People Hacks: The 7 Most Useful Truths About the Mind You Missed from Psychology Class

 Article Via: Blinkist by Sebastian Klein

The longer you live, the more you realize that the difference between success and magnificent failure lies in how well you understand people. If you’re like many, that fact makes you regret not having studied psychology. I hate to be the one to tell you, but holding both a BSc. and an MSc. in psychology – yep. You missed a lot.
And yes, I am analyzing you as you read this.
But there’s good news, too. You don’t have to attend lectures on multivariate statistics, neuroscience, or early childhood development to learn about what makes people tick. There are dozens of excellent books on human psychology that will get you an education without a semester’s-worth of classes.
The following 7 truths are what I consider the most valuable things you can learn from the past few decades’ best books on brains. They’ll offer you some insight into why you make decisions the way you do, what that potential client is thinking, and why you should worry about your slightly sinister boss.

1. You’re irrational (but that’s okay – if you know how to handle it).

Most of us assume we are rational decision makers, but in the last 10-15 years many books have challenged this assumption. One of the most notable among them is Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow. Kahneman shows that a vast majority of our decisions are made in seconds and based on emotions and intuition – a fact that leads us into traps and makes us vulnerable to manipulation and poor choices.
Of course, your irrationality isn’t always a handicap. Malcolm Gladwell explains in his now-famous book, Blink, that intuitive decision-making can help us do what we’d never be able to manage without it. Take the gaze heuristic for example. It’s a simple shortcut in decision-making that takes us outside rational thinking to act faster than our minds can process. It’s the gaze heuristic that allows athletes to perceive a baseball flying through the air and move to catch it without doing any serious mental calculations. It’s knowing without knowing – irrationality at its best.

Take it to work: People used to have time to make “cold decisions,” – fully processed choices based on reason and logic. Today, with rapid protoyping and agile development trends spilling over into all aspects of business, what social psychologists call “hot cognition” is the norm. Knowing that your hot cognition will be governed by your irrational mind, start to practice making hot decisions like you would cold ones. If Xbox and adventure sports aren’t your thing, even simpler timed games, like mobile-device-based word searches, can begin to train your mind to make good choices faster.

2. You underestimate the role of chaos and luck.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb wrote The Black Swan and Fooled by Randomness to address that we humans  a) tend to underestimate just how much chaos defines our lives, and b) use hindsight logic to explain whatever happened, even if it was based on chance. So, if the universe runs on chaos, doesn’t that make a panoply of everyday acts of trust incredibly risky? The answer is yes. Allowing a broker to put your savings in the stock market, for example, is quite a risk. After all, take a long look and you realize that what they do is mostly gambling.
Just as irrationality isn’t always a bad thing, randomness can work in your favor, too. In The Wisdom of Crowds, James Surowiecki suggests that sometimes the best thing we can do is trust to collective judgment. Studies like those of social psychologist Gerd Gigerenzer show that if you want to invest smart, you might be better off asking random people about which brands they know and putting together an investment portfolio based on their answers. Gigerenzer’s studies indicate that such a seemingly haphazard approach gives you a better chance of good returns than would handing over your savings to that sleazy Wolf of Wall Street guy.

Take it to work: Don’t be afraid to crowd-source solutions. Poll another department on how they’d solve your problem, or ask your customers what they think about your product’s new feature.

3. You’re needlessly obsessed with talent.

That we take talent to be the main predictor of success might have to do with our tendency to seek cause and effect. However, many studies have shown that talent isn’t essential when it comes to excelling in life and work. Gladwell’s Outliers, Talent is Overrated by Geoff Colvin, or Cal Newport’s So Good They Can’t Ignore You show that while talent is helpful, it’s never the be-all, end-all.
We’ve already established that luck has a lot to do with our perceived successes – why else would the month in which they were born be a good predictor of ice-hockey players’ eventual success? In Outliers and Mastery, the writers take it a step farther to explain that success is mostly about gaining experience, practicing, and achieving mastery of a skill. What does all this mean? Simply, that (a lack of) talent is no longer an excuse not to try to succeed at what you want to do.

Take it to work: We talk a lot about time versus talent  on Page19, and it always boils down to this: talent is 90% made, not born. Pick where you want to excel and get to work.

4. Negativity is in your nature, but you can change that.

In his How the Mind Works, Stephen Pinker explains that, from an evolutionary perspective, it makes sense for humans to be negative creatures. Pricklier emotions like fear and anger rescued us from predators and enemies. Meanwhile, positive feelings such as gratitude and pride were the evolutionary deadbeats – nice to have lying around, but not doing a whole lot to aid in survival.
On the other hand, researchers are now realizing that people tend to live longer, more fulfilled lives when they’re happy – even dodging disease due to it. Positive emotions might not have been critical for our caveman ancestors, but for the modern day office worker, happiness is key. In her book Positivity, Barbara Frederickson shares the recipe for a happy life: 3 times as many positive emotions as negative ones. According to positive psychologist Martin Seligman, author of the book Learned Optimism, even the most negative person can get happier (or at least closer) with simple exercises like writing gratitude letters or meditation.

Take it to work: Are you in a leadership position? Knowing you have a natural tendency to be negative isn’t enough – realize that your team does, too. Investing in their happiness pays off in productivity and retention and the best way to do it is listen. Start asking smart questions about how they’re doing at work. Our friends at Inc.com provide a nice list here.

5. You actually love working (but might not know it yet).

Flow is a many splendored thing. In his classic book on the concept, Mihaly Cziszentmihalyi describes flow as the state in which we lose track of time and enjoy being in the moment. Because it strikes the perfect balance of pleasure and progress, flow is the final frontier in working well.
According to Daniel Pink’s Drive, humans are built with this neat feature called intrinsic motivation – a zeal to do something due to a feeling of internal satisfaction. Intrinsic motivation is natural to humans: we are predisposed to perform, to work, and to tackle problems. We can see it in our primate ancestors, who actually enjoy solving puzzles without any external reward or other reasons to do it. So why do so many of us perceive work as drudgery, not play? Neil Fiore’s The Now Habit explains that we’re trained to lose our joy in work at school and by our parents. But with the right mindset, there’s no reason you can’t revive your inner child and start enjoying what you do again.

Take it to work: Want to get into the flow state? The best things you can do for yourself are to get focused and avoid interruptions. Find out what works for you when you work and put yourself in the right environment. The rest has to do with matching the task with your skill level (a little challenge is usually the best standard), and having clear goals.

6. Focusing on the Now is the key to both productivity and happiness.

So, why is flow so hard to harness? It means abandoning everything but the “now” and focusing on the task at hand, something that’s quite difficult for most people. It’s worth it to try to get there, though. The closer you can come to complete in-flow focus, the more you will get done, and the happier you’ll be.

