Issues in Education

[Huckleberry]

Where we raised our chirruns (Memphis) the public schools are absolutely atrocious, both acaemically and socially. We tried private school, but that came with it's own compromises, so eventually we chose to homeschool. No regrets.

That said, I'm happy to pay property taxes that fund the public school system - did when we had younger kids and chose not to utitlze public education and do so now that our kids are all grown. We feel this way because good schools are fundmental to an educated society, which is what we want to live in.

That said, poor schools should be allowed to 'fail' - that doesn't mean tear it down and sell the land, but rather wholesale cleaning out of the administrators and teachers, as needed. This seems to be where the failure occurs the most (from the outside) - too many crappy administrators and teachers continue to remain employed at some level when they should be fired for poor performance. That's the part the market gets right, but GOOD public schools are absolutely needed.

I mostly agree with this. Good public schools are essential, even for people who don't have children in them. An educated population benefits everyone.

Chronically failing schools should face real consequences. Leadership should be replaced, ineffective teachers should not be protected forever, and entire systems sometimes need to be rebuilt. My objection is pretending that simply handing out vouchers creates a fair market where every child suddenly has access to a great school.

Accountability matters. So does preserving a public system that is required to educate every child.

 

[Bodhisattva]

I can't speak for the left (though I'm likely to the left of you), but it's probably because a school is not a restaurant, mechanic, or doctor, and children are not interchangeable customers.

The market does leave people out. Profit is the ultimate goal, of course. A private school can reject a disabled child, expel a difficult one, or charge more than the voucher covers. Public schools cannot simply stop serving the kids who are hardest and most expensive to educate.

Nobody is demanding less of public schools. The disagreement is over whether the answer to failing schools is to fix them or drain money from them and hand it to greedy and self-serving private operators with less oversight and few standards. Calling that “the market” does not magically make every child profitable to serve. Most free market absolutists know this but happily ignore it, as it's not something that will personally affect them.

Education is a market just like any other. There are buyers and sellers of goods/services where alternatives and choice provide a range of products at various price points. If one can't understand that, then it's no wonder the choice seems to be between crappy schools or crappy schools that will magically get better.

The market does not leave people out for those who wish to participate in it. There are all sorts of cars, houses, restaurants, etc. to choose from. Education is no different. Lily's private school in Virginia served disabled students and far better than public schools in the area did. Lily has been tutoring a neighbor's kid for years. He has cerebral palsy and is on the autism spectrum. He goes to the local public school and, while it is an A-rated school generally, the school does not do right by its disabled students. He is subjected to the regular curriculum (e.g. Shakespeare and other subjects that he will never grasp) and simply passed along. There is no competition for that share of tax dollars attributed to him. So, there is no incentive to make his education useful. A private school has to earn his money (like every other customer) and will do a far better job supplying the demand.

But for giggles, let's say you're right and that private schools will leave kids behind. My response is compared to what? A great deal of public schools leave almost every kid behind. The left keeps wanting to make perfection the enemy of the good. If a private school is not perfect (in their terms) then the terrible public school is preferred. That's a perverse way to view the issue, and the kids continue to suffer because of it.

 

[Huckleberry]

Education is a market just like any other. There are buyers and sellers of goods/services where alternatives and choice provide a range of products at various price points. If one can't understand that, then it's no wonder the choice seems to be between crappy schools or crappy schools that will magically get better.

The market does not leave people out for those who wish to participate in it. There are all sorts of cars, houses, restaurants, etc. to choose from. Education is no different. Lily's private school in Virginia served disabled students and far better than public schools in the area did. Lily has been tutoring a neighbor's kid for years. He has cerebral palsy and is on the autism spectrum. He goes to the local public school and, while it is an A-rated school generally, the school does not do right by its disabled students. He is subjected to the regular curriculum (e.g. Shakespeare and other subjects that he will never grasp) and simply passed along. There is no competition for that share of tax dollars attributed to him. So, there is no incentive to make his education useful. A private school has to earn his money (like every other customer) and will do a far better job supplying the demand.

Education is not “just like any other market” because every child has to be educated, including children who are disabled, difficult, poor, or living somewhere that will never attract a dozen competing schools. Saying the market leaves out no one “who wishes to participate” purposefully dodges the entire issue. A child cannot participate in a school that rejects him, charges more than the voucher, has no available seat, provides no transportation, or simply does not exist nearby.

