What is Wrong With School Choice?

quicklime · Aug 29, 2015

it was a paste of someone else's comment, Blac--I agree entirely. More rich folks go to private school. And among the rich, more well-known or famous folks send their kids to private school.

Given that members of Congress are pretty well-known, particularly for making unpopular decisions, and they all tend to be somewhere between "not at all poor" and "we iz fucking rich," I would expect a larger % of their kids to attend private school

Darron · Aug 29, 2015

An alternative I have seen at least one county in Florida do with these failing public schools is rather shocking. Instead of punishing a school that scored an "F" three years in a row by taking away funds the district stepped in and propped up the school.

For the next two years they gave the school extra funding in the form of after school tutors, professional development for the teachers, extra aides, and teaching resources like updating some projectors, calculators, etc. When the district pulled away their extra help the school shot up to an "A" with gains on their standardized test scores. I was there the first year the district provided no help since they dropped the extra funding in a snap instead of weaning it off. The stress on the teachers was ridiculous, but it was so awesome that for once the school wasn't being reprimanded for being in a bad situation (rural town with high dropout rate and overall low SES).

Instead of using the money for vouchers that kids can use to hop schools (assuming they can travel there, which in my area is the biggest limiting factor), I think the positive reinforcement was a better way to use the money.

*Worth noting - a part of the deal with the funding was that if the school did not improve the district could replace the entire staff after the two years. So there was a big drive to help with the test scores, but the extra hours and manpower provided from what I was told was focused on helping the kids actually learn.

Williebee · Aug 30, 2015

c.e.lawson said:
However, practically speaking, there's an idealized situation (let's fix the schools!) and there's the reality we've have for years. My comment that you are referring to, Williebee, concerns the reality.

Your reality isn't a national one. It's not even a DC one. Or an urban one. And it is anything but "practical".

Take a look at Troy LaRaviere's world, in Chicago. He's being disciplined by Chicago Public Schools because, among other things, he is speaking out against what he calls the mayor's "anti-public-school privatization agenda." He might just know his stuff. He's a principal of an elementary school inside the CPS system, a public school. Blaine, as mentioned in his blog, and supported through links there, is one of 3 (out of 600) schools in Chicago -- including charter "school choice" schools, that "have consistently met three or more of (the mayor's) four school excellence criteria." But, much as your posts contend, the mayor's committe contends that privatization -- "school choice" is the only practical, "immediate" avenue.

Or maybe think of it this way, a conservative, religious, but monied few have managed to begin hijacking Texas education. They are attempting to rewrite the past and teach the values and beliefs they wish were true to their children and grandchildren. As if they couldn't accomplish inbreeding biologically, so they're going to try it intellectually. Imagine if they could accomplish the de facto results of "school choice".

CrastersBabies · Aug 30, 2015

School of Choice

Here is what that means in my county . . .

You have a "choice" to "apply" to another school for your child. You must a 250-500 word response as to why this choice is necessary.

There must be room at the school to accommodate and new students within the correct boundaries will be considered first.

There is less than a 5% acceptance rate at schools that receive higher test scores.

There was a zoning "kerfufffle" in the city where I live. A trailer park is currently in a higher-middle class school zone and parents believe these "trailer park kids" are bringing scores down. They attempted to zone the trailer park out. Failed. 80% of the parents pulled their kids from that school and put them in another school. The "zoned" school had a severe drop in test scores. That means less funding. That means more parents pulling their kids out.

And this is in one of those cities that makes it onto the "Top 10 places to live and raise a family" lists. I can't imagine what happens in the bigger cities.

I boil this sort of issue down to a few things:

1. Parents are assholes who all think their kids belong in the gifted and talented program (which is actually a freakin' sham in most school districts and anyone with a degree in education knows that). And they will do whatever it takes to keep their kid in a high-score school.

2. These companies that facilitate and provide testing and testing support are multi-BILLION dollar companies. I saw a budget for my daughter's 3rd grade class for one year. Testing takes up $3500 of their budget (out of $10k).

3. It's nice when people think that the magical solution is just to bus kids to a nice school and call it a day. You're essentially giving the middle finger to all of the other kids who might benefit from a solid education.

4. A lot of people want schools to go 100% private. Why? Because $$$$$$$$. These people want public schools to fail and they give no shits about who gets caught up in that crossfire. None. Zero.

