4 ms·

Public schools also do plenty of dumb things. It's not as though charter schools have a lock on this. A lot of people want "vouchers" so that private schools

Public schools also do plenty of dumb things. It's not as though charter schools have a lock on this. A lot of people want "vouchers" so that private schools are more affordable. And plenty of private schools have a good track record, while having similar per-pupil costs as public schools. If it costs $1000/student/month irrespective of if a child goes to a public school or a private school, why does the state really care which one the child attends? Why not let parents choose the school?

baldfat 11y ago
Charter Schools = They take 100% of the money from the public school and the money follows the student. > why does the state really care which one the child attends? Well I as a tax payer cares. If those school fare even worst and the administration and CEO/President of the foundations makes millions at the expense of children there is a concern. Public Schools work and have worked for decades. We have a problem with inner city schools and a big part is unfair funding, but killing public schools and give it over to various schools with no public oversight just government over sight is scary. We vote on our School Boards and Directors. We can protest and get Administrators removed. Can't do that to these Charters School. Also privatizing schools will make being a teacher an even worst job.
- msandford 11y ago
  You're not making very coherent arguments. What's wrong with a voucher system whereby the PARENTS of the children being educated are the ones who determine which child the school goes to? Doesn't that make it very easy for the parents to shut bad schools down very quickly? It seems like that solves all the problems you're worried about, while also providing more choices to parents and students. What's the downside?
  - baldfat 11y ago
    Voucher and Charter School are two different things. Charter Schools are taking over Public School System. Vochers are evil for many social reasons. I'll just focus on one. So Vouchers really will be the new segregation tool for the 21st Century. Your money will be used to send kids to religious schools you don't like teaching Islam, Christianity in all its forms, or who knows what and if they want to teach the children ignorance and hate and you as a tax payer just flipped the bill for this and can't stop it. I can't see a good voucher system that would answer my fears of miss used funds spent on poor education back by people groups that will not teach based on various world views that are not politically correct and just wrong. Our Brain Drain in America will go into Nuclear Meltdown. To quote the 2002 Supreme Court Voucher Dissent: Justice Breyer on Descent “... all religious institutions cannot be given equal opportunities to the government funding and trying to do so not only turns back the clock on the Constitution, but creates a powder keg in our society.” http://www.pewforum.org/2002/06/28/judgment-day-for-school-vouchers/ http://www.pewforum.org/2002/06/28/judgment-day-for-school-v... Back ground: I went to private school and graduated with a Theology Degree and worked as a Pastor for years. I absolutely know that many in the voucher movement see the Government footing the bill for their Christian Education. You have no idea how deep Crazy Christianity can get (Westborogh is just the tip of the ice berge). They will spew their version of crazy that they got with no academic or logically training to children with your tax dollars paying for it.
    - msandford 11y ago
      So the money for education can only be spent on the kind of education YOU like, and not the kind of education that the parents like? You do realize that's incredibly arrogant, right? You and other enlightened people know what's best, but everyone else who disagrees with you about what's best is unenlightened swine? That's tautological.
      - baldfat 11y ago
        Your missing the point. They can spend their money where you would be mad. So if they go to a school where history is through the lens of white supremacy and teach that science is evil because it contradicts their narrow version of the Bible and that God created black people because of the curse on Noah's son for having homosexual sin with Noah your fine? By the way a LOT of people believe this especially in the south. (Also BTW Noah's son Cush who did this "looking on his father naked" the scriptures say they went to Persia and NOT to Africa but that is another matter of facts getting way to their fictionalized bibles) Also show one example where vouchers BETTERED students education? It didn't in Switzerland it actually made their scores worse since 1992.
        msandford 11y ago
