School Choice Is On The Move
"School choice is a way of giving families with modest incomes the same opportunities that have always existed for rich families (including the families of [. . .] politicians)."
By the logic of 'separation' as an argument against school choice, government funding of higher education, in the form of grants and loans to students, must also be unconstitutional?
Then there is the example of a lot of towns in Vermont. They show how school choice has successfully operated in Vermont’s “tuition towns” for a long time.
"Ninety-three Vermont towns (36 percent of its 255 municipalities) have no government-run school at all. …In these towns, the funds local governments expect to spend per pupil are instead given directly to the parents of school-age children. This method gives lower- and middle-income parents the same superpower wealthy families have always had: school choice. "
GAIn my view, the school of choice concept can work to Increase competition and leads to greater outcomes for all students. As schools are forced to compete, the educational outcomes for students begin to climb. This competition could spread from city to city and work to give parents the freedom to choose the schools that have better education benefits for their children, not limited to the school neighborhood in which they live. What is good about the school of choice programs is Federal and state money follows the student, no matter where they attend and each child receives funding that their parents can direct to the school of their choice, which includes private and charter schools, even schools far from their homes. This creates new opportunities for students of all backgrounds.
This exercise of choice truly demonstrates a pure characteristic of a democratic society, one that offers many benefits to its citizens and gives them the freedom to make choices about their children's educations. It offers a child a chance to develop their full potential.Public schools are not the same as colleges and universities and Vermont is not California or New Jersey.
It is oligarchic and an attempt to destroy equal opportunity by reimposing Jim Crow attitudes, now based upon wealth if not race.
I am generally against the concept.You lost me. How is making an equal amount of resources (money) available to all destroying equal opportunity?
Didn't want you to think that I have not addressed your question, Wilderness.
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/ed … story.html
What do many of these students get in exchange for the money states give these private schools? Too often from the private schools, it looks much like shortchanged.
Start from the beginning, (not the beginning that is your distrust of Righties), Why you are against it. :
Why does your "Vermont" thought say the constitutionality of the action depends on the population density of the state?
GAYes, my distrust of Righties is just the beginning, but now for the rest of the story for both you and Wilderness. Faye's comment speaks to my attitude regarding the issue and as an educator, she is more qualified than most to weigh in on it.
Anything that Betsy Devos has supported or is a brainchild of the Right has my immediate suspicion. If, after the analysis of any of their proposals and ideas under an electron microscope, it up comes untainted relative to the standards that I hold dear, maybe then I will listen.
Vermont is considerably smaller and more homogeneous than most, it would not be a national example that I would use to promote such an idea.Yeah, and look how far off base that distrust puts you, from the start. The topic is School choice, aka a voucher system, a viable option? Instantly you jumped to the partisan thing, the Righties thing, the Devos thing, and even the electron microphone thing.
But not a word about the topic.
Here's the point, School choice is a very overt effort to bring competition into play so that there is motivation to improve. Surely you don't dispute the decades of legitimate studies that show our system is getting worse instead of better?
On the private school side, years of data and studies say they are better. And also that, in general, they cost less, maybe up to one-third less, and they produce a significant academic improvement over public schools. It seems easy to understand if the best possible education is the goal.
The only real negatives are mixed in with Faye's comment. Public schools will be stuck with the sub-minimum students: the ones that don't care, and the ones whose parents don't care. And most probably the ones with special education needs.
I don't agree with the 'funding' arguments. We have been throwing money at the problem for decades. If the public schools are left with a lesser, but more defined number of students that's where their efforts should be.
It's a concept bud, give a thought to the concept before you look to the politics of it. The idea has a good history of working. At less cost.
Pick it apart, give it some Progressive filtering, find your negatives, and let's talk about that.
GAGA and Sharlee,
Excuse me for saying so, but the Righties have earned my distrust in regards to virtually every aspect of American life, in my opinion, so of course I am going to look upon anything that THEY support with suspicion.
Now, that that has been said.
I am not versed in this topic, only to ask why it is that public schools have failed so dismally to the point that we need an alternative? Are we really to the point that the problems cannot be repaired? I went to public schools when only little "Wentworths" went to private schools while on the other side of the scale were one room school houses.
I will avoid putting up a firewall against the idea without more research. A gradual, experimental approach rather than precipitous start up would be fine, to allow for greater observation before any serious implementation.In short, you don't know enough about this issue to be against School Choice, but you are partisan enough to be against it because conservatives are for it. Right?
GAYes, with the conservatives track record, that is all I need, until it is proven otherwise to my satisfaction.
It not that I don't trust you, but I don't trust you (conservatives)
So how many known progressives are on board with this? Why not...Why are you asking about others' opinions? Surely it's not for the support of an unexamined position? Shouldn't you form yours from stuff you consider?
GAI have done some rudimentary research as to both pros and cons of this school choice idea. I will need to actually see it working before I will be in any hurry to embrace it.
Conservatives have been shown to be against the public sector, and most of my career and what I have accumulated in retirement has been through it. So, I am naturally going to smell a pole cat in regards to conservative proposals.I see a glimmer of light. I have my 'truce' hat on. If asked, here's what I would suggest. A couple Googles of 10 or 15 minute scans will give you the basics you need to have an idea of both sides.
Start with the Charter schools issue. It has years of good data and documented track records. But I want you to check this stuff with your Black bias on because everything I recall showed that minorities, particularly Blacks, benefitted the most. That bias should naturally make important points jump out to you. It might help you find the polecats. Plus, it will keep your political bias in the hallway until you decide whether it's needed, (or how you want to use it).
If those first 15 minutes help, then look at the School Choice issue, which is the current controversy. It is much more politically charged, but the bottom line issue is the same—a funding issue, so it will add to the perspective you got from the charter school look-around.
