• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you support school choice?

Do you support school choice?

  • Total voters
    88
Hard Truth said:
Most public schools are funded by local property taxes. When the local residents are rich, property values are higher and the locals approve higher taxes to improve the schools, the schools receive more money. When the residents are poor, property values lower, the population density higher and the locals don't support (or can't afford) higher taxes to improve the schools, the schools receive less money. That is one of the major problems with public education and it is one that few people want to address; the schools in low income areas have the most challenging student, yet they are underfunded and can not attract the best teachers because the pay is lower and the work more difficult. Vouchers do not address that fundamental problem, they will make it worse by taking more money from already underfunded and over burdened schools and give it to the best funded schools with the easiest students and most supportive parents.
Click to expand...

Vouchers enable parents to take their children out of underperforming schools and send them to better performing schools.:peace
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Um, that's because they have a MUCH bigger population:doh
Click to expand...

Right, with far more schools, some of which perform better than others. Those underperforming schools, within that district, receive higher funding than the better performing schools. You are comparing funding in different districts, which are run independently of each other rather than schools within the same district.
 
mac said:
Right, with far more schools, some of which perform better than others. Those underperforming schools, within that district, receive higher funding than the better performing schools. You are comparing funding in different districts, which are run independently of each other rather than schools within the same district.
Click to expand...


Proof please.
 
Hard Truth said:
Most public schools are funded by local property taxes. When the local residents are rich, property values are higher and the locals approve higher taxes to improve the schools, the schools receive more money. When the residents are poor, property values lower, the population density higher and the locals don't support (or can't afford) higher taxes to improve the schools, the schools receive less money. That is one of the major problems with public education and it is one that few people want to address; the schools in low income areas have the most challenging student, yet they are underfunded and can not attract the best teachers because the pay is lower and the work more difficult. Vouchers do not address that fundamental problem, they will make it worse by taking more money from already underfunded and over burdened schools and give it to the best funded schools with the easiest students and most supportive parents.
Click to expand...

Property tax is not the sole source of income for schools. Many inner city schools in low income districts receive state and federal funding.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Proof please.
Click to expand...

Look at their budget. It states that the "alternative high school" which is a votec, is their number one budget priority. Other than that, they don't list expenditures by individual schools within the district. At least, not with a superficial search.
 
mac said:
Look at their budget. It states that the "alternative high school" which is a votec, is their number one budget priority. Other than that, they don't list expenditures by individual schools within the district. At least, not with a superficial glance.
Click to expand...

That proves Jack.
 
mac said:
I don't know who Jack is, but it proves that their number one funding priority is the vocational school. :shrug:
Click to expand...

No, it has zero to do with the fact wealthy districts in MA spend more per pupil than poor.
 
jamesrage said:
Do you support school choice?

Yes
Yes but with certain exceptions. Please list those exceptions.
no, students should only go to schools in their public school district.
other
maybe


School choice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Open enrollment

Open enrollment refers to educational policies which allow residents of a state to enroll their children in any public school, provided the school has not reached its maximum capacity number for students, regardless of the school district in which a family resides.
Open enrollment can be either intra-district or inter-district. Intra-district choice allows parents to send their children to any school within their designated district. Parents can enroll their children in schools outside of their catchment area. Inter-district school choice allows parents to select public schools outside of their resident district.[SUP][1][/SUP]
Inequality of Open Enrollment

An open enrollment policy allows parents to choose the school they want their children to attend from any of the schools in their area, provided there is space for them. This definition gives the impression that everyone has an equal opportunity to choose a school, but the reality of such equality has been called into question.[SUP][2][/SUP] For example, in rural areas the option of taking advantage of open enrollment is greatly diminished because of limited access to alternate schools.


Vouchers

Main article: School voucher
When the government pays tuition to a private school on behalf of the parents, this is usually referred to as a voucher. A voucher is given to the family for them to spend at any school of their choice for their child's study. The two most common voucher designs are universal vouchers and means-tested vouchers. Means-tested vouchers are directed towards low-income families and constitute the bulk of voucher plans in the United States.
Tuition tax credits

A tuition tax credit is similar to most other familiar tax credits. Certain states allow individuals and/or businesses to deduct a certain amount of their income taxes to donate to education. Depending on the program, these donations can either go to a public school or to a School Tuition Organization (STO), or both. The donations that go to public schools are often used to help pay for after-school programs, schools trips, or school supplies. The donations that go to School Tuition Organizations are used by the STO to create scholarships that are then given to students. These programs currently exist in Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island in the United States.[SUP][8][/SUP]
Charter schools

