I just wonder what the proof for that is…it’s an assumption that because test scores or graduation rates are not as high as in the suburbs that it’s because people aren’t doing a good job? MPLS public schools have a far more challenging job to do than the suburban schools.

You’ve just nicely illustrated my thesis that those with vested interests in the industry itself should not be our source of plans for improvement.

There are a ton of steps that could be taken to begin addressing the problems and shortcomings of the Mpls system. Problem is, most of them are opposed by the unions and admins, not because they wouldn’t help the kids, but because they would make things not as good for the unions and the admins. So, when the discussion turns to fixing things, they always simply say “give us more money.”

We’ve given more and more money to the problem districts, and history shows us that the only real improvement brought by that extra money accrues to the teachers’ benefit, not the kids’.

The big push for private schools isn’t really about a love of private schools, or even a desire to have gawd stand by the blackboard. It’s more of a frustrated backlash caused when years and years of discussion of problems results only in repeated “give us more money!” cries.

Some people in Mpls are doing a shitty job now. How on earth would paying them more fix things?

Fellow news junkies on this site may have noted that DeRusha’s story ran the day before most other Twin Cities media covered it. Be sure to mention that to the boss, Jason.

I think that we should hold teachers and the district responsible but who is going to be the one to force this? Parents. I mean, honestly, parents tend to be the ones to put the most pressure on the schools to change. This is not to say that others can’t do it but parents are probably the biggest and best advocates for change.

I don’t think that it’s possible to come up with a general baseline for what’s an acceptable school. I mean, it varies from child to child. What resources can it provide that the student needs beyond just teaching them basics.

I guess my number one criterion would be how much room for growth does the school provide for the child. What I mean by this is that there are plenty of opportunities for students to develop an understanding of academics beyond what they’re supposed to learn and that they have plenty of options for extracurricular growth.

However, I would say that this reasoning mainly applies to people with a choice as to which schools to send their kids to and not as guidelines as to what a school must do to be considered a “good” school (only because “growth” is such a subjective term).

Then again, when the kid gets to high school, I’d definitely start looking at how the school does getting kids into college. I don’t mean how many kids go to Ivy League schools. I mean, how effective it is when it comes to helping kids find the right college for them.

Obviously, this is something that I’d expect more out of in a private school than a public school, which has many more students.

What I’m trying to get at, though, is that segment for which we should hold teachers and the district responsible. In other words, there must be something beyond parental involvement, right? Yes it’s important, but if we put all the onus on parents then aren’t we giving the school system a free pass? What is the baseline for an acceptable school, parental influence notwithstanding? (Or is that even a fair question?)

Oh, and for the record, I attended Southwest High for fresh/soph and (Convent of the) Visitation in Mendota Hts for jr/sr.

The school I went to isn’t open anymore (mechanic arts h.s. in st. paul), but it was where the poor and immigrant kids from east 7th street, selby-dale, university ave., rice street, and McDonough housing project went to school. We had two alumni who ended up on the u.s. supreme court … Whizzer White and Harry Backmun.

I think that there is such thing as a good school. I asked my mom why she chose to send me to the school I attended and she had several well thought out reasons. Furthermore, she had several reasons why she didn’t send me to various private schools.

I was talking with a couple of my friends and most of them would send their kids to the school we graduated from. Then again, I know of people who left my school for public schools including Southwest, several suburban schools, and the arts high school. Many of these people had parents who could easily have paid for them to remain at my school.

I think that any school where the parents are invested in their child’s education, is probably going to be a better school than one where more parents aren’t. If the school is in the ghetto but there are enough parents who care, it can be a great school. If a school is really rich but the parents don’t care, then it can be a bad school.

I just don’t think money is enough to guarantee a good school. There are a lot of wealthy parents who don’t give a flip about their kids. Look at parents who pay for their kids to go to college for eons without doing anything…

Granted, this alone does not make the school great but it goes a long way.
For example, the high school in the town where my college is located has a good number of professors as parents. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that these parents are invested in their kids educations. Yet, some professors are opting to leave the school because, at the high school level, the school isn’t that great. For example, it almost cut the French program this year but the parents put up a huge fight. So clearly, invested parents can’t solve for everything but they can do some things.