This is one of those articles where the author has a question, seems to indicate they are curious about the topic and seems to indicate they looked into the topic.
But nothing they wrote indicates they looked at ideas or sources that will tell them anything but what they already believe.
This article also mixes up a lot of topics like charter schools, vouchers, home schooling that are all very different topics. Taking issue with one does not mean taking issue with the other.
The vouchers part of school choice is a clear violation of the US constitution's establishment clause, which I admit is not enforced these days. Government funding of religion has led to lots of wars in the past. We should herd history on this one.
"School choice" is structured around the belief that the parent knows best, and that there are several good alternative choices.
This is not the case for education.
For one, the last century of school consolidation is because large consolidated schools are cheaper to operate than many small ones. The more so if you want students to have a chance to study something more specialized, like Latin, jazz ensemble, and linear algebra, to name three courses that my big city high school offered.
For another, "school choice" often means that the schools get to choose the students. Is someone hard to teach, perhaps with behavioral issues or learning problems? Kick them out, or use strict school policies which encourage parents to pull out their kids. While public schools have an obligation to teach everyone.
For a third, these often end up subsidizing private schools. If the money follows the student then parents who would have sent their student to private school anyway get a nice discount - and the private school raises tuition to match, which keeps poorer students out.
As a variant of the third, schools get more funding for students with learning disabilities and severe impairments, including special ed classes. Some of the school choice schools market to students with learning disabilities which are relatively inexpensive to deal with, while not providing support for students with more intensive, and thus expensive, needs. Public schools have an obligation to teach everyone.
For a fourth, many of these non-public schools have poor oversight. Want to see the finances? Sorry, that's private. Want to know how policy is made? Sorry, that's private.
And it's not even like "non-profit school" changes things. You end up with schools which rent the building from one for-profit company, the educational materials from a second, consulting advice from a third - and all three for-profit companies are owned by the same people who run the non-profit.
If the non-profit decides to shut down in the middle of the school year, do the parents and students really have a choice to move their kids to another school? Is there space? Are those other schools obligated to take in new students?
This is one of those articles where the author has a question, seems to indicate they are curious about the topic and seems to indicate they looked into the topic.
But nothing they wrote indicates they looked at ideas or sources that will tell them anything but what they already believe.
This article also mixes up a lot of topics like charter schools, vouchers, home schooling that are all very different topics. Taking issue with one does not mean taking issue with the other.
The vouchers part of school choice is a clear violation of the US constitution's establishment clause, which I admit is not enforced these days. Government funding of religion has led to lots of wars in the past. We should herd history on this one.
"School choice" is structured around the belief that the parent knows best, and that there are several good alternative choices.
This is not the case for education.
For one, the last century of school consolidation is because large consolidated schools are cheaper to operate than many small ones. The more so if you want students to have a chance to study something more specialized, like Latin, jazz ensemble, and linear algebra, to name three courses that my big city high school offered.
For another, "school choice" often means that the schools get to choose the students. Is someone hard to teach, perhaps with behavioral issues or learning problems? Kick them out, or use strict school policies which encourage parents to pull out their kids. While public schools have an obligation to teach everyone.
For a third, these often end up subsidizing private schools. If the money follows the student then parents who would have sent their student to private school anyway get a nice discount - and the private school raises tuition to match, which keeps poorer students out.
As a variant of the third, schools get more funding for students with learning disabilities and severe impairments, including special ed classes. Some of the school choice schools market to students with learning disabilities which are relatively inexpensive to deal with, while not providing support for students with more intensive, and thus expensive, needs. Public schools have an obligation to teach everyone.
For a fourth, many of these non-public schools have poor oversight. Want to see the finances? Sorry, that's private. Want to know how policy is made? Sorry, that's private.
And it's not even like "non-profit school" changes things. You end up with schools which rent the building from one for-profit company, the educational materials from a second, consulting advice from a third - and all three for-profit companies are owned by the same people who run the non-profit.
If the non-profit decides to shut down in the middle of the school year, do the parents and students really have a choice to move their kids to another school? Is there space? Are those other schools obligated to take in new students?