Take it to work: In the previous section, I said “get focused” and avoid interruptions to achieve flow, but it’s hard to start there if you’re not sure how focus feels. According to Barbara Frederickson, the best way to both get happier and learn to focus on the Now is through developing a meditation habit. Consider this: instead of that afternoon coffee break, go somewhere quiet – even if it’s only for five minutes – and concentrate on your breathing and, if possible, nothing else. No, it’s not meditation, but it’s a simple exercise to start.

7. Charisma holds a lot of power over you  – and your boss might actually be a psychopath.

Even the earliest self-help books such as How to Win Friends and Influence People note that the impression you make on others is one of the most powerful tools in your kit – and in that of others. Others, like psychopaths. As it turns out, it’s charisma, not handcuffs and diabolical plots, that will often bring you into a psychopath’s field of influence. These people tend to have high amounts of charisma and know how to use it. According to books such as Snakes in Suits and The Wisdom of Psychopaths, psychopaths often end up in positions of power due exactly to this magnetism. Your concern regarding your ex boss-zilla and his hunting trips might not be so farfetched.
So, what is it about charisma we find so very tantalizing? In The Charisma Myth, Olivia Fox Cabane tells us that what actually wins over others is giving off the impression that you’re powerful (wealthy, strong, or influential) and will use your power to help them. But that’s just one type of charisma – leading with warmth is also an option. The simplest, soundest advice on upping your charisma goes back to Carnegie’s classic and is just one word long: smile.

Take it to work: You can’t truly fake charisma unless your brain accepts it, but this is one instance in which it’s nice that your brain is easy to fool.  A trick to feel and exude more confidence before your next presentation is to imagine yourself puffed up like a powerful animal – try a gorilla or a lion. Our brains have a faster response to images because they hit the limbic brain faster than the reasoning cortex: they can make a quick change to your body language and make you feel and appear more charismatic.

Now, you’re filled in on all the key psychology concepts you missed while you were busy studying something else. I hope you learned something about the mind you can use in your everyday life – even if it is only adopting a gorilla as your new pre-presentation spirit animal.
 

About Sebastian Klein

Sebastian is cofounder at Blinkist, a service that feeds curious minds key insights from non-fiction books. As Blinkist's Editor-in-Chief, he specializes in distilling complex concepts from great books into smart, beautiful language.

---

Did you know...

TN teachers would lose money under pay plan, critics say

Article Via: June 21, 2013 - By Lisa Fingeroot, The Tennessean

Tennessee teachers marshaled their forces and House Democrats hurled insults at Education Commissioner Kevin Huffman on Thursday over concerns that teachers will lose money if the state adopts a controversial plan today to require merit pay.

The pay plan, part of a drive to boost student test scores, would eliminate traditional salary increases for teachers based solely on years of experience and advanced degrees. The state Board of Education is expected to approve it today.
Members already gave the proposal a nod of approval in April when Huffman presented it.

The Tennessee Education Association, the state's only teacher union and largest professional organization, opposed the pay plan from the beginning and has been assembling a group to show opposition at today's meeting. TEA also has been distributing a pay chart supporting its claim that teachers would lose money under the plan.

House Democrats amped up the opposition Thursday when they called a news conference to oppose the plan and throw their support behind the union.

"It's hard to find a commissioner in the history of Tennessee that has assembled a more broad track record of complete failure than Commissioner Huffman," said state Rep. Mike Stewart, a Democrat from Nashville. "Everything this guy has done - every experiment he has tried has so far - has ended in failure, so it's shocking that we would still be listening to this same person."

Stewart was joined by several other Democrats, including state Rep. Gloria Johnson, a teacher from Knoxville, who said she vehemently opposes the pay plan because it eliminates most raises for years of experience and advanced degrees. That's like breaking a promise made to teachers who have been working for years on getting advanced degrees, the Democrats said.

Johnson said many experienced teachers also worry that bonuses would be unfairly distributed.
Huffman responded to the criticism in a written statement. "It is unfortunate that some groups and elected officials are presenting inaccurate information," he wrote. "It is against Tennessee law for any school district to cut a teacher's pay. Additionally, this administration has added more than $130 million in state money for teacher salaries over the past three years. We will continue to look for ways to increase teacher pay, decrease state mandates, and increase local control of school decisions."
Under the plan, no teacher could earn less than he or she currently earns, and the step pay raises usually received at six years and 11 years of experience are included as safeguards.

Huffman said the plan is not a pure merit pay plan because each district can determine how it will differentiate pay. For example, Tennessee certified only 50 chemistry teachers last year, and districts might use a larger salary to attract a chemistry teacher.

While the TEA's chart shows the state-mandated base pay of teachers staying almost flat except for the two step increases, it does not include any amounts for the bonuses and raises that could be earned under Huffman's plan.

Mixed reaction from teachers Teachers from Trousdale County, where a differentiated plan is being piloted, expressed support for the way they are paid.

"I think it's a great plan," said fourth-grade teacher Chris Freeman. "I think it rewards teachers for doing a superb job. It's tailor-made for me. I'm in charge of my own destiny. I control my own children and my own scores."

His colleague, Laura Wilson, chose not to join the alternative plan. "I was scared to take a risk," she said. She admits to being disappointed, however, when she realized she lost about $4,000 in bonuses by not being in the plan.

Rutherford County special education teacher Jennifer Tidwell is so concerned about all the changes being made for teachers that she is considering another profession.

"It's like you're running and kicking sand and not getting anywhere," she said. "They keep moving the goal."

Tidwell's students tend to have individual education plans that can include very simple tasks that cannot be tested. She worries that her achievements might go undocumented for determining pay raises.

"That's what I am kind of afraid of," she said. "I don't have a problem with merit pay, but I have a problem with the way (achievement is) measured."

In Trousdale County, special education teachers are hard to find, so they are rewarded with a bonus every year for working in the system. High school chemistry and physics teachers also are rewarded.
"We're kind of like a guinea pig," said system Director Clint Satterfield. "I think the main goal is to improve teacher quality, because if we improve the quality of the teacher, we will improve the outcome for students."

Teacher effectiveness matters more than class size

 

 

 

Teacher effectiveness matters more than class size

 

Calls for smaller classes are very common, and the mention of growing class sizes frequently sparks public concern over the implications for student learning.

Research demonstrates a weak relationship between smaller class sizes and improved academic performance.

The research also reveals that gains from smaller class sizes are dwarfed by gains from being taught by a more effective teacher.

Article Via: EDUNOMICS LAB @ Georgetown University, a portion listed above. For more, follow link.

CAP brief: A federal loophole that shortchanges poor schools

Article Via: Washington Post, Lyndsey Layton, March 11, 2015.

As Congress debates how to best distribute federal funds to help states educate poor children, a new brief from the Center for American Progress argues that the current program, known as Title 1, has structural flaws that undermine its purpose.

