5 ms·

One factor that gets buried in the abstract debate around school choice is the practical consideration of transportation. If you want to give families real choi

by obelos 8y ago

One factor that gets buried in the abstract debate around school choice is the practical consideration of transportation. If you want to give families real choice in choosing among schools for their children, you have to remove transportation costs from the family's decision making. Otherwise, there is a “choice” of one or maybe two schools for the families who are ostensibly most in need of choosing a school other than the closest one. We see this in my kids' focus option school. Families from anywhere in the city can enroll their children in a lottery for admission. The lottery is actually weighted to favor lower income families, yet the school is in the top tier for median income. There are a number of factors that play into why this is the case, but among the most frequently cited is that lower income families have fewer resources to get their kids to school and back. Yet these are the families that by and large live in areas where the neighborhood schools tend to fail to deliver quality education, the families who would benefit from having a real choice. Unless a municipality is willing to convey a child from any home to any school and back (and in a timely manner), vouchers will never meaningfully address education quality. Rich families will send their kids to the handful of high performing schools, and everyone else gets stuck with the closest choice.

stcredzero 8y ago
Yet these are the families that by and large live in areas where the neighborhood schools tend to fail to deliver quality education, the families who would benefit from having a real choice. So you're of the view that a real choice is better than no choice? Unless a municipality is willing to convey a child from any home to any school and back (and in a timely manner), vouchers will never meaningfully address education quality. What of the cases where the charter schools are close to or essentially co-located with the public school? There are some charter schools which are in the same building as the public school.
- obelos 8y ago
  Charter schools are first and foremost a tactic for weakening unions. There's nothing stopping experimental “sub-schools,” using public school teachers from developing within an existing public school. That's in fact how my kids' aforementioned school started. It was just a couple of classrooms within a larger K-8 public school. Eventually its program became so popular that it took over the building. That does fit a certain limited notion of school choice, but it's not in my experience what most people have in mind when they talk about voucher programs. Choosing between two neighborhood schools isn't a marked improvement over being assigned to one. This is especially the case since demographic factors strongly tied to geography are prevailing influences in school success.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    Charter schools are first and foremost a tactic for weakening unions. If those unions are presiding over schools that are catastrophically failing, I don't see what's wrong with that. There's nothing stopping experimental “sub-schools,” using public school teachers from developing within an existing public school. That's in fact how my kids' aforementioned school started. It was just a couple of classrooms within a larger K-8 public school. Eventually its program became so popular that it took over the building. Also sounds good to me. That does fit a certain limited notion of school choice, but it's not in my experience what most people have in mind when they talk about voucher programs. Choosing between two neighborhood schools isn't a marked improvement over being assigned to one. This is especially the case since demographic factors strongly tied to geography are prevailing influences in school success. If one school can exclude troublemakers, then this is one tool to help create a positive learning environment in spite of geographic and demographic factors. Some choice may well be better than none. It's the situations where there's no choices, where corruption comes in.
- aidenn0 8y ago
  For the record, I'm also of the view that a real choice is better than no choice. I just feel that vouchers tend to increase choices primarily for those who are already fairly well off. Transportation is a big part of the issue; if transportation is not provided, then only those with both a reliable car and an adult available to transport the child can attend a school that isn't nearby. For most proposed implementations I've seen of school voucher programs, money is also a big issue. If you give each kid say $8k in vouchers, the bottom 50% or so of families financially will choose between schools costing $8k per year. Middle class parents (particularly those with only 1 or 2 kids) will now have the option of sending their kids to schools that cost say $12k per year, which would not have been affordable before. Upper middle class parents now have many options of where to send their kids. Rich parents were already sending their kids to private schools, so they get a $8k per kid discount on the tuition. By increasing choice for the middle of the income bracket, you've decreased the wealth diversity of many schools, and that "urban kid in a crappy public school" is now an "urban kid in a crappy private school"
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    I just feel that vouchers tend to increase choices primarily for those who are already fairly well off. Anything that increases choices tends to increase choices primarily for those who are already fairly well off. This also applies to Affirmative Action. The beneficiaries of Affirmative Action tend to be kids who are already in the Upper Middle or Upper classes. For most proposed implementations I've seen of school voucher programs, money is also a big issue. If you give each kid say $8k in vouchers, the bottom 50% or so of families financially will choose between schools costing $8k per year. That may well be $8k more choice than they would have had otherwise. By increasing choice for the middle of the income bracket, you've decreased the wealth diversity of many schools, and that "urban kid in a crappy public school" is now an "urban kid in a crappy private school" The difference being that the 2nd school can exclude troublemakers, so at least those kids aren't in a constantly disrupted environment.
    - aidenn0 8y ago
      >> I just feel that vouchers tend to increase choices primarily for those who are already fairly well off. > Anything that increases choices tends to increase choices primarily for those who are already fairly well off. This also applies to Affirmative Action. The beneficiaries of Affirmative Action tend to be kids who are already in the Upper Middle or Upper classes. School vouchers appear to be particularly bad by this measure though. For anyone already sending their kids to public school, it's subsidizing a behavior they already do. It's $8k per kid that could be spent on improving other schools. For those who just-barely can't afford to send their kids to private schools better than the public schools, it's a huge gain, but I am of the opinion (though I admit without sufficient data) that this gain comes at the expense of the quality of the public schools (or in a zero-public-school, voucher scenario, the 0-added-tuition private schools) that those poorer will be relegated to. [edit] I guess my point is that I think vouchers are likely to be a net-loss for the poor, and even if I'm wrong about that, I'm struggling to think of ways in which they could be a net-gain.

