13 ms·

You end up with universally bad schools instead of good and bad schools. Most parents would see that as a bad thing and the very rich pull their kids out and se

by scurvy 10y ago

You end up with universally bad schools instead of good and bad schools. Most parents would see that as a bad thing and the very rich pull their kids out and send them to private schools (which cost $30k+/year). So now you're left with bad schools and the rich have exercised their escape option. The result is a high school population where 80% of students live in public housing. I'm not a classist, but that's not the diversity most parents look for. To balance it out, you would need some sort of region wide tax on private school attendance. If you want to opt out, you gotta pay. That would never happen so...back to the drawing board.

tabeth 10y ago
Why exactly would you end up with universally bad schools?
- scurvy 10y ago
  Lack of parent investment and activity in school functions because the school is 40 minutes across town (in a city that is hostile to car use). Oh and if you have multiple kids, they can be sent to different schools. If the parents are upset, they won't be involved and you get bad schools.
  - pizzetta 10y ago
    Also the (working) parents are tired and drained after work -all they want to do is pick the kids up and take them back home. They have little energy for any Parent-teacher meetings, functions, fund-raisers, etc. Crosstown assignments are detrimental to parental involvement in education.
  - tabeth 10y ago
    Interesting. I thought the assignments were random, though? Assuming a normal distribution most parents shouldn't have a 40 minute across town commute.
    - jff 10y ago
      In San Francisco, depending on the time of day and the parking conditions, any trip can become a 40 minute slog.
    - ISL 10y ago
      The distribution is probably uniform, not normal. The point of such programs is generally to homogenize access, not simply blur lines.
- jartelt 10y ago
  I don't understand why this would be the case either. Even if all the rich people send their kids to private school, there is still a middle class population who will not be able to spend $30k a year to send their kids to private school. Plus, not all kids will get selected to go to school across the city from where they live. Some portion will randomly be selected to go to school nearby, so their parents can attend events. I am not saying the random selective policy is good or bad, I just think universally bad schools has to be the product of something else. Perhaps just general bad management of the school by the superintendent?
- analog31 10y ago
  In my opinion, "involved" parents means educated, empowered parents. We are in a sense the guardians of the school system, and when we vanish, the schools go downhill. It's not just helping out in the classroom and joining committees. Educated parents know what good education looks like (or at least, we have an opinion in the matter). We know when to demand better. We know when we need to thwart a pedagogical fad. My hometown school eventually adopted algebra in 8th grade, and calculus in high school, because a few parents hounded the school board. Simply by being around, we see what's going on. To be fair, we also support school programs when they work. And we also know how to demand resources, for instance by supporting funding referenda at the local level. The problem with schools in the US could be expressed by saying that somebody has to stand in as the guardian of the schools, but we don't know who or how.
- zeveb 10y ago
  IMHO, it's because bad students are like bad apples: they spoil the entire barrel. Randomly mixing your students ensures that every school has a fine selection of each of the types of bad students, with the expected result that every good student's education is negatively impacted. Selective schools, OTOH, can attempt to select against bad & disruptive students.
jdmichal 10y ago
> To balance it out, you would need some sort of region wide tax on private school attendance. If you want to opt out, you gotta pay. That would never happen so...back to the drawing board. I don't understand this. That tax already exists; everyone [0] pays for public schools regardless of whether they have children in the system. If you send your children to private school, you are paying for both public and private school. If you don't have children at all, you are still paying for public school. [0] Of course, "everyone" likely means "every property owner", as school taxes are usually property taxes.
- analog31 10y ago
  Indeed, but if you send your kids to private school (or your social peer group does), then you have a counter incentive against supporting the public schools with your tax money and your political empowerment.
  - prostoalex 10y ago
    This happens with daycare (which is mostly private) and higher education (with private universities having a massive presence), and the society has yet to collapse. The idea that it's perfectly fine to go to a a private institution years 0-6 and years 18-22+, but the 6-18 range is categorically and unequivocally better served by public institutions has not really been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
    - analog31 10y ago
      I don't think that I made any such claims. But to note a difference between those age groups, 6-18 is the only one for which we've declared a right to access for everybody at the present time. (At the very least, it's in the constitution of some states). The only way I can think of to ensure available capacity is to provide a public option. So I'm interested in how the public schools are managed.
      - prostoalex 10y ago
        I agree access is important, and it's interesting to see public school unions fight against charter, magnet and private schools in order to restrict that access. With that said, notice how the distribution of private schools per capita drops significantly in highly-rated public school districts. There's simply no demand for them. The private-vs-public battle only plays out in low-rated school districts, with one party holding the distinct advantage of being un-fireable.