A lot of money is at stake — currently, the federal government sends about $14.6 billion annually to high-poverty K-12 schools nationwide.

Title 1, a central feature of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, was designed to level the playing field so that poor children receive the same opportunities as affluent children. Federal lawmakers who created the program didn’t want states to use federal dollars in place of state and local dollars in high-poverty schools; they wanted the federal funds to be used in addition, to provide the kinds of extra programs and services that would help poor children catch up to their wealthier peers.

So they required “comparability” — states and local districts must evenly spread their dollars across schools within a community in order to be eligible for federal Title 1 dollars for their high-poverty schools.

The problem, according to analysts at the Center for American Progress and elsewhere, is that most school districts don’t perform actual school-by-school budget comparisons, instead using average costs that can mask significant variations between schools within a district. What’s more, federal law prohibits districts from using actual expenditures to calculate comparability.

The problem is apparent, the analysts say, when you consider that Title 1 schools tend to be staffed with less-experienced teachers than more affluent schools. More-experienced teachers generally earn higher salaries than newcomers to the field, so districts frequently spend more on teacher salaries in affluent schools than in high-poverty schools.

The Center for American Progress is a left-leaning think tank that is closely associated with the Obama administration. Robert Hanna, Max Marchitello and Catherine Brown at CAP examined data from 95,000 public schools collected by the Education Department during the 2011-2012 school year. They compared how districts fund schools that are eligible for Title I dollars with other schools in their grade span — elementary, middle or high school grades. The trio found “vast disparities throughout the country in how districts spend state and local dollars on Title I schools.”
Among their findings:

• More than 4.5 million low-income students attend inequitably funded Title I schools. In most states, there are tens of thousands of students from low-income households who attend Title I schools that are not funded equitably relative to other schools in their district.
• These inequitably funded schools receive about $1,200 less per student than comparison schools in their districts, on average, but actual amounts vary. In Fort Worth, for example, inequitably funded Title I schools receive about $2,600 less per student. In some districts, the disparities are even wider. In Santa Fe, New Mexico, inequitably funded Title I schools receive about $4,900 less than other schools. If these gaps were closed, inequitably funded schools in Texas would receive an additional $1.6 billion annually, and in New Mexico, they would have an additional $65 million.
• If the federal loophole were closed, high-poverty schools would receive about $8.5 billion in new funds each year, nationwide.

As Congress works on an overdue remake of No Child Left Behind, the most current iteration of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, lawmakers ought to close the comparability loophole, the CAP analysts say. States and districts ought to be required to fund their Title 1 schools at the same level as their more affluent schools, based on actual spending, according to CAP.

Amendments in Arizona

POST VIA

PROPOSED

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AMENDMENTS TO S.B. 1172

(Reference to Senate engrossed bill)

Page 1, between lines 1 and 2, insert:

"Section 1.  Section 15-511, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

15-511.  Use of school district or charter school resources or employees to influence elections; prohibition; civil penalty; definitions

A.  A person acting on behalf of a school district or a person who aids another person acting on behalf of a school district shall not spend or use school district or charter school resources, including the use or expenditure of monies, accounts, credit, facilities, vehicles, postage, telecommunications, computer hardware and software, web pages, personnel, equipment, materials, buildings or any other thing of value of the school district or charter school, for the purpose of influencing the outcomes of elections or to advocate support for or opposition to pending or proposed legislation. Notwithstanding this section, a school district may distribute informational reports on a proposed budget override election as provided in section 15‑481, subsections B and C or informational reports on a proposed bond election as provided in section 15‑491, subsection D if those informational reports present factual information in a neutral manner, except for those arguments presented as prescribed in section 15-481, subsection B, paragraph 9.  Nothing in this section precludes a school district from reporting on official actions of the governing board.

B.  This section does not prohibit the use of school district or charter school resources, including facilities and equipment, for government‑sponsored forums or debates if the government sponsor remains impartial and the events are purely informational and provide an equal opportunity to all viewpoints.  The rental and use of a public facility by a private person or entity that may lawfully attempt to influence the outcome of an election is permitted if it does not occur at the same time and place as a government-sponsored forum or debate. 

C.  An employee of a school district or charter school who is acting as an agent of or working in an official capacity for the school district or charter school may not give pupils written materials to influence the outcome of an election or to advocate support for or opposition to pending or proposed legislation.

D.  Employees of a school district or charter school may not use the authority of their positions to influence the vote or political activities of any subordinate employee.

E.  Notwithstanding section 15‑342, paragraph 8, a school district shall not spend monies for membership in an association that attempts to influence the outcome of an election.  

F.  Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as denying the civil and political liberties of any person as guaranteed by the United States and Arizona Constitutions.

G.  The attorney general shall publish and distribute to school districts and charter schools a detailed guideline regarding activities prohibited under this section.  The attorney general may distribute these guidelines through a website or electronically.

H.  The attorney general or the county attorney for the county in which an alleged violation of this section occurred may initiate a suit in the superior court in the county in which the school district or charter school is located for the purpose of complying with this section.  

I.  For each violation of this section, the court may impose a civil penalty not to exceed five thousand dollars plus any amount of misused funds subtracted from the school district budget against a person who knowingly violates or a person who knowingly aids another person in violating this section.  The person determined to be out of compliance with this section shall be responsible for the payment of all penalties and misused funds.  School district funds or insurance payments shall not be used to pay these penalties or misused funds.  All misused funds collected pursuant to this section shall be returned to the school district or charter school whose funds were misused.

J.  An attorney acting on behalf of a public school may request a legal opinion of the county attorney or attorney general as to whether a proposed use of school district resources would violate this section.

K.  All penalties collected by the court for a suit initiated in superior court by the attorney general shall be paid to the office of the attorney general for the use and reimbursement of costs of prosecution pursuant to this section.  All penalties collected by the court for a suit initiated in superior court by a county attorney shall be paid to the county treasurer of the county in which the court is held for the use and reimbursement of costs of prosecution pursuant to this section.

L.  For the purposes of this section:

1.  "Government-sponsored forum or debate" means any event, or part of an event or meeting, in which the government is an official sponsor, which is open to the public or to invited members of the public, and whose purpose is to inform the public about an issue or proposition that is before the voters.

2.  "Influencing the outcomes of elections" means supporting or opposing a candidate for nomination or election to public office or the recall of a public officer or supporting or opposing a ballot measure, question or proposition, including any bond, budget or override election and supporting or opposing the circulation of a petition for the recall of a public officer or a petition for a ballot measure, question or proposition in any manner that is not impartial or neutral.

3.  "Misused funds" means school district monies or resources used unlawfully pursuant to this section."

