4 ms·

I think we should use the money to fund students and abolish the idea of government run schools. Every kid gets the same amount to be spent at a private school

I think we should use the money to fund students and abolish the idea of government run schools. Every kid gets the same amount to be spent at a private school that suits their child’s needs. Schools could be smaller and give students the attention they need based on their abilities and interests. The government would audit these schools to ensure kids are adequately learning. Existing government school building could be leased to private teaching organizations.

project2501b 5y ago
> abolish the idea of government run schools. aaah, the libertarians have arrived. i'll step on snek just fine, thanks.
asxd 5y ago
I know there's a difference in what you're saying, but I think this is basically the idea of charter schools.
- nemo44x 5y ago
  In essence but we haven't really gotten anywhere near having a full market economy for schooling. We have seen voucher programs in certain areas but they have also been resisted by teachers unions, possibly affecting their effectiveness. However, the longer term results of kids who received vouchers show higher graduation rates and college admissions, albeit not always and and generally mild. But there's also evidence that voucher programs have improved public schools as they face competition. I think we if we really committed to it and abolished government schools then we would see market based schooling improve the quality of education across the board. We could also expand what "qualified education" means and get away from a single standardized test for math, english, etc and begin to assist kids in placing them into academies that will benefit them. For example, by 14 it might make sense to have schools that focus less on academics and more on trade skills. Kids could begin to learn useful skills like carpentry, plumbing, small business operations, etc. that give them a real chance at building a life for themselves. A free market of education would allow people to setup these types of schools and for parents and kids to choose to place into them to set themselves up for success in life. We can't do this in today's monolithic public school system. We have essentially a one-sized fits all approach with some schools offering AP classes, although even those are being removed in the name of "equity". Putting all our kids into the same system with the same goal of competing with each other to get into the best universities isn't good for most people.
taylodl 5y ago
There's no such thing as a government-run school, at least not in the U.S. U.S. public schools are community-run. The local community sets the funding level, the local community provides the facilities, etc. The state may or may not provide additional funding. The state will also set minimum standards for graduation requirements, which apply to all students residing in the state. Then you have the issue of accountability. Community-run schools are paid for via taxes - either income tax, property tax or a combination for both. Taxes demand representation - in the case of community-run schools the community votes for the school board members who in turn oversee the operations of the community schools. Where's my voice when my money is simply handed to someone to do with as they see fit? Good luck getting your school tax levies renewed in such an environment. BTW, my state has been grappling with these issues for the past 15 years and it's a mess. A state law got passed saying the community funding must be made available to students for private schools and the results have been predictable. School levies are failing, and the private schools have been involved in scandal after scandal - the largest being a huge embezzlement scheme. A toss-out of the governor and key state legislators got the law reversed. So we tried this alternative and it failed and failed hard.
- nemo44x 5y ago
  The community is the local government/municipality and is controlled by the politicians elected to it. The state influences this as well. So the schools are "government run". And yes the local community sets the funding level and where I live, which is quite affluent, the funding is huge and the schools are nice. But in many other places where property values are smaller and people can't afford high property taxes to fund schools, they can't spend the same per student. Yes, some money gets recycled from affluent communities to less so through the state, but the money spent per student is still far less. I think it's more fair that every kid gets the same amount of money spent on them so kids from poor communities can access quality education that isn't a function of where they grow up. That their parents can send their kids to a school that suits their needs and ambitions. So you have more than representation - you have actual choice and schools will compete for your money that is given to you. Lastly, not every community votes for their school board. There are some places where they are appointed by the mayor. Teachers unions hate this idea because it cripples them, but actual teachers would thrive and do better in this environment.
bena 5y ago
You've effectively combined the worst features of public school with the worst features of private school. The government does audit schools, what do you think standardized tests are for? To assess whether or not the school is getting the students to the appropriate level. And everything else sounds pretty much kind of like how it already is except with the conceit that what you're saying is in any way novel. We need to stop focusing on students and start focusing on teachers and support staff. We all know the trope of the overworked teacher who does a shit ton of work off-hours, who buys supplies out of their own money. That's the failure of the system right there. Classrooms don't need tablets as much as they need more bodies. Combine that with parent engagement is difficult in some communities due to all the poverty and what not. It's hard to get a parent working a night shift at their second job to a conference to explain to them what they already know, their child is failing and they need help with the material. Help the school can't provide, because there's no one available to do it. Because everyone is overworked.

