Competition makes things better. Forcing the public schools to compete for kids will make them better at educating. The status quo is not a solution…
But it’s not even close to a level playing field.
Public schools educate EVERY child. Private schools select only the best students form teh applicant pool.
So you siphon off public funding intended to serve the entire community and give it to private institutions who only serve the easy to educate. Leaving less money behind to educate the hard to educate.
Does that make sense to you?
3 Likes
Yes, smaller class sizes might help. But, real the problem is the union protect bad teachers. And tons of wasted money! Elected Dems don’t care because those unions work for the dems at election time.
The kids with no choice in the failing schools are basically slaves. Their only function is to fill seats and provide money to their masters who force them to stay on the plantation
Smaller class sizes are a HUGE part of it. But simply being allowed to SELECT your student body is even bigger.
I agree teacher’s unions are a part of the problem.
Your last paragraph - so what vouchers do is, leave the public school to exactly the kids you are talking about those with no choice…because a $4,000 voucher isn’t going to allow a kid from a poverty level household to go to a private school. There will be a handful of kids from that economic bracket who will get merit scholarships but the vast majority will remain in the public school because they don’t have the scores to get into private school, and even if they did, the voucher won’t cover the whole bill.
So you drain money from teh school they are left behind in.
Sounds like you know there is a problem, but are willing to keep the failing schools because some my not be able to escape them? What solution would you offer then?
I put six kids through the public school system.
from the 90’s til very recently.
Always had an appt. for parent teacher conference.
Out west in Silicon Valley.
The teachers unions do have to much power, particularly in terms of termination. School administrations have to be empowered to lead good teachers well, and part of that has to mean being able to fire dead weight.
In addition to the teachers unions, the other part of this facet of the problem is, school administrations have no incentive to create thriving districts. They often just kind of chug along. There are exceptions of course, but a secure government job with decent pay and great benefits…what’s the motivation to innovate and excel?
I know that leads many to the ‘compete for kids’ idea, but that fails for the reasons I mentioned above.
So…I honestly don’t know what the answer is besides hiring the best people you can…open to all ideas though.
There arent enough “good” teachers to replace the “bad” teachers that get protected by the unions, so that point is not really a good one to rag in about concerning public schools.
What’s interesting about these arguments is that no one really gives a damn about the kids. They care where money is allocated. Upper middle class and the rich will be able to send their kids anywhere they want. The poor and lower middle class have to send their kids to local public schools. But no one gives a damn as long as tax dollars from everyone is going to public schools. I find that fascinating. Especially from the Dems, the champions of the poor.
I’d be completely fine if you mandated private schools have to educate all that apply, then send them the tax dollars.
You think they would go for it?
My question was more about the education requirements and quality of education at private schools.
No. I don’t think they would. Look, I see the issue here, I’m not blind to it. But these schools take as many as they can if the parents have the money to pay. Supply and demand. Eventually more private schools will pop up if the demand is there, wouldn’t you think?
Well, no.
They take as many as they can as long as they can pay AND as long as the student is easy to educate. They don’t want to waste resources and damage their graduation/colleg acceptance stats by taking a bunch of low income kids or kids with mental and physical challenges.
So no matter how many schools open, the ones that will be the most profitable will be the ones that establish a reputation for excellence, and the key to that is only selecting the easy to educate kids with access to educational supplements like tutors, etc…
No one in their right mind would ever open a for profit school that teaches low income, challenged kids, because it’s never going to make a buck.
Because with modern liberalism it’s not about results. You and I both know that in NJ these inner city schools have many of the same problems today that they had 50-60 years ago. Mind you now since that time there have been numerous government programs and billions of dollars spent.
1 Like
I am all for school choice but real education reform is not going to occur until the real issue is addressed. Teachers and schools can only affect 1/3 of the areas that effect educational outcomes. The rest occurs in the home. You want better performing students, address the issues plaguing american homes in a positive way.
2 Likes
That is a good post that goes to the crux of the conflict of visions.
What you call “siphoning off” I see as giving funds to the institution which is actually doing the work.
This is the problem with social programs like public education or Obamacare. They only work if people who don’t use them pay in. And the only way to do that is to compel everybody with government force.
And what is the biggest issue?
Altruism doesn’t exist?
Yeah, that’s one way to look at it, but the other reality is, educating every single child in america is an expensive proposition. How else can you get it done if not through collective effort?
Re: your first point - the whole 'my education tax dollars should go to the (private) institution doing the work" thing creates anther inequity as it tries to solve that one. If you don’t have kids in school, or if you have to send your kid to public school, why does the private school family get to direct their tax dollars specifically when you don’t?
I send my kid to ballet class - shouldn’t my tax dollars pay for that?
And I’ll also point out, this is a short sighted view IMHO.
You may not DIRECTLY use the public school system, but we all benefit from it immensely.
If you hire for your work force, if ENETR the workforce, if you interact in any way with your fellow americans, we are all the better for everyone in our country being educated.
The same argument that is used for the HUGE collective funding of the military - that the huge expense on our dime is to keep us safe and prosperous - should be applied to pubic education.