There you go. 30-45 mins. that will change your forum life forever . . . you will finally know what you're talking about. (Sorry, sorry, wait, let me stop laughing, I couldn't help it bud. It was like something came over me) ;-o
But seriously, it will help you in your battles. Now, when you sally forth with your warrior pen of passion held high, it will be a warrior pen of reasoned passion. The most powerful of all. (it's usually a 7th-level dungeon potion that you have to slay the two-headed dragon to get, but for you, it's free) Oh lordy, lordy, it's the hat. It's this damn truce hat making me do it. I ain't used to it. I'll put it back in the closet. Sorry, again.
GA
Oh my God, I wish I would have just said that. I just wrote a book. I never learn.
Did not want you to think that I was going to leave you hanging regarding your inquiry to me on this topic
I know about it now, from reports within the very vincintiy of where I live, and it has come off for the most part as an unsatisfactory substitute.
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/ed … story.html
The article addressed the pro and cons of this school choice, with the focus on private schools, while the charters are not as bad. But, the jist of your thread dealt with school choice. The charters which are close enough to what I expect from public schools get a passing grade, but private schools( which is the more of the direction from which you advocate) at least from this report has major failings. I certainly am not comfortable having them replace public schools right now. This is hot issue in an uncomfortably Red State. They are going to promote this like conservative always do, polish a turd and pawn it off on the unsuspecting public as a chocolate eclair. After looking at pros and cons, I find more CON than pro.
From the perspective of my "black bias", which is generally anti-right, I leave you with this.... the situation regarding a similar initiative in Arizona right now.
----------
"But that's not how it was sold. From its inception, says Lewis, ESAs were presented as a solution for high-needs students who required specialized education options. Then they were systematically expanded to include group after group: students in F-rated schools, in foster care, in active-duty military families, on Native American reservations.
"The people who were pushing this through knew what they were doing — that they were going to expand this incrementally through sympathetic populations," said Lewis. "And it didn't raise huge amounts of opposition because people didn't see the game plan at the time."
"The basic sales pitch was that schools are failing, and don't meet the needs of children," agreed Siler. While today Siler is a progressive public education advocate, a decade ago he worked as a lobbyist and PR staffer for the Goldwater Institute, helping other states follow Arizona's lead in setting up ESA programs. "We definitely leaned into marginalized communities as much as we could. In Arizona, we started with special needs students. If we could use Black children as the face of our programs, we'd do it in a heartbeat, even though all of this is really about taxpayer-funded white flight and Christian nationalism."
Cred,
First I am so pleased you addressed me alongside a man I clearly respect for his great intelligence, and the way he conducts himself.
And now that was said.
"Excuse me for saying so, but the Righties have earned my distrust in regards to virtually every aspect of American life, in my opinion, so of course, I am going to look upon anything that THEY support with suspicion."
My only comment on this subject on this thread was my view about how I felt about the school of choice, and yes, it was all positive. And I pointed out in another comment that I was shocked you were not for this form of the program due to it would truely benefit black children.
Here is how I see it, in the comment, I just quoted it would appear you compartmentalize individuals. I think it fair to say GA and I are not complete strangers to you, and you must have in some sense gotten acquainted with our ideologies. Is it fair to stick us into the box you call "righties"? I find it curious. I don't think I could peg GA or myself as "pure righties".
Also is it not a bit closed-minded to say -- n my opinion, so of course I am going to look upon anything that THEY support with suspicion."
This subject was simply about the concept of School of Choice. A concept that seems in the least to offer some children a chance at attending schools that might suit their abilities better.
It literally affords children to grow away from neighborhoods that offer them little in life. In my view, liberals are not open to this program due to being tied tightly to the teacher's unions. The union certainly has no room for new ideas that certainly cause competition. IMO liberals should be asking the teacher's unions why children are so [oorlu educated.
YES WHY HAVE THE PUBLIC schools failed so dismally? Perhaps start with the teacher's unions to answer your question. Yes, we need alternatives, and the school of choice is a good place to start and build.
Perhaps you need to look over the top of your firewall, and not just disregard opinions you feel are from righties. I don't know if you have looked around, but you got a big old ass fire on your side of the wall.
Time for all of us to start opening our eyes to what is going down around us.
I mean come on this thread presented a simple subject, no one's hair should have been ignited. What the hell, does this not say something? Can we not agree on anything? I mean is green still green or is it bright orange?That first paragraph was direct toward GA, as he put forth the question, sorry. I never had a second thought about your being a high roller in the forums, even though we disagree, often.
Yes, your approach was positive, no doubt.
"And I pointed out in another comment that I was shocked you were not for this form of the program due to it would truely benefit black children."
I guess that I am reluctant to take that at face value, as conservative approaches to things in regards to our affairs have not been seen as helpful. When I see the wheels on the road and what is advocated by conservatives actually works as they said it would, then I will come around. It is generally wait and see.
Blue and Red in this society is quite stark and anyone can easily see on this forum for example where most everyone's position is in regards to it. Whether it is chartreuse or crimson, it is still red.
Of course, I know and admire you both, but this is War. I have to be the lefty ogre advocating for ideas and concepts that would be anathema to many of you. Our opinions and values are contradictory regarding most issues of the day. No one is pure anything but there is much more red/right between the two of you relative to my true blue.
I generally support unions as protecting benefits and wages for teachers. If a teacher fails to do the job, they should be fired. That would be the case for a "school choice" as well as a public school.
I do not disregard your opinions, but neither do I embrace them without evidence that this is to work the way conservatives say that it would. So, I take the "wait and see" tack.
My hair is not on fire, we can agree on something every now and then, but not many things."I guess that I am reluctant to take that at face value, as conservative approaches to things in regards to our affairs have not been seen as helpful"
I am not sure if you will remember I share that the private school my grandson attends opened up positions for 7 children from Detriot. These children are all wonderful kids, and their parents have made it a point to be involved with the school. I have such great respect for these parents, and I have truely learned so much from them. I have learned about some unique problems some face in their everyday lives and look at schools of choice as a way for their children to get better educations and a better
chance in life.