Main article: Charter school
Charter schools are public schools with more relaxed rules and regulations. These relaxed rules tend to deal with things like Teacher Union contracts and state curriculum. The majority of states (and the District of Columbia) have charter school laws. Minnesota was the first state to have a charter school law and the first charter school in the United States, City Academy High School, opened in St. Paul, Minnesota in 1992.[SUP][9][/SUP]
Dayton, Ohio has between 22–26% of all children in charter schools.[SUP][10][/SUP] This is the highest percentage in the nation. Other hotbeds for charter schools are Kansas City (24%), Washington, D.C. (20-24%) and Arizona. Almost 1 in 4 public schools in Arizona are charter schools, comprising about 8% of total enrollment.
Charter schools can also come in the form of Cyber Charters. Cyber charter schools deliver the majority of their instruction over the internet instead of in a school building. And, like charter schools, they are public schools, but free of many of the rules and regulations that public schools must follow.
Magnet schools

Main article: Magnet school
Magnet schools are public schools that often have a specialized function like science, technology or art. These magnet schools, unlike charter schools, are not open to all children. Much like many private schools, there are some (but not all) magnet schools that require a test to get in.
Home schooling

Main article: Homeschooling
"Home education" or "home schooling" is instruction in a child's home, or provided primarily by a parent, or under direct parental control. Informal home education has always taken place, and formal instruction in the home has at times also been very popular. As public education grew in popularity during the 1900s, however, the number of people educated at home using a planned curriculum dropped. In the last 20 years, in contrast, the number of children being formally educated at home has grown tremendously, in particular in the United States. The laws relevant to home education differ throughout the country. In some states the parent simply needs to notify the state that the child will be educated at home. In other states the parents are not free to educate at home unless at least one parent is a certified teacher and yearly progress reports are reviewed by the state. Such laws are not always enforced however. According to the federal government, about 1.1 million children were home educated in 2003.[SUP][11][/SUP]




I do support school choice.The future of our kids is more important than any job security of any teacher. We can not wait until they fix **** at the local level while our children's education suffers because unions do not want to allow us to easily fire bad teachers or reform their teaching programs. Plus the tax dollars used to educate that child should follow that child regardless if that child goes to a public school,charter school or a voucher for a private school.
Click to expand...

Choice in the sense that you can choose, but not that tax payers pay with vouchers. We have choice in Iowa. I can go to any public school I want. No voucher. If I want to send my kids to private school, I can. But I pay for it. That choice I agree with.
 
AlbqOwl said:
With a few exceptions related to national defense and security, the federal government is not the entity that should be doing R&D in anything.
Click to expand...
That's a death knell for our economy. :(



But that's a discussion for another thread.
 
mac said:
A specialized school would be specialized to the need, whatever that need is. Be it learning disability or little a$$holes. There'd be a specialized school for it if there is a market for it.
Click to expand...
There's obviously a need to teach "little a$$holes" whether there's a "market" for it or not. That's the difference, though, isn't it? Teaching kids who don't want to learn is much more expensive than teaching kids that are willing to learn. Vouchers don't solve that problem, they just make it worse.
 
MoSurveyor said:
That's a death knell for our economy. :(

But that's a discussion for another thread.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, taking that kind of attitude toward the federal government would be the salvation for our economy. Just as getting the federal government out of public education and putting it back in the control of the parents would be a huge first step to restore America's education system as the best in the world.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Those laws are limited in scope when dealing with learning disabilities. Only IDEA covers very specific mandates that addresses the education of a child with learning disabilities. That of course is just one example of no strings attached. How about mandated state testing which is used as a high stake metric? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Click to expand...

On the one side I will agree that all schools, pubic, private and home, must have their students meet the same requirements for earning a diploma of graduation. However I don't necessarily agree with all of the various state tests. Right now there is too much emphasis on teaching to the test and not in teaching the subject matter. Not to mention the manner in which the test are required to be given. Some students can rattle off every little fact that they've been taught, but put a written test in front of them and it all blanks out. But there is nothing in many of the school systems to address this issue. Everyone wants written tests, be it actual words or little dots. But many non-standard schools can, will and do address such issues.

rabbitcaebannog said:
Oh, I see. Problem kids act out because they are not being challenged:roll: Not what I call 'problem'. Let's try and stick a child with behavioral issues in a posh private school and their problem behavior starts interfering with other children. I say they last less than a month.
Click to expand...