Renumber to conform

Amend title to conform

                                                JAY LAWRENCE

1172-p1-lawrence

3/16/15

3:40 PM

H:ajs

The Business of Education

Published on Mar 16, 2015 via Global Education & Skills Forum

For many investors and companies, education represents a high growth industry and unlimited potential and opportunity. In this panel, speakers question what models represent the best returns for both investors and society.

Parents all over U.S. 'opting out' of standardized student testing

Via: CNN Digital Correspondent Kelly Wallace - April 24, 2015



Since one of my daughters is taking the public school state tests for the first time this year, I thought I paid fairly close attention to the debate surrounding the tests themselves, and the concern that schools are too focused on "teaching to the test."

 The high-stakes of standardized tests

I heard that some parents might engage in a form of civil disobedience and "opt out" -- they would refuse to let their children take the tests. I thought only a few were making that stand.

But then I learned from a friend whose daughter attends a Long Island school that only two kids in her third-grade class took the test. That means 20 or more of her classmates didn't. 

I saw local media reports about similar stories in other schools on Long Island, in New York City and its surrounding areas, and in upstate New York.

Something bigger is going on, I thought.

Just how many students opt out this year won't officially be known until this summer when the state education department releases test scores. But, according to one of the groups leading the opt-out movement here -- the New York State Allies for Public Education -- 156,000 students refused to take this week's English exam, and that's with just from 50% of the districts reporting their numbers.

With approximately 1.1 million students eligible to take the tests in grades 3-8 in New York, that means at least 14% of students are projected to sit out this year. According to the state education department, last year about 49,000 (4%) didn't have a known valid reason for not taking the English test and 67,000 (6%) didn't take the math exam.

"I'm ecstatic," said Bianca Tanis, a co-founder of the New York opt-out group. "I guess I'm not really surprised, because I think we could all feel this coming."

"For the past two years, parents have been lobbying the governor, the Board of Regents, the legislature, demanding a reduction in high-stakes testing, demanding to have their classrooms be returned and we've been ignored, and enough is enough," said Tanis. Her children, ages 10 and 14, are not taking the tests.

Adding to parents' anger and frustration were reforms pushed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo that would evaluate teachers more heavily based on test scores.

"So we were really left with no choice," Tanis said. "Rather than responding to parent concerns, he doubled down on the use of testing."

Opinion: Why Common Core tests are bad

The Board of Regents says the tests provide an "important source of objective information" to see where students are and what help they need but should never be the only measure of students' progress.

"Those who call for 'opting out' really want New York to 'opt out' of information that can help parents and teachers understand how well students are doing," said Merryl Tisch, chancellor of the Board of Regents, in a recent statement.

"We cannot go back to ignoring the needs of our children. It's time to stop making noise to protect the adults and start speaking up for the students," Tisch said.

Opting out across the country

New York is not an isolated case. Examples of the fallout from rigorous annual testing are popping up nationwide.

Earlier this week, some Atlanta educators were sentenced to prison time after a massive cheating scandal. Administrators and teachers were convicted of racketeering and other crimes related to inflating test scores of students from struggling schools.

In New Jersey, lawmakers recently approved a measure that would require schools to accommodate parents who opt out of testing by providing alternative activities such as independent reading for their children.

And in Indiana, the state's 2015 superintendent of the year recommended that parents home-school their children during the testing weeks instead of having them take the tests.

Opinion: Common Core promotes student success

"We've heard from almost every state in the country there's opting out going on," said Monty Neill, executive director of the testing reform advocacy group FairTest. "Last year, we probably heard from half."

Neill chalks up the growing movement to an increasing number of parents who believe there's too much testing and that's it's not educationally helpful.

"There've been a number of surveys in states as well as national surveys that are showing (frustration with testing) as a reaction among parents and the public generally, so there's a sense that this testing has just gone round the bend," said Neill, a former educator and school administrator who has been leading FairTest for nearly 28 years.

Also in the mix are parents' frustration with more rigorous academic standards called Common Core, which have been implemented in 46 states and the District of Columbia, and upon which the state tests are based.

Tanis, who is also a special education teacher, said there is "no flexibility" in the standards. And, she says, given the high stakes of the testing, "you are saying to teachers, OK, you have to fit in all these standards by April, and so the test starts driving the pace of instruction."

Speaking out on social media 

When I posted on my Facebook page that I was interested in hearing from parents who opted out and promised I would share their comments without identifying them, I got an earful: They say the tests are developmentally inappropriate, too long and difficult, and shouldn't be used to evaluate teachers.

Prison time for some Atlanta school educators in cheating scandal

"To me we are setting our kids up to fail. The reading passages are three levels above the child's current grade level," said a teacher and a mom of two who has opted out her kids for the past two years. "Many teachers have posted that their students were crying because they did not have enough time to finish the test and bubbled in random answers."

Another mom of two, who also opted out, argued that the tests don't benefit the children -- they only benefit the industry behind Common Core and the tests themselves.

"Unfortunately, these tests have nothing to do with determining the effectiveness of teachers," she said. "The more research I did, the more disgusted I became. It's all about money and our kids are pawns. It's very scary and it's unfolding before our eyes."

Tanis, the New York opt-out group leader, said the movement is not "anti-testing. We are anti-these tests."

Tanis said she got involved in the movement after she tried to keep her younger son, who has autism, from taking the test two years ago. 

While he loved school and had terrific teachers, he was still far below grade level and she didn't think it made sense to put a test in front of him that he couldn't read, "let alone even cognitively understand exactly why he was being given a test that was so far above his grade level."

She said that at every turn, she was told her son was absolutely obligated to take the test. The law is the law, she was told. It wasn't until other parents started refusing to have their children take it that she felt free, too, to refuse for her son.

 The great homework debate: Too much, too little or busy work?

"I think the awareness of how flawed these tests are, and the ramifications, have taken time for everybody to understand ... but the fact that these tests are abusive for students with disabilities and English language learners was really easy for people to see."

To that point, Tisch, of the New York State Board of Regents, has said that the tests actually help the most vulnerable children in our schools, whose needs were too often disregarded in years past.

"Without an objective measure of their progress, it was easy to deny special education students and English-language learners the extra resources they need," she said. "Opting out could cost us much of the progress we have made and damage the work that still needs to be done for our most vulnerable students."

In the middle of the debate are parents and teachers who feel there could be improvement to the Common Core and that schools should not be teaching to the test, while also believing the standards and the tests help kids learn to solve problems and think in ways many of us didn't when we were growing up.

"It's really a way of making children think for themselves and have teachers speak less and students become more responsible for their learning," said a teacher and a mom of two who didn't want to be identified. "I feel the teaching has become better because of what's expected. Where we go wrong is understanding that the Common Core is a guideline and we still have to meet the needs of the students where they are academically."

She also said parents -- rather than educators -- too often are the ones putting too much stress on students about the test.

What happens if students don't take the tests?