I do not defend terrible public schools, and I agree that disabled students are often badly served. But one Virginia private school and one struggling public-school student do not prove that private schools will universally serve every child better. Public schools are required to take everyone. Private schools generally are not, especially when educating a student becomes more expensive than the money they bring.

The choice is not between pretending public schools are fine and declaring the market magical. Fix bad schools, replace bad leadership, remove genuinely ineffective employees, enforce standards, and allow alternatives. But do not confuse selective enrollment and fewer obligations with proof that the market serves everyone.

But for giggles, let's say you're right and that private schools will leave kids behind. My response is compared to what? A great deal of public schools leave almost every kid behind. The left keeps wanting to make perfection the enemy of the good. If a private school is not perfect (in their terms) then the terrible public school is preferred. That's a perverse way to view the issue, and the kids continue to suffer because of it.

That is not my argument at all. I am not saying a bad public school should be protected because a private school might be imperfect. I support alternatives when they actually help children.

The issue is whether those alternatives are accountable, accessible, and required to serve the same students. A private school improving outcomes for some kids does not answer what happens to the disabled child it rejects, the family without transportation, or the child left in an even more depleted public school.

“Compared to what?” is a fair question. But the answer cannot simply be “anything private is better.” Bad public schools need major reform, and good alternatives should exist. That does not justify writing blank checks to private schools and calling every concern about access or oversight a demand for perfection. And it certainly doesn't mean that destroying our public system so the private sector can profit is the answer.

 

[Bodhisattva]

Education is not “just like any other market” because every child has to be educated, including children who are disabled, difficult, poor, or living somewhere that will never attract a dozen competing schools. Saying the market leaves out no one “who wishes to participate” purposefully dodges the entire issue. A child cannot participate in a school that rejects him, charges more than the voucher, has no available seat, provides no transportation, or simply does not exist nearby.

I do not defend terrible public schools, and I agree that disabled students are often badly served. But one Virginia private school and one struggling public-school student do not prove that private schools will universally serve every child better. Public schools are required to take everyone. Private schools generally are not, especially when educating a student becomes more expensive than the money they bring.

The choice is not between pretending public schools are fine and declaring the market magical. Fix bad schools, replace bad leadership, remove genuinely ineffective employees, enforce standards, and allow alternatives. But do not confuse selective enrollment and fewer obligations with proof that the market serves everyone.


That is not my argument at all. I am not saying a bad public school should be protected because a private school might be imperfect. I support alternatives when they actually help children.

The issue is whether those alternatives are accountable, accessible, and required to serve the same students. A private school improving outcomes for some kids does not answer what happens to the disabled child it rejects, the family without transportation, or the child left in an even more depleted public school.

“Compared to what?” is a fair question. But the answer cannot simply be “anything private is better.” Bad public schools need major reform, and good alternatives should exist. That does not justify writing blank checks to private schools and calling every concern about access or oversight a demand for perfection. And it certainly doesn't mean that destroying our public system so the private sector can profit is the answer.

Education is a market, by definition.

The experience with disabled students is hardly limited to my examples. Those are the norm. NYC pubic schools spend more than $40k per student. Think a kid with that kind of voucher has enough to go practically anywhere? Of course. The problem with public schools is not lack of money. It's lack of priorities. Government and union bureaucrats only care about kids insofar as it lines their pockets. You are critical of "greedy" private schools, but they have to compete for your money. They have to be better or you'll go somewhere else.

You keep saying to "fix bad schools." How, if markets are not involved? Why hasn't it been done by now. Many of these public schools have sucked for decades. When is enough enough?

I never said "anything private is better." Give me a range of choices, and I will pick the best for my kid. When we moved to Florida, we chose the public school. Why was it desirable? Largely because there is choice among public schools. We didn't choose the school Lily was zoned for. We chose another nearby that had a STEM focus. That was best for her. Allowing markets to work produces the magic - not the promises of government/union clowns who have sacrificed generations of children for their own power and profit.

 

[Huckleberry]

Education is a market, by definition.

