School choice

[chicagodisneyfan]

I see your point. However, along those same lines, my tax money has been going for years to public schools which teach some things w/ which I disagree due to my religious beliefs.

.

No offense but it's separation of church and state not Wendy and state.

I do fret about the fringe home schoolers who are worried about government intervention. Sounds paranoid.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

Here's a question for those that want the tax money to follow their child. What about childless couples or retirees? They have no children so should they have to pay for other children?

They've been doing it the whole time, so what's changed?

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

No offense but it's separation of church and state not Wendy and state.

I do fret about the fringe home schoolers who are worried about government intervention. Sounds paranoid.

I can see the point in not wanting the same people that are currently running an efficient system to oversee my efforts.

 

[mefordis]

Here's a question for those that want the tax money to follow their child. What about childless couples or retirees? They have no children so should they have to pay for other children?

You have the option to live in a less expensive area, where the schools are not that great for less of a tax burden. Many retirees had children who went to public schools, so yes, they should be paying school taxes. Just off the top of my head, I am thinking a childless couple, who never had children who went to public school should get some kind of a tax break.

 

[Gracie09]

I see your point. However, along those same lines, my tax money has been going for years to public schools which teach some things w/ which I disagree due to my religious beliefs.



In.

There are many many things my tax dollars pay for that I personally disagree with. However, that is part of being in society.

 

[Gracie09]

You have the option to live in a less expensive area, where the schools are not that great for less of a tax burden. Many retirees had children who went to public schools, so yes, they should be paying school taxes. Just off the top of my head, I am thinking a childless couple, who never had children who went to public school should get some kind of a tax break.

eh - everyone benefits from an educated population, even the childless couple. The person who cures cancer is likely coming from public schools. The engineer that takes us to Mars - public schools. If you look at the advancements in science, art, engineering, etc in the last hundred, most of them will have come from people who got their start in the public school system.

To paraphrase one of my favorite West Wing scenes - schools aren't too expensive, they are too inexpensive. Schools should be palaces of learning.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Here, you choose your school by choosing where you live. Pretty much as simple as that. It's also very unusual in my area to have a "great neighborhood" in close proximity to a "bad neighborhood". There are certainly pockets, but not enough to have a serous impact on the demographics of the school either way. And as a result, a terrible school district boardering a terrific one is another thing you won't find.

 

[Wendy31]

No offense but it's separation of church and state not Wendy and state.

I do fret about the fringe home schoolers who are worried about government intervention. Sounds paranoid.

And that's a fair point.

And, really, we're not fringe home schoolers, so I hope I didn't give that impression. We're very mainstream & involved in lots of different things. Our state has good home school regulations in place.

I just don't like common core math.

I can see the point in not wanting the same people that are currently running an efficient system to oversee my efforts.

Was that directed at me?

There are many many things my tax dollars pay for that I personally disagree with. However, that is part of being in society.

Yes, I agree! I was replying to the person who said, w/ school choice, her tax dollars could go to vouchers that would end up at religious schools.

 

[DawnM]

I don't know how your schools are there, but here, the top schools are full. Overflowing actually. There IS school choice, but good luck actually getting into ANYTHING that is a top rated school. There is no room to put your child.

So, in order to have school choice, that means someone local has to be booted out first.

 

[Hrhpd]

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.

Parents have always had a choice where the child receives their education. That has never been an issue. A parent can choose public, private, charter, religious or homeschool. What they don't have is choice of a free education. I strongly believe that public funds belong in public schools. If a parent wants to make a different choice than a free education at the public schools, such as a religious education, then they have to pay the extra out of their own pocket.

Choice within a district's public schools can be done wonderfully. Our children's district did it very well. But to start taking money out of the district and giving it to private and religious schools that are not bound to public school rules such as IDEA or curriculum weakens the public school.

One district in our state had a few school reformers elected to the board. They tried to implement school vouchers for any type of school. Studies and initial implementation was a total disaster. A judge stayed the decision and the next election, the entire school board was voted out and a new slate of directors was voted in that did not support vouchers.

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.

Universities vs primary education are apples and oranges. College/university is optional whereas going to school till 16 (depending on state) is mandatory. You can't compare the two. Many private schools with large pockets do offer scholarships and financial aide. But that is because they are allowed to pick and choose the best.

The difference between a public education is that it is available to all whereas private and religious educations can discriminate over the students they can take. Everyone is offered a free public education. There is no discrimination here. If you want something different, you pay for it.

I will be the first person in line to help fight any tax money going to private or religious schools and I don't even have a child in school anymore.

