4 ms·

Why is there so much focus on public education and aversion to private options like charter schools? I feel like this has turned into an ideological battle of l

Why is there so much focus on public education and aversion to private options like charter schools? I feel like this has turned into an ideological battle of left versus right in the US. Consumer choice and competition benefit society in virtually all other areas, so why not here? Personally I think the one size fits all nature of public schooling, how they are funded, how curriculum are determined by state agencies, and how teachers politics (individually and through unions) influences education have all contributed to a decay in quality of education despite lots of funding. At least where I am, funding per student has gone up dramatically over the last 10 years but parents universally say schooling is worse than ever. It’s also interesting seeing the gaps on certain questions: > Teachers bringing their personal views into the classroom (76% vs. 23%) If you are on the political side that is benefiting from teachers bringing their personal political views into the classroom, then you would not view it as a problem since it benefits your ideology. If you are on the other political side, then you would see it as a problem since it is a use of institutions to spread your political opponents influence.

aantix 3y ago
>Why is there so much focus on public education and aversion to private options like charter schools Because public schools are infrastructure. I pay for roads on the other side of town, even if I will never use them. I pay for kids that I will never meet to get a safe education, regardless of their behavior/economics/orientation/aptitude. Private schools are allowed to discriminate on who they can take. That's directly against the mission of public schooling. Charter schools are not offered consistently everywhere, so it steals money from already under-resourced rural public schools. Rural kids may not have any nearby, alternative offerings. There has to be a baseline education with a consistent budget. A non-discriminatory offering where all kids are welcomed. A place where no one can be denied an education. Any other alternative you're welcome to attend (if they'll take you), but you must fund it on your own.
- blackeyeblitzar 3y ago
  I haven’t thought through the phrasing of “infrastructure” and what it implies. But I am not debating the existence of funding for education - so even if you are not using schools because you don’t have children, there would be funding. I’m just saying parents should have choice over where that money goes for their children. If $20K is spent per student per year, a parent should get to select whatever provider they want or use the same money for homeschooling or for parent-led shared groups or whatever else. As for private schools being allowed to discriminate on who they can take - I think that can be solved separately. You could pass regulations to require accepting students or simply fund students by need (for example parents of special needs children or children scoring poorly can get vastly more funding to spend as they choose). > Any other alternative you're welcome to attend (if they'll take you), but you must fund it on your own. I see this sentiment a lot from those against parental choice, but I don’t understand it. Why must I fund it on my own? If tax money is collected from me and only made available to the public school system, then I am deprived of my money and then not given the option to just “fund it on my own” unless I am rich and have enough leftover money still. That is really unjust. There is a certain amount of money that would be spent on a child per year anyways - and I think parents should be able to attend any alternative and use that equivalent funding elsewhere. Why would the public option get to keep it when they are relieved of the cost of educating a child that is attending some other option?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
HumblyTossed 3y ago
> Why is there so much focus on public education and aversion to private options like charter schools? So that everyone has a chance at an education. If public schools go away, voucher money will dry up and then only the wealthy can get an education.
- blackeyeblitzar 3y ago
  Can you explain why you think voucher money will dry up? I’m saying that parents should have the option to spend the amount of tax money currently set aside for their children wherever they want. I don’t think that funding is at any more risk under a private option than it is now.
  - HumblyTossed 3y ago
    If you wanted a ruling class and a working class, what would you do?
  - lupire 3y ago
    We already have your idea at the college level, and it created the student loan crisis. Paying $400K to a professional sales organization based on a sales pitch that won't show results for a decade, is begging for disaster.
vkou 3y ago
Force charter schools to take the worst students that the public system is stuck with, and you'll very quickly find that they will perform just as poorly as the public system. Let the public system expel anyone it doesn't like (preferably into the charter system), and miraculously, all metrics will improve. As a bonus, you'll also find that the political support for vouchers will evaporate overnight.
- blackeyeblitzar 3y ago
  > and you'll very quickly find that they will perform just as poorly as the public system Has there even been enough time and experimentation to generate evidence for this? Do you have any sources you’re willing to share? > As a bonus, you'll also find that the political support for vouchers will evaporate overnight I find this to be really cynical, as if a better or more efficient alternative source of education cannot exist. Do you really think that a single public school system with no competition, the negatives of teachers unions, and a dismal track record has zero room to improve? To me these blanket attacks against private options are basically saying that no one can do better, which is not a view we would hold about most other things in our society. Choice and competition are inherently good.
  - lupire 3y ago
    We have competition. Families move to regions where they see better school outcomes.
- MisterBastahrd 3y ago
  You can do almost the same thing by only allowing charter schools to accept vouchers if the vouchers cover the entirety of the education costs. The first thing that happens when you introduce vouchers at the cost of a charter schools' tuition is that they raise the price of education so that there is a nominal financial barrier to overcome that poor parents can't afford.