Are these 7 children a step toward progress? Yes, perhaps a small step, but progress.
The school next fall will welcome more children.
"Of course, I know and admire you both, but this is War. "
As I admire you, and always feel we are honest with one another. Yes, much of the time we don't see things the same way, but sometimes we come a bit close to at least hearing what one another is saying, and find a common thread.
Odd you would be somewhat against the school of choice. It is geared to help children find better opportunities to move away from schools that have poor educational reputations. schools that put out children that lack basic skills.
The question remains, Sharlee, is it really "better"?
These are the reports from how this school choice idea in regards to private schools are playing out, and from my perspective private schools, not so much charters, come off as overwhelmingly negative. But these ideas are a pet peeve for the "Right" here in Florida, so they are going to spend a great deal of time trying to get square pegs into round holes. The reports are coming virtually from my "backyard". Check it out and tell me what you think....
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/ed … story.htmlVery grim article. It sounds as if Florida took a great thing, and turned it into something very bad. This is how many things in our society go bad. Someone takes advantage, changes up the concept, and ruins it for those that might have had a good experience.
Not sure how it is working out here in Michigan overall. I do know it is still offered. It has worked out in my Grandsons school.
I did find this article in regards to how it is working out in Michigan.
https://www.bridgemi.com/talent-educati … lving-door
It does appear that it works out well for some, while others just return to the public school near home.
I think it all has to do with the individual child, some adapt well, some don't. I think is a good program, it offers choice, and in my book choice is always good. I think it is fairer to look at each child as an individual. Some most likely thrive in better schools, and some just don't.
Is this not part of our society? So, should we not at best offer School of Choice as an option?"I think it all has to do with the individual child, some adapt well, some don't."
I think you are absolutely right. Two of my grandchildren attend a charter school. By the 7th grade they are at least a grade ahead, perhaps two, over the public schools.
One of them does great, but the other hates it and wants the public school instead; he just doesn't want the work load and refuses to take responsibility for completing work.Children can be so different. My two children are complete opposites.
Yeah. Mine are the same; total opposites in almost every way. Sometimes you have to wonder how they could have the same parents.
Charter schools really are not part of the same problem, as they have to adhere to standards.
Here in Florida,,Sharlee, according to the article, public funds under are being misused and the kids are getting short changed. This is what I see virtually in my own backyard. I don't trust our Dept. Of Education doling out our tax money without holding these private educators responsible.
I am all for choice but it comes from those that want to pay separately for their children's education and not extract from the tax base. I still believe in public education and whatever is wrong needs to be repaired within that arrangement.
I might give a second look at charters as they seem to be a horse of a different color.
Just from reading the thread I see it is basically over my head at this time ha-ha A peek on the web I see recently in Calif where I live School Choice will not be on Nov ballot. That was in regard for the $14k to follow a student to a private or religious school. In Calif both public and charter schools get their funding from the same bucket. In other words there is an option of attending a charter school over a normal public one.
On that note. I live in a mobile home park with a lower middle class bordering on upper low income populace. Sitting in my chair peering through the window I see elementary school age kids walking passed both ways always accompanied by a mom. Yeah, the mom's take their kids safety seriously.
The catch is they are going to a charter school about a city block away. Why? Because the public one is perhaps a little less than two miles away (unsure specifically) and there is no bus system for transport because they are too close to be accommodated by it. That I know.
Once as they walked passed I asked the mom why are they going to the charter school. She said basically it is a matter of convenience. Further inquiring what she thought about the quality her reply basically said she trusts the school and teachers. We didn't go in depth about it so as not pry, yet with a sister-in-law being a school district superintendent in the Los Angeles area I had curious thoughts and questions. Next time I see her I will seek out her views.
The bottom line is here in Calif a voucher system for private/religious school initiative did not make it to the Nov ballet. Thus, public sentiment. I will perhaps look into it later as to why.I totally agree with you, as I laid out in my Hub entitled School Choice: Education Freedom. The Left calls School Choice racist even though it is favored by all minority groups just as much as white folks.
GA, comparing Vermont to anything is a bad example. Vermont is a very small state (pop. is less than 1m). 90%+ White. The average income is just over $63K and the state is in the Top 10 most educated. Nearly 40% have bachelor's degrees and 15% have Masters (a lot in a state that small). Apples and Oranges.
Yes, Vermont would be a lousy equity comparison to other states' demographics, but that wasn't the purpose of the comparison.
The direction of that exchange was about the 'unconstitutionality' of "Choice" including religious schools, using the 'Separation' argument. There was a reference to Vermont's small population density, which was right, but it doesn't affect the constitutionality question, nor does your demographic stats.
If it's constitutional for one it is for all—rich or poor, packed in or spread out The other stuff, (the details of application), come after that first question.
GAAll that to include a nice populist Left persona and nearness to Montreal, which I consider one of North America's most interesting cities, would make it a very habitable place for me to reside.
I am for school choice.
There are thousands of articles about the sucess of students who have school choice.
It's time for parents who are concerned about their children's education have a chance to go to the best possible school for them.
"Students using Florida’s Tax Credit Scholarship program were more likely to go to college, more likely to graduate, and research from the Urban Institute found positive correlation between a students education and the longer they were using the program.
Fourth, our policies help those who need it most. Among all the students who have been benefitting from school choice are students from disadvantaged households or from households where English isn’t spoken at home. These children often face the most challenges and yet are stuck in schools that are failing to meet their needs. When these students have been given a choice, they have effectively closed the performance gap with their peers. Today, Florida can say that every student, regardless of their background, has an equal opportunity to learn and graduate."
https://news.yahoo.com/school-choice-se … 10041.htmlLet’s call a spade a spade. In order to implement school choice, our legislators have no plans to increase the pot full of money. They want that same pot of money, same amount, to just be spread out over even more schools. Their “vision” is that with the same amount of money, spread out over more schools, that only the best would survive. That if a public school has to compete with a charter or private school, they will find a way to become better.