 

[piccolopat]

A part of the problem is how we fund our schools. In many school districts, funding is done via property taxes which in turn are based on property values. Assume a person buys a house in a highly rated school district and that home is more money than in a neighboring town solely because of the school district. In turn, the property taxes paid by that homeowner may be significantly more than the neighboring town. Is it then fair that a family from the neighboring town who hasn't paid the same taxes can choose to send their kids to the higher rated school district? When a school district is better funded by the wealth in the district, it gives it an advantage and the ability to provide options for the kids that other schools can't. Perhaps if all schools were funded equally and not reliant on property taxes, some of this gap could be mitigated.

 

[Hrhpd]

I think they should get no money, but offered text books, sports and after school activities, maybe the option to go a partial day? Not sure but definitely no money - it scares me to think of some parents who would take their kid out of school to abuse the system for money.

Not sure about other states, but in my state homeschoolers are allowed to participate in any classes or sports in their home school. If I recall correctly the school can then claim that student for a partial amount of money to cover the classes they take.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

Was that directed at me?

.

Not directed at anyone, just discussing.

 

[Colleen27]

I'm in Michigan, where school choice has been pretty hotly debated for a while.

At best, school choice can give a handful of students from a failing district access to better schools. That access is conditional - in Michigan, state law doesn't require schools to participate so the best districts are still closed to people who cannot afford to live there, and where choice is allowed it hinges on the family's ability to manage the transportation to an out-of-district school. Charters also have barriers; while they are theoretically required to take everyone (in MI anyway), they can impose family involvement requirements, they don't have to participate in school lunch or special ed or other support programs, and they tend not to be located in the neighborhoods where the students they serve live. So again, the students who generally benefit are those from families able to manage those issues. And even for them, there is evidence that charter schools don't foster the same community that neighborhood schools do - because kids come from a wide geographical area, they tend not to form the same kinds of out-of-school relationships or have activities in common with their classmates.

The downside of choice is that the rest of the students are left behind in failing schools under immense financial strain. Many of them are more expensive than average to educate, because of a need for special ed or ESL services, but per-pupil funding formulas are based on an average that assumes a typical balance between "normal" low-need students and higher need populations.

Performance is another big question, and one that doesn't have clear answers here because Michigan exempts charter schools from most accountability measures. In that sense, they're treated like private schools despite receiving public funding. So it is hard to say if charters on whole actually out-perform public schools. And there is little that can be done about bad charters. Some have closed without warning, others change names or locations in response to negative perception, but the whole idea is rooted in a "free market" philosophy that shuns oversight and assumes families to be educated and rational actors capable of making the best choices - something that is difficult for even the most savvy to do with the information imbalance built into the charter business model.

 

[North of Mouse]

Don't personally like school choice, charters, vouchers, etc. All children should go to their own local schools period! Everyone cannot afford to rely on private transportation or get in the schools they would prefer, so it's a very uneven playing field IMO (even though 'supposedly' it's to 'level' the playing field)

Private schools paid for by parents and providing their own transportation completely different.

 

[CarolAnn856]

You have the option to live in a less expensive area, where the schools are not that great for less of a tax burden. Many retirees had children who went to public schools, so yes, they should be paying school taxes. Just off the top of my head, I am thinking a childless couple, who never had children who went to public school should get some kind of a tax break.

By that line of reasoning, I should get money back for not needing an ambulance or firetruck. Public education is for the good of society as a whole. If I choose to send my children to a private school, that's on me.

 

[pat fan]

I think the issue of school choice is a red herring or as someone above said, a band-aid over the real problems in education. You can shuffle kids around, pour money into charter schools, private schools, etc but until we address the fundamental education issues in this country, it won't be a real solution. As a high school teacher with 14 years experience, a master's in secondary ed policy, and two kids attending public school here are my thoughts:

1. We need to get the federal government and even state government out of the business of education- that is what it has become, a business. And a lucrative and poorly run one at that. We need to return control of curriculum, discipline, hiring, etc back to the local communities. People in the local area know what their kids need- and school boards need to have an equal representation of educators and community members making decisions. I would not go into a hospital and tell a surgeon how to do their job, I don't need someone with absolutely no educational experience making decisions for me and my schools.

2. We need to take the money being poured into school choice and use it to bring back vocational programs, expand virtual schooling options, develop partnerships with institutions of higher learning, and build and staff after school programs to support student success. The educational world today is VASTLY different, even from that of a decade ago. Old strategies, methodologies, and expectations just don't work for our students.

