hardens and deepends. a poor child should have roughly the same chance to succeed in life as a rich child. a poor child should not be doomed by poverty simply because of where he was born

what i would like you to do, is to try hard and try to stay on the fucking subject matter: it's about kids starting out on equal footing. it's not about guaranteeing that everyone finish at the same economic level, regardless of effort exerted. that's called nepotism actually: you know, who your rich father knows getting you your position in life, rather than the hard working guy who couldn't rise any further in the company because your useless ass needed to be pampered

it's not about every kid getting an xbox, its about every kid getting a good education and good healthcare. you of course confuse the two topics. either out of ignorance or willful intellectual dishonesty. and so leadership of society should not be left to the selfish shortsighted assholes who have no problem letting society slide towards vast gaping inequalities. some people don't have a problem with such a society. because they are simply ignorant or don't care that that is what their ideology results in

and i believe you are in lucerne, maybe not swiss though. you sound like the product of the upper middle class or rich of a highly unequal society. certainly classism exists everywhere, including switzerland, such are your obvious blinders

but thanks for playing, marie antoinette. i would let the conversation occur between adults honestly interested in society's well-being. we'll try to to put too much of a damper on the allowance your dad gives you monthly for clubbing and ski holidays

Re:Not the school's place to provide those things

[Ephemeriis]

From the fine article:

This is why I’m proposing to make my school a prison. The State of Michigan spends annually somewhere between $30,000 and $40,000 per prisoner, yet we are struggling to provide schools with $7,000 per student. I guess we need to treat our students like they are prisoners, with equal funding. Please give my students three meals a day. Please give my children access to free health care. Please provide my school district Internet access and computers. Please put books in my library. Please give my students a weight room so we can be big and strong. We provide all of these things to prisoners because they have constitutional rights. What about the rights of youth, our future?!

Depending on the child's family, and the location of the school, many of these things are not available.

There is no assurance that anybody is going to have a roof over their head. Sure, there are public housing programs, but they aren't a sure thing. They're chronically underfunded. I guess there are homeless shelters, too, but they aren't any better funded.

There is no assurance that anybody is going to get three meals a day. Yup, the food stamps program exists - again, chronically underfunded. And with lots of hoops to jump through. And there aren't soup kitchens everywhere.

Fitness center - you want them to go to the Y? You realize the Y isn't free, right? YMCA membership around here is ridiculously expensive. It's cheaper just to sign up at some other health club.

Earn a degree - scholarships, grants, loans, night school... None of those are guaranteed. Lots of competition for limited scholarships and grants. And several of the banks in my area have stopped offering student loans.

Books and computer - public library. Well, that's nice if you have a public library. And if that library actually has computers and a decent selection of books. Again though, they're chronically underfunded.

It sounds like he does actually want to make a prison, because prison is likely the only place you'll find all that together. That doesn't mean they're not provided to the non-incarcerated. This type of thinking sends the school systems down the path of being replacement parents. That should not be our end goal.

These things are apparently important enough that they're provided for prisoners. Nobody says "I'm sorry you can't earn enough money to pay for your own health care, it's your problem" when you're a prisoner. And yet, if you aren't a prisoner, that's basically the response. Same thing goes for pretty much everything else you mention.

So, culturally, we think healthcare is essential enough to provide it to the people we've locked away from the rest of us... But we don't think it's essential enough to make sure that our schoolchildren have it no matter what...

Seems a little messed up to me.

Re:Success, not failure

[SomeKDEUser]

If you are tough on crime, this means, presumably, that you are arresting more people. Now, this means that the people locked up do not commit any more crimes while locked up (after is a function of whether your prison system makes sense or is just a relic of medieval thinking).

The number of youth turning to crime, according to you, is a function of the number of criminals around them when they are growing up. Now if this were true, the crime rate would be significantly affected by the imprisonment rate, all over the world. But we find this to not be the case. Although locking people up does keep them off the street, it is a very costly and inefficient way of combating crime.

Which is why the most likely explanation for the drop remains legalised abortion. It is not growing up around criminals which matters in particular, but growing up in difficult circumstances. Abortion prevents births in bad circumstances and allows mothers to only carry their pregnancy to term when it makes sense to them.

Indeed, the drop would be observed not 12 years after the measures, but 17-18 (the human violence peak). Guess what happened at the end of the seventies?

Re:Success, not failure

[SomeKDEUser]

No, 17-24 years after (yet a bit later in fact, because of delays in implementation). It has been argued that the bump is due to the introduction of crack. Australian, Canadian and Romanian studied have all concluded to the same effect of abortion.

And these are a good control, because the legalisations happenned at different times.