How can they become better if you are taking even more money from them? It is just not possible.
Also, private schools do not have to accept disabled students. How would this affect their education? Would the government Force private schools to take students with special needs?
Let’s go through a scenario.
A school district isn’t doing that great, due to lack of funding.
We take more money away from that school in the form of vouchers.
Also with that money goes the higher-performing, wealthier and non-disabled students. Private schools will always cost more than a voucher will allow so the parent will have to have the funds to make up the difference. Additionally private schools will not have transportation or the transportation will be at a cost.
So now the district has even less money to educate an even needier population.
The school district starts to do even worse (predictable!) and now they are faced with two options-merge with another district or state takeover.
State takeovers are a disaster. They merge with a neighboring district, you typically merge it with one that is doing better. Now that school district has its performance drop, just by association, and now property values decrease too.
That’s not to mention that I have a problem with public money being used to fund religious education. Separation of church and state, I’m kinda a stickler on that one. So were our Founding Fathers
I also have a problem with ‘for profit’ education which is also generally a part of these plans. When profit becomes the priority, our kids will lose. It’s that simple. Take a look at what has happened to prisons since they became for-profit. I don't think we should make that same mistake with our children.
Here's an idea, improve the schools we have right in our neighborhoods.Researchers have found little evidence that school choice programs actually boost student achievement. "Political enthusiasm and rhetorical claims about the virtues of school choice have far outpaced concrete evidence of merit,"
Schools of Choice can vary dramatically on their quality. But what is ultimately happening is that they are often skimming the best, the brightest and certainly those with an ability to get to the actual building.
This leaves neighborhood schools stranded with even lower performing students. Let's fix what we have rather than abandoning it.
https://www.chalkbeat.org/2017/7/12/211 … eally-saysAnd now, another view of the topic.
"School choice succeeded nevertheless, and we should keep these four lessons in mind as we shape the future of education:
'First, Florida had a big idea – to put students at the center of the system.
Every parent knows their child is unique, especially parents with more than one child. That individuality is a blessing, but the one-size-fits-all model of most public schools doesn’t honor individuality. Giving students a choice gave them the power to get the kind of education that worked best for them – regardless of their ZIP code, race, ethnicity, abilities, learning level, learning style or anything else.
Second, we were bold, and we kept getting bolder. The Florida Tax Credit Scholarship program started statewide. And with our success, we kept raising the bar. Just this year, Gov. Ron DeSantis, Speaker Chris Sprowls, Senate President Wilton Simpson, Sen. Manny Diaz and choice supporters in the Florida Legislature massively expanded and improved school choice programs, and 13 states across the country created new choice programs this year – paving the way for more than a million students to have more personalized learning options. There is always more to do when it comes to improving educational opportunities. And it’s also what parents want.
Third, the results are there for all to see, and individual results matter for individual students.
Students using Florida’s Tax Credit Scholarship program were more likely to go to college, more likely to graduate, and research from the Urban Institute found positive correlation between a student's education and the longer they were using the program.
Fourth, our policies help those who need it most. Among all the students who have been benefitting from school choice are students from disadvantaged households or from households where English isn’t spoken at home. These children often face the most challenges and yet are stuck in schools that are failing to meet their needs. When these students have been given a choice, they have effectively closed the performance gap with their peers. Today, Florida can say that every student, regardless of their background, has an equal opportunity to learn and graduate."
https://news.yahoo.com/school-choice-se … 10041.html
I need some educating e.g. in the UK education is free to all under the age of 18, and all parents (regardless to how wealthy or poor they are) do get a choice of which school to send their children; therefore I’m a little out of my depth in trying to understand the American schooling system?
In the UK there are:-
• Over 9 million school children.
• 24,454 schools.
• Average class size is 26.7 children.
• 22.5% of all children are eligible for free school meals.
• School uniforms are compulsory.
In the UK parents can choose which school within their catchment area to send their child; a catchment area being all schools within walking distance of where you live e.g. within 2 miles of home.
The UK Government keeps a league table of school performances, updated annually, to help parents make their choice.
You can apply for a place in a school outside your catchment area; which schools allocate to fill any spare spaces they have left, so whether you get in can be pot luck.
In the UK, it’s not just the education that’s free, but the school also provides all the stationery and books you need free of charge; so the only cost to the parents is the cost of the school uniform.
In the UK just 5.8% go to private schools; all other children, the vast majority (rich or poor) all attend Free State education.Here's the Cliff Notes :
The U.S. public school system is free for grades k-12. School assignment is by area, (as you say 'catchment'), with exceptions available. (as you describe).
There are also free "Charter" schools. These are also public schools funded by taxes. They are usually smaller, more focused schools, versus the large 'general population' schools. Enrollment is usually a lottery-type selection process because there are always more people than capacity.
Then there are private schools: for-profit and enrollment is by school selection, not student selection, (similar to higher-education colleges)
Public schools are funded by 'per student' formulas. X dollars per student. These monies are given to the schools by the government.
The "school choice" movement wants that funding to go to the student, (in the form of vouchers, not cash), who then chooses which school to spend it on.
Our public schools have struggled with this one-size-fits-all concept and have been failing for decades, in many ways. So a 'private' school movement evolved. From the original perception of 'elite rich folks' private schools to religion-supported schools, to more recently private schools that 'lower bracket' financial students can afford to attend with the assistance of the per-student funding Federal ratios.