Nice way to try to paint with a broad brush. Fail! I said that some of the problem children are not straight behavioral problems but due to a lack of academic challenge. "Some" does not mean "all". Some of those who are not challenged enough simply leave it as just sitting through the year doing nothing, and failing because they're not bothering. You further employ your broad brush by using the "posh private school" term. Our arguments are not about putting kinds in "posh private schools", but into schools where they can actually reach their full academic potential, which may mean some kind of trade/tech school. As noted before, this may mean that child 1 leaves school A for school B, while child 2 leaves school B for school A. It's putting the child in the school that best suits them and allows them to best learn.

Hard Truth said:
Public schools also have mandates to provide special education and disability access for the students that need it, and those students are unlikely to be attractive to private schools since many of them would bring down the test scores and/or cost more to accommodate and educate.
Click to expand...

And yet there are plenty of public schools that specialize in such students and more would be forth coming. The cited blog in Indiana even noted where one such school had opened up after the voucher program started. That before we even look at the fact that some students would merely be going to a different public school.

Also, the cost of instruction for a class of ten is roughly the same as for a class of thirty since it still just one teacher doing the work.
Click to expand...

But is the result the same? Depends upon the students. Some students do well in a large classroom environment while other require a smaller classroom. When you remove school choice then you are failing the student who will not do will in the learning environment that you mandate he be in.

Henrin said:
The idea is that it will increase competition. However, it's government money, and thus no effort money, that will only cause prices to increase regardless of any increase in competition it might cause either directly or indirectly.
Click to expand...

It's not no effort money in this case as it would be with public schools under the currant system. The schools will have to work in order to get the money in the first place, whether it comes from the parents, government or both.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
No, it has zero to do with the fact wealthy districts in MA spend more per pupil than poor.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I believe the per pupil cost is being disguised by averaging and it is very likely that there are schools within the Taunton district which surpass the per pupil cost than Weston. Weston has only one High school after-all. Far less averaging.
 
MoSurveyor said:
There's obviously a need to teach "little a$$holes" whether there's a "market" for it or not. That's the difference, though, isn't it? Teaching kids who don't want to learn is much more expensive than teaching kids that are willing to learn. Vouchers don't solve that problem, they just make it worse.
Click to expand...

Sure, its more expensive in the present system. It's likely to be expensive in a new system, as well. I'd wager, though, that a new specialized private system would be less expensive than a public. If those problem children could be removed from schools, allowing the other schools to focus on the "good" kids.
 
Last edited:
maquiscat said:
On the one side I will agree that all schools, pubic, private and home, must have their students meet the same requirements for earning a diploma of graduation. However I don't necessarily agree with all of the various state tests. Right now there is too much emphasis on teaching to the test and not in teaching the subject matter. Not to mention the manner in which the test are required to be given. Some students can rattle off every little fact that they've been taught, but put a written test in front of them and it all blanks out. But there is nothing in many of the school systems to address this issue. Everyone wants written tests, be it actual words or little dots. But many non-standard schools can, will and do address such issues.



Nice way to try to paint with a broad brush. Fail! I said that some of the problem children are not straight behavioral problems but due to a lack of academic challenge. "Some" does not mean "all". Some of those who are not challenged enough simply leave it as just sitting through the year doing nothing, and failing because they're not bothering. You further employ your broad brush by using the "posh private school" term. Our arguments are not about putting kinds in "posh private schools", but into schools where they can actually reach their full academic potential, which may mean some kind of trade/tech school. As noted before, this may mean that child 1 leaves school A for school B, while child 2 leaves school B for school A. It's putting the child in the school that best suits them and allows them to best learn.
Click to expand...

Then let me clarify, that is not what I mean by behavioral problems. I'm talking students whose behavior is so significant they require a FBA. It is law that students whose behavior is so severe that it interfere with the education of others, interventions must be put into place. That sounds excellent in theory but in practice, I have never heard of a school investing money to staff people trained with dealing for extreme emotional issues. The school psychologist does testing not interventions. You truly need someone with that level of training and knowledge to intervene when a crisis happens. Yes, we have a crisis team of teachers that act when a violent or dangerous situation is in progress and we need to remove the student until they gain control only to return them back to the classroom. That does not address the issue of many of these students that need mental health services available if your going to place them in a regular education setting in a public school. The reason most schools don't provide these additional services is because there is no money. Money is extremely tight and in places where you are more likely to find a population of disturbed children due to neglect and/or abuse resources are even tighter. So, here you have a mandate with no additional funds. I want statistics on how many voucher schools accept this population and retain them.