You want to get an idea? Talk to teachers. Talk to the staff. Talk to the nurse who doubles as a librarian who also works in the lunchroom who also has to assist teachers all day and do administrative errands.

Talk to parents whose kids are getting short-changed. Talk to parents who have zero qualms about saying, "Yeah, I pulled my kid from his old school because there were three too many Mexicans in his class."

How about a system that helps all kids, that doesn't reply on standardized testing as a measurement for funding, but that can still reward good teachers?

c.e.lawson · Aug 30, 2015

Williebee said:
Your reality isn't a national one. It's not even a DC one. Or an urban one. And it is anything but "practical".

Take a look at Troy LaRaviere's world, in Chicago. He's being disciplined by Chicago Public Schools because, among other things, he is speaking out against what he calls the mayor's "anti-public-school privatization agenda." He might just know his stuff. He's a principal of an elementary school inside the CPS system, a public school. Blaine, as mentioned in his blog, and supported through links there, is one of 3 (out of 600) schools in Chicago -- including charter "school choice" schools, that "have consistently met three or more of (the mayor's) four school excellence criteria." But, much as your posts contend, the mayor's committe contends that privatization -- "school choice" is the only practical, "immediate" avenue.

Or maybe think of it this way, a conservative, religious, but monied few have managed to begin hijacking Texas education. They are attempting to rewrite the past and teach the values and beliefs they wish were true to their children and grandchildren. As if they couldn't accomplish inbreeding biologically, so they're going to try it intellectually. Imagine if they could accomplish the de facto results of "school choice".

I'm not sure I understand your point about Chicago's reality, Willliebee. Are you saying that because this principal quickly improved his school, that all of the other bad schools could be improved quickly as well? Perhaps. But then why haven't they?

Perhaps the study by the University of Chicago in 2013 on school closure (that Rahm Emanuel is getting demonized for) showed the reality? http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/publications/School Closings Report.pdf

Closing schools is difficult and often fiercely contested.
Schools are one of the few stable institutions in some
communities, and closing them has the potential to
further destabilize fragile neighborhoods and dispro
portionately affect the most vulnerable students in the
system. Districts must weigh the impact that closing
schools has on those directly affected with any benefits
that might accrue from consolidating resources
into fewer school buildings. When districts decide to
close schools, they are often met with strong resistance
from families, community groups, and school staff. In
Chicago, the closings were concentrated in depopulated
neighborhoods in the South and West sides—neighbor
-hoods already grappling with very high levels of poverty,
crime, and unemployment. Because of the vulnerability
of the affected students, critics of the Chicago Public
Schools (CPS) policy worried that displaced students
would end up in poor educational environments and
suffer both emotionally and academically.
In an attempt to address some of these concerns,
CPS assigned all displaced students to a
“welcoming
school”
that was rated higher-performing than their
closed schools. The district made investments in these
welcoming schools and expanded the already existing Safe Passage program to include routes to these schools
with adult monitors. Although the district assigned students to specific higher-rated welcoming schools, given
the open enrollment system in Chicago, families could
enroll their children in any other school in the district
with open seats.

On average, students were assigned to schools
with a performance policy rating that was 21 points
higher, with all students assigned to higher-rated or
equally-rated schools. Moreover, 39 percent of students
were assigned to schools that were at least 20 points
higher than the closed school.
Nearly all displaced students (93 percent) attended
schools with higher performance policy points than the
closed schools, with 7 percent of students attending a
school with lower points than their school that closed.
However, only about one-third of displaced students
attended schools with at least 20 performance points
higher than the closed school.

or this?

Recall that prior research has found that students
who relocated from closed schools to substantially
higher-performing schools showed improvements in
their academic performance.

Or maybe the reality is that parents don't only look for official academic markers of quality when deciding which school is best for their child.

Academic quality for these families meant anything
from schools having after-school programs, to having
certain curricula and courses, small class sizes, and one-
on-one attention from teachers in classes. In addition,
several parents stressed the importance of enrolling
their children into schools that were not overcrowded.
One interviewee explained why this was important to
her:
“I wanted them to get a better environment and to
have a better chance of the teachers and the staff giving
attention, you know, to their needs, being willing to help
them .”
This particular family chose a school that was
only slightly lower-rated than their designated wel
coming school. Many of these same parents expressed
concern over larger class sizes at the welcoming schools
and wondered whether their children would be able to
get what they needed from their teachers

Or perhaps the reality is reflected in this editorial in the Chicago Tribune?