In short, a competitor to public schools. There is little motivation for improvement in a purely government-monopoly-based school system. Private schools are offering that competition in the form of better scholastic achievements and education, (and educational environments), more aligned with parental cultural choices, (aka Religious schools).
The School Choice movement wants Federal funding to be tied to the student rather than the school. They want to pick where their educational money is spent instead of the government. They aren't choosing private schools purely for religious or status reasons—they are choosing to get the best educational results—which private schools are shown to provide.
The bottom line is that the U.S. has been increasing school funding every year for decades trying to improve our schools, and it hasn't worked. It's time to get rid of a government monopoly for the same reason that government uses to get rid of private monopolies. It hurts the consumer, (students in this case).
GALet me just use my own area as an example. A very well regarded private school in the city of Fayetteville, The New School. Collects $12,000 per year for An Early Education student (pre-K) and the yearly rate rises up to nearly $20, 000 for high school students. Books, tech, art and many other fees are additional.
https://www.thenewschool.org/
Fayetteville School district spends just over $11,000 per pupil across the board.
I encourage you to do the same comparison in your own area. Religious schools are generally collecting less tuition. That being said, money IS an issue.
Also, please remember that public schools must educate every child not just the cream of the crop. We deal with the child who comes to school hungry everyday, the child who has learning disabilities, behavioral disorders, mental disorders, physical disabilities and a host of other issues that would bar them from a private school attendance or see them expelled when these issue manifest themselves in the classroom.
A good deal of money must be spent to educate these children. Often separate buildings/campuses are required. Almost every school district in our country has an "alternative" high School that educates those teenagers across a myriad of behavioral and psychological issues. That involves quite a bit of extra, specialty staff. I'd encourage you also to look at the process of the IEP (individualized educational plan/program) and the professional team that is assembled to test and plan for the needs of our special education population. This doesn't happen at private schools.
Additionally, many classrooms require an aide as the number of students a teacher is expected to teach can reach 40, maybe more. You would never see this classroom size in a private setting. Private schools are generally a fraction of the size of our public schools.
That also brings one more thing to mind. Many states do not require private/religious schools to hire certified teachers. Your public School staff is always certified.
Your cost comparisons aren't apples to apples. Again, I'm for educating all children. $20,000 per student goes a long way when when you have a school population that is quite different than their public school cohorts.
If your belief is that private school does a better job, what's the secret sauce?I think the private schools' secret sauce is that they don't have to do the things you mention. But that is not a ding against them, they are not trying to be what public schools are forced to be. They are offering academic opportunities, that is their product. I don't think that is a bad thing.
My perception is that the primary reason against school choice is the loss of funds from public schools. Is that about right? Do teachers feel private schools provide a substandard product to the students they accept?
As to the cost point, what I said was a generalized evaluation across the private systems in the studies. My entrance into this School Choice issue was the Charter School issue. The results data for them is even more impressive than the private schools.
Of course, Charters are also public tuition-free schools, (which doesn't really change things, a public school will still lose funds, but it will be to another public school), so this Court ruling prompted some looking around and thinking about. You can see the perception that came from it.
What is your top non-money-based objection to affordable private schools?
GAI have absolutely nothing against private or religious schools. Let's have a level playing field though. If we are going to use public funds for private schools then they should be under the same regulations and barred from turning away a student with learning / physical / behavioral challenges as well as barred from entrance exams as a means of admission. They would also provide transportation as public schools do.
As far as the quality of Education in these institutions I believe it varies wildly. For example, I'd have some serious concerns were parents able to take their vouchers to Waldorf Schools. Would there be some sort of vetting in terms of where vouchers could be used? Or would it be buyer beware? Again, private schools do not have to employ certified teachers. Also, For profit schools can and do have some slick marketing techniques that hide the reality of substandard education. Not all parents are in a position to make a good choice.
I am completely against schools run by corporate entities for profit.
I'm all for offering exemplary education but this "choice" idea would exclude many
Policies that push for school choice as a means for improving education opportunities need to ensure that mechanisms are in place to make the programs and schools actually accessible to the people who would benefit most. Without an accompanying means of transportation, for example, the choice of a private school on the other side of town is essentially no choice at all.
I'm sorry but I am continually lead back to the financial aspect. For the majority of impoverished students attending public schools, vouchers don’t help. Parents still have to find more money somewhere to make this happen. Poor folks just can’t afford it. But rich folks can so let’s reduce their bill?
We do certainly have real problems. More than half of public school students live below the poverty line. They are already several grade levels behind their non-impoverished peers before they even enter kindergarten. They need help by way of tutoring, counseling, wraparound services, nutrition, etc. The predicament is even more complicated by the way we fund our schools. Throughout this country, poor districts get less money than wealthy or middle class ones. The students who go to these schools are systematically being cheated out of resources and opportunities. And instead of helping them, we’re playing a shell game with charter and voucher schools.
Also, a last thought: consider how the No Child Left Behind act has changed public education. The testing rules do not apply to private schools because they do not take public funds. Therefore you do not have a culture of "teaching to the test". If you want public funds to go to private schools they need to fall under the same regulations. And let me tell you they're not positive.
Wow, thanks for educating me on American schools; just one question – what is “grades k-12”?
Funding for British public schools is predominately “per student” similar to in America, but it’s a complex formula designed to ‘level the playing field’; as briefly explained below:-
• Funding per pupil accounts for 76.3% of the UK government’s funding of public schools - The average government funding paid per pupil across the UK is currently £4,679 ($5,708) in primary schools and £5,992 ($7,310) in secondary schools.
• Additional Needs Funding is 17% of the total funding schools get from the UK government. This includes for example, the number of children eligible for free school meals, pupils with ‘additional needs’ e.g. physical disability, learning difficulties etc.
• School Led Funding, accounts for 6.6% of UK government funding to public schools e.g. small schools and schools in remote locations get extra funding to compensate for the extra cost of running small schools and schools in remote locations.
