nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

School choice

Lockstep

Have been pondering the issue a fair bit and was wondering what Boards might have to say on the matter.

I can see it from two sides here.

On the one hand, it seems a great idea to force schools to compete and allowing parents the choice of where to send their kids (as well as allowing them to make a decision based on their own religious or educational beliefs).

However, I have reservations on some of the matters;
what happens to those students who are problem cases? Special needs kids etc can be more costly to educate and schools needing a profit might be selective about who they take on, leaving some kids behind and all that. Likewise, being the control freak I am, I'm a bit wary of parents using the money to send their kids to schools which teach things like creationism (arrogant as it sounds, I'm not sure I agree with the ida that parents always know what's best for their kids)

Anyone able to shed more light on the issue?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep

Apologies, I should have put in a reference to school vouchers. Seeing as it would involve parents receiving tax-funded money to send their kids to the school of their choice.

True, although parents can make wrong decisions too. As controversial as it sounds, parents can make mistakes and be influenced by ideology etc. I have already mentioned creationism; should schools receive taxpayer money to tell kids that the Earth is 10,000 years old?

In fairness, the Irish Constitution implicates a lot. The State can "delimit" private property with the aim of the common good. (Art 43 2.2)

But you are right. Irish law subsidises private schools (payment of teachers etc) and religious ones.

Which is why I put this in political theory. I'm more interested in the mechanisms of school choice/vouchers and it's implications than purely discussing it in Irish terms.
I also see a difference between telling kids why the Earth is the way that it is (God guided, no science brought in) and how (evolution) as taught by Catholicism and the Creationist argument that claims to represent science.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Iwasfrozen

Kickoutthejams, can you re-type your OP ? Because I haven't a clue what you are asking.

Lockstep

Indeed but governments are accountable to their citizens, parents choosing schools are accountable to noone.
I honestly have more trust in a syllabus designed by educators than one by well-meaning but misinformed parents.

Indeed but I am not voicing any opposition to religious schools on Constitutional grounds (which keeps being brought up), I am questioning what can be involved in the teaching.

Well there have been alternatives other than school vouchers in areas where public schools weren't working. The Harlem School Miracle for example.
I'm more amenable to a poorly taught (but factually correct) syllabus than one where the kids are great with but is utterly wrong.

Once again, I am not voicing any Constitutional opposition to the school choice issue (I am fully aware of the Zelman v Simmons-Harris ruling)

I am uncomfortable with kids being misinformed by educators and dislike the idea of schools being able to do so on the taxpayers dime.
Regardless, it does not need to be the lesser of two evils as you have laid out;

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

If there was an attempt at having a market in education then quality would win out. Despite not being willing to trust parents most would actively or passively pick schools that would offer a conventional syllibus with regards to science. The incentive being rankings and outcomes
As a voucher system is being mentioned above it would imply that the state would still have an oversight role so I'd guess it would regulate competing exam bodies for instance?

Lockstep

The famous NCLB which advocates a "one size fits all" policy to American children. I can imagine that it would be harder to teach kids in one of the poorest areas of the nation than elsewhere.
Accountability; voting for school board members, the mayor, city council etc.

Nah, parents choose where to send their kids and could easily send them to a place with a dodgy curriculum. Which is what I'd be worried about.

Actually, the Harlem Miracle came about when teachers and principles in District 4 reorganised the district into small public schools where parents could choose to send their children too. If you want this an example of how school choice works, then yes, I agree with you. Parents should obviously be able to choose which public school their child goes to.
However, this still involves the teachers and public schools that you are railing against. Hell, even the NEA doesn't oppose charter schools.
At any rate, there is a federal program, Smaller Learning Communities which attempted to replicate the program nationwide. Sadly, Bush tried to axe it in his 2003 budget.

Yup. I am opposed to paying for kids to be taught rubbish merely because the school is safe. Why bother educating them at all in that case/ homeschool them?
It appears you would rather kids be taught nonsense in a good manner than taught facts in a poor manner.

Seriously DF, stop trying to equate Catholic teaching (which accept empiricism and use God as the reason why and not how) with those who's teachings on geography and science ignore evolution, the big bang and so on.
My problems are with fundamentalist schools, not religious schools in general are. And you know this.

Of course not. But that's not what is being discussed.

I must admit I am surprised to hear such a viewpoint taken by someone who doesn't agree with the concept government . I would have thought your viewpoint would maintain that it is not the role of the government to force equality or to pay for children to attend schools at all.