Under federal regulations, if fewer than 95% of students at a school participate in the state tests, that school could lose federal funding, according to the New York State Department of Education.

That message was reportedly conveyed by some school districts in letters to parents that said state aid could be withheld if too many children boycott the tests.

But Neill of FairTest says people don't believe that will ever happen.

"They don't believe the loss of federal money because it's basically not really true," he said. In fact, no school district to date in New York has lost money for not meeting the 95% requirement for student testing, according to a state education department spokesperson.

"They're trying to basically bully parents into toeing the line and at least in a lot of places, it's not working," Neill said.

How can we compete globally?

I posed the question to Tanis: If we don't have difficult tests and tough standards, how will we compete globally, against children from countries where rigor is the norm?

The United States has the largest number of patents per capita in the world, she noted. "So we are an extremely innovative society, and the system that they're imposing diminishes innovation, diminishes creativity." 

That may be the heart of the debate -- a debate that is likely only going to intensify because the opt-out movement is gaining in strength, and that means at some point lawmakers may have to start listening.

Do you think there is now too much of an emphasis on testing in public schools? Share your thoughts with Kelly Wallace on Twitter or CNN Living on Facebook.

Class of 2015 has the most student debt in U.S. history

 Article Via: Market Watch May 9, 2015

Getty Images - Lincoln Center Plaza, NYC

As college graduates begin to enter the real world this month, they can take cold comfort in the fact that just like the last several classes before them, they’ll have the most student debt in history.

The class of 2015 will each graduate with $35,051 in student debt on average, according to an analysis from Mark Kantrowitz, the publisher of Edvisors.com, a website that provides information to parents and students about college costs and financial aid. That’s about $2,000 more than their peers who graduated in 2014, though the share of students graduating with debt remained roughly the same as last year at about 70%.

A combination of stagnant wages, declining federal and state funding to schools on a per-student basis, and rising tuition has meant that families “have only two real choices” when it comes to paying for college: borrow more or try to send their kids to a cheaper school, said Kantrowitz.

“More of the burden of paying for school is shifting from the government to the students,” he said. As a result, students’ average debt at graduation is going up year after year, even accounting for inflation. “It’s like clockwork,” Kantrowitz said.

Mark Kantrowitz/Edvisors.com

Families looking to avoid saddling their college graduates with high levels of debt have a few options, Kantrowitz says. One is to start saving immediately, even if it’s just a year or two before a student plans to enter college. “Every dollar you save is a dollar less you’ll have to borrow,” he said. Families can also opt to pay tuition in smaller installments over shorter periods of time, instead of a lump sum at the start of the semester, which could help to reduce the need to borrow.

Still, only a systemic fix like increased federal funding for students and schools will stop the average debt from creeping up, Kantrowitz said. That idea is unlikely to take hold any time soon; Senate Republicans passed a budget earlier this week that would cut guaranteed funding for Pell Grants and reverse the growth in other programs aimed at helping poor students afford college, as part of a plan to cut more than $5 trillion in spending and balance the budget, the Washington Post reported Thursday.

“Increasingly we’re pricing lower and moderate income students out of a college education,” Kantrowitz said.

Washington State Lawmakers Clash on K-12 Funding

Article via: May 12, 2015 - Education Week Andrew Ujifusa

Washington state lawmakers are struggling in a special session to agree on a strategy to pay for basic education. But as they try to build a system that bridges deep partisan divides over tax policy, they must also resolve to what extent greater state aid for K-12 will lead to reduced financial and political clout for local districts and union leaders.

Looming over the process that began April 28 is the state supreme court, which held the state in contempt last year over its failure to satisfy a 2012 decision that ordered legislators to reform and increase K-12 spending by 2018. Lawmakers must make significant strides toward meeting that mandate this year, or face court sanctions.

As states like Washington look at how to overhaul their funding formulas to smooth out inequities, there's a corresponding tension between state officials and local K-12 leaders about the strings that come along with greater support for some districts.

"What the districts really want is the increased commitment without increased control. But that's not going to happen," said Michael Griffith, the senior school finance analyst for the Denver-based Education Commission of the States. "Now I hear it constantly [from state lawmakers]: We're willing to spend more money, but we want to know what we're going to get for our money."

Broader debates about the proper relationship between the sources of school funding and authority over K-12 have been in the spotlight nationally since at least the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez. In that case, the court held that using local property taxes as a basis for financing schools was not unconstitutional.

The political landscape in Washington state is sufficiently complex that as lawmakers there push their own solutions and resist those from the other party, "we have Democrats complaining about Republicans raising taxes," said Frank Ordway, the chief lobbyist for the League of Education Voters. The Seattle-base group supports full-day kindergarten and charter schools.

Trends and Roadblocks

Recently, states in general have shown limited appetite for pushing school funding burdens onto their local districts.

From 1991 to 2011, on average, the percentage of total spending on public schools coming from local tax sources dropped by 5 percentage points, according to Jennifer Schiess, an associate partner at Bellwether Education Partners, a consulting firm based in Washington, D.C.

"The general trend over the last 20 years or so has been reduced reliance on local taxes in school funding—but it's not a dramatic trend," said Ms. Schiess in an email, citing data from the National Center for Education Statistics.

That doesn't mean the shift is easy in individual states. An Illinois bill introduced during the state's previous legislative session by Democratic Sen. Andy Manar would have altered the influence of property taxes by redistributing funds from wealthy to poor districts. But that bill has so far failed to pass, and it faces an uncertain future in this session.

And officials in Pennsylvania, faced with huge funding gaps between rich and poor districts because of property-tax disparities, are trying to craft a new funding system that might dramatically affect some districts' budgets, creating clear winners and losers in local school financing that could instantly divide lawmakers.

There, as in Washington state, any tax hike to pay for Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf's proposed spending increase for K-12 must first pass muster with GOP lawmakers.

Basic Obligations, More Revenue

The Washington state high court's 2012 ruling in McCleary v. State of Washington said that the state had fallen short of providing adequate resources for basic education. The court specifically called on lawmakers to meet prior commitments to fund class-size reductions in grades K-3, to provide full-day kindergarten, and to increase support for transportation needs and schools' materials and operating costs. Lawmakers increased basic K-12 spending by $982 million in the state's 2013-15 budget, but it did not satisfy the court.

The special session is set to last 30 days, although Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat, can extend it. The state uses biennial budgets. Complicating the matter is that control of the legislature is split, with Democrats holding the House of Representatives and Republicans the Senate.

Washington currently has no tax on personal income or capital gains, and Democrats, including Gov. Inslee, want to change that in order to resolve the school funding fight.

