Help my local elementary school

December 14, 2005 7:20 PM

Charter School/Voucher System Filter: Are they really tools to deconstruct public education?

My district just lost 3,500 students to charters and other districts (mostly to charters). None have been lost from the very urban school where my kids go. However, as a result of this loss, our school is facing a 30% budget reduction, which I believe is devestating.

Is my local school being set up to go under and die? As a concerned parent, should I, and how could I fight this?

posted by snsranch to education (39 comments total)

Vouchers (for private/religious schools) take money away from public schools, so i'd say definitely. Don't vote for people who want vouchers. Charter schools are different--they are public, like magnet schools and other specialized schools.
posted by amberglow at 7:34 PM on December 14, 2005

My little sister would have been a total lost cause without a charter school to act as a safety net. She dropped out at ~14, ended up going to a charter school to keep the truancy officers at bay, and eventually got her GED the day after she was old enough to do so (16 at the time). She's led an entertaining life since then, and still has much of it to go, but I'm firmly convinced that we'd have lost her completely without the year or so she spent in the charter school.
posted by togdon at 7:40 PM on December 14, 2005

Yes. The stated goal is to cripple and eventually eliminate public education. After all, if you're not rich enough to afford to educate your child, why should the nanny state do it for you? There will always be plenty of good jobs available for your kids even if they can't get all that book-learning.

What you can do: stop voting Republican.
posted by jellicle at 7:55 PM on December 14, 2005

amberglow and jellicle are ideologues.

There are very good reasons not to fight it.

There's a reason that those 3,500 people went elsewhere, you know.
posted by Kwantsar at 8:14 PM on December 14, 2005

As bad as vouchers, your public school district may already be providing regular, daily bus service for religious and private schools, at your expense.

In any case, vouchers are a code word for the GOP doing a few nasty things:

1. Privatizing/corporatizing/reducing the quality of education at all stages, to open up a pool of untrained lower classes that are stuck in service jobs

2. Supporting religious organizations around election schedules, violating the separation of church and state codified in the Constitution

3. Dismantling organized labor that often oppose right-wing agendas; in this case, teacher's unions
posted by Rothko at 8:17 PM on December 14, 2005

Vouchers (for private/religious schools) take money away from public schools, so i'd say definitely. Don't vote for people who want vouchers. Charter schools are different--they are public, like magnet schools and other specialized schools.

They do worse than remove money from the public schools. They remove things far more valuable than money. They destroy:

A) The political will of the middle and upper middle class to support public schools. These are the people with political clout. But They have less reason to care about the quality of public education because it ceases to be something they see as their problem. It's easy to say "Do we really need music/art/the newest books/new playground equipment etc.?" when it's not your kid or your friends' kids who will go without. This mechanism for removing money from the public schoolscould be as important (if not more important) as the direct cost of funding vouchers instead of the public school.

B) It removes those same parents and their kids from the public school system. If you're a poor kid whose parents can't afford to get involved, or who don't have the social or cultural capital to fight for you effectively, it matters a lot if you're in a school where 10% of kids are in that same situation or a school where 80% are in that same situation.
posted by duck at 8:17 PM on December 14, 2005

I don't understand. Why should a person be compelled to pay for a service they are not recieving?
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 8:25 PM on December 14, 2005

duck: can you elaborate more? Vouchers certainly hurt the disenfranchized and disadvantaged, but you seem to suggest that they're neutral at the least for the middle class(es). True?
posted by NucleophilicAttack at 8:25 PM on December 14, 2005

In addition to my language degrees, I am also pursuing teaching licensure for the state of Ohio. In my first four education classes at Kent State there was open hostility towards the voucher programs expressed by the professors on numerous occasions, as well as assigned articles and op-ed pieces for class discussion which were against vouchers.

For most of these future teachers in this economically depressed region of the country, the professors were pretty much preaching to the choir.
posted by vkxmai at 8:26 PM on December 14, 2005

Mr.Encylopedia: so you would like to explicitly have a choice subscribe to things such as emergency medical transport, police protection, and fire protection?

