🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan07.210951.11037@eng.umd.edu> clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles Lin) writes:
>
>In article <1993Jan7.200126.13933@wam.umd.edu>, kckbxr@next16pg2.wam.umd.edu (Robin Hood) writes:
>>
>>I didn't read the article, but your letter and the examples taken from the  
>>article indicate magnet schools used in a post-high school setting.   
>>There, I agree.  In high schools, in my opinion, it's a different story.   
>>In P.G. County, MD, there are a variety of magnet schools offerred.  I  
>>think that this is discriminatory at this age-level.  I don't see the need  
>>to concentrate on the magnet school programs on the hs-level when there  
>>aren't enough funds to educate the general public properly.  Many high  
>>schools are limited as far as necessities are concerned (terribly old  
>>books, limited amounts of copy paper, resources, teachers, etc.) to the  
>>general public.  I don't see how the Dept. of Education can justify  
>>spending the general public's tax dollars on a few select individuals.  If  
>>these people want advanced education, then they should look for alternate  
>>means to funding it, but not the PUBLIC education budget! 
>
>    I'm sorry I didn't mention it, but the article referred to high
>schools.   Colleges and universities essentially do admit people based
>on qualifications, so having an article like that would not be terribly
>original (unless they suggested that a single test would be the sole
>basis of admission, which is true in many countries).
>
>    I'll tell you basically why I support the idea of magnet schools
>despite elitism and possible discrimination.   Under the assumption that
>not all students can be equally talented, and that only some small percentage
>of such students can succeed (say 20%), and assuming that not all such
>students live in one area served by one or two schools, but are distributed
>in many places, and assuming that there isn't the kind of money and
>administration to make all schools wonderful institutes of learning, then
>magnet schools seem like a good idea.
>
>    Why?   First, if we have a small number of students who show
>evidence of being good in school, but some of these students are
>located in schools where the local high school has to serve everyone,
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>then the likelihood is that such students will not have the kind
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>of education that can challenge them.   It seems a waste to force someone
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>to go to a school where they are not expected to accomplish much when
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>there is evidence that they can.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Right on!!!! The idea is not to breed mediocrity by bringing the excellent
students to the level of the average, it is to encourage excellence!!




>
>    Now, if we resort to private schools or parochial schools, then that
>means a student has to have money in order to go, and this would be unfair
>to the poorer students who can not afford private schooling.  In addition,
>if students in poorer communities have poorer schooling, then there is
>no alternative but to attend those high schools.   Magnet schools would
>offer a means to go to a higher quality school.   
>
>>
>>Now, you may disagree with me and say well, what qualifies me to have an  
>>opinion on the subject.  Well, I graduated from one of the high schools in  
>>P.G. County, MD, in 1989 and am currently at the Univ. of Maryland.  I've  
>>since visited my high school and have seen how pathetic it looks.  I guess  
>>we can all thank his royal highness, Gov. of Baltimore, Willie Shaeffer  
>>for the millions of tax dollars in which the kids will never be able to  
>>have for education now, can't we?
>>
>
>    Here's the problem as I see it.   If the money were to be evenly distributed
>across educational systems, the likelihood is that education still may
>not improve.   Concentrate the money in a few schools, then students who
>fare well can have a chance to do better.   Obviously such a solution is
>not perfect.   Just putting money in the such systems in no guarantee of
>quality, so people in these schools have to perform.   It also doesn't address
>the problem of how to improve the education of everyone, in general.  However,
>by having some magnet schools that are open by testing to all, then this
>provides a way of having some quality education vs. no quality education.
>Hopefully, a benefit of having such schools will be that some people want
>better education and will demand that their local schools provide some
>of that quality.  
>
>    Another alternative is to run all schools in some sort of hierarchy
>similar to the California education at the college level.  I believe
>they run some two or three levels of state education.   University of
>California is the top level, California State Univeristy is the next,
>and there maybe some city colleges below that.
>
>    Finally, I would say that there needs to be some minimum level of
>money going to all schools which provides for books, etc.   However,
>I'm not entirely convinced that money equals quality education either.
>
>--
>Charles Lin
>clin@eng.umd.edu
>

Ishay

P.S I am interested in knowing exactly what Perot accomplished in the
     Texas educational system reforms.