Wednesday, September 05, 2007

QUINCY NOTRE DAME: THE VALUE OF GOOD PUB

I've written often about the value of Quincy Notre Dame. Let's take a different tack today.

What do suppose the cash value (in gross receipts over time) is of the the headline in last night's QHW. (You can see it for free on Whig.Com if you're not from around here. Actually, you can see it on Whig.com, even if you're from here. Amazing how that works.)

How many families with college track kids will now select QND who wouldn't have otherwise done so? Hard to measure, but it's gotta be some.

Some of you spreadsheet jocks out there, build us a model. If you want to email the spready to me at rule5draft@gmail.com, I'll try to post it (subject to my limited skills as a site operator.).

Thanks for playing.

9 Comments:

At 7:22 AM, September 05, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

More parents with limited resources could take advantage of QND if vouchers were an option. As it stands, tax payers are forced to keep shelling money out to a public school system that is moving in the opposite direction.

 
At 7:34 AM, September 05, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

UMR

What factors do you think go into
making QND more successful academically
than QHS?

 
At 5:09 PM, September 05, 2007, Blogger TOOKIE said...

Chicago math is a failure but like the war on drugs QPS will toss more GOOD money at a giant turd.

 
At 5:19 PM, September 05, 2007, Blogger UMRBlog said...

0734,

To be fair, QHS did well in the NCLB metrics so it's not that they're doing a comprehensively bad job. Still, QND's direction of travel is nicer than QHS's.

Anything I say about this is a SWAG, but here goes:

1. Some of it is a self-selection process. Folks value and put more effort into that which costs them some money;

2. I am guessing that the percentage of two parent families is higher at QND. I think it's a little easier for a kid to learn when both Mom and Dad are home and regularly interested in his/her academic progress;

3. I think the streamlined simplicity (not easiness) of the QND curriculum places the task squarely in front of the student. There's no opting out of physics for "Advanced Placement Bellybutton lint research."

4. Not to put down any individual public school teacher but the faculty @ QND must be pretty dedicated. They can't be doing it for the money! Maybe it's the environment with a few more students truly interested in being helped. Maybe it's just the small community attitude @ QND. These folks are there because they want to be, not because they have a $750.00 SUV payment.

5. They lucked up and got themselves a star for a principal and he's stayed for years. Nobody is more committed to straight-up delivery of knowledge and experience for kids. Not to turn this into a cult of peronality but, if there's no Ray, there's no QND excellence over the last 20 years or so.

All of the above is to answer your question with no benefit of any expertise (cuz I have none). If it doesn't run too deep, I guess it's all I've got tonight.

BTW, for whatever it's worth, my intuition is that QHS still does the better job with the absolutely one-percenter high end kid. The next 20% down may do better witht he blocking and tackling approach at QND.

TYFCB

 
At 5:26 PM, September 05, 2007, Blogger UMRBlog said...

722,

The voucher thing is more complicated than it seems. It invites shysters into the education marketplace. From what I've read, seems to work in large urban countywide school systems but not in encapsulated urban ones.

I read they were trying something like this in some cities in Oregon. Some of the cities (and I can't remember the names) were heavily artisan and tech sector so the kids might tend to be more high end and the parents might be better shoppers for education services.

My union friends will be unhappy but I think the voucher idea is worthy of more experimentation. Like all idealistic solutions, it's got some bear traps built into it. Let's get the bugs out of it before any roll out.

 
At 4:02 PM, September 06, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you give a voucher to those who elect to send their kids to a private school, I certainly hope you plan on giving one to those who have made the choice to not have children.

I guess you feel that the voucher makes up for you saving the taxpayer money by not sending your child to a public school. So, what about someone who makes the choice to not have children? They have reduced the number of kids using the school systems resources. How about a tax break of some sort for those who have no offspring??? They are paying higher taxes because of less dependents as well as paying their fair share of property and other taxes that go to schools.

 
At 8:02 PM, September 06, 2007, Anonymous Rob Mellon said...

I have taught at Quincy Notre Dame and now at Quincy High School. I am new to the district so I can not speak about QHS with a great deal of experience, but the parental involvement at QND is far higher than at the other schools that I have taught in. I still think QND could do better, although I agree 100% with your comments about Ray. The level of technology at QHS and QND is lower than in other schools. I am of the school of thought that the classroom is where the students spend most of their time - it is the front line - the individual classrooms need to be as modern and technologically advanced as possible. Both schools would benefit greatly from increased technology. As for funding I support the program that has been instituted by the Wichita Diocese. They have a plan in place which requires all parishioners offer 8% of their income. Hardly any meet this goal, but the churches and schools in the diocese have plenty of money. There is no tuition for schooling and no fees for church services. With all of the drastic cut backs in the Quincy parochial school system something progressive needs to be implemented.

 
At 4:00 PM, September 07, 2007, Blogger UMRBlog said...

1602,

How about a cash grant for abortions and then an 18 year tax abatement? The involved mother would be saving the public schools from the imminent danger of having to educate that hypothetical kid.

Isn't that a logical extension of your reasoning.

TYFCB

 
At 8:39 PM, September 07, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

1600
Yeah, that would work too.
I will not have children and say I was going to have ten but save the burden. That will be 10 18-year vouchers please! That works perfectly!

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home