by obelos 8y ago

stcredzero 8y ago

Yet these are the families that by and large live in areas where the neighborhood schools tend to fail to deliver quality education, the families who would benefit from having a real choice. So you're of the view that a real choice is better than no choice? Unless a municipality is willing to convey a child from any home to any school and back (and in a timely manner), vouchers will never meaningfully address education quality. What of the cases where the charter schools are close to or essentially co-located with the public school? There are some charter schools which are in the same building as the public school.

obelos 8y ago
Charter schools are first and foremost a tactic for weakening unions. There's nothing stopping experimental “sub-schools,” using public school teachers from developing within an existing public school. That's in fact how my kids' aforementioned school started. It was just a couple of classrooms within a larger K-8 public school. Eventually its program became so popular that it took over the building. That does fit a certain limited notion of school choice, but it's not in my experience what most people have in mind when they talk about voucher programs. Choosing between two neighborhood schools isn't a marked improvement over being assigned to one. This is especially the case since demographic factors strongly tied to geography are prevailing influences in school success.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Charter schools are first and foremost a tactic for weakening unions. If those unions are presiding over schools that are catastrophically failing, I don't see what's wrong with that. There's nothing stopping experimental “sub-schools,” using public school teachers from developing within an existing public school. That's in fact how my kids' aforementioned school started. It was just a couple of classrooms within a larger K-8 public school. Eventually its program became so popular that it took over the building. Also sounds good to me. That does fit a certain limited notion of school choice, but it's not in my experience what most people have in mind when they talk about voucher programs. Choosing between two neighborhood schools isn't a marked improvement over being assigned to one. This is especially the case since demographic factors strongly tied to geography are prevailing influences in school success. If one school can exclude troublemakers, then this is one tool to help create a positive learning environment in spite of geographic and demographic factors. Some choice may well be better than none. It's the situations where there's no choices, where corruption comes in.
aidenn0 8y ago
For the record, I'm also of the view that a real choice is better than no choice. I just feel that vouchers tend to increase choices primarily for those who are already fairly well off. Transportation is a big part of the issue; if transportation is not provided, then only those with both a reliable car and an adult available to transport the child can attend a school that isn't nearby. For most proposed implementations I've seen of school voucher programs, money is also a big issue. If you give each kid say $8k in vouchers, the bottom 50% or so of families financially will choose between schools costing $8k per year. Middle class parents (particularly those with only 1 or 2 kids) will now have the option of sending their kids to schools that cost say $12k per year, which would not have been affordable before. Upper middle class parents now have many options of where to send their kids. Rich parents were already sending their kids to private schools, so they get a $8k per kid discount on the tuition. By increasing choice for the middle of the income bracket, you've decreased the wealth diversity of many schools, and that "urban kid in a crappy public school" is now an "urban kid in a crappy private school"
- stcredzero 8y ago
  I just feel that vouchers tend to increase choices primarily for those who are already fairly well off. Anything that increases choices tends to increase choices primarily for those who are already fairly well off. This also applies to Affirmative Action. The beneficiaries of Affirmative Action tend to be kids who are already in the Upper Middle or Upper classes. For most proposed implementations I've seen of school voucher programs, money is also a big issue. If you give each kid say $8k in vouchers, the bottom 50% or so of families financially will choose between schools costing $8k per year. That may well be $8k more choice than they would have had otherwise. By increasing choice for the middle of the income bracket, you've decreased the wealth diversity of many schools, and that "urban kid in a crappy public school" is now an "urban kid in a crappy private school" The difference being that the 2nd school can exclude troublemakers, so at least those kids aren't in a constantly disrupted environment.
  - aidenn0 8y ago
    >> I just feel that vouchers tend to increase choices primarily for those who are already fairly well off. > Anything that increases choices tends to increase choices primarily for those who are already fairly well off. This also applies to Affirmative Action. The beneficiaries of Affirmative Action tend to be kids who are already in the Upper Middle or Upper classes. School vouchers appear to be particularly bad by this measure though. For anyone already sending their kids to public school, it's subsidizing a behavior they already do. It's $8k per kid that could be spent on improving other schools. For those who just-barely can't afford to send their kids to private schools better than the public schools, it's a huge gain, but I am of the opinion (though I admit without sufficient data) that this gain comes at the expense of the quality of the public schools (or in a zero-public-school, voucher scenario, the 0-added-tuition private schools) that those poorer will be relegated to. [edit] I guess my point is that I think vouchers are likely to be a net-loss for the poor, and even if I'm wrong about that, I'm struggling to think of ways in which they could be a net-gain.