        I am saying that if you apply that argument inductively, then nobody should be able to do anything because there will always be someone to object to it. Public money can't be used by anyone for anything because someone will have a problem with it. You do see how that could be, don't you? I am in group X and I object to things that you value in group Y. You in group Y object to things that I, in group X, value. What do we do? Once you have a particular group that claims to have the moral high ground for some nebulous definition of "the high ground" the whole argument is lost because so few people agree on so few things. I get that creationists are annoying, but I'll give them credit for not demanding that science not be taught, just that they wanted their pet theory taught too. That looks a lot more reasonable (from a certain perspective) than the evolutionists who insist that evolution is the only possible explanation ever, with quite religious zeal, despite having only circumstantial evidence. Evolutionary science is nowhere near as rigorous as physics and won't be for thousands and thousands of years of highly accurate recordkeeping. At that point the creationists will have suffered a thorough defeat, but until then, well, truthfully the science isn't settled. At least to the degree of rigor that I would personally care for.
- eric_the_read 11y ago
  In many cases, that's not true. Until recently, charter schools in my district received 17% of the per-pupil funding compared to district-run schools. That's changed recently, but who knows how long that will last.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> If it costs $1000/student/month irrespective of if a child goes to a public school or a private school, why does the state really care which one the child attends? Because it doesn't cost a flat amount per student. The fact that funding is fixed per student doesn't mean that all students are equally costly to educate, and private schools that don't have a universal acceptance mandate impose selection criteria which tend to select for students which are less expensive to serve, increasing the per-student costs (but not funding!) in the public schools if public funds are used on an equal per-student basis to support students going to those private schools.
- msandford 11y ago
  That's quite an interesting point. It's similar to the reason why insurance companies won't cover pre-existing conditions, isn't it?
warfangle 11y ago
> If it costs $1000/student/month irrespective of if a child goes to a public school or a private school, why does the state really care which one the child attends? Why not let parents choose the school? Except it doesn't. In fact, at-risk children going to poorly performing schools cost more per dollar: they need more extra curricular activities, possibly counseling, lower cost lunches, a lower teacher:student ratio, and so on and so forth. More children at poorly performing schools have more problems with their home life, and school is about the only thing other than organized crime that can give them structure. There was a whole season of The Wire about this.. :)
pfooti 11y ago
In addition to the per-student cost-to-educate not being constant, but charters only admitting the cheap students (as mentioned in sibling posts), charters also tend to have much lower salary costs, because in most states charter school teachers aren't part of the teachers' union. They have lower pay, worse benefits, and trend quite young. The charters, for the most part, are only making use of the cheapest, least experienced teachers in order to educate the students who are most likely to do well no matter what school they attend. After those teachers are chewed up and spat out, they're replaced by other fungible TFA folks who are just as inexperienced and just as willing to work unpaid overtime until they burn out. As a predatory move to extract value from a very large market, it's commendable capitalism. As a general trend that undercuts the quality of public education nationwide, well, it's very distressing.
- maratd 11y ago
  I find it funny how you completely ignored the most important aspect of the equation. The student. The students are choosing to attend those charter schools. People choose things that are better for themselves. Not always, but often enough that you can safely assume it's true for the majority. Why are they doing that? Could it be, that in spite of everything you mentioned ... charters are a better option for the student? Isn't that's what's important? What's broken with the public education system isn't the funding, not the teachers, not the unions, not the administrators, or the facilities. It's none of those things. It's demented notion that the system exists for the sake of the teachers/unions/administrators/etc. It doesn't. It exists for the students. Do what's best for them. Let them choose where they spend 12+ years of their life.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > The students are choosing to attend those charter schools. Generally not the case. The parents are, usually, choosing. > People choose things that are better for themselves. Not always, but often enough that you can safely assume it's true for the majority. You might reasonably make that assumption for cases where the people making the decision are making it for themselves, and with sufficient information and skill to make a reasonable prediction of the utility that will result from each available choice. (A stronger form of this is a central element of rational choice theory, so its common to Econ 101 models of behavior -- and lots of people have internalized these models without understanding the assumptions underpinning them, and how limited they are in the real world.) I think its far from evident that school choices under the conditions they are actually made meet that description.
nmrm2 11y ago
> Why not let parents choose the school? As long as private schools are required to take any comer can cannot charge tuition beyond the per pupil amount. Somehow I doubt any private school advocate wants actual school choice.