Private schools can pretty easily limit their admissions though; sex, religion, parental history, income and so on. Public schools can't (charter schools can but to a limited extent)
Pulling under 2000 kids out of the DC system doesn't really seem a solution to me. Especially when the average income of those participating in the program was above the federal poverty line Hell, the school listed there requires fees of $26k a year.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Iwasfrozen

Wow, I like that idea, it allows parents to choose an education based on their own ideals, be they Catholic, Muslim or Jewish.

Does this also cover High school or only Elementary ?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ChocolateSauce

There should be a uniform, secular, state owned and run chain of schools which are the standard. If private enterprises/religious orders want to set up other schools without state help, that is also acceptable.

Simple as, it seems to me.

Lockstep

There is a big difference between putting in a curriculum and forcing exams based on the exact same curriculum, basing schools federak funding on this. Sounds like a vicious circle.

I'd imagine there's a fair bit of difference; if you're a kid who's parents are willing to pay thousands of additional dollars on top of the voucher then it would appear that you're coming from a background and motivation very different to those who's kids attend the public school because the law says they have to.

I see, so you're adopting the "I'm a mother Joe" line. Can't argue with that.

See below.

And it appears that you will keep pressing on misquoting me.
I have expressed problems with major aspects of certain religious school curriculum (especially the sciences). Nowhere have I said that they're entire curriculum is bunk. However, I am extremely unhappy about paying for students to be taught nonsense. Unless you believe science is a minor part of the curriculum.

I never said that going to a religious school means that at all. However, you are ignoring those schools which teach a fundamentalist position. Would you really be happy for these places to receive federal funding? Hell, I can't imagine what it must be like being in a school where you're taught the Big Bang never happened, that evolution was bollocks or that my coccyx came about because God has a sense of humour.

Welfare is to blame for the poverty cycle? I am baffled as to where you came up with that. Or where public school teachers are a malign influence. If they're working the conditions that you're describing then fair play to them.

Mainly related to high gas prices. Unless you think that many of those on the poverty line are using private transit a lot. Better make that 10th most expensive city is the US.

I'm fairly baffled as to how $7.5k helps a lot. Unless you're have an extra
$15-20k a year purely for each of your kids education (I know my parents never had that)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ChocolateSauce

Funny you should mention Marin county, I once sat in on a high school class in a school there when I was with my cousin. Anyway, I said they should be uniform, and there shouldn't be a situation where the schools are dependent on parent donations. The better teachers should be sent to the poorer schools (although there should also be checks on teachers to make sure they are doing their job properly).

I recognise there are many challenges and obstacles to reaching the state of affairs I mentioned, but it should be the goal.

cavedave

On a slightly related note does anyone find the argument that we should not have league tables of schools because parents won't understand them ironic? Surely if the schools taught a reasonable level of maths parents would understand league tables.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Iwasfrozen

And to be simple, why do you think that parents should not choose the form of education their children recieve ? For example Jewish parents and Jewish schools.

Lockstep

Mainly because I've done a fair bit of volunteer work with disadvanteged kids and seen how much of an impact environment has. It is literally impossible to compare a kid's results in Blackrock to one in James' Street. By all means have a standard curriculum (there isn't a different way of doing maths in Cleveland than there is in Providence) but expecting them to be comparable via results is just plain shortsighted.
But you seem hellbent on demonising unions for everything wrong with American schools so there doesn't appear to be anything I can say to change your opinion on the matter.

As much as I can see a difference between standardised tests affecting a population of 4million and one affecting 300million, I'm really not in favour of the JC/LC system. Although at least it applies to all schools in the country, not just public ones.

I would have thought so too but in that Washington Post article I linked you to, it had Ms Cunningham paying an additional $18.5k in fees.
There's something wrong with the program if it's able to be used on someone who can amass additional thousands of dollars.

Please stop using strawmen.
Once again, this thread is in the Political Theory section. We are not talking about just DC (although you keep bringing it up). I am dubious about taxpayer money being used in school choice (hence the title) where the parents use taxpayer funds to send their kids to schools with dodgy curriculums (the example I used was creationism, given that there is a significant minority who believe in it). Unless you deny that this happens, I really don't see what your argument is here.

You seem hellbent on misquoting me, I said that I am uncomfortable with taxpayer money being used to send kids to certain types of schools. Keep in mind that schools need not be accredited, so schools can exist that teach creationism.

Whereas the Washington International School , Sheridan School Parkmont School Edmund Burke School or the Georgetown Day School charge far more.

I would have thought you'd be aware that $7500 is the maximum amount paid out. You are acting as if that is what is always given. It is a voucher program. Not cash being doled out which can then be used on books and uniforms.

