Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

turboturtle

Little Rock Schools

79 posts in this topic

Maybe you've noticed that different sub-topics become peppered with "off-topic" discussions about our schools. Regardless of our philosophical beliefs about public or private schools, we believe that these institutions have a significant role to play in the success of Little Rock and its MSA. This sub-topic will serve to focus the schools discussion. By creating this thread, it will also allow other sub-topics to stay on topic because posts about schools and the members who want to discuss our schools, can be sent here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I agree that is a valid point. I think there is more to it than advertising revenue. The connection between Walter Hussmen and the eStem school is well established. If the DOG is subsidizing the advertising budget for eStem, then it is wrong and unfair. This should not be difficult for anyone to understand. If WalMart were being given a low advertising rate and Target a higher advertising rate for the same ad placement, it would probably beget a lawsuit.

I personally don't have a position on eStem yet. I have some doubts, but I will give it a chance. A quality, inner-city, urban school would be a good thing for Little Rock. If it becomes an instrument for a minority interest to further erode support for other Little Rock public schools and the LRSD; then my opinion will change very quickly.

Perhaps editorially, they are anti-private schools as you suggest. I don't read the editorials. The Times has been very persistent about attempting to shed light on all things related to the LRSD because it is a public institution, and eStem is a part of it. That is journalism. Please reference a Times article to support your claim.

I don't recall the Times being unfair to Catholic, PA, St. Marys, or the Episcopal School (Stephens Media owns the Arkansas Times). Furthermore, the Times publishes a FREE annual schools edition that is inclusive of all schools public and private. If you have children, I'm surprised you haven't seen this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arkansas Times has shown their dislike many times for charter schools. The Times has been persistent about the LRSD because they couldn't wait to see Dr. Brooks removed. Now that he is one of the forces behind eStem the Times will find anything it can to down play the school. And as I have said before, if you are a white student in the LRSD you score better on Benchmark and End of Course Exams than if you attend school in one of Little Rock's flight communities. They claim to have the better schools but that is not true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


That is BS.

"Dr. Brooks did not cause this divide and firing him will not heal this divide." Dr. James Ross' letter, 4/13/2007 in Arktimes.

"It was a bad week for

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Max Brantley's comment on the eStem ad under a blog entry, "Quality Education."

"This week's Insider noted some fractured Latin and syntax in the big ads being run in the Democrat-Gazette for the Hussman-Walton Memorial Charter School, Roy Brooks, prop., that's going in at Third and Louisiana." Does not not state a point of view about a school that has not even opened its doors yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Max Brantley's comment on the eStem ad under a blog entry, "Quality Education."

"This week's Insider noted some fractured Latin and syntax in the big ads being run in the Democrat-Gazette for the Hussman-Walton Memorial Charter School, Roy Brooks, prop., that's going in at Third and Louisiana." Does not not state a point of view about a school that has not even opened its doors yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Max's no saint, but a lot of the arguments he's made on his website against this school make sense, and aren't unwarranted. To a lot of people, especially people who have invested a lot in public schools, eStem is a betrayal, and we (I am definitely in this camp) are going to act a bit irrationally because that's what betrayed people do.

Also, many of us are on principal against this type of school, so it really doesn't matter if it's started yet, regardless of the outcome, we feel this is worse for children in LR and worse for public schools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree that is a valid point. I think there is more to it than advertising revenue. The connection between Walter Hussmen and the eStem school is well established. If the DOG is subsidizing the advertising budget for eStem, then it is wrong and unfair. This should not be difficult for anyone to understand. If WalMart were being given a low advertising rate and Target a higher advertising rate for the same ad placement, it would probably beget a lawsuit.

I personally don't have a position on eStem yet. I have some doubts, but I will give it a chance. A quality, inner-city, urban school would be a good thing for Little Rock. If it becomes an instrument for a minority interest to further erode support for other Little Rock public schools and the LRSD; then my opinion will change very quickly.

Perhaps editorially, they are anti-private schools as you suggest. I don't read the editorials. The Times has been very persistent about attempting to shed light on all things related to the LRSD because it is a public institution, and eStem is a part of it. That is journalism. Please reference a Times article to support your claim.