And, just for the record, I think we need more vocational schools. This notion all kids should be placed on the same educational track is dangerous for many kids that will end up quitting school rather than be placed into an inappropriate environment.
 
mac said:
I disagree. I believe the per pupil cost is being disguised by averaging and it is very likely that there are schools within the Taunton district which surpass the per pupil cost than Weston. Weston has only one High school after-all. Far less averaging.
Click to expand...

That is ridiculous. MA has had this problem of wealthier districts having more money than poorer districts for a long time. They have tried to address it by some formula changes, but it is still a major issue. With that said, even if you took away a portion of their (wealthier schools) funds and poured it into poorer schools, I believe the wealthier districts would still out perform the poorer systems anyway (when it comes to test scores). It isn't completely a money issue when talking specifically test scores. It is only really a money issue when talking specific resources poor schools may need more of due to that specific population and their needs being different. Do you know why wealthier districts score higher on test? They are more likely to have parents who honor education and they have enriching educational environments. Taking these type of students into schools and leaving behind the most challenging cases will not solve the issue of the most challenging students. Basically, public schools are being held accountable for things out of their control, in many cases, while we applaud those wealthy public and/or private ones that are not presented with the same issues. Then we say see this school does better because we can segregate kids. That is a pretty easy thing to do but no remedy.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
That is ridiculous. MA has had this problem of wealthier districts having more money than poorer districts for a long time. They have tried to address it by some formula changes, but it is still a major issue. With that said, even if you took away a portion of their (wealthier schools) funds and poured it into poorer schools, I believe the wealthier districts would still out perform the poorer systems anyway (when it comes to test scores). It isn't completely a money issue when talking specifically test scores. It is only really a money issue when talking specific resources poor schools may need more of due to that specific population and their needs being different. Do you know why wealthier districts score higher on test? They are more likely to have parents who honor education and they have enriching educational environments. Taking these type of students into schools and leaving behind the most challenging cases will not solve the issue of the most challenging students. Basically, public schools are being held accountable for things out of their control, in many cases, while we applaud those wealthy public and/or private ones that are not presented with the same issues. Then we say see this school does better because we can segregate kids. That is a pretty easy thing to do but no remedy.
Click to expand...

It's not rediculous, it's basic math...and it's rather absurd to suggest that school A spends exactly the same per student as school B. No matter where school A and B are. Now, the "most challenging students" are a pretty small minority of students, while the "challenging" students are a much larger chunk of the demographics. Separating the "challenging" and "average" students from the "most challenging" students makes perfect sense. In fact, in some of the larger cities, it's already done regularly.

Why is it so terrible to give parents of the "challenging" and "average" students the freedom of choice their richer fellow citizens have enjoyed for centuries? On a wider subject, the only way to end poverty is to educate the poor. You're not going to do that in an underperforming school where the poor students' peers actively encourage full scale membership in permanent poverty.
 
mac said:
It's not rediculous, it's basic math...and it's rather absurd to suggest that school A spends exactly the same per student as school B. No matter where school A and B are. Now, the "most challenging students" are a pretty small minority of students, while the "challenging" students are a much larger chunk of the demographics. Separating the "challenging" and "average" students from the "most challenging" students makes perfect sense. In fact, in some of the larger cities, it's already done regularly.

Why is it so terrible to give parents of the "challenging" and "average" students the freedom of choice their richer fellow citizens have enjoyed for centuries? On a wider subject, the only way to end poverty is to educate the poor. You're not going to do that in an underperforming school where the poor students' peers actively encourage full scale membership in permanent poverty.
Click to expand...

Where did I say school A spends the same amount as school B? You're constructing a strawman.

Also, a problem in underperforming schools IS condensing high poverty and challenged kids together. The solution isn't leaving the most vulnerable behind with less funds. How we fund our schools is a problem. Giving private schools public money will solve nothing unless there is no quotas, and they must follow the same mandates and standards as public schools. Specifically, they would no longer be "private" but public. I wouldn't have a problem. Private schools that want their own autonomy should be allowed to remain so with private funds and/or parent funds. They can choose whatever standards and students they want because it is not publicly funded. Or, public schools don't have to follow mandates which presents a perplexing problem. I think you know where I'm going with this....
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Where did I say school A spends the same amount as school B? You're constructing a strawman.
Click to expand...

