4 ms·

That gets into state-by-state law. In Minnesota, all charters have lotteries (and those that can't "sell out" and completely fill their classrooms will probably

by beat 13y ago

That gets into state-by-state law. In Minnesota, all charters have lotteries (and those that can't "sell out" and completely fill their classrooms will probably have financial problems). States that allow charters to be selective are on a bad path, imho. Like public schools, charters should be required to accept any students who apply and get through the lottery.

yummyfajitas 13y ago
What's wrong with creating schools that serve one group of students well, and don't serve other students? It seems like a win for some, and neutral for everyone else. Market segmentation is a good thing. Lenovo builds great laptops for me and other linux geeks. Apple builds great laptops for hipsters and their moms. And both Apple and Lenovo (together with their customers) can segment the market. Does that mean the computer industry is on a "bad path"?
- beat 13y ago
  Allow the students and parents to be selective, not the schools. This supports market segmentation (a good way to look at it), but doesn't introduce actual unfairness. What you're talking about is more like the case of Abercrombie and Fitch refusing to make clothes for people that they don't find attractive size-wise. That's fine for private business, but not appropriate for publicly-funded systems like schools.
  - yummyfajitas 13y ago
    The publicly-funded system doesn't segment the market. Individual pieces of it do. The public schools will continue to service all segments, but some segments will have other options. How is this not a pareto win (for students)?
    - btilly 13y ago
      If you're satisfied with a pareto win, why don't we go back to an absolute monarchy? After all no other system could be better for the monarch! Back in the real world, when you create one system for relatively well-off people and another for the rest, the tendency is to see the privileged system constantly improved and the fallback languish into a horrible state. This has certainly happened in education. If you create charter schools and allow them to choose who can attend, it is inevitable that successful ones will cherrypick children who start with intellectual abilities and the financial/educational family background to back that up. This creates the kind of two-tiered system that has lead to problems in the past. That result may be pareto optimal, but it is a social injustice of the kind that many don't on principle want supported by tax dollars. (Of course in practice, if you're personally benefitting, protests tend to be much more muted...)
      - yummyfajitas 13y ago
        If a monarchy were better for the monarch and equally good for everyone else, I would favor a monarchy. ...the tendency is to see the privileged system constantly improved and the fallback languish into a horrible state. I'm don't understand - how does the existence of alternatives prevent improvement? Could you clarify this point? If Lenovo's customers were superior (in any relevant sense) to Apple's customers, would that cause apple to "languish into a horrible state"?
        btilly 13y ago
        I'm don't understand - how does the existence of alternatives prevent improvement? Could you clarify this point? It is very simple. If there are two somewhat separable programs, but one is much more heavily used by the constituents that politicians care about, the privileged one will consistently enjoy an advantage in resource allocation decisions. This eventually will cause them to be very unequal alternatives. Also schools are in the habit of raising money from parents in a variety of ways. If all of the well-off parents go to one school, then that school will naturally enjoy a significant funding advantage. If this is what the parents want to do, then fine. But that should be a private school, rather than a charter school that received public funds on top.
- betterunix 13y ago
  "What's wrong with creating schools that serve one group of students well, and don't serve other students?" The politics surrounding education. Is there an underrepresented minority at your school? Are there more men than women? Basically, if your school is dividing students by anything other than age, and if applicants are selected by something other than a lottery, politics will kill you (but never mind that college admissions, which seem to be a goal of some charter schools, are not based on lotteries or on age groups; politics is not supposed to make sense, right?). [Edit: there are exceptions, of course; I attended a public high school that screened applicants with a test. In general, though, it is hard for a public school to be selective, because public schools are subject to political pressures.]

by beat 13y ago

yummyfajitas 13y ago

What's wrong with creating schools that serve one group of students well, and don't serve other students? It seems like a win for some, and neutral for everyone else. Market segmentation is a good thing. Lenovo builds great laptops for me and other linux geeks. Apple builds great laptops for hipsters and their moms. And both Apple and Lenovo (together with their customers) can segment the market. Does that mean the computer industry is on a "bad path"?

beat 13y ago
Allow the students and parents to be selective, not the schools. This supports market segmentation (a good way to look at it), but doesn't introduce actual unfairness. What you're talking about is more like the case of Abercrombie and Fitch refusing to make clothes for people that they don't find attractive size-wise. That's fine for private business, but not appropriate for publicly-funded systems like schools.
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  The publicly-funded system doesn't segment the market. Individual pieces of it do. The public schools will continue to service all segments, but some segments will have other options. How is this not a pareto win (for students)?
  - btilly 13y ago
    If you're satisfied with a pareto win, why don't we go back to an absolute monarchy? After all no other system could be better for the monarch! Back in the real world, when you create one system for relatively well-off people and another for the rest, the tendency is to see the privileged system constantly improved and the fallback languish into a horrible state. This has certainly happened in education. If you create charter schools and allow them to choose who can attend, it is inevitable that successful ones will cherrypick children who start with intellectual abilities and the financial/educational family background to back that up. This creates the kind of two-tiered system that has lead to problems in the past. That result may be pareto optimal, but it is a social injustice of the kind that many don't on principle want supported by tax dollars. (Of course in practice, if you're personally benefitting, protests tend to be much more muted...)
    - yummyfajitas 13y ago
      If a monarchy were better for the monarch and equally good for everyone else, I would favor a monarchy. ...the tendency is to see the privileged system constantly improved and the fallback languish into a horrible state. I'm don't understand - how does the existence of alternatives prevent improvement? Could you clarify this point? If Lenovo's customers were superior (in any relevant sense) to Apple's customers, would that cause apple to "languish into a horrible state"?
      - btilly 13y ago
        I'm don't understand - how does the existence of alternatives prevent improvement? Could you clarify this point? It is very simple. If there are two somewhat separable programs, but one is much more heavily used by the constituents that politicians care about, the privileged one will consistently enjoy an advantage in resource allocation decisions. This eventually will cause them to be very unequal alternatives. Also schools are in the habit of raising money from parents in a variety of ways. If all of the well-off parents go to one school, then that school will naturally enjoy a significant funding advantage. If this is what the parents want to do, then fine. But that should be a private school, rather than a charter school that received public funds on top.
betterunix 13y ago
"What's wrong with creating schools that serve one group of students well, and don't serve other students?" The politics surrounding education. Is there an underrepresented minority at your school? Are there more men than women? Basically, if your school is dividing students by anything other than age, and if applicants are selected by something other than a lottery, politics will kill you (but never mind that college admissions, which seem to be a goal of some charter schools, are not based on lotteries or on age groups; politics is not supposed to make sense, right?). [Edit: there are exceptions, of course; I attended a public high school that screened applicants with a test. In general, though, it is hard for a public school to be selective, because public schools are subject to political pressures.]