5 ms·

> It's the Democratic party which opposes school vouchers and funding increased choice in education for disadvantaged neighborhoods. I would recommend taking a

> It's the Democratic party which opposes school vouchers and funding increased choice in education for disadvantaged neighborhoods. I would recommend taking a slightly broader view of the politics involved, and reading more from education policy experts. Charter schools are being pushed predominantly by folks with an agenda to (a) break the power of teachers’ unions (and organized labor more generally), so that they can reduce teacher pay, benefits, social respect, and job security, (b) reduce overall education spending as a means to cut taxes on the wealthy, (c) give resources to schools which are less publicly accountable and can more easily kick out struggling or problematic students, spend money on dubious corporate programs, etc., (d) personally profit off the partial privatization of the education industry and outsourcing of education functions , (e) for some wealthy people, use donations to charter schools as a massive tax dodge which also brings them positive publicity. Many Democrats have bought in fully to the school choice / charter school message, such as e.g. the Obama Administration education department, which was run by people (like Arne Duncan) with no teaching experience and little education or policy credibility among experts. Of course the lack of qualification, corruption, and bad faith of Betsy DeVos puts all of the Obama people to shame. It has been a massive bi-partisan swindle decades in the making, and the results are bad so far and only getting worse, especially for most poor children in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Teachers are justifiably extremely angry, but have remarkably little influence considering their expertise and position. (Though recent successful teacher strikes around the country have showed that they still can have some effect if they are willing to fight hard.)