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...oice-charter-schools-recovery-school-district

Four years ago, the Illinois General Assembly came close to approving a school voucher program for Chicago Public Schools. Close, but lawmakers failed.

The bill passed the Senate but was defeated in the House, even though the program would have given thousands of children in chronically underperforming and overcrowded CPS schools a chance to choose a better future.

Instead, the students were consigned to stay where they were, even though most of their schools had languished for nearly a decade on academic watch lists.

The bill failed, even though children at some of CPS' badly overcrowded schools were being taught in restrooms, plastic bags thrown over the urinals. That's a disgrace.

The kindergartners who could have benefited from that school choice program are now in fourth grade, likely attending the same failing schools. In 2013, the average reading score of 4th-graders in Chicago was lower than the average for public school students in other large cities, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, also known as the nation's "report card." More than half of 4th-graders in Chicago don't meet basic reading proficiency requirements. Sadly, this isn't news.

Does anyone care?

Since that vote in the spring of 2010, no voucher proposal has gained meaningful traction in the legislature. The bill's sponsors, Sen. James Meeks and Rep. Kevin Joyce, have retired from the General Assembly, and the influential public employee unions have stifled any movement toward a school choice program.

The bill would have saved money. Chicago Public Schools would have come out ahead financially. And most important: Thousands of students in the poor-performing schools would have been empowered to choose their school.

"I've never supported vouchers. I've been leery of charter schools, but people, we've got to do something different from what we've always done," then-state Rep. Karen Yarbrough, D-Maywood, said during debate. "If we continue to do what we've always done, we'll get the same results. Please vote for this bill."

It wasn't to be. Clout, not kids, won the day. The bill got shot down 66-48 in the House.

I can find research that refutes the contention that public schools decline (the studies have shown either an improvement or no change) or that racial segregation increases after school choice is implemented, or that the money is siphoned from the poor to the rich. I have yet to see any links here to studies which show any of those things actually happen.

Here's an example about the 'rich' issue:

http://www.edchoice.org/a-new-look-at-data-from-the-nations-largest-school-choice-program/

I have to take my child to a going away party now, but I will return later with links to the other studies I mentioned.

Amadan · Aug 30, 2015

All your editorials and studies are saying the same thing - "Schools are bad and they stayed bad, therefore we made a mistake not going with vouchers."

Neither they, nor you, have addressed the reasons vouchers and school choice were not taken up as solutions , nor substantiated your belief that school choice would have improved the situation. All you are doing, repeatedly, is insisting that schools suck so Vouchers!

It's like saying "Well, nothing else has worked yet and the patient is still sick, so opposing drilling holes in his skull means you obviously think he's just fine and we should do nothing. Look, there are all these articles written by people who want to drill holes in skulls and have many interesting theories about how that will cure patients! They've never actually tested this and people with actual medical experience almost unanimously think it's a bad idea, but they didn't cure him, so what do they know know? "

Gregg · Aug 30, 2015

Milwaukee actually has 2 types of "choice" - one where the tax money follows the student to help pay for private school tuition; the second, run by the city, is "open enrollment" where a student can apply to attend any public school in the city. Not every student gets into the school they want and transportation to an out-of-district is not provided.

Perks · Aug 30, 2015

CrastersBabies said:
1. Parents are assholes who all think their kids belong in the gifted and talented program (which is actually a freakin' sham in most school districts and anyone with a degree in education knows that). And they will do whatever it takes to keep their kid in a high-score school.

Ha! You're not kidding about it being a sham. (Except I hope I duck the asshole category.

)

Both of my girls were selected in second grade for inclusion into the "gifted" program. With the exception of the first three years that my eldest was in the program, it's been an utterly infuriating waste of time. (That first teacher was wonderful and had such a grasp on what activities would be actually enriching. Sadly, she was lured away by another school system. North Carolina public schools are awful to their teachers.)

School just started here and my youngest (7th grade) has had enough. She doesn't want to miss time out of her regular classes (that she quite likes) to do stupid exercises like "try to tell us something about yourself using only numbers and mathematical equations". I asked her if she wanted me to see if I could get her out of the gifted program. She, who rarely emphatically expresses her desires, said, "YES!"

