6 ms·

The education problem is compounded by a lack of competition between schools themselves. Children are assigned to one public school, based on residence. In orde

by iwr 16y ago

The education problem is compounded by a lack of competition between schools themselves. Children are assigned to one public school, based on residence. In order to switch schools, you have to switch residence. This, along with unions, have entrenched a mediocre education system.

loumf 16y ago
In Massachusetts, we have school choice. You can choose another public school to send your children to. There are availability limitations, but since the chosen school gets more public money, they accept as many as they can. The schools that are not getting chosen do try to improve (at least the ones near me do), and this statistic is one that talked about at election time. Of course, parents choose schools that they can get their children to, so it will probably be nearby. Not sure what other states do.
blangblang 16y ago
Agreed. In the US today, we essentially have a single payer, single provider education system. There's simply no motivation for improvement on either side, leaving the kids to pay the price.
zdw 16y ago
Charter schools have ended this to some degree - in places that have them you can enroll your kids (often for free) in a school of your choice. That said, they aren't a magical panacea by any means - I've worked with a few of them professionally and haven't seen any amazing benefit over public or private schools.
- LargeWu 16y ago
  I suspect there's a high degree of self-selection bias involved in the success or failure of a charter school. That is, charter schools that do well do so because they are full of motivated students. It would be interesting to see any research that examines this aspect. Personal anecdote: I grew up in a small town in ND where there are not a lot of socioeconomic disparities. Almost everybody was lower-middle class, with a few very poor. Everybody went to the same school and had the same teachers. It should not come as a shock that those who did well in school also had parents that were supportive and themselves educated. Those who did poorly were generally children of uneducated blue collar and farm workers. While poor teacher quality may have some effect on student achievement, I suspect factors outside of schools' control play a much larger role.
projectileboy 16y ago
I don't know if this is true generally, but in Minnesota this is not the case, and as a parent of three, I would say it does lead to improvement in some schools. The challenge, however, is what to do about the schools which aren't as good, and this seems to be where the the parallels to free-market competition break down a bit. If you buy crummy goods or services from a crummy business, which then goes out of business, that's a feature. If your kid goes to a crummy school and gets a crummy education, and the school eventually gets closed, that's a bug - at least for your kid (although the net utility for society may be maximized).
roc 16y ago
I've come to the conclusion that the only real nationwide problem in American education is one of expectation. Simply: we don't demand the best from our kids anymore. Studies have shown that good schools and good educators do matter, but what they all highlight, bold and underscore, is that parents and culture matter so, so much more. 'Good homes' and 'good parents' absolutely dwarf the effect that 'good schools' and 'good teachers' have. And we're just running out of 'good homes' and 'good parents' that care about the results. We've retained a ritual of schooling, but increasingly we just don't give a shit about the outcome. And we're just reaping what we've sown.
- jerf 16y ago
  And I submit that that is actually an effect of what iwr suggested, not a root cause. Why modify your expectations when there isn't much you can do about it? Higher expectations are only useful when they can manifest as action, but there's an incredibly high bar for pulling your kid out of a school and sending them to another, or going to home schooling, or anything else. Expectations are fading because we are internalizing the idea that they don't matter; no matter what you put in, you get the same output. I think we can fiddle around with the details but until we actually open up some sort of market and competition the problem will simply never be fixed. Centralized management doesn't work; schools aren't an exception. Doesn't mean that I want everyone to have to pay for schools. Vouchers are at least a decent idea, even if they still distort the market and raise prices. But without some ability for parents to use the tools of the market to beat low performing schools, possibly unto them going out of business and letting other schools start, we're not going to see improvement. All incentives right now are aligned towards looking like they are improving, not actually improving, and that is the only possible result you're going to get from mandates from above.
  - roc 16y ago
    > "Why modify your expectations when there isn't much you can do about it?" That's precisely backwards. Parents expectations are the only thing you can 'do'. And it's the one thing that studies consistently re-affirm as the most important component. Demand more. Help more. Impart a love for learning and exploring. An appreciate for work. Yes, if the school sucks, maybe you have to work harder with your kid. And if the community sucks, maybe you have to work even harder still. But that work will bear fruit. As opposed to signing your kid up at the school across town and staying just as disinterested as before. Thinking that 'shopping' schools is helping is precisely the wrong approach. > "no matter what you put in, you get the same output." And that's demonstrably false. The families that put in more, get more. The students that put in more, get more. Parent interest and effort and child interest and effort are the most important factors; more important than economic stability, more important than school quality or teacher quality.