"Sure he's coded, but I don't see him in our customer bank. Too bad!"
posted by NucleophilicAttack at 8:26 PM on December 14, 2005

I don't understand. Why should a person be compelled to pay for a service they are not recieving?

I have no kids and no plans to have any and I am GLAD to pay taxes to support goo public schools. Everyone deserves an education, and a good one at that. I don't support vouchers and never will.
posted by fshgrl at 8:27 PM on December 14, 2005

All of these answers share in the illusion that anti-voucher people have put over on the American people. In truth, vouchers do not take money away from public schools. It just appears that they do.

Consider a school with 1,000 students. If the funding formula (however calculated) is designed to provide $6,000 per year for the operation of the school, it operates under a $6 million budget.

If 200 of the students choose to use vouchers and go to St. Mary's school, why yes the funding goes down by $1.2 million. But the cost of operating the school goest down as well. The school needs 20% fewer pencils, 20% fewer books, 20% fewer teachers, etc. But those resources are not simply lost. St. Mary's will provide those pencils, books, and teachers. A total of 1,000 children are still being educated. The question is: are some of them getting a better education? and if so, which ones?

(Granted, this oversimplifies some things. The largest fixed cost that all public schools are burdened with is the cost of retiree pensions and benefits, and that cost will continue regardless of current funding per student. That is a demand that the unions will always push to defend. But my point is accurate as a whole.)
posted by yclipse at 8:28 PM on December 14, 2005

goo=good. Maybe they could teach typing too.
posted by fshgrl at 8:28 PM on December 14, 2005

rothko: 3. Dismantling organized labor that often oppose right-wing agendas; in this case, teacher's unions.

That was the subject of heated debate here at KSU recently (there was a contract renewal issue between the Uni and the local chapter of the AAUP ). Many in the professorate (and the College of Ed.) felt, and still feel, that the University was caving to the corporate/investment connections on the board of trustees in a crass attempt to undermine the authority of the union, by forcing the contract negotiations to last more than eighteen months.
posted by vkxmai at 8:32 PM on December 14, 2005

Mr. Encyclopedia:

If those of us who don't have kids don't support education for all kids, there will be a lot more uneducated kids running around. And of course, uneducated kids turn into uneducated adults.

What, realistically, might be the result of this situation? Well, first, it's pretty likely that we'll see an increase in crime. Second, an increase in unemployment. Which you'll have to pay for, of course. Third, more companies complaining that they can't get qualified workers here in the states. This could lead down a number of different paths; corporate America demanding that taxpayers fund vocational education, outsourcing jobs to other countries, bringing in foreign workers (who'll probably work for less anyway), etc.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. The truth is, of course, that no one really knows for sure what will happen in such a situation. And that everyone is, wisely, afraid to find out.
posted by Clay201 at 8:52 PM on December 14, 2005

The largest fixed cost that all public schools are burdened with is the cost of retiree pensions and benefits, and that cost will continue regardless of current funding per student.

And if these are fully funded (unfortunately, many/most are not), then even that issue goes away, since "fully funded" means that only future costs for current employees need to be added. (And, in the example given above, current employees should decrease by roughly 20%.)
posted by WestCoaster at 8:54 PM on December 14, 2005

In answer to why you should pay for a service you aren't using (aka public schools). In the case of education it is in the best interest of society to make sure that everyone has the chance to be educated to the best of their abilities and desire, not the best of their means.

Yeah, it's an idealist point of view, but I'd be frankly scared of the widespread idiocy that would come with a weakening of the education system. (Moreso than what I see in much of life these days)

A side benefit of encouraging the use of public schools is that it can increase integration of societal groups by breaking through the usual tendency of clustering by place, ideology, etc. (Of course, social groups still happen inside the school system, but at least there's an increased chance of famaliarizing people from all walks with each other.)

Think of it this way, you're putting money into a system that fights the spread of stupidity in the same way that a fire department fights the spread of a fire. It's not perfect, but mandatory public education has been a boon to this country and should remain so.
posted by drewbage1847 at 8:57 PM on December 14, 2005

I don't understand. Why should a person be compelled to pay for a service they are not recieving?