The House Democrats' budget plan, released in March, includes a new 5 percent tax on capital gains as part of a blueprint for increasing K-12 spending by $3.2 billion for the 2015-17 biennial budget. Of that amount, $1.4 billion would be earmarked for K-3 class-size reduction and other obligations under McCleary. Gov. Inslee also proposed a new capital gains tax of 7 percent in his 2015-17 budget.
State Rep. Ross Hunter, a Democrat and the lead budget writer in the House, stressed in an April 30 hearing that he is more narrowly focused on adequate funding for basic K-12 education as called for in the McCleary ruling, and not on broader issues in play like setting basic teacher salaries at the state level.

"I view our need to comply with the state constitution as the state funding basic education. I don't think the court is requiring us, nor do I think it's a good idea, to limit communities from providing additional services," Mr. Hunter said.

The Democrats' plan also includes a cost-of-living pay increase for K-12 teachers, to the tune of $154 million, and would pick up a share of local school employees' health-care costs.

'Fundamentally Inequitable'

But Republicans who run the state Senate and want no part of a new tax on capital gains or income are exploring a change to the relationship between existing local and state taxes designated for schools, in order to meet the state's K-12 obligations to all districts.
In part, their budget proposal relies on $3 billion in estimated additional revenue generated from the state's existing tax system over the 2015-17 budget period. About $1.3 billion of that funding would go toward satisfying the McCleary ruling.
Republican Sen. Bruce Dammeier argued that state lawmakers must no longer shove 30 percent or more of the funding responsibility for schools onto districts, since in such a system, wealthy districts and local unions drive up teacher pay in their districts, while teacher salaries elsewhere fall far behind.
Mr. Dammeier's plan for changing local levies is technically revenue-neutral. But it would increase the state's common schools levy while simultaneously lowering state property taxes, and moving what the senator says would be $1.5 billion in new revenue for the state into the K-12 budget. Roughly 40 percent of districts, many of them relatively wealthy, would effectively experience a tax hike in Mr. Dammeier's plan.
And he said that requiring basic teacher compensation to be set at the state level, with possible enhancements for teachers in certain areas with high costs of living, would help lawmakers fulfill their obligation to fund basic education that includes fair and reasonable teacher salaries.
"Our system is fundamentally inequitable right now," Mr. Dammeier said. "Our students' education is not supposed to be dependent on their zip code."
But the 86,000-member Washington Education Association has decried plans to set teacher compensation at the state level, calling it an attack on local control of schools.

Getting the Votes

Any plan to satisfy McCleary and fix school funding should ensure a net revenue increase, but also shore up the state's control over basic education funding, such as changes to how local property taxes work, according to state Superintendent of Public Instruction Randy Dorn.
Mr. Dorn has his own plan to satisfy McCleary that would create $2.2 billion in new spending.

"I'm not promoting one or the other," he said of the competing House and Senate tax plans. "I'm just happy if we can get new revenue."

Yet Mr. Dorn's plan would also ask the court to extend the deadline for meeting the requirements of the McCleary ruling to 2021. And Mr. Ordway of the League of Education Voters cautioned that the court will likely not tolerate anything less than "specific and real" commitments in any budget deal.
"Neither one of them really want to do the things that are hard for their party politically," Mr. Ordway said.

Vol. 34, Issue 30, Pages 1,20-21

No school district would lose money under Ohio Senate's budget

 Article via: Patrick O'Donnell, The Plain Dealer, June 8, 2015

COLUMBUS, Ohio – Every school district in Ohio should receive at least as much money from the state for the next two years as they do now, Ohio Senate officials said today as they released their proposed state budget for the next two years.

Sen. Chris Widener, a Springfield Republican, said the new budget will "hold harmless" every district for the next two years, with none seeing a cut in money from the state compared to this school year's amount.

Along with many districts seeing increases, Widener said, at minimum "All schools essentially receive what they are receiving this year."

That's even including reductions in the complicated and much-debated reimbursements for the  now-defunct tangible personal property tax, Widener and Senate President Keith Faber said.
That reimbursement is a hot-button issue for many districts, including Solon, who have urged the state to continue the reimbursements permanently. The state ended that tax that many districts relied on in 2005 to reduce the tax burden on some businesses.

The Senate budget proposal is the latest step in the two-year budgeting process that has already had proposals from the House and from Gov. John Kasich. If the Senate version passes, leaders of the House and Senate will meet in conference committee later this month to find a compromise.
The budget that both houses of the legislature agree on will then go to Kasich for approval.
Our early look at the Senate spreadsheets of how each district is affected shows that 18 of Cuyahoga County's 31 districts will have little change - increases of less than one percent - by 2017.

Solon and Cleveland are among those 18, once state aid increases and decreased tangible personal property tax reimbursements are considered. A few will see sizeable increases in dollars of state aid per student. Garfield Heights and Maple Heights would receive about $800 more per student.
Overall, the 31 districts in Cuyahoga County would experience a 3.2 percent increase in state money over the next two years, from $760.2 million for the 2014-15 school year to $784.8 million in 2016-178.Money for the 579 districts in the other 87 counties would increase 8.6 percent from $6.67 billion to $7.24 billion.

Here are some other highlights of the plan, as portrayed by Senate leaders this morning:

• Schools would receive $935 million more over the next two years than they do this year.: $351.5 million more for 2015-16, then continuing that increase and adding $233 million more in 2016-17.
• More money would go to low-wealth districts and extra dollars are targeted at transportation and technology needs for rural districts.
• Leaders envision eventually eliminating all tangible personal property tax reimbursements over time, despite claims from some districts that the state promised in 2005 to replace money they lost when that tax was halted.
• The number of districts on the so-called guarantee will be reduced from 198 now to 100 by 2017. These are districts receiving more money now than the funding formula would give them. An unofficial "guarantee" that they will not see losses has the state giving them extra money beyond the formula to keep state aid flat.
• The number of districts "on the cap" will drop from 238 now to 138 by 2017. These are districts who would receive even greater increases from the funding formula, but limits on how much increase a district can receive block them from receiving the full amount.

Private school credit card bill passes Texas Legislature

Original post on Tuesday, May 26, 2015 via The Courier

 

House Bill 1881 passed the Texas Senate and is headed to the governor’s desk for signature. This bill allows pre-K-12 private schools to allow parents to pay for their children’s tuition through a credit or debit card instead of absorbing the fees in their school budget. State Rep. Giovanni Capriglione, R-Southlake, is the bill’s author and state Sen. Brandon Creighton, R-Conroe, is the Senate sponsor.
“H.B. 1881 provides a new avenue for parents and guardians to pay for their child’s tuition at private and parochial schools,” said Senator Creighton. “This means private schools can use every dollar they can in the classroom and no longer absorb the cost incurred by processing fees. State government should always look for opportunities to remove road blocks in the day-to-day lives of our citizens.”
Currently, private schools are not allowed to charge these fees as a way to offset some of their expenses and their counterparts — public schools, public and private colleges and universities, are allowed to pass along the fee.