The UK Government doesn’t just dish out the money to each school directly - The Government Body responsible for Education is Ofsted (The Office for Standards in Education), an Independent Government Department that is not answerable to the Government, but answerable to Parliament only.
The money from the UK Government is distributed to Local Governments in accordance with how many schools and pupils each Local Government is responsible for e.g. it’s like the Federal Government in the USA giving each State its allocation of funds to pass onto the schools.
The money is then shared out by the local government to the schools in its area based on the above mentioned formula; distributed by local government rather than central government simply because the local government will know the schools in its area better and can therefore apply the formula for calculating funding more accurately based on the most recent data.
Of course, in the UK Private Schools get all their money from the tuition fees they charge the parents; which is typically £14,940 per year ($18,228) for day school, or £35,289 ($43,000) for boarding school.
Which leads to one confusing twist of the British English Language e.g. in British English, the word ‘Public School’ means ‘boarding school’ (private school); as portrayed in the British 1968 film, called “if….”; whereas what you call ‘public school’ in the USA, we call ‘State school’.
I always find the American school grades seen in American films confusing? In the UK:-
• Primary school (years 1 to 6) is from the age of 5 to 11.
• Secondary school (years 7 to 11) is from age 11 to 16.
• College is from age 16+,
• University is from age 18+
I’m sorry to hear that the public education system isn’t working in the USA!
In the UK, in primary school, the kids are taught the basics at elementary level e.g. English, maths, geography, history, science and art etc.
In the UK, in secondary school for the first three years, the children are taught all the main subjects in greater depth.
Then from age 14 they have to choose which subjects they are going to focus on for their exams at 16; which must include the core subjects of English and Maths.
The final exams at 16, which give you your qualifications, are written and marked by the National Examination Boards, to ensure uniformity across the whole of the UK, and to prevent teachers showing favouritism or bias in the exam results; giving employers confidence in the system.
The school leaving age is 16; but under current British laws at 16 the two choices open to you is to either to get a job or go onto college for two years; there is no option for a 16 year old to leave school and go unemployed.
To get a good job, or to get into university in the UK, you need to pass your English and Maths, and at least one other subject; if you don’t pass your English and Maths exams on leaving school, you can go the college (free education) for two years to get what you need, and more.
I don’t know what the end of school exams are like in the USA; but here below is a link to an American who’s settled in England and for fun does a mock maths exam that 16 year old school children are expected to pass in the UK: https://youtu.be/QpzD2NQdfVgK-12 is Kindergarten, (ages 4-5), through 12th grade. Universities, colleges, and trade schools generally follow 12th grade.
The U.S. funding is similar to yours, schools also get supplemental non-student-attached funding, but the per-student allotment is the primary funding source.
GAThanks for the clarity.
A few videos that might be of some interest? For example college in American has a different meaning to college in the UK.
• What is the difference between a school, college, and university in the UK? https://youtu.be/mPlfIsEcuXE
• School! British VS American! (by an American living in England): https://youtu.be/XBKZnFdrOBs
• School Exams! British VS American (as compared by an American living in England): https://youtu.be/HmpbfN7HkIo
Thanks GA for educating me on American schooling; one question which has been on my mind is that given university fees are very expensive in the USA, how crippling (if at all) is that for American university students?
To help put it into perspective:-
• Prior to the mid-1990s not only were universities free in the UK, but the Government used to pay student a modest living grants; my wife, as a mature university student at the time (taking a degree in Business Administration) benefited from that for the first two years of her course; getting paid a modest grant for studying at university e.g. it helped to pay for our food bill.
• Then in the mid-1990’s the Conservative Government abolished the grant system and introduced university fees; which meant that for the last year of her course she had to take out a student loan of £7,000 ($8,400) to cover the university fees.
• Likewise when my son did his three years at university he had to take out a £27,000 ($32,500) student load. $32,500 being a good wage that you can live on quite comfortably in the UK.
• However, under the British system neither my wife, nor my son has paid a penny back, and because my wife is retired her student load has been written off.
The UK system for repayment of student loans is that for as long as your annual salary is below £27,288 ($32,839) then you don’t pay a penny; if it goes above the threshold then you just pay 9% on anything you earn above $32,839 and nothing for the first $32,839 that you earn e.g. to ensure, that the repayments don’t cripple you financially. And for anything you still owe (outstanding debt), it’s increased annually by just 1.5% interest.
And when you retire, any student loan debt outstanding (owing) is just written off.
Scotland (a socialist government), does things differently. The Socialist Government in Scotland never adopted the UK law to introduce university fees, so universities in Scotland are still free if you are Scottish, Irish, Welsh or European; but if you are English, or a foreigner, then you do have to pay university fees in Scotland e.g. another example of how the Scots hate the English!
How does this compare to the USA?The expense depends on if you want to go to a public or private university. There are community colleges that are quite cheap.
The good students with potential will often qualify for scholarships. There are academic scholarships. Many athletes can get athletic scholarships. I was in the military and got almost all of my education paid for because of it. There are various companies and other organizations that offer scholarships. There is a Ukrainian organization that offers educational scholarships to Ukrainians in American universities. This is a way many students can have a portion or all of their student dept paid for at an institution of higher learning.
There is a lot of competition for these scholarships.
The rest take out loans.Thanks Readmikenow, greatly appreciated.
For the UK (except for Scotland, where universities are free) the British Government has capped university fees at £9,000 ($10,700) per year; so all universities (except the Open University) charge the same e.g. the maximum they are allowed by the Government.
I’ve heard about scholarships, see it mentioned in a lot in American films, but I find some of the methodology used to gain scholarships a bit strange e.g. I can understand gaining a scholarship for academic achievement, but getting a scholarship just because you’re good at sports seems a bit weird to me?