When you said averaging was rediculous. No, strawman...your condescension. :shrug:

Also, a problem in underperforming schools IS condensing high poverty and challenged kids together.
Click to expand...

Which is why giving people control over their education dollars allows poor people the opportunity to put their kids in a better place.

The solution isn't leaving the most vulnerable behind with less funds. How we fund our schools is a problem.
Click to expand...

I disagree, again, going back to the school specialization argument.

Giving private schools public money will solve nothing unless there is no quotas,
Click to expand...

We're not giving private schools public money. We're giving people public money for the purpose of education. Where they spend it (as long as it's on education) is their business. And yes, that is constitutional, SCOTUS has already ruled so.

and they must follow the same mandates and standards as public schools.
Click to expand...

Mandates? What sort of mandate? I agree that they must adhere to a minimum standard.

Specifically, they would no longer be "private" but public. I wouldn't have a problem. Private schools that want their own autonomy should be allowed to remain so with private funds and/or parent funds. They can choose whatever standards and students they want because it is not publicly funded. Or, public schools don't have to follow mandates which presents a perplexing problem. I think you know where I'm going with this....
Click to expand...

Private schools should remain private regardless of source of some of their students tuition. It is the very nature of a privately run institution which makes it more efficient, rather than a bureaucratic institution where the staff is not terribly beholden to the parents.
 
mac said:
Sure, its more expensive in the present system. It's likely to be expensive in a new system, as well. I'd wager, though, that a new specialized private system would be less expensive than a public. If those problem children could be removed from schools, allowing the other schools to focus on the "good" kids.
Click to expand...

The few 'bad kids' in the schools when I was growing up got sufficient chances to straighten up and fly right, and if they would not, they were expelled. The parents were still required by law to see that their kids got an education, so when the public school threw the kid out, it was left to the parents to figure out how to do that. It was no longer a responsibility of the public schools who saw no reason to allow a few unruly kids to keep the rest from learning. Needless to say, those who were expelled were extremely rare as most parents made damn sure their kids knew how to behave in school.

Also when the kids enrolled from first grade through 12th, we could request the teacher we wanted--if we did not specify or the class had filled up, the kid would be assigned by the school--and the kids could request a different school and would be allowed to attend the preferred school if there was room there. The schools had to accept all those in their district who wanted to attend there before accepting out-of-district students.

It was a free, easy going, and quite satisfactory environment, but that was in the days before the schools had succumbed to progressivism/statism/political class leftism. People did not fear liberty or giving the people choice to do what was in their best interest. And, to paraphrase Thomas Sowell who has done extensive research on the history of education in this country, we got an education that would allow us to compete with anybody anywhere.
 
mac said:
When you said averaging was rediculous. No, strawman...your condescension. :shrug:



Which is why giving people control over their education dollars allows poor people the opportunity to put their kids in a better place.



I disagree, again, going back to the school specialization argument.



We're not giving private schools public money. We're giving people public money for the purpose of education. Where they spend it (as long as it's on education) is their business. And yes, that is constitutional, SCOTUS has already ruled so.



Mandates? What sort of mandate? I agree that they must adhere to a minimum standard.



Private schools should remain private regardless of source of some of their students tuition. It is the very nature of a privately run institution which makes it more efficient, rather than a bureaucratic institution where the staff is not terribly beholden to the parents.
Click to expand...

What mandates you ask? I thought this link broke down the mandates by decades pretty well: The Ever Increasing Burden on America

I also like his point: "The contract between our communities and our schools has changed. It’s no longer “Help us teach our children.” It’s “Raise our kids.” No generation of teachers and administrators in history has had to fulfill this mandate. And each year, the pressure grows."

If private schools want our money they can also enjoy the same mandates, otherwise, people who complain about public education are just complaining about the fact that public schools have mandates to fulfill. It's not the teacher's fault, nor the union, nor even the administration. It is what is required by law. Now, they want to take funds away and give it to schools that do not have the same mandates and brag about how cheap it is and how expensive public education is....obviously they are misinformed of the difference between public and private. Public school perform just as well if not better than any other school who do not have the added burden of a long list of (in many cases) unfunded mandates and, we take anyone through our doors regardless of quotas and staffing needs and/or lack of funds.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
What mandates you ask? I thought this link broke down the mandates by decades pretty well: The Ever Increasing Burden on America

I also like his point: "The contract between our communities and our schools has changed. It’s no longer “Help us teach our children.” It’s “Raise our kids.” No generation of teachers and administrators in history has had to fulfill this mandate. And each year, the pressure grows."
Click to expand...