by iwr 16y ago

loumf 16y ago

In Massachusetts, we have school choice. You can choose another public school to send your children to. There are availability limitations, but since the chosen school gets more public money, they accept as many as they can. The schools that are not getting chosen do try to improve (at least the ones near me do), and this statistic is one that talked about at election time. Of course, parents choose schools that they can get their children to, so it will probably be nearby. Not sure what other states do.

blangblang 16y ago

Agreed. In the US today, we essentially have a single payer, single provider education system. There's simply no motivation for improvement on either side, leaving the kids to pay the price.

zdw 16y ago

Charter schools have ended this to some degree - in places that have them you can enroll your kids (often for free) in a school of your choice. That said, they aren't a magical panacea by any means - I've worked with a few of them professionally and haven't seen any amazing benefit over public or private schools.

LargeWu 16y ago
I suspect there's a high degree of self-selection bias involved in the success or failure of a charter school. That is, charter schools that do well do so because they are full of motivated students. It would be interesting to see any research that examines this aspect. Personal anecdote: I grew up in a small town in ND where there are not a lot of socioeconomic disparities. Almost everybody was lower-middle class, with a few very poor. Everybody went to the same school and had the same teachers. It should not come as a shock that those who did well in school also had parents that were supportive and themselves educated. Those who did poorly were generally children of uneducated blue collar and farm workers. While poor teacher quality may have some effect on student achievement, I suspect factors outside of schools' control play a much larger role.

projectileboy 16y ago

I don't know if this is true generally, but in Minnesota this is not the case, and as a parent of three, I would say it does lead to improvement in some schools. The challenge, however, is what to do about the schools which aren't as good, and this seems to be where the the parallels to free-market competition break down a bit. If you buy crummy goods or services from a crummy business, which then goes out of business, that's a feature. If your kid goes to a crummy school and gets a crummy education, and the school eventually gets closed, that's a bug - at least for your kid (although the net utility for society may be maximized).

roc 16y ago

I've come to the conclusion that the only real nationwide problem in American education is one of expectation. Simply: we don't demand the best from our kids anymore. Studies have shown that good schools and good educators do matter, but what they all highlight, bold and underscore, is that parents and culture matter so, so much more. 'Good homes' and 'good parents' absolutely dwarf the effect that 'good schools' and 'good teachers' have. And we're just running out of 'good homes' and 'good parents' that care about the results. We've retained a ritual of schooling, but increasingly we just don't give a shit about the outcome. And we're just reaping what we've sown.

jerf 16y ago
And I submit that that is actually an effect of what iwr suggested, not a root cause. Why modify your expectations when there isn't much you can do about it? Higher expectations are only useful when they can manifest as action, but there's an incredibly high bar for pulling your kid out of a school and sending them to another, or going to home schooling, or anything else. Expectations are fading because we are internalizing the idea that they don't matter; no matter what you put in, you get the same output. I think we can fiddle around with the details but until we actually open up some sort of market and competition the problem will simply never be fixed. Centralized management doesn't work; schools aren't an exception. Doesn't mean that I want everyone to have to pay for schools. Vouchers are at least a decent idea, even if they still distort the market and raise prices. But without some ability for parents to use the tools of the market to beat low performing schools, possibly unto them going out of business and letting other schools start, we're not going to see improvement. All incentives right now are aligned towards looking like they are improving, not actually improving, and that is the only possible result you're going to get from mandates from above.
- roc 16y ago
  > "Why modify your expectations when there isn't much you can do about it?" That's precisely backwards. Parents expectations are the only thing you can 'do'. And it's the one thing that studies consistently re-affirm as the most important component. Demand more. Help more. Impart a love for learning and exploring. An appreciate for work. Yes, if the school sucks, maybe you have to work harder with your kid. And if the community sucks, maybe you have to work even harder still. But that work will bear fruit. As opposed to signing your kid up at the school across town and staying just as disinterested as before. Thinking that 'shopping' schools is helping is precisely the wrong approach. > "no matter what you put in, you get the same output." And that's demonstrably false. The families that put in more, get more. The students that put in more, get more. Parent interest and effort and child interest and effort are the most important factors; more important than economic stability, more important than school quality or teacher quality.