3 ms·

"Anytime Bill Gates comes up, I feel the need to remind people that he has spent billions in “philanthropy” to destroy the public school system. He is a his bac

"Anytime Bill Gates comes up, I feel the need to remind people that he has spent billions in “philanthropy” to destroy the public school system. He is a his backer of charter schools." Many public schools are shit and I applaud his effort to come with alternatives instead of forcing everyone to get a poor education, until these problems are actually fixed.

jmyeet 2y ago
That's by design. It's a strategy pioneered by Ronald Reagan called "starve the beast" [1]. Basically, you starve a public institution of funds and then use the inevitable failure for gutting it entirely and likely privatizing it. We're seeing this in real-time in Texas [2] in particular with Abbott's takeover of the Houston ISD and the blatant corruption and racism going on with the Keller ISD. Also, charter schools aren't cheaper either. They cherry pick students. Public schools don't have that luxury. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast [2]: https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/campaign-to-sabotage-texas-public-schools/ https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/campaign-to-sabot...
- abigail95 2y ago
  The public school funding models in the USA are variable, even by county, they can't be controlled or set by the top down, and the fact that the USA spends more than the OECD average disputes everything you are saying.
  - jmyeet 2y ago
    That's false [1]. USA is like #6 in per-student spending. It's even lower in terms of GDP [2]. [1]: https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/policy-issues/education-financing.html https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/policy-issues/education-finan... [2]: https://webfs.oecd.org/els-com/Family_Database/PF1_2_Public_expenditure_education.pdf https://webfs.oecd.org/els-com/Family_Database/PF1_2_Public_...
    - latency-guy2 2y ago
      How is what they said false? US is above on all counts. > On average across OECD countries, USD 11 900 is spent per primary school student per year. For higher levels of education, spending increases: USD 13 300 is spent per secondary school student, while USD 20 500 is spent per tertiary student. This reflects that fact that higher levels of education often require teachers to have more advanced qualifications and specialised knowledge, which are usually accompanied by higher salaries. Don't confuse your misunderstanding of their comment as anything else. Further, the $ amount spent per student in the US has almost universally never gone done since the 1950s. It has always gone up. Don't even need to include tertiary education in this calculation.
- lotsoweiners 2y ago
  > That's by design. It's a strategy pioneered by Ronald Reagan called "starve the beast" [1]. Basically, you starve a public institution of funds and then use the inevitable failure for gutting it entirely and likely privatizing it. I’d argue that if public schools across the board were doing their job and educating students then there wouldn’t be anything to starve. > Also, charter schools aren't cheaper either. They cherry pick students. Public schools don't have that luxury. My kids have gone to one of the bigger charter school chains in my city for around a decade and this is not true. They employ lots of specialists to assist struggling students like my youngest. I’m not sure if they would tolerate the worst troublemakers at public schools but I also don’t think those children’s parents would be looking at better options for education.
- billy99k 2y ago
  "charter schools aren't cheaper either. They cherry pick students" The schools in my area have a lottery system. My daughter got in, but we ended up keeping her in public schools, which are still really good. This would have at least given us a choice if the schools were terrible. Many of the students in our charter schools come from terrible districts and those students would otherwise not get a good education. The reason the districts are terrible? Local corruption. They get more money than ever and they always seem to have a short fall at the end of the year.

jmyeet 2y ago

That's by design. It's a strategy pioneered by Ronald Reagan called "starve the beast" [1]. Basically, you starve a public institution of funds and then use the inevitable failure for gutting it entirely and likely privatizing it. We're seeing this in real-time in Texas [2] in particular with Abbott's takeover of the Houston ISD and the blatant corruption and racism going on with the Keller ISD. Also, charter schools aren't cheaper either. They cherry pick students. Public schools don't have that luxury. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast [2]: https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/campaign-to-sabotage-texas-public-schools/ https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/campaign-to-sabot...

abigail95 2y ago
The public school funding models in the USA are variable, even by county, they can't be controlled or set by the top down, and the fact that the USA spends more than the OECD average disputes everything you are saying.
- jmyeet 2y ago
  That's false [1]. USA is like #6 in per-student spending. It's even lower in terms of GDP [2]. [1]: https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/policy-issues/education-financing.html https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/policy-issues/education-finan... [2]: https://webfs.oecd.org/els-com/Family_Database/PF1_2_Public_expenditure_education.pdf https://webfs.oecd.org/els-com/Family_Database/PF1_2_Public_...
  - latency-guy2 2y ago
    How is what they said false? US is above on all counts. > On average across OECD countries, USD 11 900 is spent per primary school student per year. For higher levels of education, spending increases: USD 13 300 is spent per secondary school student, while USD 20 500 is spent per tertiary student. This reflects that fact that higher levels of education often require teachers to have more advanced qualifications and specialised knowledge, which are usually accompanied by higher salaries. Don't confuse your misunderstanding of their comment as anything else. Further, the $ amount spent per student in the US has almost universally never gone done since the 1950s. It has always gone up. Don't even need to include tertiary education in this calculation.
lotsoweiners 2y ago
> That's by design. It's a strategy pioneered by Ronald Reagan called "starve the beast" [1]. Basically, you starve a public institution of funds and then use the inevitable failure for gutting it entirely and likely privatizing it. I’d argue that if public schools across the board were doing their job and educating students then there wouldn’t be anything to starve. > Also, charter schools aren't cheaper either. They cherry pick students. Public schools don't have that luxury. My kids have gone to one of the bigger charter school chains in my city for around a decade and this is not true. They employ lots of specialists to assist struggling students like my youngest. I’m not sure if they would tolerate the worst troublemakers at public schools but I also don’t think those children’s parents would be looking at better options for education.
billy99k 2y ago
"charter schools aren't cheaper either. They cherry pick students" The schools in my area have a lottery system. My daughter got in, but we ended up keeping her in public schools, which are still really good. This would have at least given us a choice if the schools were terrible. Many of the students in our charter schools come from terrible districts and those students would otherwise not get a good education. The reason the districts are terrible? Local corruption. They get more money than ever and they always seem to have a short fall at the end of the year.