So, I'm working on it. Apparently, there a designation called "Consultative AIG" for students who academically qualify, but for one reason or another can't accommodate the time out of class, so hopefully, I can just get her out of it. It's so pointless.

A few years ago, I actually had to go to the middle school principle over AIG weirdness. My twelve year old daughter, at the dinner table with her eight year old sister and her father and I sitting there with our mouths hanging open, began describing for us a murdered woman - nude, mutilated, dismembered, and carefully arranged in a ditch for discovery. The woman had been slit from mouth to ear on both sides and I immediate recognized the Black Dahlia crime scene.

This is my sixth-grader and the grisly, specific details of one of the most heinous unsolved crimes on record.

I stopped Julia after I could speak again and asked her what on earth she was talking about and she said it had been the day's AIG lesson. The teacher had used an incredibly offensive write up of the crime (including noting that the victim, Elizabeth Short, was known for dressing up, dying her hair, wearing bright lipstick, and hanging around California servicemen) and the exercise tacked on an insanely disgusting, fictional solving of the crime. If the kiddies followed the faux clues right, they would deduce by the red, white, and blue fibers fictionally discovered in her throat, that Elizabeth Short had been murdered by having an American flag rammed down her throat.

In Part II of the lesson, this nutjob teacher also let a room full of twelve year olds play with the actual cipher that the Zodiac Killer used to taunt the San Francisco Chronicle with. If they broke the code, they got to discover the answer to the question posed about why this person kept murdering people. The answer was: Because it is so much fun.

Every time I think about this assignment, I get mad all over again.

The teacher, the gifted program's best and brightest, and I had a back and forth email conversation, before I went to the principal, in which he told me, "Mystery and crime investigation are endorsed by most, if not all, gifted education experts, and are among my students favorite lessons." And I replied, "Crime and human debauchery can be a fascinating and even valuable area of study, but introduction to the grisliest things that happen in the world should be a more gradual process. It's sort of a sliding scale from Scooby-Doo to the 'Saw' films, but, ideally and in the interest of preserving peaceful sleep and a general sense of security, sixth-graders should have the most profound shocks of psycho-sexual torture and thrill-killing still ahead of them."

c.e.lawson · Aug 30, 2015

Amadan said:
All your editorials and studies are saying the same thing - "Schools are bad and they stayed bad, therefore we made a mistake not going with vouchers."

Neither they, nor you, have addressed the reasons vouchers and school choice were not taken up as solutions , nor substantiated your belief that school choice would have improved the situation. All you are doing, repeatedly, is insisting that schools suck so Vouchers!

It's like saying "Well, nothing else has worked yet and the patient is still sick, so opposing drilling holes in his skull means you obviously think he's just fine and we should do nothing. Look, there are all these articles written by people who want to drill holes in skulls and have many interesting theories about how that will cure patients! They've never actually tested this and people with actual medical experience almost unanimously think it's a bad idea, but they didn't cure him, so what do they know know? "

That one article from the Chicago Tribune is what you are saying, I agree. But there is research out there on choice programs which have been policy for years.

The article I cited on the distribution of choice in terms of the wealth of the receiving families was data collected on an existing choice program in Indiana. Did you see that one? I've cited it again below, with the title.

And the study I cited from the University of Chicago looked at MANY parameters of the RESULTS of charter school choice in the CPS. Again - DATA that was collected on a program currently in use.

A New Look at Data from the Nation’s Largest School Choice Program

http://www.edchoice.org/a-new-look-at-data-from-the-nations-largest-school-choice-program/

That's data. That's not talking points. So no, I don't accept your contention that I'm only repeating the same unsubstantiated stuff. You, however, have not yet offered any solid data on your contentions.

Here's another review of the data: I found the following on page 12.

There had been 10 random-assignment studies of
academic effects of school choice on participants
when the last edition of this report was published in
2011. Readers seeking a descriptive overview of those
studies should consult that edition. Two additional
studies have been published since then. These 12
studies consistently find a positive impact from school
choice.
Among the 10 studies reviewed in the previous “Win-
Win” report, six find a positive impact for all students,
and three find a positive impact for some student
groups (black students in some studies; students
leaving especially bad public schools in others) with
no visible impact on other groups. Probably the most
plausible hypothesis to explain the studies finding
benefits for some groups but not others is that these
student groups were served more poorly in their
public schools and thus stood to gain the most from
the opportunity to choose a new school.
The remaining study, a reanalysis of data from a
previous study, found no visible impact from choice.
However, the authors, Alan Krueger and Pei Zhu,
introduced methodological changes that violated the
normally accepted rules of social science.

http://www.edchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/2013-4-A-Win-Win-Solution-WEB.pdf

I will be back with more data a bit later.