I agree: let's get rid of highways, since I use my bicycle to get everywhere.
posted by Rothko at 9:01 PM on December 14, 2005

I am a kid who was stuck in a horrible public school in an area where there was no voucher system. I qualified for every private high school I applied to, and many gave me very big scholarships, but none were able to give me the full scholarship I needed (my parents couldn't afford anything, and they knew college was coming, so they weren't willing to take on loans).

My high-school education was wasted in that rotten public school. With the exception of one subject (taught by a teacher who has since left), I learned only what I taught myself. Heterogenous grouping, for the record, is worse than useless.

Vouchers would have worked in that situation. That's how you explain why vouchers really can be useful and helpful. Are they worth the other bad effects? I don't know. But I know there needs to be a solution for kids like I was.
posted by booksandlibretti at 9:11 PM on December 14, 2005

Are they really tools to deconstruct public education?

Is that a serious question?

Look, it's pretty simple. You've got Republicans, and they believe a bunch of stuff. And you've got Democrats, and they believe a bunch of different stuff. Most of it's complicated, involving lots of different causes and lots of different consequences; and by the way, trying to pin an entire set of values on any group larger than 30 people is kind of like trying to scoop cooking oil with a closed fist.

There are whackos on both sides. You've got cross-bearing ideologues beating up gays and bombing abortion clinics, and you've got hippies throwing riots and burning down ski resorts. But setting aside those criminals and would-be mental patients: If you genuinely believe the people on the opposite side of the aisle are twisting their mustaches -- if you're even capable of being persuaded to believe that -- then you're too childish to participate in adult conversation.
posted by cribcage at 9:12 PM on December 14, 2005

A couple of points here:

Vouchers would likely only become a viable economically in inner cities where the schools are already beyond abysmal. To me it's telling that many of the most ardent supporters of vouchers are minority organizations that otherwise wouldn't agree with the GOP on anything.

As for charter schools, they don't really undermine public education because they are public schools. They just don't operate under a lot of the same rules, in particular teacher union restrictions. It's debatable whether or not charter schools actually help, but it's generally agreed that one of the major stumbling blocks to innovative educational change is the teacher unions. Charter schools are largely an end run around that.

On a somehwhat related note, the teacher union big wigs are just flat out evil and thoroughly corrupt -- they are to Democrats what Oil execs are to Republicans. In fact, because Democrats have so sold out to teacher unions, education is just about the only issue under the sun where they might have less credibility then Republicans right now.

Finally, I would just throw open the question -- for anyone that's opposed to ideas like vouchers and charter schools, what's the solution to improving public ed? It's not just about more funding.
posted by Heminator at 9:35 PM on December 14, 2005

What booksandlibretti and Herminator say is key. Vouchers received a fair amount support in Cleveland [despite the fact that it's pretty heavily Democratic] because the public school system is abysmal. I was lucky, and I had a full scholarship to an expensive private school. Middle class kids mostly couldn't afford the really great [but really expensive] suburban private schools, but they could afford to go to decent religious and private schools. The poor kids were stuck in the public school system which, despite levies and reforms and whatnot, remained awful. Vouchers were seen by many as a last-ditch attempt to help some of them out of that situation.

I'm sure that some people support vouchers because they think that they'll destroy the public school system, and I'm sure that some people oppose them for purely selfish reasons. However, I suspect that for more people, it's a matter of having no better ideas as to how to give at least some inner city kids a better education. That certainly seemed to be the case in Cleveland. I don't know anything about the San Diego school system, or how the voucher program works there. If I were you, I'd do a lot of research - what were the schools like [financially and academically] before vouchers, what were the selling points used to get vouchers passed, how does the voucher program work, etc. Form your opinion on the basis of the data, not broad conspiracy theories.
posted by ubersturm at 11:51 PM on December 14, 2005

Vouchers are just a way for the Republican party to destroy public education while pandering to minority voters and giving money to religious organizations.

It's a good strategic initiative for them. Divide and conquer, baby.

