7 ms·

If we decoupled housing from education as much as possible then at least people wouldn't be forced to buy all sorts of other amenities that they might or might

If we decoupled housing from education as much as possible then at least people wouldn't be forced to buy all sorts of other amenities that they might or might not want along with the educations they do want. There'd be a lot of winners from such a change, but the big losers would be incumbent homeowners in neighborhoods with "good schools" that have had that circumstance capitalized into the prices of their homes. Unfortunately that's quite a powerful group of people.

tinbucket 11y ago
I don't disagree with you, but how would that work? How would you select pupils to fill the limited number of places in the desirable schools from a pool of candidates that would be much, much bigger?
- burfog 11y ago
  Note that there would be 0 places in desirable schools. When you dilute the good kids, the AP classes get cancelled. When bad kids are roaming about and starting fights in the middle of lessons, teaching turns into babysitting. It's not a matter of money. DC spends more per student than nearly everybody else. It's a matter of student quality.
- bradleyjg 11y ago
  Personally I like vouchers and school choice, with a variety of school philosophies and admissions processes. But even random assignment across larger geographical areas than are common today would be break the link between housing and quasi-public school tuition. Needless to say I reject burfog's claim that we currently have an efficient meritocracy and that the betas, deltas and gammas should just make peace with their stations in life.
- rjdevereux 11y ago
  Yes, that's one way to do it. That's how it works for a lot of charter schools. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKTfaro96dg&feature=youtu.be&t=111 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKTfaro96dg&feature=youtu.be...
burfog 11y ago
The big losers would be the bright and willing children. It's hard enough being a nerdy kid today. Such kids almost always are in decent places because kids tend to be like their parents. Kids with the potential to succeed come from parents with the potential to succeed. Education doesn't work if the classroom is full of kids who can't behave. Education doesn't get very advanced if the classroom is full of kids who aren't bright and willing to study. Mix things up, and what do you get? A few strangely poor-yet-viable kids will move from very bad schools to slightly bad schools (nice but insignificant) while all the bright promising kids will end up in less-effective schools. The best schools will cease to exist. (by changing that is; they don't physically go away) It does make us more equal, largely by inhibiting the success of our brightest and hardest-working students. Is this what you want?
- galactus 11y ago
  So basically you are saying that poor kids have no "potential to succeed" and should be kept segregated?
  - Chronic51 11y ago
    Yes. We do the exact same with disabled students. Yet no one talks about them. I suppose because it is because "looking out for the poor" makes people feel good.
    - Throwaway23412 11y ago
      Aren't public schools supposed to have special education resources? I don't know about other schools but the schools I grew up in had disabled students. They just often weren't in the same classes as the higher-achieving kids. But that's no different from students being in different accelerated, AP, or IB classes.
    - galactus 11y ago
      Interesting. How do you plan to keep the plebs from revolting once you eliminate the last vestige of social mobility?
rjdevereux 11y ago
What you are talking about it school choice, and in many versions of this parents are allowed to have the choice of private, charter, parochial school in addition to district schools. Milton Friedman, a Nobel Laureate in economics, set up a foundation to advocate for it. I am not sure you are correct that biggest group blocking this is wealthy homeowners. http://www.edchoice.org/school-choice/school-choice-in-america/ http://www.edchoice.org/school-choice/school-choice-in-ameri...
SilasX 11y ago
I agree that that is the right solution, but it would effectively be an expropriation of a huge portion of most of the middle class's wealth -- their home value that derives from being in a desirable school district -- and hence explains the difficulty of switching to a Nordic style voucher system where families get a block of government money to use at a school of their choice and the schools have to compete for it.
- tamana 11y ago
  What's wrong with expropriating unearned wealth?

tinbucket 11y ago

I don't disagree with you, but how would that work? How would you select pupils to fill the limited number of places in the desirable schools from a pool of candidates that would be much, much bigger?

burfog 11y ago
Note that there would be 0 places in desirable schools. When you dilute the good kids, the AP classes get cancelled. When bad kids are roaming about and starting fights in the middle of lessons, teaching turns into babysitting. It's not a matter of money. DC spends more per student than nearly everybody else. It's a matter of student quality.
bradleyjg 11y ago
Personally I like vouchers and school choice, with a variety of school philosophies and admissions processes. But even random assignment across larger geographical areas than are common today would be break the link between housing and quasi-public school tuition. Needless to say I reject burfog's claim that we currently have an efficient meritocracy and that the betas, deltas and gammas should just make peace with their stations in life.
rjdevereux 11y ago
Yes, that's one way to do it. That's how it works for a lot of charter schools. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKTfaro96dg&feature=youtu.be&t=111 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKTfaro96dg&feature=youtu.be...

burfog 11y ago

The big losers would be the bright and willing children. It's hard enough being a nerdy kid today. Such kids almost always are in decent places because kids tend to be like their parents. Kids with the potential to succeed come from parents with the potential to succeed. Education doesn't work if the classroom is full of kids who can't behave. Education doesn't get very advanced if the classroom is full of kids who aren't bright and willing to study. Mix things up, and what do you get? A few strangely poor-yet-viable kids will move from very bad schools to slightly bad schools (nice but insignificant) while all the bright promising kids will end up in less-effective schools. The best schools will cease to exist. (by changing that is; they don't physically go away) It does make us more equal, largely by inhibiting the success of our brightest and hardest-working students. Is this what you want?

galactus 11y ago
So basically you are saying that poor kids have no "potential to succeed" and should be kept segregated?
- Chronic51 11y ago
  Yes. We do the exact same with disabled students. Yet no one talks about them. I suppose because it is because "looking out for the poor" makes people feel good.
  - Throwaway23412 11y ago
    Aren't public schools supposed to have special education resources? I don't know about other schools but the schools I grew up in had disabled students. They just often weren't in the same classes as the higher-achieving kids. But that's no different from students being in different accelerated, AP, or IB classes.
  - galactus 11y ago
    Interesting. How do you plan to keep the plebs from revolting once you eliminate the last vestige of social mobility?

rjdevereux 11y ago

What you are talking about it school choice, and in many versions of this parents are allowed to have the choice of private, charter, parochial school in addition to district schools. Milton Friedman, a Nobel Laureate in economics, set up a foundation to advocate for it. I am not sure you are correct that biggest group blocking this is wealthy homeowners. http://www.edchoice.org/school-choice/school-choice-in-america/ http://www.edchoice.org/school-choice/school-choice-in-ameri...

SilasX 11y ago

I agree that that is the right solution, but it would effectively be an expropriation of a huge portion of most of the middle class's wealth -- their home value that derives from being in a desirable school district -- and hence explains the difficulty of switching to a Nordic style voucher system where families get a block of government money to use at a school of their choice and the schools have to compete for it.

tamana 11y ago
What's wrong with expropriating unearned wealth?