Amadan · Aug 30, 2015

Summarize what the data says and how it was collected, in your own words.

BoF · Aug 30, 2015

c.e.lawson said:
http://www.edchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/2013-4-A-Win-Win-Solution-WEB.pdf

I will be back with more data a bit later.

This source is an advocacy group that asks for donations to push a school choice agenda. How much "research" do you think they would publish that hurts their cause? Given your earlier expressed dislike of teachers unions, would you think opinions expressed by the National Education Association or the American Federation of Teachers of equal value?

kuwisdelu · Aug 30, 2015

Perks said:
Ha! You're not kidding about it being a sham. (Except I hope I duck the asshole category. )

Both of my girls were selected in second grade for inclusion into the "gifted" program. With the exception of the first three years that my eldest was in the program, it's been an utterly infuriating waste of time.

I wouldn't say they're all like that. I went to a "gifted" school for elementary and middle school and it was mostly a good experience.

Well, it was its own school and not a program embedded in another school, though.

So the only downside is that I think it stunted some of us socially, since many of us never had to interact with "normal" kids until high school.

Perks · Aug 30, 2015

kuwisdelu said:
I wouldn't say they're all like that. I went to a "gifted" school for elementary and middle school and it was mostly a good experience.

The only downside is that I think it stunted some of us socially, since many of us never had to interact with "normal" kids until high school.

Because of that one wonderful teacher, I can well imagine well-designed gifted programs. Sadly, the one in my school system is absurd.

Cyia · Aug 30, 2015

The draw of the gifted / AP / whatever else they tacked on to it program that I was in was the 10 extra points automatically added to every grade average on our report cards. It skewed the rankings in our classes so badly that no one who opted out of "GATE" or who wasn't selected could even hope to compete when it came to putting everyone in order.

Ten points added to the *average* is a ridiculous advantage. Adding 10 points of extra credit to a test can be equalized in the overall scores, but turning 86 into 96 for the semester is a huge change. Likewise, those of us with high A's, ended up with averages way over 100, meaning that a kid who actually got an average of 86 was a full 10 points behind the "Gate" kids whose 86 were made into 96, and 20 points behind a Gate kids with a 96 that magically bumped to 106. Those over 100 averages helped fill in the points to keep the school's number of 4.0 gpa's at the top of the state. If you took AP calculus, AP physics and AP history, then a regular class like PE, you were still 30 points ahead, so that if you got a 70 in the regular class, you could still come out with a 100 point average.

So yeah, parents fought tooth and nail to keep their kids in AP / GATE / honors classes.

Perks · Aug 30, 2015

That's terrible. I think it should be enrichment-only, not GPA credit.

AP is a hell of a lot of extra work, so I understand. But it never occurred to me that it was to weight GPA statistics for a district or a specific school.

That seems very wrong.

Williebee · Aug 30, 2015

You're still not engaging the initial point, c.e.

There are good and bad programs in public schools, private schools, parochial schools. There are good and bad "school choice" programs.

What makes you think it is an either/or proposition?

CassandraW · Aug 30, 2015

kuwisdelu said:
I wouldn't say they're all like that. I went to a "gifted" school for elementary and middle school and it was mostly a good experience.

Well, it was its own school and not a program embedded in another school, though.

So the only downside is that I think it stunted some of us socially, since many of us never had to interact with "normal" kids until high school.

One can always continue to avoid interacting with "normal" people, or really, pretty much everyone. I feel that is often the happiest course.

I was in a gifted program; I thought it was a good thing, FWIW. It probably does depend on the program--and on the alternative. I think it makes sense to gear programs so that kids get the help/and or challenge they need. Kids are not all working at the same level at the same age in all subjects; when you pretend they are, you bore some, frustrate others, and lose many.

ETA:

It's a screaming shame that any of our public schools are inadequate or have fewer resources than others. I'm concerned that vouchers and the like funnel out all the kids whose parents give a damn out of schools, and without those feisty, fighting parents, things will be even worse for the kids left behind.