How do you fight for your schools? Realize that public school teachers shouldn't get tenure while also realizing that teachers should be paid more. Do you want really kick-ass people becoming teachers? Make it a sound choice, economically.
posted by bshort at 11:51 PM on December 14, 2005

Yes, you should fight this.
There are a couple of things that I oppose philosophically with regard to vouchers: I like the idea of a common education for a broad swath of America, because I think that it promotes communication and equality (and civic engagement, etc.); I also think that it's important to have things in this society that are not commodified, and I don't like the idea of valuing an educationsolely monitarily, which is what a lot of the firms who run these charter schools do. But I also have practical objections. Here in Michigan, a study was done of all of the charter schools started about ten years ago (the study was done probably about seven years ago). It was done by Western Michigan education faculty, and it evaluated things like basic facilities, faculty training, test scores, etc. On every single metric, a huge number of the charter schools failed. The report included things like how schools had no outside property that was safe for the students, that there were more than a few schools that had stagnant pools of water on campus, many of them lacked supplies like toilet paper and pencils, that many of the instructors were'nt actually licensed by the state, that the kids did poorly on most standardized tests... This led to quite a few schools being closed or having their charters revoked, at which point the kids were sent back to public schools, sometimes a grade or two behind their peers.
For many things in the marketplace, the consequences of a bad decision are either trivial or should be borne by the person making the decision. In our state, those consequences were borne by kids, many of them kids that had other problems and hence were at charter schools.
I'm not saying that charter schools are de facto bad: there are many, especially for the gifted that (aside from my concerns above about a shared education being important for a democratic country) are excellent and produce great students. But here in Michigan, both that study and the follow-up research that I had to do for a magazine led me to realize that the vast majority of charter schools were run by either incompetent ideologues or rapacious corporations.
posted by klangklangston at 12:48 AM on December 15, 2005

It's a cynical, transparent lie to claim that vouchers are a threat to public education. Public education is a noble and worthy end. Public schools are just a means to try to achieve it. Some do a good job, and some don't. Where they fail, parents and children should have alternatives. Vouchers simply provide that alternative.

They pose no threat to public education. They pose no threat to good public schools, only to bad ones that fail to provide education. Where a public school is so bad that, given a choice, parents would take their children elsewhere, the problem is not the choice, but the school.

It's a cynical, transparent lie to claim that vouchers are "for the rich." The rich do just fine the way things are. They can and do pay for private schools already. Vouchers matter for the poor and lower middle class who CAN'T afford private schools now. It lets them spend their public dollars to buy public education at a school of their choice, public or private.

The U.S. has the world's greatest higher education, but scandalously bad K-12 education. Colleges compete, whereas public schools are monopolies. Coincidence? Oh, maybe. But probably not.

The same chunk of public money that now goes to buy a terrible "education" at a bad public school can buy a great education at a private school. (Often the private school costs LESS.) How is public education served by forcing children into the bad school instead of allowing them to choose the better one? How is it harmed by allowing choice?
posted by clicktosubmit at 1:58 AM on December 15, 2005

Special bulletin for klang, from planet Earth: Many public schools have stagnant water, lack toilet paper, etc., etc., etc. More to the point, they do a rotten job of educating their students. Yeesh.
posted by clicktosubmit at 2:03 AM on December 15, 2005

Disclaimer: I am not a parent.

What uberstrum said about vouchers applies here in Bridgeport, Connecticut for charter schools. To answer the initial question as it relates to charter schools, I don't think the intent is to damage the public education system. But they still worry me.

I live in an area that appears to be lower-to-solid-middle class in comparison with the surrounding communities but it's the Park City's richest neighborhood. We're also probably the whitest. My neighbors, and this is pretty much all of them, who insist on sending their kids to private or Catholic schools if they can't get in to the charter school generally have realistic concerns -- Bridgeport's regular public schools are sorely lacking in comparison to the rest of Fairfield County. But there are also largely-unspoken but understood concerns fueled by racism* and classism.

I happen to believe that a heterogeneous student body benefits all children. So to me it's good that there are charter schools that keep kids in the public school system. But there are dangers to focusing on charter schools to as a solution to our public education crisis. What worries me about "fixing" the public school system by establishing charter schools is that it's too possible to end up with a student body whose race and class profiles don't match the community as a whole. The local charter schools draw from the surrounding area as well as the city so, let's face it -- the charter school kids as a whole probably belong to a wealthier, more influential and whiter demographic than the rest of the city.