baldfat 11y ago

Charter Schools = They take 100% of the money from the public school and the money follows the student. > why does the state really care which one the child attends? Well I as a tax payer cares. If those school fare even worst and the administration and CEO/President of the foundations makes millions at the expense of children there is a concern. Public Schools work and have worked for decades. We have a problem with inner city schools and a big part is unfair funding, but killing public schools and give it over to various schools with no public oversight just government over sight is scary. We vote on our School Boards and Directors. We can protest and get Administrators removed. Can't do that to these Charters School. Also privatizing schools will make being a teacher an even worst job.

msandford 11y ago
You're not making very coherent arguments. What's wrong with a voucher system whereby the PARENTS of the children being educated are the ones who determine which child the school goes to? Doesn't that make it very easy for the parents to shut bad schools down very quickly? It seems like that solves all the problems you're worried about, while also providing more choices to parents and students. What's the downside?
- baldfat 11y ago
  Voucher and Charter School are two different things. Charter Schools are taking over Public School System. Vochers are evil for many social reasons. I'll just focus on one. So Vouchers really will be the new segregation tool for the 21st Century. Your money will be used to send kids to religious schools you don't like teaching Islam, Christianity in all its forms, or who knows what and if they want to teach the children ignorance and hate and you as a tax payer just flipped the bill for this and can't stop it. I can't see a good voucher system that would answer my fears of miss used funds spent on poor education back by people groups that will not teach based on various world views that are not politically correct and just wrong. Our Brain Drain in America will go into Nuclear Meltdown. To quote the 2002 Supreme Court Voucher Dissent: Justice Breyer on Descent “... all religious institutions cannot be given equal opportunities to the government funding and trying to do so not only turns back the clock on the Constitution, but creates a powder keg in our society.” http://www.pewforum.org/2002/06/28/judgment-day-for-school-vouchers/ http://www.pewforum.org/2002/06/28/judgment-day-for-school-v... Back ground: I went to private school and graduated with a Theology Degree and worked as a Pastor for years. I absolutely know that many in the voucher movement see the Government footing the bill for their Christian Education. You have no idea how deep Crazy Christianity can get (Westborogh is just the tip of the ice berge). They will spew their version of crazy that they got with no academic or logically training to children with your tax dollars paying for it.
  - msandford 11y ago
    So the money for education can only be spent on the kind of education YOU like, and not the kind of education that the parents like? You do realize that's incredibly arrogant, right? You and other enlightened people know what's best, but everyone else who disagrees with you about what's best is unenlightened swine? That's tautological.
    - baldfat 11y ago
      Your missing the point. They can spend their money where you would be mad. So if they go to a school where history is through the lens of white supremacy and teach that science is evil because it contradicts their narrow version of the Bible and that God created black people because of the curse on Noah's son for having homosexual sin with Noah your fine? By the way a LOT of people believe this especially in the south. (Also BTW Noah's son Cush who did this "looking on his father naked" the scriptures say they went to Persia and NOT to Africa but that is another matter of facts getting way to their fictionalized bibles) Also show one example where vouchers BETTERED students education? It didn't in Switzerland it actually made their scores worse since 1992.
      - msandford 11y ago
        I am saying that if you apply that argument inductively, then nobody should be able to do anything because there will always be someone to object to it. Public money can't be used by anyone for anything because someone will have a problem with it. You do see how that could be, don't you? I am in group X and I object to things that you value in group Y. You in group Y object to things that I, in group X, value. What do we do? Once you have a particular group that claims to have the moral high ground for some nebulous definition of "the high ground" the whole argument is lost because so few people agree on so few things. I get that creationists are annoying, but I'll give them credit for not demanding that science not be taught, just that they wanted their pet theory taught too. That looks a lot more reasonable (from a certain perspective) than the evolutionists who insist that evolution is the only possible explanation ever, with quite religious zeal, despite having only circumstantial evidence. Evolutionary science is nowhere near as rigorous as physics and won't be for thousands and thousands of years of highly accurate recordkeeping. At that point the creationists will have suffered a thorough defeat, but until then, well, truthfully the science isn't settled. At least to the degree of rigor that I would personally care for.
eric_the_read 11y ago
In many cases, that's not true. Until recently, charter schools in my district received 17% of the per-pupil funding compared to district-run schools. That's changed recently, but who knows how long that will last.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> If it costs $1000/student/month irrespective of if a child goes to a public school or a private school, why does the state really care which one the child attends? Because it doesn't cost a flat amount per student. The fact that funding is fixed per student doesn't mean that all students are equally costly to educate, and private schools that don't have a universal acceptance mandate impose selection criteria which tend to select for students which are less expensive to serve, increasing the per-student costs (but not funding!) in the public schools if public funds are used on an equal per-student basis to support students going to those private schools.

