4 ms·

Imagine if the funding went with the student rather than the district - all manner of schools would pop up, market themselves to parents, and pay equivalent sal

Imagine if the funding went with the student rather than the district - all manner of schools would pop up, market themselves to parents, and pay equivalent salaries. It would decouple school quality from region.

bobthepanda 5y ago
there's a couple problems with this, though; * our national zoning issues with housing also extend to schools. it is really hard to find appropriate sites for new schools and even harder to set one up with the approval of the neighbors. Schools do generate traffic and such, although usually at different times than work commutes, but this doesn't really matter to your retired NIMBY arguing about neighborhood character. * given school siting issues, transportation costs are a huge stumbling block for lower income children to be going to different schools. School busing is not cheap and sometimes not paid from general funding, but required to be paid by parents. If school busing is not available, not all parents have the time to drive their kids to school before work, not all schools are safe or reasonably close enough to walk or bike to, and cabs are out of the question due to expense. * it incentivizes good schools from taking in children that would tank their KPIs. one controversy with new charter schools when I was growing up is that they would generally take less Special Ed or ELL (English Language Learner) students than the population at large to try and goose their statistics.
- imtringued 5y ago
  "There is nothing worse than black children ruining the character of the neighborhood." - american strawman I hope nobody thinks like this in reality.
  - bobthepanda 5y ago
    Here's an article discussing opposition to a shelter for homeless children and women: https://www.bakersfield.com/opinion/community-voices-nimbyism-is-never-the-answer/article_95a77620-2065-11eb-b1bb-9376183140a8.html https://www.bakersfield.com/opinion/community-voices-nimbyis... And opposition to a 2018 plan by the San Jose school district to build affordable housing for their own employees: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-17/a-fierce-fight-over-housing-for-teachers-erupts-in-san-jose https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-17/a-fierce-.... Never mind that the housing is "low-income" because they chose the teachers' salaries.
labster 5y ago
Better yet, put education on the blockchain. Each student gets a supply of school crypto which can be traded for schooling, or exchanged with other students. Some kids may not stay in school as long, but this way everyone gets equal value. Plus schools earn much more as the price of Educoin increases, which improves quality of education across the board.
analog31 5y ago
It would be a disaster, as in, something that might be conceivably even worse than what we've got now. 1. There's no way that parents could choose quality schools, especially if there was enough churn in the market. 2. Maximizing profits would be at odds with providing sufficient capacity, meaning that there would be shortages of "seats" and possibly even regions with effectively no schools. 3. There would be continual bail-outs of "too big to fail" school operators, and schools that go bankrupt after exhausting their start-up capital. 4. It would be a logistical nightmare if parents can't find nearby schools for their kids. Imagine each family logging a couple of hours per day on the road transporting kids to schools. The state would still have to function as the back-up for school failures and capacity shortage, basically providing the inefficiency needed to guarantee access to everybody. NIMBY.

bobthepanda 5y ago

there's a couple problems with this, though; * our national zoning issues with housing also extend to schools. it is really hard to find appropriate sites for new schools and even harder to set one up with the approval of the neighbors. Schools do generate traffic and such, although usually at different times than work commutes, but this doesn't really matter to your retired NIMBY arguing about neighborhood character. * given school siting issues, transportation costs are a huge stumbling block for lower income children to be going to different schools. School busing is not cheap and sometimes not paid from general funding, but required to be paid by parents. If school busing is not available, not all parents have the time to drive their kids to school before work, not all schools are safe or reasonably close enough to walk or bike to, and cabs are out of the question due to expense. * it incentivizes good schools from taking in children that would tank their KPIs. one controversy with new charter schools when I was growing up is that they would generally take less Special Ed or ELL (English Language Learner) students than the population at large to try and goose their statistics.

imtringued 5y ago
"There is nothing worse than black children ruining the character of the neighborhood." - american strawman I hope nobody thinks like this in reality.
- bobthepanda 5y ago
  Here's an article discussing opposition to a shelter for homeless children and women: https://www.bakersfield.com/opinion/community-voices-nimbyism-is-never-the-answer/article_95a77620-2065-11eb-b1bb-9376183140a8.html https://www.bakersfield.com/opinion/community-voices-nimbyis... And opposition to a 2018 plan by the San Jose school district to build affordable housing for their own employees: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-17/a-fierce-fight-over-housing-for-teachers-erupts-in-san-jose https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-17/a-fierce-.... Never mind that the housing is "low-income" because they chose the teachers' salaries.

labster 5y ago

Better yet, put education on the blockchain. Each student gets a supply of school crypto which can be traded for schooling, or exchanged with other students. Some kids may not stay in school as long, but this way everyone gets equal value. Plus schools earn much more as the price of Educoin increases, which improves quality of education across the board.

analog31 5y ago

It would be a disaster, as in, something that might be conceivably even worse than what we've got now. 1. There's no way that parents could choose quality schools, especially if there was enough churn in the market. 2. Maximizing profits would be at odds with providing sufficient capacity, meaning that there would be shortages of "seats" and possibly even regions with effectively no schools. 3. There would be continual bail-outs of "too big to fail" school operators, and schools that go bankrupt after exhausting their start-up capital. 4. It would be a logistical nightmare if parents can't find nearby schools for their kids. Imagine each family logging a couple of hours per day on the road transporting kids to schools. The state would still have to function as the back-up for school failures and capacity shortage, basically providing the inefficiency needed to guarantee access to everybody. NIMBY.