I don't recall the Times being unfair to Catholic, PA, St. Marys, or the Episcopal School (Stephens Media owns the Arkansas Times). Furthermore, the Times publishes a FREE annual schools edition that is inclusive of all schools public and private. If you have children, I'm surprised you haven't seen this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why?

If eStem can educate children then why do you feel that it is worse for the children? Why are the public schools so special if another form of schools can do a better job? If the public schools had done their job in the past then this would not be a problem. Are you opposed to the Math and Science School in Hot Springs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eStem is only separating the high-achieving from the low-achieving children, and all that accomplishes is dimishing the chances that one of the low-achieving kids can be inspired into doing anything but not doing well.

The 'problem with the public schools' doesn't exist. There's very little wrong with the teachers or what is taught. The problem is that there is not enough funding to get ALL kids what they deserve, and even if there was enough funding, for many kids there's no support at home, so there's no chance at success.

There is no easy fix to this problem, but the last thing we should be doing is putting all the poorest, worst-scoring kids together and taking the richest, highest-scoring ones away. Unless you have been intimately involved with the inner-city public school system in the last decade or so, I just don't think you can understand the situation, which is why we have all these rich white folks (who are good-intentioned) completely missing the issue and deciding that a devicive figure looking for immediate results is better than someone who is willing to work long-term and get his/her hands dirty, but to find a real solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


eStem is only separating the high-achieving from the low-achieving children, and all that accomplishes is dimishing the chances that one of the low-achieving kids can be inspired into doing anything but not doing well.

The 'problem with the public schools' doesn't exist. There's very little wrong with the teachers or what is taught. The problem is that there is not enough funding to get ALL kids what they deserve, and even if there was enough funding, for many kids there's no support at home, so there's no chance at success.

There is no easy fix to this problem, but the last thing we should be doing is putting all the poorest, worst-scoring kids together and taking the richest, highest-scoring ones away. Unless you have been intimately involved with the inner-city public school system in the last decade or so, I just don't think you can understand the situation, which is why we have all these rich white folks (who are good-intentioned) completely missing the issue and deciding that a devicive figure looking for immediate results is better than someone who is willing to work long-term and get his/her hands dirty, but to find a real solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is hard for me to hear what you're saying because of how you say it. (i.e. "all these rich white folks (who are good-intentioned) completely missing the issue.") I know you know how to articulate your position better. Why are you trying to bait people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem ISN'T money regardless of what anyone here states. We POUR money into the schools and they underperform. Less money is frequently spent on private endeavors with different results. Is that an indication that the public system is flawed...well yes, but that's not the whole point. The larger issue and reason why private kids and kids in special programs perform so much better (on average) is that they typically have a far greater support system (family) that encourages their growth, nurturing and learning. Those that struggle in school are far more likely to have a less-than-desirable support system and family structure. Money can't fix that. Schools for these types of individuals devolve into mere caretakers to attempt to keep the child out of trouble.

What is the solution when family resposibility is at the core? I'm not sure. But it's not money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eStem is only separating the high-achieving from the low-achieving children, and all that accomplishes is dimishing the chances that one of the low-achieving kids can be inspired into doing anything but not doing well.

The 'problem with the public schools' doesn't exist. There's very little wrong with the teachers or what is taught. The problem is that there is not enough funding to get ALL kids what they deserve, and even if there was enough funding, for many kids there's no support at home, so there's no chance at success.

There is no easy fix to this problem, but the last thing we should be doing is putting all the poorest, worst-scoring kids together and taking the richest, highest-scoring ones away. Unless you have been intimately involved with the inner-city public school system in the last decade or so, I just don't think you can understand the situation, which is why we have all these rich white folks (who are good-intentioned) completely missing the issue and deciding that a devicive figure looking for immediate results is better than someone who is willing to work long-term and get his/her hands dirty, but to find a real solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The problem is that there is not enough funding to get ALL kids what they deserve".

There is no correlation between funding and quality of education. LR has some of the most heavily funded schools in the state yet they overproduce. I agree with your point about the parents. The LRSD would be perceived very differently if all LR kids participated in the public schools. However, LR has a higher percentage of children in private schools than any city over 100,000 in the country. These tend to be more affluent families who also tend to put a greater emphasis on education and push an educational agenda lower class families usually don't.

