4 ms·

They should have Universal School Funding where each student gets a Student Education Account that follows the student. In cases where local schools are all aby

They should have Universal School Funding where each student gets a Student Education Account that follows the student. In cases where local schools are all abysmal, using that money on accredited online or at home educational opportunities should be possible. Seems like we're already doing ad hoc ill considered online schools whipped up by local school districts. Might as well let people innovate in the space and do it properly. If parents want to try it. Some do. Source of funding absolutely has everything to do with it. Schools only indirectly lose funding for bad teachers. If you get a bad barber, you go to a different barbershop. Schools don't have the same economic pressures. They have political and bureaucratic pressure, mainly.

throwawaygh 6y ago
The hybrid public/private market in higher education is a good warning of the perils of such a system. Many of the pathological incentives for voters, legislatures, and institutions that lead to horribly expensive higher ed would also exist in the "Student Education Account" scheme you propose. If we go this route, I promise you'll be seeing "I can't retire because I spent $100K on my kid's K12 schooling" in 20 years. Also -- and I admit this is personal preference -- I don't want my tax dollars redistributed to the local branch of the Catholic or Mormon church. Which is absolutely what would happen.
- humanrebar 6y ago
  School is already horribly expensive, both in per student costs and in property values in successful school districts. The irony is all that money being thrown around doesn't end up paying for qualified STEM faculty. As for funding religious schools, that's part of civil life. Others will object to funding atheism or critical race theory. Should we (forever) fight it out politically or should we find ways to disagree in the spirit of compromise?
  - throwawaygh 6y ago
    > As for funding religious schools, that's part of civil life. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. My tax dollars pay for a Church I am no part of is what was meant by Establishment. This is not true in every civil society, but it has always literally been Rule #1 in this civil society.
    - humanrebar 6y ago
      It really was not what was meant. Religious expression was more prevalent at the time that was ratified, if anything (such as prayers lead by officials). In this case, legislative bodies would be establishing a funding solution. No particular choice about religion (or lack thereof!) is made there. That would be up to household responsible for the relevant children.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > but it has always literally been Rule #1 in this civil society. It literally has not; first, because it wasn’t even a rule that bound the states until after the 14th Amendment, and second, because even federally the 1st Amendment wasn't in place from day one of the Constitutional order, being ratified 3 years after the Constitution; the First Congress under the Constitution was not bound by it at all, since it was ratified during the term of the Second Congress.

throwawaygh 6y ago

The hybrid public/private market in higher education is a good warning of the perils of such a system. Many of the pathological incentives for voters, legislatures, and institutions that lead to horribly expensive higher ed would also exist in the "Student Education Account" scheme you propose. If we go this route, I promise you'll be seeing "I can't retire because I spent $100K on my kid's K12 schooling" in 20 years. Also -- and I admit this is personal preference -- I don't want my tax dollars redistributed to the local branch of the Catholic or Mormon church. Which is absolutely what would happen.

humanrebar 6y ago
School is already horribly expensive, both in per student costs and in property values in successful school districts. The irony is all that money being thrown around doesn't end up paying for qualified STEM faculty. As for funding religious schools, that's part of civil life. Others will object to funding atheism or critical race theory. Should we (forever) fight it out politically or should we find ways to disagree in the spirit of compromise?
- throwawaygh 6y ago
  > As for funding religious schools, that's part of civil life. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. My tax dollars pay for a Church I am no part of is what was meant by Establishment. This is not true in every civil society, but it has always literally been Rule #1 in this civil society.
  - humanrebar 6y ago
    It really was not what was meant. Religious expression was more prevalent at the time that was ratified, if anything (such as prayers lead by officials). In this case, legislative bodies would be establishing a funding solution. No particular choice about religion (or lack thereof!) is made there. That would be up to household responsible for the relevant children.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > but it has always literally been Rule #1 in this civil society. It literally has not; first, because it wasn’t even a rule that bound the states until after the 14th Amendment, and second, because even federally the 1st Amendment wasn't in place from day one of the Constitutional order, being ratified 3 years after the Constitution; the First Congress under the Constitution was not bound by it at all, since it was ratified during the term of the Second Congress.