Did you read the Washington Post article I linked you to? Should taxpayer money be used to fund someone who's able to amass $18k in other funds to send their kid to Georgetown Day School?
A private school is one run by a private body. This includes both the religious schools you mention (who usually do run on a small budget) as well as preppy establishments.

silverharp

I was watching the C4 prog yesterday about maths teaching standards in the UK and only 45% of the teachers sampled could pass the standard test for primary kids. Apparently 1/2 divided by 1/4 was beyond alot of them.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep

Expecting the same progress in rural Conneticut and inner-city Detroit is clearly not a fair game. Penalising those schools which suffer under it is not going to help the kids.

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act springs to mind.

Indeed, if parents are able to afford to pay the fees for a private school such as St Thomas More 3 times over, why should they receive additional funds to the tune of $7.5k? That is a problem I have with the system.

Vouchers mean taxpayers subsidise people who can already afford private school tuition. Does that not seem wrong to you?
It may escape you but I have already provided evidence that it exists. Unless you think the Washington Post is lying.

Nah, you asked me to produce one in DC. And I explained that this is a general discussion on school choice. Seeing as you now ask for concrete proof (without it being as specific as DC) I can deliver. I was not aware that you wanted proof that schools exist that teach Creationism.
Florence Christian School
Raleigh Christian Academy (which also claims to impress the Bible onto all studies)
and Delaware Christian School
You'd really be comfortable with kids being taught Young Earth theory and Creationism? And being done so on taxpayer cash?

I've just given real examples of extreme schools.
But feel free to disregard these as Democratic thinking at its finest.

[QUOTE=donegalfella;64499643
Many respected, accredited schools teach creationism. This post has been deleted.[/QUOTE]
No, they do not teach creationism. Catholicism accepts evolution, albeit through God's guidance. If you know of any schools that teach otherwise they are either breaking away from Church teaching or else you are mistaken.
And once again, I never said that the entire curriculum is nonsense. However, a body should not receieve public funds if it has part of it's curriculum being taught which is nonsense. Such as creationism or Young Earth science.

[QUOTE=donegalfella;64499643
For many low-income parents, it comes down to this: Do I want my son to be fourteen years old, have the reading ability of a six-year-old, and be unable to do basic maths? Do I want my twelve-year-old daughter getting sexually assaulted in the bathroom of her school? Or do I want my child in a safe, productive educational environment where a teacher might occasionally mention that God created Adam and Eve? I know which I'd pick.[/quote]
Right, but we could spend all day debating the lesser of two evils. I'd rather live in a French slum than one in Calcutta. I'd rather die by beheading than stoning. And so on.

Would you be ok with tax-funded hospitals which while safe and providing basic medical care, performs all surgery with a hacksaw and dirty hands?

here's the legislation itself

Damn those pesky Georgetown Dayschool kids!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep

Nice selective quoting there.

*shrug*
If you say so.

Once again, we're discussing theoretics. The DC just happens to have eligability as 185% or less of the FPL. In the DC example, it just so happens that they are being used for hefty fees where the parent can already pay thousands of dollars. (in at least one case)
Stop trying to tell me I am/amn't trying to do. Your repeated use of strawmen and putting words in my mouth is extremely irritating.

No, Catholics teaching is that natural selection exists because God made it so. It does not deny that natural selection exists.

You really seem to think that our choices boil down to run down, dangerous schools or ones which teach rubbishn as an integral part of the curriculum.

You dont' accept the analogy of bad practices in the school and bad practice in the hospital?
Ok.

ChocolateSauce

Because it is impossible. If every parent had a right to send their kids to a school with their preferred ethos, then you would have a situation where a school would be required to exist for as few as 1 pupil. The only way to be a) Practical and

fair is to treat all parents and kids equally, and educate children of all backgrounds together in a non-religious setting.

If there was enough demand to fund a private religious school in a given area, then they could open up.

The type of system you want exists in Ireland, and discrimination is systemic in it.

So what would you suggest?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep

Very well, they uphold the principles of natural selection but a better name for it would be divine selection, albeit with the same outcome.
Catholic teaching is that God is why evolution occurred. Not how it was done (his mechanism was evolution)

Ah but every time that states had votes on whether or not to bring in vouchers, they were defeated. Including states like Michigan with horrendous poverty rates.

Needing it and wanting it are not the same thing. I can afford my rent but if I found out that the government would pay the cash for me, I'd be happy for the extra income.

Fair enough, you don't agree that one type bad science is comparable to another type of bad science.