4 ms·

I see things the exact opposite way. Giving the state (for the purposes of the majority of taxpayers) a monopoly on education produces schools that are uniforml

I see things the exact opposite way. Giving the state (for the purposes of the majority of taxpayers) a monopoly on education produces schools that are uniformly bad, with terrible standardized curricula, insufficient institutional motivation to improve, and stifling bureaucracy. We have insufficient competition at the moment because the majority cannot afford to get into the good districts or uproot themselves every few years chasing them; a district with a good elementary school might have a bad middle school, or a district that was good when you moved in could go bad as your kid ages. This is simply too much trouble for all but the highest achieving and most dedicated parents, which only furthers the achievement gap that comes from exploiting it. Instead, we could transition from a system of state run public schools to state funded private schools. Give each parent a tax credit that they can choose to spend on whatever school they like. Your school's funding is directly tied to the number of students that chose it, not the neighborhood it's in. Remove any restrictions on zoning or the number of schools allowed in an area. Remove the concepts of districts altogether. Get rid of mandatory curricula and give educators room to innovate. I think the majority of parents out there care about their children and want them to succeed, they just don't have the money or extraordinary amounts of time to ensure it. But with a tax credit system and an abundance of competing schools in every metropolitan area, finding the right school for your kid and actually getting them into it would be much more achievable for a much greater portion of society. Yes, the most dedicated ones that get their kids into a dozen extracurricular activities and help them with their homework and whatnot will always have an advantage over the latchkey kids, but it'd still be a significant improvement over the status quo.

analog31 10y ago
In my view, such a system will still need to be backed up by public schools, due to a number of possible failure modes: 1. Capacity shortages, which could be chronic and affect entire regions. 2. Who bails out the schools that fail? Who pays their creditors off? 3. Who provides seats to kids who can't get into a school, or who get kicked out due to issues that include behavior, special needs, or low test scores? An additional issue is the efficiency of transporting kids to school when nobody lives close to their school. How many minivan-miles per day are we willing to spend on the dream of privatizing the schools? I agree that majority of parents care about their kids, but educated parents are vastly better able to discern the quality of a school, and to advocate for the interests of our kids. The simple fact of having to transport your kids to school -- a burden for the working poor -- coupled with existing economic segregation, means that private schools will still be able to cherry pick which kids they want to serve, based on location.
- jdminhbg 10y ago
  > 2. Who bails out the schools that fail? Who pays their creditors off? We already have a pretty robust system for handling failed businesses.
cylinder 10y ago
I agree but should be hard finding that follows each student not tax credits. Poor people don't care about tax credits. Also, what you describe already exists with charter schools. Charter schools are actually privately run but publically funded: they get funding from the state for each student that enrolls.

analog31 10y ago

In my view, such a system will still need to be backed up by public schools, due to a number of possible failure modes: 1. Capacity shortages, which could be chronic and affect entire regions. 2. Who bails out the schools that fail? Who pays their creditors off? 3. Who provides seats to kids who can't get into a school, or who get kicked out due to issues that include behavior, special needs, or low test scores? An additional issue is the efficiency of transporting kids to school when nobody lives close to their school. How many minivan-miles per day are we willing to spend on the dream of privatizing the schools? I agree that majority of parents care about their kids, but educated parents are vastly better able to discern the quality of a school, and to advocate for the interests of our kids. The simple fact of having to transport your kids to school -- a burden for the working poor -- coupled with existing economic segregation, means that private schools will still be able to cherry pick which kids they want to serve, based on location.

jdminhbg 10y ago
> 2. Who bails out the schools that fail? Who pays their creditors off? We already have a pretty robust system for handling failed businesses.

cylinder 10y ago

I agree but should be hard finding that follows each student not tax credits. Poor people don't care about tax credits. Also, what you describe already exists with charter schools. Charter schools are actually privately run but publically funded: they get funding from the state for each student that enrolls.