Since aegyptos went crazy and belligerent, allow me to pick up the "school choice" torch. Forgive me if I rehash some of the arguments.
Layla Z;
"We've become to focused on test scores and are no longer teaching the children what they need to know to be successful in society. We're teaching the test."
This requires more explanation from the teaching professionals here. What is so awful about "teaching the test"? Is the test not an accurate assessment of what children should be learning? For example, for courses that have a cumulative final exam is not the entire course "teaching the test"?
" Critical thinking skills are not a priority when test scores drive funding. This is sad, but true and demonstrates one of the many problems with standarized testing."
Is it impossible to design a test that adequately captures 'critical thinking skills'? Is it possible to "teach the test" utilizing the pupil's 'critical thinking skills'?
"More and more parents see the schools as a glorified babysitting service. They don't want to be involved and could not care less what their kids do at school."
This seems to be the most significant issue by far. There is little incentive for parents to be involved in the current system. I see some form of vouchers as providing this incentive. Other ideas on how to provide incentive for parental involvement?
"Also, private schools have the luxury to reject students(this is why their scores can be higher). So if there were a voucher program you would have a failing public school with only the poorest and most troubled students left."
This assumes that there are no private schools that cater to poor / troubled children. A similar case is often raised when the issue is 'special needs' children. There are private schools and voucher programs that cater successfully to 'special needs' children more successfully than public schools. Why do you think this would not be the case or poor / troubled children?
------
Scucca;
"Choice exaggerates inequality of opportunity, exacerbating segregation but also impacting on general quality."
This is laughable considering that in every other situation choice has lead to the exact opposite. More opportunity, less segregation, and higher general quality.
"Education leads to numerous social benefits, not least higher economic growth. It is therefore just factual to remark that the private sector will lead to underinvestment."
This is hardly an argument for government monopoly of the education service industry. The private education service industry could be subsidized to account for the social benefits not already captured by the profit motive. A voucher system could include this.
"Public education is therefore vital, particularly in terms of minimising inequality of opportunity."
I can agree with you here. Education is vital to increasing opportunity amongst the population, and therefore government should prioritize it and assist the private sector. However, "public education" does not have to be a government monopoly. If the funding is provided to parents by the government (ie. vouchers) then the education can be provided by the private sector.
-----
UtahBill;
"What good does it do to have someone who really knows history try to teach it to children 12 years of age, or younger?"
Agreed. Requiring stringent qualification requirements reduces the pool of available teachers. I'm an engineer, I work with many technicians who's productivity I could not duplicate; specialization trumps higher education in some areas. Early primary education seems to be an area where 'technician teachers' would be more productive than 'engineer teachers'. This is how some religious schools keep costs down. A priest may not have a degree in child development, but is adequately trained to teach reading and writing (and probably a foreign language).
"Back in the 60's in east Texas, our school board banned 2 books that our best teacher was using in class, "The Scarlet Letter" and "To Kill a Mockingbird". He was without a doubt the best teacher I ever had, and the administration made life difficult for him because he taught English at a much higher level than required for the grade level."
Did your parents raise the issue with the school board? Were your parents objections heard or felt? Was there any incentive for the school board to consider the opinions of community parents? Do you think there would have been more incentive for the school board if your parents had the choice of taking their business elsewhere?
"There are no good private schools out there that the average american can afford."
This is simply not true. "The average cost of private elementary schools in the District is $4,500, the average secondary school cost $16,075. More than half of private elementary and secondary schools in the District cost less than $7,500 per year. Almost 70 percent (69.4 percent) of private elementary schools and 18.2 percent of private high schools in the District cost less than $7,500 per year." [1] Meanwhile for DC's public school expenditures, "Estimates range from $8,536 per student to $15,122, depending on who does the counting and what is counted." [1] It is simply not true that private schools are unaffordable by the 'average American' especially when vouchers are brought into play.
-----
SouthernDemocrat;
"The secret to those two districts success is simple: Parents that are highly involved in their kids education and well funded schools. Thats it, and vouchers nor any of the right wing schemes are a substitute for either of those. The problem in failing schools is almost universally the parents fault. Vouchers don't fix worthless parents. Thats a problem that has to be tackled at the society level. The poor performing districts their kids go to are a symptom of the problem, not the cause."
I agree that the current system is not "in shambles". However graduation rates have been declining, and this thread is about how to improve schools. I agree that highly involved parents are the largest contributor to a school's (and student's) success. I disagree that vouchers will not create an incentive for this involvement. If a parent motivated to be involved is in a district where they are the exception, wouldn't vouchers and school choice allow that parent to send their child to either of the schools you highlighted? Do you think that parents who send their children to private schools are more or less motivated on average than parents who send their children to public school?
------
A 'public education' does not need to be administered by a government monopoly. Increased competition amongst education providers will improve quality and cost effectiveness, just as it has for every other service providing industry. The most effective way to increase competition is to enable parents (the consumer) to have more choice in education providers. A voucher system (perhaps a regressive one where the voucher amount tapers off with family income) would place private schools on a level playing field with public schools, thereby increasing affordable choices for parents.
Parent involvement / motivation is the largest contributor to the success of children. What are some other ideas on how to increase parent involvement / motivation?
J
[1]
http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp86.pdf