by scurvy 10y ago

tabeth 10y ago

Why exactly would you end up with universally bad schools?

scurvy 10y ago
Lack of parent investment and activity in school functions because the school is 40 minutes across town (in a city that is hostile to car use). Oh and if you have multiple kids, they can be sent to different schools. If the parents are upset, they won't be involved and you get bad schools.
- pizzetta 10y ago
  Also the (working) parents are tired and drained after work -all they want to do is pick the kids up and take them back home. They have little energy for any Parent-teacher meetings, functions, fund-raisers, etc. Crosstown assignments are detrimental to parental involvement in education.
- tabeth 10y ago
  Interesting. I thought the assignments were random, though? Assuming a normal distribution most parents shouldn't have a 40 minute across town commute.
  - jff 10y ago
    In San Francisco, depending on the time of day and the parking conditions, any trip can become a 40 minute slog.
  - ISL 10y ago
    The distribution is probably uniform, not normal. The point of such programs is generally to homogenize access, not simply blur lines.
jartelt 10y ago
I don't understand why this would be the case either. Even if all the rich people send their kids to private school, there is still a middle class population who will not be able to spend $30k a year to send their kids to private school. Plus, not all kids will get selected to go to school across the city from where they live. Some portion will randomly be selected to go to school nearby, so their parents can attend events. I am not saying the random selective policy is good or bad, I just think universally bad schools has to be the product of something else. Perhaps just general bad management of the school by the superintendent?
analog31 10y ago
In my opinion, "involved" parents means educated, empowered parents. We are in a sense the guardians of the school system, and when we vanish, the schools go downhill. It's not just helping out in the classroom and joining committees. Educated parents know what good education looks like (or at least, we have an opinion in the matter). We know when to demand better. We know when we need to thwart a pedagogical fad. My hometown school eventually adopted algebra in 8th grade, and calculus in high school, because a few parents hounded the school board. Simply by being around, we see what's going on. To be fair, we also support school programs when they work. And we also know how to demand resources, for instance by supporting funding referenda at the local level. The problem with schools in the US could be expressed by saying that somebody has to stand in as the guardian of the schools, but we don't know who or how.
zeveb 10y ago
IMHO, it's because bad students are like bad apples: they spoil the entire barrel. Randomly mixing your students ensures that every school has a fine selection of each of the types of bad students, with the expected result that every good student's education is negatively impacted. Selective schools, OTOH, can attempt to select against bad & disruptive students.

jdmichal 10y ago

> To balance it out, you would need some sort of region wide tax on private school attendance. If you want to opt out, you gotta pay. That would never happen so...back to the drawing board. I don't understand this. That tax already exists; everyone [0] pays for public schools regardless of whether they have children in the system. If you send your children to private school, you are paying for both public and private school. If you don't have children at all, you are still paying for public school. [0] Of course, "everyone" likely means "every property owner", as school taxes are usually property taxes.

analog31 10y ago
Indeed, but if you send your kids to private school (or your social peer group does), then you have a counter incentive against supporting the public schools with your tax money and your political empowerment.
- prostoalex 10y ago
  This happens with daycare (which is mostly private) and higher education (with private universities having a massive presence), and the society has yet to collapse. The idea that it's perfectly fine to go to a a private institution years 0-6 and years 18-22+, but the 6-18 range is categorically and unequivocally better served by public institutions has not really been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
  - analog31 10y ago
    I don't think that I made any such claims. But to note a difference between those age groups, 6-18 is the only one for which we've declared a right to access for everybody at the present time. (At the very least, it's in the constitution of some states). The only way I can think of to ensure available capacity is to provide a public option. So I'm interested in how the public schools are managed.
    - prostoalex 10y ago
      I agree access is important, and it's interesting to see public school unions fight against charter, magnet and private schools in order to restrict that access. With that said, notice how the distribution of private schools per capita drops significantly in highly-rated public school districts. There's simply no demand for them. The private-vs-public battle only plays out in low-rated school districts, with one party holding the distinct advantage of being un-fireable.