Latina Bunny · Aug 30, 2015

It's interesting to hear people who had experienced gifted programs/classes.

When I was a kid, I kind of envied the gifted kids. They looked like they had some interesting stuff, from the little bits I saw at my schools.

I was in special Ed because of processing and speech problems. I got mainstreamed around 4th or 5th grade.

In special Ed, while I liked having multiple people to go to for help... the teachers were not nice.

I was yelled at a bit for some things I can't remember, and for being slow. I was scolded for erasing on spelling tests (is that normal?), and I was also forced to try to write with my right hand (I was left-handed). It was a bit of a miserable blur to me. Didn't help when I needed glasses later on, lol.

I got good grades, and even went to college, but I tend to be slow to do or finish things, and sometimes it takes awhile to process some things, so I got an occasional accommodation for more time when I was mainstreamed.

Anyway, I've seen good and bad programs in my education career, so it really depends on the school and its administration, etc.

kuwisdelu · Aug 30, 2015

bunny-gypsy said:
I was yelled at a bit for some things I can't remember, and for being slow. I was scolded for erasing on spelling tests (is that normal?), and I was also forced to try to write with my right hand (I was left-handed). It was a bit of a miserable blur to me. Didn't help when I needed glasses later on, lol.

That's not normal. Or at least, it shouldn't be. That's horrible. I'm sorry.

CassandraW · Aug 30, 2015

It doesn't sound normal to me, either. Certainly it should not happen.

Xelebes · Aug 30, 2015

In my schools, there was never a gifted student program. Some students, like me, were simply given the next year's curriculum - mostly math. There are some schools which offer the IB program. The one by my parent's place (and the one my mom went to back in the 1960s) has this. It is mostly a more aggressive program. I took IB in high school because I liked the challenge, especially in math.

No default averages were bumped. In fact, the scores were often lower because the test and the assignments were harder. The advantage was passing the IB exam and getting to skip a couple university courses, which meant that you could save money and time there.

Cyia · Aug 30, 2015

The forcing of lefties to use their right hands crops up now and again. It's not supposed to, but it's one of those things that will not die. I was ambidextrous as a kid, with a predominate left hand for everything except writing. The hand I used depended on which teacher's class I was in. Some people are superstitious about lefties, some have a cultural disliking of left-hand usage, and a surprising number of teachers seem to have trouble teaching someone to write with their left hand. I was a sub in a small school in the early 2000's where this was the case with one teacher in particular. She didn't realize that one of the kids was favoring his left hand, and the kid assumed he was doing thing wrong by not holding his pencil or crayon like the rest of the kids.

Lyv · Aug 31, 2015

I was born in 1961 and in whatever grade you learn cursive (3rd? 4th?), our teacher asked the lefty kids to raise our hands. She then said she couldn't teach us to write and it was our parents' fault for not switching us. My mother didn't switch my older sister (born in 1951) either. She was ahead of her time.

I didn't realize how lucky I was with the gifted programs I was in, especially the one in Massachusetts. They were excellent.

robjvargas · Aug 31, 2015

CassandraW said:
It's a screaming shame that any of our public schools are inadequate or have fewer resources than others. I'm concerned that vouchers and the like funnel out all the kids whose parents give a damn out of schools, and without those feisty, fighting parents, things will be even worse for the kids left behind.

As I understand it, there's a lot of research going against me, but I can't shake the feeling that we're on the verge of some "social Darwinism" no matter which way we turn. The public school system (in the USA, anyway) is horribly bloated with bureaucracy, teacher unions are more about protecting their dues-payers than advancing the profession, and any effort at reform is more about "measuring" teachers than about figuring out how to teach kids.

Let me be explicit: I'm not advocating that darwinism. I'm fearing it. The problems that public schools and public education face are coming at them from all sides. From public policymakers, from parents/citizens, from kids, and, yes, from teachers (indirectly, as they vote in their union officers).

Yes, the kids, too. But I also believe that the problems being faced there will (more or less) correct themselves if the other sources get their flipping act together.

School vouchers are one factor in the solution. But, like all the other solutions that people propose, these vouchers, in and of themselves, aren't the silver bullet to slay the education malaise monster. Without schools worthy of parents' choice, it's an empty promise.