msandford 11y ago
That's quite an interesting point. It's similar to the reason why insurance companies won't cover pre-existing conditions, isn't it?

warfangle 11y ago

> If it costs $1000/student/month irrespective of if a child goes to a public school or a private school, why does the state really care which one the child attends? Why not let parents choose the school? Except it doesn't. In fact, at-risk children going to poorly performing schools cost more per dollar: they need more extra curricular activities, possibly counseling, lower cost lunches, a lower teacher:student ratio, and so on and so forth. More children at poorly performing schools have more problems with their home life, and school is about the only thing other than organized crime that can give them structure. There was a whole season of The Wire about this.. :)

pfooti 11y ago

In addition to the per-student cost-to-educate not being constant, but charters only admitting the cheap students (as mentioned in sibling posts), charters also tend to have much lower salary costs, because in most states charter school teachers aren't part of the teachers' union. They have lower pay, worse benefits, and trend quite young. The charters, for the most part, are only making use of the cheapest, least experienced teachers in order to educate the students who are most likely to do well no matter what school they attend. After those teachers are chewed up and spat out, they're replaced by other fungible TFA folks who are just as inexperienced and just as willing to work unpaid overtime until they burn out. As a predatory move to extract value from a very large market, it's commendable capitalism. As a general trend that undercuts the quality of public education nationwide, well, it's very distressing.

maratd 11y ago
I find it funny how you completely ignored the most important aspect of the equation. The student. The students are choosing to attend those charter schools. People choose things that are better for themselves. Not always, but often enough that you can safely assume it's true for the majority. Why are they doing that? Could it be, that in spite of everything you mentioned ... charters are a better option for the student? Isn't that's what's important? What's broken with the public education system isn't the funding, not the teachers, not the unions, not the administrators, or the facilities. It's none of those things. It's demented notion that the system exists for the sake of the teachers/unions/administrators/etc. It doesn't. It exists for the students. Do what's best for them. Let them choose where they spend 12+ years of their life.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > The students are choosing to attend those charter schools. Generally not the case. The parents are, usually, choosing. > People choose things that are better for themselves. Not always, but often enough that you can safely assume it's true for the majority. You might reasonably make that assumption for cases where the people making the decision are making it for themselves, and with sufficient information and skill to make a reasonable prediction of the utility that will result from each available choice. (A stronger form of this is a central element of rational choice theory, so its common to Econ 101 models of behavior -- and lots of people have internalized these models without understanding the assumptions underpinning them, and how limited they are in the real world.) I think its far from evident that school choices under the conditions they are actually made meet that description.

nmrm2 11y ago

> Why not let parents choose the school? As long as private schools are required to take any comer can cannot charge tuition beyond the per pupil amount. Somehow I doubt any private school advocate wants actual school choice.