stcredzero 8y ago
(a) break the power of teachers’ unions (and organized labor more generally), so that they can reduce teacher pay, benefits, social respect, and job security Wouldn't an education market that worked do precisely that for schools that are failing catastrophically? (b) reduce overall education spending as a means to cut taxes on the wealthy As far as I know, no one outside of libertarian absolutists actually has a goal like this. As far as I can tell, this is a strawman, a fiction. (c) give resources to schools which are less publicly accountable and can more easily kick out struggling or problematic students If "publicly accountable" means less micromanaged by a centralized bureaucracy, I don't see how this is necessarily bad. The point is to diversify the education market. Also, isn't the whole point to be able to easily kick out struggling or problematic students? If the social climate in a school makes it a disaster, but you can put some of the kids in a "lifeboat" with a better climate for learning, why wouldn't you? (d) personally profit off the partial privatization of the education industry and outsourcing of education functions If the results are good, then they should profit. (e) for some wealthy people, use donations to charter schools as a massive tax dodge which also brings them positive publicity. I think that wealthy people donating to schools is one of the best ways any society can do wealth redistribution. Again, I see nothing wrong with that.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > > (a) break the power of teachers’ unions (and organized labor more generally), so that they can reduce teacher pay, benefits, social respect, and job security > Wouldn't an education market that worked do precisely that for schools that are failing catastrophically? (1) Education is not a good with the kinds of features which allow approximating rational choice, and so there's little reason to expect that a market would work. (2) Even leaving aside (1), no, there's no reason to expect that; among the errors that appear to be implicated in that conclusion is confusing schools with teachers. > As far as I know, no one outside of libertarian absolutists actually has a goal like this. Plenty of Republicans at all levels have openly advocated for this and even advanced bills for it. Whether they are all libertarian absolutists I'll leave to.you, but it's a real viewpoint with substantial support in the political sphere. > If "publicly accountable" means less micromanaged by a centralized bureaucracy, I don't see how this is necessarily bad. If they really believed that excessive central regulation was the problem, then rather then promoting charter schools exempt from the bureaucratic rules along with greater central accountability and regulation for traditional public schools, advocates would instead simply reduce central control and increase local (district and even site-level) control of traditional public schools. They don't, because what they really want is a subsidy for private, for-profit entities while engineering maximized paralysis in traditional public schools to drive an exodus to the subsidized private providers.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    (1) Education is not a good with the kinds of features which allow approximating rational choice, and so there's little reason to expect that a market would work. The school has a good reputation, so we'll pay money to send our kid there. Sounds like a rational choice to me. (2) Even leaving aside (1), no, there's no reason to expect that; among the errors that appear to be implicated in that conclusion is confusing schools with teachers. I suspect there is a granularity problem here. Discerning comics fans follow creators, not titles. Maybe the future of the education market will involve dis-intermediation and a more direct connection between students and teachers. If they really believed that excessive central regulation was the problem, then rather then promoting charter schools exempt from the bureaucratic rules along with greater central accountability and regulation for traditional public schools, advocates would instead simply reduce central control and increase local (district and even site-level) control of traditional public schools. This is a bit of a non-sequitur to me. "Promoting charter schools exempt from the bureaucratic rules" is a perfectly reasonable step. along with greater central accountability and regulation for traditional public schools If those schools are failing catastrophically, I don't see what's necessarily wrong with that. So long as there are some schools more independent of the central bureaucracy, there is more choice in the market. Again, your "logic" relies on false dichotomies and doesn't logically hold up. They don't, because what they really want is a subsidy for private, for-profit entities What if there was a more direct way to divert funds at the behest of the parent to private for-profit entities? There's a "subsidy" for public education. What's wrong with empowering parents to redirect those funds? It's beginning to seem like you're just restating the whole point of the proposed idea, just wording it so it sounds bad to you. while engineering maximized paralysis in traditional public schools to drive an exodus to the subsidized private providers. I many cases, the traditional public schools are already "paralyzed." The whole point is to enable an exodus to private providers, if the parents so choose. Would you support such initiatives if they didn't come with "engineering maximized paralysis in traditional public schools?" Why is a for-profit school necessarily bad?
mjevans 8y ago
My own belief is that it's a combination of your C) (the subpart:) "more easily kick out struggling or problematic students" as well as kicking out students that honestly don't want to be there because they either don't understand the importance or have been failed by society too many times and weren't given proper support to reach where their age would normally place them. (Sometimes also those like me who were far enough ahead that we spent half the lesson doing 'homework' at school in a class we didn't need to pay attention to.) With respect to this topic, I think that a more European combination might produce the desired results. * School includes more health checks (including eyesight) and nutrition assurance. * More career exposure and education * Multiple paths from about middle-school on (trade skills/college/etc?) * More aptitude and class of knowledge tests * Less teaching to 'tests'; like none. Tests should measure basic comprehension and ability.
- jacobolus 8y ago
  > failed by society too many times Well yes, it is a big problem when kids don’t have adequate food, shelter, healthcare; live in violent, polluted, socially broken neighborhoods with hostile public authorities; are raised by overworked (often single) parents; etc. Policy changes to reduce poverty would go a long way toward improving schools.