I think that sidestepping the truly difficult task of rehabilitating our traditional public schools by establishing charter schools is a cheap, quick and dirty short-term solution, but in the long run will result in high social costs for all classes and races.

Oh, and the voucher thing? I've always seen that as a kickback to the very vocal parochial school lobby here in the Northeast and Christian school lobby elsewhere in the country. I don't think the intent of most politicians is to use it to take down the public school system (Grover Norquist notwithstanding) even if that's the ultimate effect.

*Racism: the elephant in the room here in the urban Northeast in any discussion of public schools. Our schools were segregated in fact if not by law for a very long time, and many still are. And readers slightly older than me probably remember well the busing-related tensions throughout New England in the 1970s.
posted by Opposite George at 2:05 AM on December 15, 2005

Charter schools, while often noble and well-intentioned, can't be equated with true school choice. Charter schools rarely have the depth of management and institutional support and resources of private schools, nor do they have the freedoms to staff, instruct, admit, discipline and (when necessary) expel which private schools enjoy and require to educate.

As far as I'm concerned, the opposition of well-off liberals to school choice is either foolish idealism or blatant hypocrisy, and in neither case would those well-off liberals dream of letting their children attend underperforming schools. By contrast, the opposition of poor people to school choice is just stupidity -- although it perplexes me how anyone could be so stupid as to be tricked into supporting teacher union lifestyles at the expense of one's own children.
posted by MattD at 6:14 AM on December 15, 2005

"It's a cynical, transparent lie to claim that vouchers are "for the rich." The rich do just fine the way things are. They can and do pay for private schools already. Vouchers matter for the poor and lower middle class who CAN'T afford private schools now. It lets them spend their public dollars to buy public education at a school of their choice, public or private."

It's a stupid, blind argument to claim that they do not disproportionately benefit those of higher socio-economic strata. First off, the argument that people can and do pay for private school isn't an argument against the idea that getting money to do so helps them. Second off, without the infrastructure surrounding them, and without the requirement that they accept all students, that means that poor kids often aren't accepted at better schools (either because of high demand or outright prejudice) and that even when they are, there are higher barriers (such as transportation costs) to their attendance. Vouchers are a sop to the upper middle-class and lower upper-class.

"The U.S. has the world's greatest higher education, but scandalously bad K-12 education. Colleges compete, whereas public schools are monopolies. Coincidence? Oh, maybe. But probably not."

And less than 20% of the population has a college degree. Might there be institutional differences in different levels of education? No, it must obviously be Adam Smith's invisible hand! If only 20% of kids went to elementary school, we could have the best damn schools in the world.

"Special bulletin for klang, from planet Earth: Many public schools have stagnant water, lack toilet paper, etc., etc., etc. More to the point, they do a rotten job of educating their students. Yeesh."

Special Bulletin for Clicktosubmit: Yes, but compared to schools in the same district in Michigan, and specifically in the county that I live in, charter schools were found to be inferior on the whole. (And the study wasn't done by axe-grinding teachers, but rather by education reform advocates doing a multi-year study out of Western Michigan University).

But keep hammering your talking points, yobbo.
posted by klangklangston at 6:37 AM on December 15, 2005

I think if you want to figure out charter schools, you have to look at their biggest proponents. Do the WalMart Waltons benefit from well-educated citizens or not?

That said, charter schools are NOT public schools, because people actually make money running them. Look at K-12, Bill Bennett's former company.

As a homeschooler, I am nervous about them because many include a "virtual" option that is basically computer instructed homeschooling. I want the freedom to choose the best curriculum for my children, not to be told I have to enroll the kids in the "virtual charter" and watch them sit in front of a screen all day.

I have a lot to say on this subject, but I'll leave it at that.
posted by Biblio at 6:38 AM on December 15, 2005

PFAW has a brief history of vouchers that may be instructive.
posted by jellicle at 6:54 AM on December 15, 2005

One issue with vouchers that has not yet been mentioned is that they rarely cover the costs of attending a truly "great" private school. Therefore, families can move their children from a bad public school to a mediocre at best (usually religious) private school but they still can't move them into the top educational tier.

I am also deeply wary of any system that skims off the smartest kids with the most involved parents and leaves the rest to rot in the public schools. It removes a lot of the incentive to improve public schools if the parents and kids who are most likely to care have already abandoned the ship.
posted by fancypants at 7:19 AM on December 15, 2005

I don't understand. Why should a person be compelled to pay for a service they are not recieving?

I come from a suburb with high property taxes and a good public school system, so naturally I hear a lot of this crap from the childless residents. It confounds me that people seem to think of a K-12 education as somehow similar to a consumer product or service...like it's some cooking class you take on the side just to get out of the house and learn something new. How people think that paying a little less in taxes is preferable to having a population that can generally read, write, and do math. They really think that if they don't have a kid that goes to public school, the state of public schools has no effect on their lives?

Here's the simple answer--you have to pay your taxes, whether you like it or not. You don't get to pick your favorite taxes and just pay them. Get over it.

Unfortunately, snsranch, you haven't gotten much actual advice in this thread, which is too bad. It'd be nice to have some real answers from people who have been successful in trying to improve their town's public schools.
posted by lampoil at 7:34 AM on December 15, 2005

In my town, the charter school movement has come primarily from the left wing. We have a fine school district, but a bunch of Waldorf people decided that their educational model should get public funding, and then some Montessori people decided that they wanted their model funded.

The problem lies with the way schools are funded in this state. Most of the funding comes from the state government, approx 5K per student. A charter school directly gets about 90% of that funding, to hire teachers, etc., and the district uses the 10% in order to monitor the school and make sure they comply with all of the legal requirements. In staff time, the 10% does not cover it.

The charter schools also regularly whine about lack of support from the district, even though they started because they wanted most of the decision-making power (for the fun stuff).

The only charter school that was arguably unique (we have a very progressive school district and there are both waldorf and Montessori elements to be found in a lot of programs) was a military acadamy. Our district shut that one down because they mishandled their funding (not dishonestly, just did not follow state guidelines). This acadamy seemed to serve kids who needed (or their parents thought they needed) the extra structure and discipline.

Overall, I believe that charter schools, as they manifest in my community, are harmful in that they select a cadre of very motivated and mostly affluent parents, and leave the neighborhood schools with a higher percentage of kids who come from homes where education is not as valued, or homes what lack the resources to transport their kids across town to these charter schools.

There is already a system of alternative schools in our district, which have programs mostly designed by the parents and teachers in that school, and then to add charter schools to that mix further depletes the neighborhood schools. Our district administration knows this, but this is a university town, and those parents who can aggressively advocate for their kids to be in environments away from the "average" kids. These are mostly liberal-leaning people, but their high mindedness seems to hit up against wanting their kids to not have to deal with kids from the poor side of town.

The only way you can fight this is to get in your school and volunteer and try to make it as welcoming and effective as you can. Good luck.
posted by Danf at 8:18 AM on December 15, 2005

I don't understand. Why should a person be compelled to pay for a service they are not recieving?

Very simple: enlightened self interest.

It is in society's interest, and yours specifically, for all citizens to be a well educated as possible. Or as I said in a recent school board meeting, "It's cheaper to build schools than prisons."

If your public schools aren't working, get involved and help them to work. I prefer "Magnet" schools to charter schools and do not favor vouchers at all.
posted by cptnrandy at 10:05 AM on December 15, 2005

Vouchers are distinctly not for the rich. For the actually wealthy, there are MANY things the government could do that would give them a far greater return on investment than vouchers. There's no reason why they would want this battle against such powerful foes just to save a piddly amount of money.

And honestly, most of the "upper middle class" would not take advantage of vouchers at all. They pay for a quality education by buying homes in the right areas.

I understand that all of us as middle and upper class people here on MetaFilter think it's a warm fuzzy to "support public schools" but for lower class people they are failing. You think you could improve Detroit Public Schools by giving them more money? You think any of that money would even make it to the students -- or even the teachers?

Also -- stagnant water? In Michigan? Never!

Wait, that was the entire state before the farmers and developers came in!
posted by dagnyscott at 10:28 AM on December 15, 2005

In addition to being interested in vouchers from an academic perspective, I am also a graduate of the Detroit Public Schools (K-12, 1987-2000).

I attended magnet schools the whole way through, so my experience isn't exactly representative, but I would say that I received an education that was comparable to what I would have received at all but the best of the city's private schools (Country Day, Cranbrook, U of D).

That said, the facilities at many DPS schools are truly disgraceful. Those of you who say that money won't solve school problems, it would certainly solve THOSE problems. Broken windows, lack of books, decaying buildings. These are all things that money can solve and I believe that a voucher program would only serve to further drain limited funds from the public schools in the system.

I would be happy to discuss my experiences in dealing with and "inner city" school district further by e-mail with anyone who is interested.
posted by fancypants at 10:41 AM on December 15, 2005

Public schools fail poor people because they are segregated by socio-economic status. With more mixed schools, you have better performing schools.

"By contrast, the opposition of poor people to school choice is just stupidity -- although it perplexes me how anyone could be so stupid as to be tricked into supporting teacher union lifestyles at the expense of one's own children.
posted by MattD at 6:14 AM PST on December 15 [!]"

Why should poor people be against union lifestyles? Unions protect us - and do a damn sight better than any employer. My unionised teachers were highly motiovated and had good moral - that is until the government started trying to break their union and overwork them. "Union lifestyle" - you know, wishing to have a lower middle-class income - just like a lot of poor people aspire to.

As for poor people having choice - You are thinking like a middle class person. I am not poor now, but I was on welfare when I was school age, so I know what I'm talking about. It's easy to talk about choice when you have a car to drive your kids around, time to shop for schools, to fetch kids to and from activities and friend's houses (because they aren't in the neigbourhood).

But for the rest of us, this is not happening. I was in a special education program, and transportation was provided for the most part (the only reason I could participate) but not for afterschool activities. I nearly wasn't allowed to be in the school play because my mother couldn't afford the time off work to pick me up (instead I took the public bus across the city alone - I was eight, and my teachers were scandalised, but I knew how - it was only two buses.) This is what it means to be poor - for vouchers to work for poor people, they would have to include busing, and how could you possibly do that to a bunch of different schools all over the city? And for kids poorer than I was - can vouchers provide breakfast? Afterschool tutoring? Parents who read well enough to help their kids with their homework? These are what actually help kids learn.

If you middle-class care so much for the poor, why don't you stop being hypocrites and actually go to OUR schools and make them better. Send your kid to a poor school, and join the PTA and make the public system better. No, you'd rather all just abandon it, leaving behind everyone else.

And by the way, the US does NOT have the world's greatest higher education. I've had experience with universities in three different countries (Canada, US and UK), and frankly the US is just like Canada or the UK, or many other countries in higher education. I teach in the Ivy League, and the teaching quality is the same (or less, if you compare me to the teachers I had) as the Canadian University I did undergrad at. The US buys good researchers from all around the world - that is not the same thing as having the best higher education. If I had a lot of money, I could buy the best food, but it wouldn't make me a three star chef.
posted by jb at 8:58 PM on December 15, 2005

Just another point against klangklangston:

Yes, a large number of charter schools have failed. But that's the point. When a charter school sucks, they shut it down and start over. Try doing that with a regular public school with entrenched union employees. No matter how awful the public school is, it continues to be a an abject failure in perpetuity, with only minor staff shuffling approved by the union. That rarely fixes the problem.

Further, in a number of instances union led political campaigns have attempted to sabotage charter schools at every turn. Maybe they'd be more successful if 90 percent of the employees in every given school district actually supported them in their mission, instead of actively trying scare teachers and administrators away from working at them and undermining what they see as a threat to their contractual security and lack of accountability.

Further, there have been hundreds of charter schools that have been spectatcular successes, far beyond what most public schools are capable of. It's not fair to dissmiss them as failures by any means, especially when they are still a nascent idea and frequently sabotaged.
posted by Heminator at 9:38 AM on February 1, 2006