The LRSD already drains students away from most schools. McClellan and Fair suffer because of Central and Parkview. A "magnet school" has the same effect as a charter school, selecting away the most motivated students. I agree with your point about charter schools, though, why siphon away the best students?

Still, I think your are mistaken if you think you can fix the problem by throwing money at it. Funding is adequate for the LRSD, there's plenty of resources available to educate our students. That's not how to fix the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is absolutely a correlation between funding and quality of education. If teachers were paid $70,000 rather than $30,000 the number of highly motivated college grads willing to go into the field would greatly multiply.

Admittedly some schools in the LRSD are more popular than others, but it has little if anything at all to do with the magnet system. All 5 high schools in the district are magnets.

I find it hard to reconcile myself with private schools for the following reasons: 1. the reason historically most of them were built is as a result of white flight and inherent in white flight is racism, which I cannot condone, 2. when these schools are built in the suburbs (as they often are) they propagate the build-up of the suburbs, which I hate.

I can understand the reasoning of parents who decide that a private school is the best school for their child, but I can also inform you of how many friends I had in high school who had originally gone to private schools and homeschool, and I don't know a single one who wasn't greatful for being put in public schools, esp. for having the opportunity to go to Central. Each child in a private school is losing a chance to benefit from a education beyond what books can give, which is an education in diversity and in self-sufficiency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is absolutely a correlation between funding and quality of education. If teachers were paid $70,000 rather than $30,000 the number of highly motivated college grads willing to go into the field would greatly multiply.

Admittedly some schools in the LRSD are more popular than others, but it has little if anything at all to do with the magnet system. All 5 high schools in the district are magnets.

I find it hard to reconcile myself with private schools for the following reasons: 1. the reason historically most of them were built is as a result of white flight and inherent in white flight is racism, which I cannot condone, 2. when these schools are built in the suburbs (as they often are) they propagate the build-up of the suburbs, which I hate.

I can understand the reasoning of parents who decide that a private school is the best school for their child, but I can also inform you of how many friends I had in high school who had originally gone to private schools and homeschool, and I don't know a single one who wasn't greatful for being put in public schools, esp. for having the opportunity to go to Central. Each child in a private school is losing a chance to benefit from a education beyond what books can give, which is an education in diversity and in self-sufficiency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Come on now. $70,000 instead of $30,0000? The average salary for the 06/07 school year was $47,974. No teacher makes $30,000 in the district. That is without any additional stipends beyond their basic pay which is based on nine and a quarter months. So, if you paid $70,000 to get a number of highly motivated college grads what would happen to the unmotivated teachers now getting $30,000? Remember, motivation is not a requirement to keep your job if you are a teacher. If the district increased pay to $70,000, what makes you think anything would be any better? You can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Come on now. $70,000 instead of $30,0000? The average salary for the 06/07 school year was $47,974. No teacher makes $30,000 in the district. That is without any additional stipends beyond their basic pay which is based on nine and a quarter months. So, if you paid $70,000 to get a number of highly motivated college grads what would happen to the unmotivated teachers now getting $30,000? Remember, motivation is not a requirement to keep your job if you are a teacher. If the district increased pay to $70,000, what makes you think anything would be any better? You can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is absolutely a correlation between funding and quality of education. If teachers were paid $70,000 rather than $30,000 the number of highly motivated college grads willing to go into the field would greatly multiply.

Admittedly some schools in the LRSD are more popular than others, but it has little if anything at all to do with the magnet system. All 5 high schools in the district are magnets.

I find it hard to reconcile myself with private schools for the following reasons: 1. the reason historically most of them were built is as a result of white flight and inherent in white flight is racism, which I cannot condone, 2. when these schools are built in the suburbs (as they often are) they propagate the build-up of the suburbs, which I hate.

I can understand the reasoning of parents who decide that a private school is the best school for their child, but I can also inform you of how many friends I had in high school who had originally gone to private schools and homeschool, and I don't know a single one who wasn't greatful for being put in public schools, esp. for having the opportunity to go to Central. Each child in a private school is losing a chance to benefit from a education beyond what books can give, which is an education in diversity and in self-sufficiency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.