While I don't disagree that schools are being "tasked" with raising children to a greater extent than at any point in our history, but you must realize why. It's a natural outgrowth of statist policies interfering with parenting and discipline as well as encouraging over-reliance on the state. You can't have a statist system then cry when people rely on the state. :shrug:

If private schools want our money they can also enjoy the same mandates, otherwise, people who complain about public education are just complaining about the fact that public schools have mandates to fulfill. It's not the teacher's fault, nor the union, nor even the administration. It is what is required by law. Now, they want to take funds away and give it to schools that do not have the same mandates and brag about how cheap it is and how expensive public education is....obviously they are misinformed of the difference between public and private. Public school perform just as well if not better than any other school who do not have the added burden of a long list of (in many cases) unfunded mandates and, we take anyone through our doors regardless of quotas and staffing needs and/or lack of funds.
Click to expand...

I don't think private schools "wanting our money" has anything to do with it. It's about empowering students and their parents with the choices and resources to better provide a better education for those that are limited by income. And by the way, if it is what is required by law, than it is everyone's fault. We make the laws, we can change them.
 
mac said:
While I don't disagree that schools are being "tasked" with raising children to a greater extent than at any point in our history, but you must realize why. It's a natural outgrowth of statist policies interfering with parenting and discipline as well as encouraging over-reliance on the state. You can't have a statist system then cry when people rely on the state. :shrug:



I don't think private schools "wanting our money" has anything to do with it. It's about empowering students and their parents with the choices and resources to better provide a better education for those that are limited by income. And by the way, if it is what is required by law, than it is everyone's fault. We make the laws, we can change them.
Click to expand...

I'll let people decide whether they want these mandates to continue or to re-examine many of them. My whole point is public education teachers/schools are being vilified by something they never had any control over. Quite frankly, I'm rather sick of it. It is unfair to pick children based on openings in a school due to funds/staffing/room etc....and not apply it to public schools. That in itself is an uneven playing field and a set up to destroy public schools by slowly depleting their funds. What you are basically going to end up with is a stratified system. Posh schools for the rich, subpar schools for the middle class and crap schools for the throw aways and all of these schools will be publicly funded. The whole reason for this type of arrangement was suppose to be to bring up student outcomes. That hasn't happened yet in the US and it certainly hasn't happened in Chile who put such a voucher program into place years ago based on the theory parent choice will save the educational system and bring up student outcomes for all.

Abstract
In 1981, Chile introduced nationwide school choice by providing vouchers to any student wishing to
attend private school. As a result, more than 1000 private schools entered the market, and the private
enrollment rate increased by 20 percentage points, with greater impacts in larger, more urban, and wealthier
communities. We use this differential impact to measure the effects of unrestricted choice on educational
outcomes. Using panel data for about 150 municipalities, we find no evidence that choice improved average
educational outcomes as measured by test scores, repetition rates, and years of schooling. However, we find
evidence that the voucher program led to increased sorting, as the best public school students left for the
private sector. http://www.columbia.edu/~msu2101/HsiehUrquiola(2006).pdf

Bingo, increased sorting. That is all is led to....hardly surprising.
 
AlbqOwl said:
The few 'bad kids' in the schools when I was growing up got sufficient chances to straighten up and fly right, and if they would not, they were expelled. The parents were still required by law to see that their kids got an education, so when the public school threw the kid out, it was left to the parents to figure out how to do that. It was no longer a responsibility of the public schools who saw no reason to allow a few unruly kids to keep the rest from learning. Needless to say, those who were expelled were extremely rare as most parents made damn sure their kids knew how to behave in school.

Also when the kids enrolled from first grade through 12th, we could request the teacher we wanted--if we did not specify or the class had filled up, the kid would be assigned by the school--and the kids could request a different school and would be allowed to attend the preferred school if there was room there. The schools had to accept all those in their district who wanted to attend there before accepting out-of-district students.

It was a free, easy going, and quite satisfactory environment, but that was in the days before the schools had succumbed to progressivism/statism/political class leftism. People did not fear liberty or giving the people choice to do what was in their best interest. And, to paraphrase Thomas Sowell who has done extensive research on the history of education in this country, we got an education that would allow us to compete with anybody anywhere.
Click to expand...

Um, this is contradictory. First you state that parents that lived in the district got first choice to choose before slots were filled up and outside parents got to choose to get their kids in the door. Then you say that that was giving people choice. Really? How so?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom