School choice

[Christine]

I'm very torn on this issue. I am someone who had to pay dearly to send my kids to a few years of private school here and there, due to being zoned in a poor/sketchy school district. I would have LOVED to have vouchers. Yet, because I was public school educated, I believe in public schools. So, if we are to transition to a school choice/voucher system and money is taken out of the public schools to pay for that, someone loses and loses in a bad way. Someone will ALWAYS be left behind. You can't transfer out every student to a better place. In that sense, I suppose I am very conflicted about this because it makes things worse for a segment of people, much worse, and a lot better for people who have money to pay for private school and escape or are "lucky" in the lottery sense.

In that sense, I'm really more for public school reform, but we can't seem to get that right.

 

[Hannahinwonderland]

One issue that hasn't been brought up here is religion. We have a separation of church and state for a reason. In my view, taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for religious education, yet voucher systems would like to take my money and push it towards a religious belief I don't share. Like it or not, some of the big money and opinions that are pushing school choice are doing so because they'd like the state to pay for their children's religious education.

 

[dennis99ss]

I have never understood why school choice is such an emotional issue--that is, emotional against choice. Why is it a bad thing to allow a child, a parent to choose where the child receives the education. It does not take away the right to education. It does not take away anything from the public system, except that poor performing schools are highlighted. And, if enough students leave, there is a reason, and that school should be closed. Why is that a bad thing? I hear people say because the poor could not really utilize choice, or, if choice is allowed, the students left in the lower performing school will be effected. Why is it the students who are now effected by the poor school, who would do better, be a better student, excel more, etc., at a school of their choosing are not given the same deference. Why is it that it is only the students who would not choose to change are the ones that there is concern over. Why doesn't anybody stand up for the student, and parent, who can only afford to live in a lower performing school district, but wants to go to that school that has AP classes, has an overwhelming number of graduates that attend college, etc. That is what choice is about. It is about giving students the freedom to choose, and by doing so, lower performing schools change and adapt, or close. It is about allowing students in lower performing schools the ability to have access to schools who just do it better. And, frankly, if a school looses students, instead of complaining about the choice, either fix your problems, or close the school.

 

[mefordis]

So how does school choice fix this? Isn't this just abandoning the schools that aren't performing and leaving the students there to rot? Who decides what students can go elsewhere? Is there a lottery, or is everyone eligible? Are private school vouchers based on financial need? What happens if parents don't have adequate transportation?

I am not being rhetorical, because my state doesn't do a voucher system. We have charter schools and home schooling, but don't allow for going to neighboring districts or private school vouchers. In Pennsylvania, districts are required to provide transportation for charter school students. What do other states do?

In my friend's case (in MI) there was a lottery, but they had to prequalify with qualifying grades. They are responsible for transportation, as the bus doesn't travel outside the school district. Each student in MI is allotted an amount of money, and that money travels with them to the school they attend. I'm talking about public school. I'm not sure if they are allowed to use vouchers for private school in MI, or how charter schools work.

 

[cabanafrau]

Do they have to take all kids - even those with extensive ieps? That is the population that often gets left behind. And if you live in an area without choice aren't you at a disadvantage?

Not to do so would violate ADA, so I would say legally, yes, they have to take all kids.

 

[mefordis]

One issue that hasn't been brought up here is religion. We have a separation of church and state for a reason. In my view, taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for religious education, yet voucher systems would like to take my money and push it towards a religious belief I don't share. Like it or not, some of the big money and opinions that are pushing school choice are doing so because they'd like the state to pay for their children's religious education.

But the parents are taxpayers and the voucher is assigned to their child. In theory, you are not paying, but the child is using his/her voucher for the school of his/her choice.