aantix 3y ago

>Why is there so much focus on public education and aversion to private options like charter schools Because public schools are infrastructure. I pay for roads on the other side of town, even if I will never use them. I pay for kids that I will never meet to get a safe education, regardless of their behavior/economics/orientation/aptitude. Private schools are allowed to discriminate on who they can take. That's directly against the mission of public schooling. Charter schools are not offered consistently everywhere, so it steals money from already under-resourced rural public schools. Rural kids may not have any nearby, alternative offerings. There has to be a baseline education with a consistent budget. A non-discriminatory offering where all kids are welcomed. A place where no one can be denied an education. Any other alternative you're welcome to attend (if they'll take you), but you must fund it on your own.

blackeyeblitzar 3y ago
I haven’t thought through the phrasing of “infrastructure” and what it implies. But I am not debating the existence of funding for education - so even if you are not using schools because you don’t have children, there would be funding. I’m just saying parents should have choice over where that money goes for their children. If $20K is spent per student per year, a parent should get to select whatever provider they want or use the same money for homeschooling or for parent-led shared groups or whatever else. As for private schools being allowed to discriminate on who they can take - I think that can be solved separately. You could pass regulations to require accepting students or simply fund students by need (for example parents of special needs children or children scoring poorly can get vastly more funding to spend as they choose). > Any other alternative you're welcome to attend (if they'll take you), but you must fund it on your own. I see this sentiment a lot from those against parental choice, but I don’t understand it. Why must I fund it on my own? If tax money is collected from me and only made available to the public school system, then I am deprived of my money and then not given the option to just “fund it on my own” unless I am rich and have enough leftover money still. That is really unjust. There is a certain amount of money that would be spent on a child per year anyways - and I think parents should be able to attend any alternative and use that equivalent funding elsewhere. Why would the public option get to keep it when they are relieved of the cost of educating a child that is attending some other option?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

HumblyTossed 3y ago

> Why is there so much focus on public education and aversion to private options like charter schools? So that everyone has a chance at an education. If public schools go away, voucher money will dry up and then only the wealthy can get an education.

blackeyeblitzar 3y ago
Can you explain why you think voucher money will dry up? I’m saying that parents should have the option to spend the amount of tax money currently set aside for their children wherever they want. I don’t think that funding is at any more risk under a private option than it is now.
- HumblyTossed 3y ago
  If you wanted a ruling class and a working class, what would you do?
- lupire 3y ago
  We already have your idea at the college level, and it created the student loan crisis. Paying $400K to a professional sales organization based on a sales pitch that won't show results for a decade, is begging for disaster.

vkou 3y ago

Force charter schools to take the worst students that the public system is stuck with, and you'll very quickly find that they will perform just as poorly as the public system. Let the public system expel anyone it doesn't like (preferably into the charter system), and miraculously, all metrics will improve. As a bonus, you'll also find that the political support for vouchers will evaporate overnight.

blackeyeblitzar 3y ago
> and you'll very quickly find that they will perform just as poorly as the public system Has there even been enough time and experimentation to generate evidence for this? Do you have any sources you’re willing to share? > As a bonus, you'll also find that the political support for vouchers will evaporate overnight I find this to be really cynical, as if a better or more efficient alternative source of education cannot exist. Do you really think that a single public school system with no competition, the negatives of teachers unions, and a dismal track record has zero room to improve? To me these blanket attacks against private options are basically saying that no one can do better, which is not a view we would hold about most other things in our society. Choice and competition are inherently good.
- lupire 3y ago
  We have competition. Families move to regions where they see better school outcomes.
MisterBastahrd 3y ago
You can do almost the same thing by only allowing charter schools to accept vouchers if the vouchers cover the entirety of the education costs. The first thing that happens when you introduce vouchers at the cost of a charter schools' tuition is that they raise the price of education so that there is a nominal financial barrier to overcome that poor parents can't afford.