3 ms·

The next step is “backpack funding”, or letting parents get a voucher for education that follows the student no matter where they attend school, public or priva

The next step is “backpack funding”, or letting parents get a voucher for education that follows the student no matter where they attend school, public or private. This will drastically reduce the cost of private education, and combined with the widespread erosion of gifted programs and a general sense of mediocrity pervading modern public schooling, a vast downsizing of public education has started.

hootbootscoot 5y ago
And the US was already having issues in terms of STEM competitiveness... I believe the term is "decline" or "decadence"... I do not approve of publicly funding parochial religious schools, for example. This is a bad road to take. The would-be-theocrats don't even comprehend the damage their wish's fulfillment would bring. I had the misfortune of attending such a "school" once and found it full of fake curriculi and it set me back a year at a crucial time. It was a total joke. I attended approximately 8 different public schools prior to that and after that, including some rather lousy ones, and all were superior to these weirdo cult luckily didn't have to spend much time in. Public funding? public standards.
lelanthran 5y ago
> The next step is “backpack funding”, or letting parents get a voucher for education that follows the student no matter where they attend school, public or private. This will drastically reduce the cost of private education, and combined with the widespread erosion of gifted programs and a general sense of mediocrity pervading modern public schooling, a vast downsizing of public education has started. This, on the face of it, seems like a good idea[1]. I don't understand why it is being downvoted. [1] I'm not in the US, if that helps.
- beerandt 5y ago
  Because broadly speaking, public schools rely on 100% of the local school tax revenue to educate somewhere between 50-90% of the students. They rely on private school tuition to further subsidize public schools via reduced enrollment but not reduced budget.
- MagnumOpus 5y ago
  It is a good idea for (a) the top 5% of wealthy who would send their kids to private school anyway and save money with backpacking (b) the top 5% of wealthy who hold shares in private education startups and providers. Hence you would expect it to be popular in the HN bubble where nearly everyone is in the top 5%. It is a bad idea for smart kids whose parents are poor or don't care - they will still get the lowest-cost 'public option' but now get left behind by the 50-80% of kids whose parents care to get their kids into selective schools or ones that need top-up payments, thus cementing hereditary stratification of society.
  - lelanthran 5y ago
    > It is a good idea for (a) the top 5% of wealthy who would send their kids to private school anyway and save money with backpacking (b) the top 5% of wealthy who hold shares in private education startups and providers. Hence you would expect it to be popular in the HN bubble where nearly everyone is in the top 5%. > > It is a bad idea for smart kids whose parents are poor or don't care - they will still get the lowest-cost 'public option' but now get left behind by the 50-80% of kids whose parents care to get their kids into selective schools or ones that need top-up payments, thus cementing hereditary stratification of society. Maybe I am missing something, but how is that worse than the current system? The top 5% are already sending their kids to the best schools currently, right? The people who are too poor to afford the top-up in the proposed voucher system are currently not getting the best schools anyway. Under the voucher system I expect that some of the currently poor people who are not getting the best school would be able to switch to the best school that doesn't require a top-up. Right now, as I understand it, poor people have no option to switch schools.
    - extra88 5y ago
      > how is that worse than the current system? The top 5% are already sending their kids to the best schools currently, right? Because the taxes that were going to a public school are now going to a private one. School quality is about a lot more than money but taking money away from a struggling school isn't going to make it better. Vouchers can mean the difference to a few kids between staying a failing public school and going to a successful private school, the money is enough for some motivated middle class families to make that change. But a lot more kids are going to be ones from families who were always going to send their kids to a private school so for them the voucher is a government-funded discount. In theory, vouchers could be means-tested so the money only went to families truly had an economic need for it. However, means testing has costs of it own, often has loopholes, and can go against many people's sense of fairness, especially when you're talking about something for kids.

hootbootscoot 5y ago

And the US was already having issues in terms of STEM competitiveness... I believe the term is "decline" or "decadence"... I do not approve of publicly funding parochial religious schools, for example. This is a bad road to take. The would-be-theocrats don't even comprehend the damage their wish's fulfillment would bring. I had the misfortune of attending such a "school" once and found it full of fake curriculi and it set me back a year at a crucial time. It was a total joke. I attended approximately 8 different public schools prior to that and after that, including some rather lousy ones, and all were superior to these weirdo cult luckily didn't have to spend much time in. Public funding? public standards.

lelanthran 5y ago

> The next step is “backpack funding”, or letting parents get a voucher for education that follows the student no matter where they attend school, public or private. This will drastically reduce the cost of private education, and combined with the widespread erosion of gifted programs and a general sense of mediocrity pervading modern public schooling, a vast downsizing of public education has started. This, on the face of it, seems like a good idea[1]. I don't understand why it is being downvoted. [1] I'm not in the US, if that helps.

beerandt 5y ago
Because broadly speaking, public schools rely on 100% of the local school tax revenue to educate somewhere between 50-90% of the students. They rely on private school tuition to further subsidize public schools via reduced enrollment but not reduced budget.
MagnumOpus 5y ago
It is a good idea for (a) the top 5% of wealthy who would send their kids to private school anyway and save money with backpacking (b) the top 5% of wealthy who hold shares in private education startups and providers. Hence you would expect it to be popular in the HN bubble where nearly everyone is in the top 5%. It is a bad idea for smart kids whose parents are poor or don't care - they will still get the lowest-cost 'public option' but now get left behind by the 50-80% of kids whose parents care to get their kids into selective schools or ones that need top-up payments, thus cementing hereditary stratification of society.
- lelanthran 5y ago
  > It is a good idea for (a) the top 5% of wealthy who would send their kids to private school anyway and save money with backpacking (b) the top 5% of wealthy who hold shares in private education startups and providers. Hence you would expect it to be popular in the HN bubble where nearly everyone is in the top 5%. > > It is a bad idea for smart kids whose parents are poor or don't care - they will still get the lowest-cost 'public option' but now get left behind by the 50-80% of kids whose parents care to get their kids into selective schools or ones that need top-up payments, thus cementing hereditary stratification of society. Maybe I am missing something, but how is that worse than the current system? The top 5% are already sending their kids to the best schools currently, right? The people who are too poor to afford the top-up in the proposed voucher system are currently not getting the best schools anyway. Under the voucher system I expect that some of the currently poor people who are not getting the best school would be able to switch to the best school that doesn't require a top-up. Right now, as I understand it, poor people have no option to switch schools.
  - extra88 5y ago
    > how is that worse than the current system? The top 5% are already sending their kids to the best schools currently, right? Because the taxes that were going to a public school are now going to a private one. School quality is about a lot more than money but taking money away from a struggling school isn't going to make it better. Vouchers can mean the difference to a few kids between staying a failing public school and going to a successful private school, the money is enough for some motivated middle class families to make that change. But a lot more kids are going to be ones from families who were always going to send their kids to a private school so for them the voucher is a government-funded discount. In theory, vouchers could be means-tested so the money only went to families truly had an economic need for it. However, means testing has costs of it own, often has loopholes, and can go against many people's sense of fairness, especially when you're talking about something for kids.