We don’t have scholarships in Britain, because we don’t need it e.g. you only need to pay back your university fees if you can afford to do so; if you don’t get a very highly paid job when you leave university then you’ll never pay a penny back and it’ll be written off when you retire.
Yes, I can imagine there is a lot of competition for the scholarships; an attitude that's quite anti-British e.g. the attitude that prevails in the UK is that ‘all (including the poor) should have an equal opportunity to higher education’, not just the privileged few.
When you say ‘The rest take out loans’; what proportion/percentage of total students is that e.g. the vast majority or a large minority etc.
Other than being good at sports, what qualifications do you need to get into university in America?
In Britain, to qualify for university you need a minimum of 5 GCSE’s or 2 ‘A’ level exam pass certificates, which must include English and maths; the GCSE’s are the exams you take when you leave school, and the ‘A’ levels are ‘Advanced’ education exam certificates that you obtain at college (free education) between the age of 16 & 18, after leaving school. If as an adult (over the age of 18) you don’t have the required qualifications for university then you can go to college as a mature student to get them, and if you’re unemployed, or on a low income, your college education is free.
Alternately, you can do an ‘Open University’ to get your degree, which doesn’t require you having any qualifications to join, and it’s a lot cheaper than a campus university; they charge only £3,228 ($3,800) per year – and Open University Degrees are recognised by employers because they are to the same high standards as any other degree, and passing one shows ‘determination and commitment’ which employers like. The Open University was founded by the Labour (Socialist) Government in 1969 and is the largest university in the UK by number of students e.g. currently 175,719 students.
Open University - How does it work? https://youtu.be/rsWwffX-u0AWe are very competitive in the United States. The best students have an opportunity to go to the best schools.
Each school is placed into a rating "tier." A tier 1 school has a much higher rating for success of their graduating students than a tier 2, 3, or 4 school. Each school is free to determine their requirements for acceptance into their academic institution. In high school, should a person want to go to a particular school, they would have to take a test known as an "SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) and their scores, along with other certain criteria will determine if they are accepted into the school.
Many states offer people free college at community colleges for people who are unemployed or on government assistance. Most of them are rated as a tier 4 or 5 tier school and only go for two years.Yeah, I gathered Americans are very competitive e.g. cheerleading that you see in American films isn’t done in the UK.
It’s a different approach in Britain: All schools have to meet the high educational standards laid down by Ofsted (The Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills); the schools are regularly inspected by Ofsted, but the acid test is exam performance achieved by school leaver’s in their final year – with the results being published in a league table each year to help parents choose which school they want to send their children to.
Ofsted is an ‘independent’ Government Department, who is not answerable to the Government, but answerable to Parliament only.
The exams are not set or marked by the schools, but set and marked by the ‘national’ Examination Boards’, to ensure a common standard throughout the UK.
Therefore, with a few exceptions, all schools in the UK have a good track record for their educational performance, and thus generally it doesn’t matter which school you send your kid to, they will get a good education.
As for which schools to choose; parents have an automatic right to choose whichever school they wish that’s within their catchment area e.g. within two miles of home (walking distance); thus school buses is a rarity in Britain.
If however you decide that you would like to send you kid to a school in a neighbouring catchment area; you can apply and take pot luck e.g. dependent on whether there is any spare capacity in the school.
As regards colleges for ‘mature students’ (people over the age of 18); as with schools, all colleges have to meet the high standards laid down by Ofsted, so generally one college is as good as another.
There is no entrance exam, or similar to get into a school or college, if you live in the area, or there’s a spare space, then there is little stopping you from going there e.g. an attempt to give all students an equal opportunity.
Where there is a difference is with universities. As with schools and colleges, universities have to meet high standards laid down the ‘Office for Students’ an Independent Government Department answerable only to Parliament, who performs a similar role to Ofsted. Thus, all universities in the UK give an equally good education; but Oxford and Cambridge are highly sought after because of the prestige of going to either of these two universities e.g. you’re almost certainly guarantee a good job if you get into Oxford or Cambridge.
Founded in 1096, Oxford is the oldest university in Britain; while Cambridge (almost as old) was founded in 1209 AD.
Oxford vs. Cambridge: https://youtu.be/fVyJDV6igLkYes, Oxford and Cambridge are up there.
The United States is a country with the most top tier universities.
The UK also has quite a few.
https://www.topuniversities.com/student … iversitiesCool. I note from the list that the USA and UK dominate the top 10.
What's going on with Boris Johnson?
I don't know much about British politics.The beginning of the end for Boris was Partygate: Boris, having a total disregard of the law held 16 illegal social parties during the covid lockdowns, breaking his own Covid Laws. In January this year a top civil servant (Sue Grey) was appointed by Parliament to investigate, and published a damming Report. In summary, in her Report, she said there were "failures of leadership and judgment in No 10 and the Cabinet Office" for which "the senior leadership at the centre, both political and official, must bear responsibility" e.g. failures by Boris Johnson, for which he must bear responsibility.
The police did their own separate investigation and found 12 of the social parties illegal, and under the law issued the £50 ($60) fixed penalty fines to 126 Conservative MPs, including Boris; a first time in British History that a Prime Minister has been found guilty by the police for breaking the law.
Partygate wasn’t the first time Boris has been embroiled in scandal, broken promises, broken international laws, and lied to Parliament; Johnson has long been a divisive figure within the British political landscape thanks to his proneness to making offensive gaffes, perceived incompetency as a leader, and dubious moral character – but Partygate was the point at which his own Conservative Party started to turn against him.
Prior to Partygate there’s a long list of lies, gaffes and scandals from Boris going back to 1988 e.g. Boris was sacked by ‘The Times’ (British Conservative supporting newspaper) in 1988 for publishing ‘fake news’ on their front-page.