project2501b 5y ago

> abolish the idea of government run schools. aaah, the libertarians have arrived. i'll step on snek just fine, thanks.

asxd 5y ago

I know there's a difference in what you're saying, but I think this is basically the idea of charter schools.

nemo44x 5y ago
In essence but we haven't really gotten anywhere near having a full market economy for schooling. We have seen voucher programs in certain areas but they have also been resisted by teachers unions, possibly affecting their effectiveness. However, the longer term results of kids who received vouchers show higher graduation rates and college admissions, albeit not always and and generally mild. But there's also evidence that voucher programs have improved public schools as they face competition. I think we if we really committed to it and abolished government schools then we would see market based schooling improve the quality of education across the board. We could also expand what "qualified education" means and get away from a single standardized test for math, english, etc and begin to assist kids in placing them into academies that will benefit them. For example, by 14 it might make sense to have schools that focus less on academics and more on trade skills. Kids could begin to learn useful skills like carpentry, plumbing, small business operations, etc. that give them a real chance at building a life for themselves. A free market of education would allow people to setup these types of schools and for parents and kids to choose to place into them to set themselves up for success in life. We can't do this in today's monolithic public school system. We have essentially a one-sized fits all approach with some schools offering AP classes, although even those are being removed in the name of "equity". Putting all our kids into the same system with the same goal of competing with each other to get into the best universities isn't good for most people.

taylodl 5y ago

There's no such thing as a government-run school, at least not in the U.S. U.S. public schools are community-run. The local community sets the funding level, the local community provides the facilities, etc. The state may or may not provide additional funding. The state will also set minimum standards for graduation requirements, which apply to all students residing in the state. Then you have the issue of accountability. Community-run schools are paid for via taxes - either income tax, property tax or a combination for both. Taxes demand representation - in the case of community-run schools the community votes for the school board members who in turn oversee the operations of the community schools. Where's my voice when my money is simply handed to someone to do with as they see fit? Good luck getting your school tax levies renewed in such an environment. BTW, my state has been grappling with these issues for the past 15 years and it's a mess. A state law got passed saying the community funding must be made available to students for private schools and the results have been predictable. School levies are failing, and the private schools have been involved in scandal after scandal - the largest being a huge embezzlement scheme. A toss-out of the governor and key state legislators got the law reversed. So we tried this alternative and it failed and failed hard.

nemo44x 5y ago
The community is the local government/municipality and is controlled by the politicians elected to it. The state influences this as well. So the schools are "government run". And yes the local community sets the funding level and where I live, which is quite affluent, the funding is huge and the schools are nice. But in many other places where property values are smaller and people can't afford high property taxes to fund schools, they can't spend the same per student. Yes, some money gets recycled from affluent communities to less so through the state, but the money spent per student is still far less. I think it's more fair that every kid gets the same amount of money spent on them so kids from poor communities can access quality education that isn't a function of where they grow up. That their parents can send their kids to a school that suits their needs and ambitions. So you have more than representation - you have actual choice and schools will compete for your money that is given to you. Lastly, not every community votes for their school board. There are some places where they are appointed by the mayor. Teachers unions hate this idea because it cripples them, but actual teachers would thrive and do better in this environment.

bena 5y ago

You've effectively combined the worst features of public school with the worst features of private school. The government does audit schools, what do you think standardized tests are for? To assess whether or not the school is getting the students to the appropriate level. And everything else sounds pretty much kind of like how it already is except with the conceit that what you're saying is in any way novel. We need to stop focusing on students and start focusing on teachers and support staff. We all know the trope of the overworked teacher who does a shit ton of work off-hours, who buys supplies out of their own money. That's the failure of the system right there. Classrooms don't need tablets as much as they need more bodies. Combine that with parent engagement is difficult in some communities due to all the poverty and what not. It's hard to get a parent working a night shift at their second job to a conference to explain to them what they already know, their child is failing and they need help with the material. Help the school can't provide, because there's no one available to do it. Because everyone is overworked.