 

[wilkeliza]

I have never understood why school choice is such an emotional issue--that is, emotional against choice. Why is it a bad thing to allow a child, a parent to choose where the child receives the education. It does not take away the right to education. It does not take away anything from the public system, except that poor performing schools are highlighted. And, if enough students leave, there is a reason, and that school should be closed. Why is that a bad thing? I hear people say because the poor could not really utilize choice, or, if choice is allowed, the students left in the lower performing school will be effected. Why is it the students who are now effected by the poor school, who would do better, be a better student, excel more, etc., at a school of their choosing are not given the same deference. Why is it that it is only the students who would not choose to change are the ones that there is concern over. Why doesn't anybody stand up for the student, and parent, who can only afford to live in a lower performing school district, but wants to go to that school that has AP classes, has an overwhelming number of graduates that attend college, etc. That is what choice is about. It is about giving students the freedom to choose, and by doing so, lower performing schools change and adapt, or close. It is about allowing students in lower performing schools the ability to have access to schools who just do it better. And, frankly, if a school looses students, instead of complaining about the choice, either fix your problems, or close the school.

it does take away though because the money follows the kid. Families do have other options in some non-choice areas like private school or charter. When it is basic public schooling it shouldn't matter what school you go to. I'm not talking about specialty high schools and getting into those. Closing a lower performing school will never happen because then where do those kids go? It isn't like schools are privately run organizations. There is a legal obligation for districts to provide schools to every child so they can't just close all the bad ones.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

I know this is easier said than done but you move to a better district. I was a single mom (after my divorce) not making much and my #1 priority was staying in my district with good schools. Most of my income went to the rent but to me it was worth it.

I went to crappy schools growing up. I'm talking worst in the state. With conditions you stated and worse. School was a complete joke. We didn't learn a thing. I couldn't do that to my kids.

Problem is schools change. Take my public school, I live in the same district I attended high school in and I thought my HS was decent, not great but decent. The HS I attended was combined with several other schools to form a much larger school. It's now rife with problems, including drugs.

 

[Gracie09]

Not to do so would violate ADA, so I would say legally, yes, they have to take all kids.

actually IDEA covers IEPs and not all charter or school choice schools have to take kids with IEPs. Private schools are specifically exempted from IDEA. So if the charter schools are set up like private schools, they are exempt as would be religious school.

 

[wilkeliza]

Not to do so would violate ADA, so I would say legally, yes, they have to take all kids.

They actually don't and that is the issue some (myself included) have with "school choice". In many areas if your local school says the IED is too much of a disservice they can offer a voucher but then you sign away your rights to IEP under the ADA. That was one of the questions that our new education leader couldn't answer.

 

[dennis99ss]

One issue that hasn't been brought up here is religion. We have a separation of church and state for a reason. In my view, taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for religious education, yet voucher systems would like to take my money and push it towards a religious belief I don't share. Like it or not, some of the big money and opinions that are pushing school choice are doing so because they'd like the state to pay for their children's religious education.

And if vouchers are used for grade and high schools with a religious affiliation, how is that different than federal financial aid, and grants, and loans that are waived, and other types of aid going to colleges with religious affiliations? I guesws there should be none for any student who wishes to attend Notre dame, BYU, SMU, Jewish universities, etc. So, if we take this thought, we should penalize those students who want a religious education in favor of those who don't. If you want a religious education, you don't get to use your tax choice--you only use it if you choose no religion. Do you not see discrimination here. If there is choice--which I believe is a good thing, as it brings some market principles to the public education system--

Religion affiliated schools are a choice. Why should anybody care if the tax money that was going to be spent on a student at public school is instead used by that family at a religious backed school. You don't pay any more for that student.

 

[Christine]

I have never understood why school choice is such an emotional issue--that is, emotional against choice. Why is it a bad thing to allow a child, a parent to choose where the child receives the education. It does not take away the right to education. It does not take away anything from the public system, except that poor performing schools are highlighted. And, if enough students leave, there is a reason, and that school should be closed. Why is that a bad thing? I hear people say because the poor could not really utilize choice, or, if choice is allowed, the students left in the lower performing school will be effected. Why is it the students who are now effected by the poor school, who would do better, be a better student, excel more, etc., at a school of their choosing are not given the same deference. Why is it that it is only the students who would not choose to change are the ones that there is concern over. Why doesn't anybody stand up for the student, and parent, who can only afford to live in a lower performing school district, but wants to go to that school that has AP classes, has an overwhelming number of graduates that attend college, etc. That is what choice is about. It is about giving students the freedom to choose, and by doing so, lower performing schools change and adapt, or close. It is about allowing students in lower performing schools the ability to have access to schools who just do it better. And, frankly, if a school looses students, instead of complaining about the choice, either fix your problems, or close the school.