“This is an issue brought to me by several constituents,” Capriglione said. “This bill will give parents flexible payment options, as well as help private schools cover their costs, which is important for large and small schools alike. H.B. 1881 is mutually beneficial for parents and schools, and I’m pleased it has passed the Legislature.”

House Bill 1881 is supported by the Texas Private Schools Association, representing more than 800 accredited private schools and 250,000 students throughout the state.

Helping Ease The Burden (Tuition Payments)

Public School Teacher - Private School Parent

This article originally appeared in The Atlantic on March 4, 2015. 

Why I’m a Public-School Teacher but a Private-School Parent

It’s not selling out; it’s buying in.

 Last week, I observed a high-school English class on a campus without bells. The school didn’t need them: Every student showed up for class promptly, and they remained attentive until the last minute—without packing their books early or lining up at the door. San Luis Obispo Classical Academy (SLOCA) is a private school in Central California that promotes "personal character" and "love of learning," and the tangible difference between this environment and that at the public high school in the area was stunning to me—even though I'm a veteran public-school teacher. And even though my own daughter is in her second year of preschool at SLOCA.

I’ve also spent the last four decades exclusively at public schools—either attending them, coaching at them, or teaching at them. I have dedicated my life to them, as have all of my good friends. I even superficially loathe the local Catholic school for its elitist attitudes and alleged recruiting techniques. But as my daughter embarks on her K-12 journey, my wife and I are leaning toward this small, 322-student private school for one really simple reason: The kids take pride in their personal character, and they admit that they love learning.

My 4-year-old daughter, for now, is just like them. And I’ve always found that it’s exponentially more fun, fulfilling, and productive to engage in activities with other people who have "bought in" to whatever they’re doing with the same level of enthusiasm. For me, this has been true in grad school, baseball practice, watching football on TV—anything, really. For my daughter, this happens when she’s learning about personification, reciting poetry, and being a good human.

 

Personally, I was struck by the degree of student buy-in at SLOCA—which serves just 32 high-school students—compared to a typical public school nearby. In 90 minutes of observing the private-school class, there were zero interruptions, zero yawns, and zero cell phones. All 15 students, ranging from sophomores to seniors, had their homework successfully reviewed within the first five minutes of class; they all had their pens and notepads in front of them without being asked. As I listened to their interactions, it became clear, too, that they were engaged. They laughed when one of them made a joke about Frederick II being excommunicated a second time, and they lightly knocked on their desks when they liked a classmate's comment—a delightful custom I had never heard of. Each of them, moreover, answered a question from the teacher at least twice. Other than these moments, there was no noise, not a single distraction—and I was struck by the apparent absence of gender lines or observable differences between the youngest and oldest students in the class. Throughout those 90 minutes, they seemed like a group of old friends, united by a love of learning. 

That the teacher was fluent in that day’s topic, the Holy Roman Empire, was clear in at least two ways: One, she answered every question thoroughly, without hesitation; two, I could actually hear every word she said, in the tone and volume she intended. She didn't have to yell to be heard, and she didn't speak quickly in fear of interruption. She could subtly emphasize certain words, and her jokes landed. Observing this class, I started daydreaming about what, if given the chance, I would teach these kids—not how I would teach these kids.

* * *

As I am writing this, I am observing a different class—one at the 825-student public high school where I teach. The educator’s passion is evident, and his typed lesson plans are immaculate and thoughtful. It's not completely clear how fluent he is in the subject matter, however, because he has been interrupted or distracted by 20 things in 20 minutes: a pencil being sharpened, a paper bag being crumpled and tossed, a few irrelevant jokes that ignite several side conversations, a tardy student sauntering in with a smirk, a student feeding yogurt to a friend, a random class clown outside the window, and the subsequent need to lower the blinds, to name a few. The teacher is probably distracted by a disconcerting suspicion that he’s talking primarily to himself. For the past half hour, I've been thinking about how I would teach this class—not what I would teach this class.

I know most of the kids in this public school: They're not hurtful or malicious, and most of them aren't even consciously rude. They’re just "cool" by default, the opposite of being intrinsically "stoked" or "pumped" (to borrow a few words from their vocabulary) about learning. It’s not a classroom-management issue in this case. The teacher could outlaw food and cellphones, but there would still be jokes, fidgeting, students with passes to or from another place—something to distract them. No matter how diligently he teaches them about the appropriate time to sharpen a pencil, there will still be this culture of coolness, the norm of disengagement.  

SLOCA charges between roughly $3,000 and $7,000 per student in annual tuition—thousands less than the average cost of private high schools in the Western U.S., which according to some estimates is $29,000. And according to school figures, SLOCA also doles out $50,000 a year in need-based scholarships, as well as about $52,000 in tuition discounts. Granted, SLOCA’s tuition is probably too high for many families, but I don’t think the cost of attendance explains why SLOCA is such a special place—the biggest visible difference between my public-school students and their counterparts at SLOCA has little to do with money or natural brilliance (or, if it does, it isn't apparent or even relevant to me). Just like their public-school peers, the kids at SLOCA wear jeans and hoodies, and none of them seem to be any kind of genius; in fact, one of them was a student of mine at the public school, which he still attends part-time (I’ll get to him later). The biggest visible difference is that, at SLOCA, personal engagement is "cool." And any interruption is going to annoy everybody—not just the teacher.

In general, the teens at the public school don’t appear to have bought into an educational environment like that at SLOCA—and for good reason: There's nothing to buy. It’s difficult for them to show personal choice in their schooling because they’re obligated to be there regardless of whether they want to. As in many states, California law explicitly prohibits the school from requiring that parents pay for anything; at this particular institution, the administration even forbade an English teacher from asking parents to buy their kids tickets to an inexpensive play. After tax dollars, support for everything from extracurriculars to learning materials is expected to come through fundraisers, and schools can’t require that the students—the actual beneficiaries—participate in the fundraisers themselves. I completely understand and support the valid reasons behind these kinds of rules, both on conflict-of-interest grounds and, especially, in defense of equality. To me, however, that doesn’t negate the unfortunate, unintended consequence: When the kids aren’t obligated to invest their time and energy in a group project, they’re allowed to play it cool. 

Meanwhile, at SLOCA, the students—if only because they’re attending the school—seem to declare that they want an academic experience unavailable at mainstream institutions. Though SLOCA does have a few small athletic teams and host a couple of dances, the students here visibly favor their studious environment—one that lacks the gyms and swimming pools and other fun amenities available at some public schools. During the day, they’re willing to surrender their personal technology—phones are prohibited during school hours—and, presumably, the intimate gossip that comes with those devices. According to one teacher, "none of them date each other" because "it would be weird for them [in this environment]."