More recently, there was the Wallpapergate scandal where in 2020 Boris Johnson spent £112,549 ($135,000) on refurbishing his flat (apartment) at 10 Downing Street (the official residence of a Prime Minister e.g. our equivalent to the White House). Under Parliamentary rules Boris is allowed to spend up to £30,000 ($36,000) a year on his flat, so not only did he exceed his official allowance but he also illegally received a donation of £67,801 ($81,361) from a Conservative supporter to help pay for the refurbishment e.g. permitted donations are strictly governed by the Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission being an ‘independent’ Government Department that is not answerable to Government, but answerable to Parliament only. The Electoral Commission, finding Boris guilty of breaking Parliamentary codes by accepting an illegal donation fined the Conservative Government £17,800 ($21,360).
By the 6th June 54 Conservative MPs had submitted ‘letters of no confidence’ in Boris to the 1922 Committee; reaching the threshold under Conservative Party Rules to trigger a vote of no confidence e.g. more than 15% of Conservative MPs expressing ‘no confidence’ in their leader. However, Boris won the vote by 59% in his support, and 41% against him, which means that under current rules he can’t be challenged with another ‘no confidence’ vote for 12 months.
However, the following week the Conservative Government had humiliating by-election defeats, one seat going to Labour, and the other seat (a safe Conservative seat) being lost to the Liberal Democrats. With a General Election due in just a couple of years, this got Conservative MPs jittering, as they began to see Boris as liability rather than an asset!
But the final straw was when a Conservative MP (Chris Pincher) resigned from the Government (as a whip) last week for sexual misconduct e.g. he has a reputation of pinching men’s bottoms; he’s now currently undergoing therapy!
It’s the second time that Chris Pincher has had to resign from Government following allegations against him; he resigned as a whip from Theresa May’s Government in 2017 for the same offence. A Government whip is an MP who is given the responsibility to encourage or conjure Conservative backbenchers to vote the way the Government wants them to vote. Another scandal under Boris’s leadership is that some whips have been accused of blackmail e.g. a threat to MPs that if they vote against the Government the Government will withhold Government investment in their constituency (seat)!
The scandal to Boris that bought about his end is that Boris knew about previous allegations against Chris Pincher when Boris promoted him to a Government position as a whip. Chris Pincer MP has now been suspended from the party e.g. thrown out of the Conservative Party, so he now stands as an Independent MP in Parliament.
However, in spite of the fact that Boris knew about the allegations, when he appointed Chris Pincher MP as whip; when Boris was questioned in Parliament, Boris lied to Parliament, claiming that he didn’t know about the previous allegations against Chris Pincher MP:-
Lying to Parliament is considered a big sin in British politics, so Boris’s constant lies, in the face of all his other previous unethical, illegal and immoral actions angered Conservative MP’s to breaking point…. and thus – enough is enough – so over the last few days they have turned on him, and forced him out of Office e.g. to make their point clear to Boris, 59 Conservative MPs resigned from the Government (almost half the Government) leaving the Government in shatters and paralysed.Or this link might sum up more succinctly than my ramblings above:-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62070422
What is the answer to parents who are in disadvantaged neighborhoods and want their children to get the best education possible?
Should they accept their failing school district that is mismanaging funds as their only option?
Should they move so their child has the best opportunity in a place they struggle to survive financially?
Throwing more money at a failing school district has never worked."That last point in particular has featured in several recent attacks on public education. In an April speech at Hillsdale College, Christopher Rufo called for state lawmakers to rescind requirements that teachers must hold education degrees and forecast a future when teachers with masters degrees will be shunned by hiring committees, who would correctly see such credentials as signs of radical left-wing politics. Just last week, journalist Phil Williams at Tennessee's NewsChannel 5 reported on secret recordings of Hillsdale president Larry Arnn disparaging public school teachers as having been "trained in the dumbest parts of the dumbest colleges in the country," during a private event with Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee, who is rolling out Hillsdale programs across the state."
So, these are the underlying thoughts of the Right today, regarding public education?The choice of school does not yet determine the path of life for many people who, without school or with minimal education, have achieved great success! As a doctor in plastic surgery here cosmetic practice, I tell you this!
Related Discussions
- 29
The political ramifications of illiteracy in the United States
by Willowarbor 14 months ago
Often I've seen the argument here on these forums about the state of our children's education. Almost always ignoring the fact that the pandemic will have impacts on proficiency scores for years to come. But what of our nations adults? Adults represented by every generation after the millennials....
- 60
School Choice
by Kathryn L Hill 3 years ago
Will we ever free ourselves of government schools?If not today, when?PS They used to be known as public schools where kids were happily learning many things under the guidance of caring, knowledgeable teachers.
- 68
Georgia Democrat defects to GOP. Democrats abusing the black community
by Readmikenow 17 months ago
Georgia Democrat defects to GOP after she says Dems 'crucified' and 'abandoned' her"A Peach State lawmaker who angered her Democratic colleagues in the Georgia state House of Representatives over her support for a recent school choice bill has announced she is officially switching...
- 26
I am POed by nonstop rightwing incursion on church/state separation
by Credence2 11 hours ago
"It has now been mandated that public schools in Oklahoma must incorporate the Bible into their curricula. The legislatures in Texas and in Florida have passed laws that allow schools to replace school counselors with untrained “chaplains.” These chaplains are not prohibited from proselytizing...
- 23
Should the education system be privatized?
by preacherdon 13 years ago
With the entertainment and sport industries making multimillions of dollars each year and the education industry losing funding and shutting down programs and laying off teachers, should the education of our children be privatized? City budgets are no longer able to provide adequate funding for...
- 99
Why there will always be public schools: 5 Reasons
by dragonrider32 14 years ago
1. There is no way on earth that all the kids in public schools now could be placed in private schools/homes. There are no where near enough places for them. If you don't provide for all of them...what are you setting the American future up for? Disaster.2. Private schools have waiting lists. If a...