I believe in some instances such as with vouchers, it most certainly does take away from the public school system. The money comes out of that system and follows the child. So if 50% of the people zoned for a particular school choose a private school, get a voucher, then the money goes to the voucher and out of the school. The kids who cannot afford even half of the private school fee or who cannot win the lottery to attend a "model" public school 20 miles away, get left in the "bad" school and now that school has even less funds.

You are correct in that it sends a message about the school's performance, but what about the poor kids who can't get out of there?

 

[FlightlessDuck]

Here we have trailers at some schools, and they are trying to pass a referendum to add on to schools. We only have one HS and one JH, several elementary schools, no buses. You buy a house in town, your child can go to school here.

I had that problem growing up. Music class was in a trailer.

 

[mefordis]

I'm guessing that some private schools will not be on board to accept the vouchers. I am also guessing Charter schools will have to comply with the ADA just as public schools do.

 

[cabanafrau]

In my friend's case (in MI) there was a lottery, but they had to prequalify with qualifying grades. They are responsible for transportation, as the bus doesn't travel outside the school district. Each student in MI is allotted an amount of money, and that money travels with them to the school they attend. I'm talking about public school. I'm not sure if they are allowed to use vouchers for private school in MI, or how charter schools work.

I'm in Michigan and once upon a time I sat on the school of choice committee in our local district. It is my understanding that legally schools were prohibited from cherry picking students, or conversely barring students for anything except not residing in the corresponding county for applying to school choice in a district or if a student had been officially removed for legal or behavioral issues from a district. Schools which focus on tech, STEM or performing arts can be excepted, but I know the parameters are controlled to avoid discriminatory practices.

 

[Klayfish]

I didn't pay any attention in school, so you could have sent me anywhere and it wouldn't have mattered...

 

[bcla]

From a different perspective, what about a child with an involved parent that is stuck in a school with a majority of kids that don't care, their parents don't care, the kids don't want to be their, and they're constantly interrupting class. Causing the kids that do want to learn to miss out due to interruptions.

It's one thing in the elementary levels, but different when getting to higher levels where classes are generally given levels. I went to a diverse high school where there were kids living in housing projects and others living in large homes. For the most part we didn't mingle except maybe in certain classes like PE. The one academic class where I ended up with "low achievers" wasn't necessarily that bad, but our teacher was exception at keeping his class under control. A lot of students who didn't care weren't necessarily disruptive. They just weren't involved.

Any kid who would be that much of a cause of interruptions might be moved to another school. Our school district has a continuation high school.

 

[diznygirl]

One issue that hasn't been brought up here is religion. We have a separation of church and state for a reason. In my view, taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for religious education, yet voucher systems would like to take my money and push it towards a religious belief I don't share. Like it or not, some of the big money and opinions that are pushing school choice are doing so because they'd like the state to pay for their children's religious education.

Exactly. Not that they care. These are the same people who don't actually believe in a separate of church and state.

It should be noted that there will be a push for these vouchers to go to Charter schools. Charter schools don't have to follow school district guidelines. And are privately run. So this is a just a another way to privatize a public service. Someone is going to be making money off this.

 

[Gracie09]

I'm in Michigan and once upon a time I sat on the school of choice committee in our local district. It is my understanding that legally schools were prohibited from cherry picking students, or conversely barring students for anything except not residing in the corresponding county for applying to school choice in a district or if a student had been officially removed for legal or behavioral issues from a district. Schools which focus on tech, STEM or performing arts can be excepted, but I know the parameters are controlled to avoid discriminatory practices.

Michigan is a case study of how to not do school choice. Nola actually did it well, but that was not until after Katrina when they basically started from scratch. Even there are large disparities.

 

[wilkeliza]

One issue that hasn't been brought up here is religion. We have a separation of church and state for a reason. In my view, taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for religious education, yet voucher systems would like to take my money and push it towards a religious belief I don't share. Like it or not, some of the big money and opinions that are pushing school choice are doing so because they'd like the state to pay for their children's religious education.

We have universal PreSchool here in NYC. Religious schools that take part in universal pre-school and thus receive tax payer money are not allow to have the religious activities during normal school hours. So children who are there on universal pre-school may be released at say 2 pm but kids who are there on private school money as a part of a religious school may not get released until 3pm. That way they say that no tax paying money is going to religious school. This is usually the Catholic preschools and Jewish preschools. Heck my fiance went to a catholic private preschool before universal preschool was here and he just came an hour later than the other kids or got to play in the play room while the rest were in church.