Likewise, if the parents are paying tuition at an independent school—one that advertises an alternative approach to education and promotes a "love of learning" as its cornerstone—they are publicly claiming a stake in a specific curriculum and pedagogy.  They’re not simply accepting the title of "stakeholder" at the school that’s chosen for their kids because of, say, geography. And they’re not choosing the school because of something like superior facilities, either; SLOCA’s campus doesn’t boast any material advantage over nearby public schools. Far from it: SLOCA’s campus sits on an old elementary school that the district abandoned years ago and is now leasing out on a temporary basis. In fact, the district now wants the buildings back to establish a new public elementary school for academically accelerated students, meaning that SLOCA will have to relocate again. Undeterred, the parents continue to give it their time and money.

I noticed the same effect of "buying in" when I used to teach Advanced Placement English at another public school. By law, anyone was allowed to take the class, but the school encouraged every interested student to get a signature from a former teacher to vouch for his or her qualifications. The simple act of taking the initiative to procure a signature was enough to show "buy-in": On the first day of school, every student had made a tiny but significant act that showed that they had chosen to be in this class. This served as implicit evidence that they cared about their education, at least a little bit.

I was once one of those students. As a teenager enrolled in a public high school in Northern California, I often wore a T-shirt with an angel proclaiming "Do not trust the government!" and earned the average grades that came relatively easy to me. Near the time of graduation, my father told me that he saw no point in investing in my college tuition because academics were clearly not my priority. So I started bussing tables and save up money for college on my own, and once it was me paying for my own education, I was angry rather than relieved when a professor canceled class; I constantly calculated how much each hour was costing me, and my grades skyrocketed.

Today, despite my excitement about kids who "geek out" about education, I hope my empathy for and belief in public-school students are evident, if only for my choice of occupation. I’m not trying to be combative, but I do find it ironic that many people who argue against private schools work in the private sector. For 20 years, I have deliberately invested my life in teaching public-school kids, coaching them, and advocating for the ones who don’t have the same support that other kids have. In fact, I chose to teach in a public high school precisely because I pitied the children who felt forced to be at school, who felt trapped like I did when I was their age. I spend my own time and money advising clubs, tutoring those who struggle with English, helping students apply for college, and, sometimes, feeding kids who aren’t sure if they’re going to have dinner. On a daily basis, even as I’m surrounded by a million competing interests and distractions, I work hard to make their compulsory experience something for which they would volunteer.

And I should note that, in expressing my concern about public schools, I’m not talking about individual students—all of whom I care for, respect, and support. Most of these kids are wonderful people, and some of them are fantastic students. Nor am I talking about individual teachers or classes. After all, statistics show that public-school teachers have comparably more classroom experience and qualifications. From what I’ve seen, public-school teachers are just as talented as, if not more talented than, their private-school counterparts; I’ve observed countless public-school classes in which students were, indeed, "stoked" about a particular lesson. And private schools for their part undoubtedly have bouts of misbehavior and poor choices.

I am, however, concerned about the general culture at public schools—at least at the ones I’ve seen—of disengagement and compulsory learning. So when it comes to my daughter, I opt to invest a little more—to ensure she’s immersed in a community where it’s acceptable, and even admirable, to show natural enthusiasm for knowledge. I trust this particular private school, one that was created by like-minded parents, will best set her up for success. After all, numerous studies corroborate what teachers and parents have always observed: A student’s habits and beliefs are significantly affected by his or her friends. Schools like SLOCA, fantastic as it may seem, are possible as long as the students and their parents are willing to buy in. Unfortunately, the critical mass of engaged students and parents that’s integral to creating this environment seems to be lacking at many of today’s public schools. And it may be impossible to attain when everything is both free and compulsory.

Of course, everything I’ve said until now is from my perspective as a parent and teacher. So, wanting to see what an actual student has to say about the issue, I recently sat down with the aforementioned teen who, as part of a unique arrangement, continues to attend the public school where I teach while taking a couple of classes at SLOCA. A typical junior who has a 3.4 GPA and takes few honors courses, the student emphasized that while he really likes his peers and teachers—and the opportunities he has to play soccer—at the public school, he prefers the classes at the academy. "At SLOCA, the kids really want to learn, and they want to be focused," he told me. "At [the public school], some kids don’t, and that puts a damper on things. And then the teachers unfortunately focus on [those kids]." He used the word "damper" again when I asked, hypothetically, what would happen if a SLOCA class were infused with 10 additional disengaged students. And that same word came up yet again when I asked him about ways in which public schools should handle the distracting "cool" kids who pollute classroom environments: "There’s no way to change that. You’d have to take them out of the class, but you don’t have the right to segregate them. Who gets to decide who’s putting the damper on [whom]?"

He’s right: Nobody gets to decide who puts the damper on whom. As taxpayers and citizens, American individuals are entitled to pursuing their own happiness, whether that entails an emphasis on athletics, church, real estate, you name it. For my family, we choose to emphasize a specific learning environment. And though we’re by no means martyrs for carving out $600 a month for tuition and aren’t sacrificing in the same way that many disadvantaged families do, we’re certainly not frittering away our disposable income in an attempt to give our daughter an unfair advantage. We’ve simply made a choice, and that in part means we live in a modest apartment designed for college students.

Of course, not everyone agrees with me. Vox editor Matthew Yglesias claims the country should tax private schools even more because, "At best private school is a private consumption good, like buying your kids expensive clothes." Gawker writer John Cook argues that private school should be illegal. A "public school dad" recently published a "plea to private school parents" on ABC.com that efforts like mine to "get the best education possible in the land of the free … sucks on a bunch of levels." And at least 70,000 people on Facebook liked the "manifesto" against private schools written by Slate senior editor Allison Benedikt, whose many points included: "If you send your kid to private school" then you are "a bad person … ruining one of our nation’s most essential institutions."

Public schools have my tax money, my lifelong employment, and almost anything else they need of me; pulling my daughter—one student—out of the system is probably the least of its worries. And on a more abstract level, the above criticisms fail to acknowledge the cumbersome, almost fixed nature of the dominant culture I’ve seen at public schools—one that occasionally isolates students who love learning, are teased by the "cool" kids and even bullied into joining the masses. No matter how much she voluntarily recites Shakespeare, the student I envision my daughter becoming would never be able to single-handedly transform a public school into an environment that is cool to learning.

These private-school critics, of course, are free to do whatever they want with her own personal time and money. Admitting that she’s "judgemental," Benedikt says one reason she "feels so strongly about public schools" is that, while some teens like to read Walt Whitman, "getting drunk before basketball games … did the same thing" for her. My girl deserves to be in a place where she won’t face diatribes from judgmental students who call her names just because she chooses to buy into her own educational aspirations. She should have the opportunity to read Whitman with sober, like-minded friends knowing that they, too, are getting what they bought in for.

About the Author Michael Godsey is an English teacher and writer based in San Luis Obispo, California.