stcredzero 8y ago

(a) break the power of teachers’ unions (and organized labor more generally), so that they can reduce teacher pay, benefits, social respect, and job security Wouldn't an education market that worked do precisely that for schools that are failing catastrophically? (b) reduce overall education spending as a means to cut taxes on the wealthy As far as I know, no one outside of libertarian absolutists actually has a goal like this. As far as I can tell, this is a strawman, a fiction. (c) give resources to schools which are less publicly accountable and can more easily kick out struggling or problematic students If "publicly accountable" means less micromanaged by a centralized bureaucracy, I don't see how this is necessarily bad. The point is to diversify the education market. Also, isn't the whole point to be able to easily kick out struggling or problematic students? If the social climate in a school makes it a disaster, but you can put some of the kids in a "lifeboat" with a better climate for learning, why wouldn't you? (d) personally profit off the partial privatization of the education industry and outsourcing of education functions If the results are good, then they should profit. (e) for some wealthy people, use donations to charter schools as a massive tax dodge which also brings them positive publicity. I think that wealthy people donating to schools is one of the best ways any society can do wealth redistribution. Again, I see nothing wrong with that.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> > (a) break the power of teachers’ unions (and organized labor more generally), so that they can reduce teacher pay, benefits, social respect, and job security > Wouldn't an education market that worked do precisely that for schools that are failing catastrophically? (1) Education is not a good with the kinds of features which allow approximating rational choice, and so there's little reason to expect that a market would work. (2) Even leaving aside (1), no, there's no reason to expect that; among the errors that appear to be implicated in that conclusion is confusing schools with teachers. > As far as I know, no one outside of libertarian absolutists actually has a goal like this. Plenty of Republicans at all levels have openly advocated for this and even advanced bills for it. Whether they are all libertarian absolutists I'll leave to.you, but it's a real viewpoint with substantial support in the political sphere. > If "publicly accountable" means less micromanaged by a centralized bureaucracy, I don't see how this is necessarily bad. If they really believed that excessive central regulation was the problem, then rather then promoting charter schools exempt from the bureaucratic rules along with greater central accountability and regulation for traditional public schools, advocates would instead simply reduce central control and increase local (district and even site-level) control of traditional public schools. They don't, because what they really want is a subsidy for private, for-profit entities while engineering maximized paralysis in traditional public schools to drive an exodus to the subsidized private providers.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  (1) Education is not a good with the kinds of features which allow approximating rational choice, and so there's little reason to expect that a market would work. The school has a good reputation, so we'll pay money to send our kid there. Sounds like a rational choice to me. (2) Even leaving aside (1), no, there's no reason to expect that; among the errors that appear to be implicated in that conclusion is confusing schools with teachers. I suspect there is a granularity problem here. Discerning comics fans follow creators, not titles. Maybe the future of the education market will involve dis-intermediation and a more direct connection between students and teachers. If they really believed that excessive central regulation was the problem, then rather then promoting charter schools exempt from the bureaucratic rules along with greater central accountability and regulation for traditional public schools, advocates would instead simply reduce central control and increase local (district and even site-level) control of traditional public schools. This is a bit of a non-sequitur to me. "Promoting charter schools exempt from the bureaucratic rules" is a perfectly reasonable step. along with greater central accountability and regulation for traditional public schools If those schools are failing catastrophically, I don't see what's necessarily wrong with that. So long as there are some schools more independent of the central bureaucracy, there is more choice in the market. Again, your "logic" relies on false dichotomies and doesn't logically hold up. They don't, because what they really want is a subsidy for private, for-profit entities What if there was a more direct way to divert funds at the behest of the parent to private for-profit entities? There's a "subsidy" for public education. What's wrong with empowering parents to redirect those funds? It's beginning to seem like you're just restating the whole point of the proposed idea, just wording it so it sounds bad to you. while engineering maximized paralysis in traditional public schools to drive an exodus to the subsidized private providers. I many cases, the traditional public schools are already "paralyzed." The whole point is to enable an exodus to private providers, if the parents so choose. Would you support such initiatives if they didn't come with "engineering maximized paralysis in traditional public schools?" Why is a for-profit school necessarily bad?

mjevans 8y ago

My own belief is that it's a combination of your C) (the subpart:) "more easily kick out struggling or problematic students" as well as kicking out students that honestly don't want to be there because they either don't understand the importance or have been failed by society too many times and weren't given proper support to reach where their age would normally place them. (Sometimes also those like me who were far enough ahead that we spent half the lesson doing 'homework' at school in a class we didn't need to pay attention to.) With respect to this topic, I think that a more European combination might produce the desired results. * School includes more health checks (including eyesight) and nutrition assurance. * More career exposure and education * Multiple paths from about middle-school on (trade skills/college/etc?) * More aptitude and class of knowledge tests * Less teaching to 'tests'; like none. Tests should measure basic comprehension and ability.

jacobolus 8y ago
> failed by society too many times Well yes, it is a big problem when kids don’t have adequate food, shelter, healthcare; live in violent, polluted, socially broken neighborhoods with hostile public authorities; are raised by overworked (often single) parents; etc. Policy changes to reduce poverty would go a long way toward improving schools.