3. We need to expand our parental support systems, especially in low income areas. I am not talking about welfare. I am talking about running transportation at alternate times to help kids stay for tutoring, having transportation to pick up parents to come to open houses or conferences, having money to pay for staff to watch siblings while parents attend meetings, expanding the school nurses to help care for sick children and families, expanding food pantries to help fill hungry bellies, building laundry rooms in schools so kids have clean clothes to wear, hiring more social workers to work with families, etc. I work in a school that is 100% free and reduced lunch. 100%. Every student at my high school of 900 pays $0 for breakfast and lunch. I have students who have worn the exact same clothes every day for a semester because that is all the clothing they have. I have students who have had roaches crawl out of their book bags in the middle of class. How focused a child is in school when they don't even know when they can next wash the shirt they are wearing and they know they need to wear it again tomorrow? When I talk with parents, there are a few that don't care about their child's education. For the majority of them, they care deeply but the basic acts of working low paying jobs while caring for multiple children, often as single parents means they don't have the supports they need to do what they so desperately want to do for their children. I have listened to mother's cry on the phone because they want better for their kids. Most of my students don't have internet at home, and living in a rural community our options are few to begin with. So how do we expect to educate technologically literate students when they don't even have a computer or internet? Sending them to a new school won't fix any of that.

I can go on and on, but my point is- you can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig. Vouchers, choice, testing, it's all just lipstick.

BRILLIANT!!!
1- Can't agree enough with the bolded!!

2- Absolutely! Our local high school whines and moans they can't figure out why students leave after middle school. Um, they're going to the Vocational schools!!! You know, those schools offering classes you cut out years ago.

3- Our elementary school has this as well. The school nurse has a running closet of clothes etc...for families in need. We live in a weird area. Mostly welfare/working poor with a smattering of millionaires that whacks out our tax base.

 

[Colleen27]

In Michigan where I am they must take everyone in school choice providing they live within the designated county border & have not been expelled from a school system for behavioral or criminal reasons. Cherry picking is not allowed.

That is and isn't true...

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.

Public school choice and charters are two different things in Michigan. Public schools are mandated to provide the same services for choice students as they provide for students in their district, so they're not allowed to cherry pick in any way. Charters, on the other hand, aren't allowed to outwardly cherry pick by requiring an application process or specific GPA or anything like that, but they also aren't required to provide special ed, ESL, busing, school lunches, etc. So while they can't "officially" cherry pick - a child with an extensive IEP theoretically has the same chance at admission as a high-achieving student - for all practical purposes they can and do exclude students with special needs. Because unless that IEP student can handle class without accommodations the charter school simply won't meet his needs.

Vouchers for private school: I'm guessing the vouchers would amount to something like 12k - 15k per student. That would cover about half of private school tuition around here - which is 30k per year.

That, to me, is the biggest problem with vouchers. It amounts to welfare for middle class parents who are well-off enough to make up the difference. If you look at the voucher amounts for Indiana's voucher program, the biggest subsidies (it varies because it is based on the home district's per-pupil funding) are around $6000. That's a fraction of the cost of most private schools. So vouchers don't help the poor families who can't afford to live in a decent school system. A family in Detroit, where the median income is 25K, isn't going to make up the difference between that voucher and the $8-12k that lower-end private schools in the city cost, and the voucher isn't going to cover the full cost except at a handful of cheaper parish schools. But families like mine, middle class folks who chose private education despite the cost (and often, despite living in a good but maybe not great district), will benefit. That's not a wise use of educational dollars.

 

[pat fan]

We have school choice, and my issue isn't so much with choice, but charter schools. I hate that our funding goes to them, when they're really a private school. They can choose to not accept kids with IEP's etc.. (which they of course do not take) so they get the "better" kids and kids who need a lot of extra funding to service stay in the public school close to home which has now LOST funding to the charter school. Bankrupts the public school.

Every homeschool family I know (and I know a lot of them) don't want any government involvement at all. Whether that's $$ or whatever. 99% of them do not interact with their local schools at all, even for sports etc...So I don't think anyone needs to worry about them draining all the money.

It's complicated, that's for sure, and I hope everyone stays as civil as this thread has been. It could go a lot farther in finding solutions than the attitude that's been around lately.

 

[mummabear]

Yeah, this is not an easy problem to solve. We have public schools that are in well-off neighborhoods and they receive awards because the students excel, and then 10 minutes away is a much larger public school that is located in a low income neighborhood and their kids don't do as well. I'm not convinced that the teachers are better at the well-off school than the low income school. So what's the answer....I don't know.

I'm not sure if the answer either but the some of the reasons for the difference in strident success between a high and low decile school actually come from outside the school and back at home.
If you are in low imcome area school you have a higher proportion of parents working a second job leaving them less time to help with homework, do reading etc. in higher income areas when kids are struggling families are more likely to employ a tutor because they have the disposable income to do so. Add into that that low income kids may be going without meals, sleeping in unheated and overcrowded houses resulting in a worse sleep, are more likely to be sick more often as a result of not having suitable clothes (rain coats etc) and less access to doctors visits. Then consider access to devices and internet for homework.
The teachers in the low income areas are as good if not better but kids need more than that to be successful.