The experience with disabled students is hardly limited to my examples. Those are the norm. NYC pubic schools spend more than $40k per student. Think a kid with that kind of voucher has enough to go practically anywhere? Of course. The problem with public schools is not lack of money. It's lack of priorities. Government and union bureaucrats only care about kids insofar as it lines their pockets. You are critical of "greedy" private schools, but they have to compete for your money. They have to be better or you'll go somewhere else.

I never said "anything private is better." Give me a range of choices, and I will pick the best for my kid. When we moved to Florida, we chose the public school. Why was it desirable? Largely because there is choice among public schools. We didn't choose the school Lily was zoned for. We chose another nearby that had a STEM focus. That was best for her. Allowing markets to work produces the magic - not the promises of government/union clowns who have sacrificed generations of children for their own power and profit.

You treat “choice” as though every family is choosing from the same menu. They are not. A $40,000 voucher in NYC does not force a private school to admit a disabled child, provide transportation, offer the services that child needs, or even exist nearby. It also does not guarantee the full $40,000 would ever follow the student.

I am not opposed to choice. Your Florida example is public school choice, and I support that. Magnet schools, STEM programs, charters with real oversight, and open enrollment can all create useful competition without abandoning the obligation to educate every child. I worked for many years at an extremely high-performing magnet for gifted students. It was (and still is) a great place for that population.

Markets can be useful tools. They are not magic, and they do not eliminate the need for public responsibility.

You keep saying to "fix bad schools." How, if markets are not involved? Why hasn't it been done by now. Many of these public schools have sucked for decades. When is enough enough?

That is a fair question. Some failing public-school systems have been protected, mismanaged, and allowed to limp along for decades. Bureaucracy, politics, weak leadership, union rules, and fear of disrupting communities have all made meaningful reform harder than it should be.

Where I disagree is the leap from “government has repeatedly failed to fix this” to “the market will solve it for everyone.” I support real consequences, school choice, new leadership, alternative programs, and closing or completely restructuring schools that consistently fail. I just do not think that destroying public education can possibly guarantee enough good schools, equal access, or a place for every child.

In many cases, enough is enough. But the answer should be aggressive reform and accountable choices, not blind faith in either the existing system or the market.

 

[Bodhisattva]

You treat “choice” as though every family is choosing from the same menu.

No, I don't. That's ridiculous. Where one lives, for example, will greatly limit choices. Probably can't get access to a wagyu steakhouse in the sticks of Alabama. Regardless, markets will allow one more options than the crap sandwich the government serves.

A $40,000 voucher in NYC does not force a private school to admit a disabled child, provide transportation, offer the services that child needs, or even exist nearby. It also does not guarantee the full $40,000 would ever follow the student.

No force needed. Supply and demand are not static. Increase demand and supply will follow. Services for disabled children exist now. Allow them to use vouchers and more services will be available.

I am not opposed to choice. Your Florida example is public school choice, and I support that. Magnet schools, STEM programs, charters with real oversight, and open enrollment can all create useful competition without abandoning the obligation to educate every child. I worked for many years at an extremely high-performing magnet for gifted students. It was (and still is) a great place for that population.

Lily's experience with the public academies was positive. Not perfect. But the extra STEM classes she took in high school prepared her very well for college.

Markets can be useful tools. They are not magic, and they do not eliminate the need for public responsibility.

They are not literal magic because literal magic doesn't exist. But, to channel the late Milton Friedman, "The most important central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit." It's hard to say kids benefit at garbage schools.

That is a fair question. Some failing public-school systems have been protected, mismanaged, and allowed to limp along for decades. Bureaucracy, politics, weak leadership, union rules, and fear of disrupting communities have all made meaningful reform harder than it should be.

Then why keep trusting these people?

Where I disagree is the leap from “government has repeatedly failed to fix this” to “the market will solve it for everyone.” I support real consequences, school choice, new leadership, alternative programs, and closing or completely restructuring schools that consistently fail. I just do not think that destroying public education can possibly guarantee enough good schools, equal access, or a place for every child.

I'm not for destroying good public schools. Just the bad ones.

In many cases, enough is enough. But the answer should be aggressive reform and accountable choices, not blind faith in either the existing system or the market.

How can you get reform and accountability writ large without some sort of market competition? That's just blind faith in the next collection of clowns.