3 ms·

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 unfa

by 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.
      - yummyfajitas 13y ago
        Sweden has solved this problem. Resources are equal and follow the student.
        btilly 13y ago
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Sweden#Free_schools http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Sweden#Free_school... says that Swedish free schools (the equivalent of charter schools) are not allowed to discriminate among students, or require any sort of admission exam. How does this fit with what you were saying? Furthermore while the amount of state money that follows students may be the same, when schools raise money from parents, having parents with money helps a lot.
        yummyfajitas 13y ago
        What I'm saying is that allowing money to follow students (which Sweden does) prevents politically favored schools from being allocated a disproportionate amount of resources. Thus, your first concern "the privileged one will consistently enjoy an advantage in resource allocation decisions" is invalid with this simple system. As for your second concern, it seems as if you want to prevent people from investing in their own children's education. Should children who attend publicly funded schools also be prevented from attending Kumon, and should the hiring of private tutors by their parents be banned? If not, why not?
  - beat 13y ago
    But if you create charter schools and DON'T allow them to choose their students (but let students choose them - the MN system), and you DON'T fund them over and above the mainstream schools (the MN system)... well, then your "social injustice" argument comes up kind of thin. The schools can't select, and the schools don't get extra resources, so any bias is entirely due to the will of parents/students to pursue alternatives, and the extra flexibility of the charters. What this DOES result in is at best marginal increases in test scores, but significantly happier parents, students, and teachers.
    - btilly 13y ago
      I'm not sure what point of mine you think you're arguing against. I'm arguing against letting the schools decide which students to accept. Which is emphatically not the MN system, and leads to a different result.

by beat 13y ago

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.
    - yummyfajitas 13y ago
      Sweden has solved this problem. Resources are equal and follow the student.
      - btilly 13y ago
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Sweden#Free_schools http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Sweden#Free_school... says that Swedish free schools (the equivalent of charter schools) are not allowed to discriminate among students, or require any sort of admission exam. How does this fit with what you were saying? Furthermore while the amount of state money that follows students may be the same, when schools raise money from parents, having parents with money helps a lot.
        yummyfajitas 13y ago
        What I'm saying is that allowing money to follow students (which Sweden does) prevents politically favored schools from being allocated a disproportionate amount of resources. Thus, your first concern "the privileged one will consistently enjoy an advantage in resource allocation decisions" is invalid with this simple system. As for your second concern, it seems as if you want to prevent people from investing in their own children's education. Should children who attend publicly funded schools also be prevented from attending Kumon, and should the hiring of private tutors by their parents be banned? If not, why not?
- beat 13y ago
  But if you create charter schools and DON'T allow them to choose their students (but let students choose them - the MN system), and you DON'T fund them over and above the mainstream schools (the MN system)... well, then your "social injustice" argument comes up kind of thin. The schools can't select, and the schools don't get extra resources, so any bias is entirely due to the will of parents/students to pursue alternatives, and the extra flexibility of the charters. What this DOES result in is at best marginal increases in test scores, but significantly happier parents, students, and teachers.
  - btilly 13y ago
    I'm not sure what point of mine you think you're arguing against. I'm arguing against letting the schools decide which students to accept. Which is emphatically not the MN system, and leads to a different result.