There's so much that needs to be said here. I could write for weeks, it seems, and still barely skim the surface of all the solutions I believe we need. There isn't a single solution. I'm not sure there are only 100 solutions. The needs are vast. The problems astronomical. Hence, my fear.

c.e.lawson · Aug 31, 2015

Williebee said:
You're still not engaging the initial point, c.e.

There are good and bad programs in public schools, private schools, parochial schools. There are good and bad "school choice" programs.

What makes you think it is an either/or proposition?

I guess I'm not expressing myself very well, Williebee. I thought the initial point was my initial question when I wrote the OP - What is wrong with school choice?
And then people answered me. Only a couple of people answered regarding the actual situation in the OP news story I linked, but I did ask the question in a general sense. Others answered with their objections to school choice in general. And then I tried to engage as many answers back as I could.

Multiple people in this thread indicated that choice is a bad idea with bad consequences. That seems to be the either/or -- choice has bad consequences, therefore no choice. I did say we need to fix the bad schools, but obviously that isn't happening quickly or well. One, two, three years in a bad high school can ruin a kid's chances for college or a career. I never said to eliminate public schools. I also mentioned that if there are some aspects of school choice that people object to, then we can improve them. I addressed the objection that rich people benefit more by responding that we can have a financial means qualification aspect. Which some do. And I showed an analysis that rich people don't, in the program I showed the data from, benefit more. (Indiana)

I addressed the objection that the public schools get worse when choice programs are implemented with data that showed they do not.
I gave Amadan a couple of ways we can improve public schools without costing more money.

But I still think, in some dire situations today, that voting against school choice means, in a practical way, keeping the kids in the bad schools. And if I were a parent with my children in a bad, unsafe, overcrowded inner city school, and vouchers came up on the ballot, and they were voted down, it would seem to be, to me, an either/or situation. Because my kids would remain in that dire school.

Just a quick note to Amadan - I would never post a 27 page paper and not even give it a cursory read. At the time you asked me to summarize it, I was in the Burn ICU doing a rehab medicine consultation on a patient scheduled for an above knee amputation, and I had two other stroke consultations pending. My patient in the burn unit needed questions answered and she was pretty upset about things. I realize you don't take real life excuses as a reason not to engage more fully here, but in my book, my patients come first and engaging here is secondary. (Actually tertiary, after taking care of my two kids and husband)

I still think school choice (and yes, there are various forms of this, some better than others) offers the only immediate escape for some kids in dire schools who can't afford to move or to pay for private schools. I never said I wanted it across the board, in every district, and I never said I wanted to abolish public schools. Also, I mentioned the rate of congress members sending their kids to private school, because I think a congressperson who sends their child to a private school and then votes against a choice program which might give poor kids a chance to attend a better school, is probably a hypocrite on some level. (Of course that would have to take into account the design of the choice program, etc. but I do believe there are instances where it is hypocritical)

One thing we haven't looked at yet is how the actual parents think of their experience with choice. As these are the folks who are mired in the situation, I would think that's closest to home. We can quibble about the "biased" data all we want, and that can probably never be solved here in this forum because of the playing with numbers that biased researches might do on either side of things. But we certainly can look at parental satisfaction in an uncomplicated way. Here is a summary of a recent survey of parental satisfaction in Louisiana.

https://www.louisianabelieves.com/d...m---parental-satisfaction-survey.pdf?sfvrsn=2

From January 26 – March 19, 2014, the
Louisiana Federation for Children
and Black Alliance for Educational Options
conducted a direct mail survey to evaluate the level of parental satisfaction with the Louisiana Scholarship
Program (formally known as the Student Scholarships for Educational Excellence
Program). As of April 2014, the Louisiana Department of Education reported 6,490
students were enrolled in the Louisiana Scholarship Program. Of the 6,490 surveys
distributed, 1,779 surveys were returned for a 27.4 percent return rate. An eight to
ten percent return rate is considered successful for direct mail surveys.

survey sample

This year’s survey sample includes at least one survey from 112 of the 126
participating schools. Respondents from 35 school districts are represented in
the survey sample. Forty-two percent of the surveys received are from parents of
first-time scholarship recipients, with the other 58 percent representing parents of
continuing students.

91.9% of parents are happy with their child's scholarship school
91.6% were happy with their child's performance at the scholarship school
98.7 said their child felt safe in the scholarship school. (THAT is a parameter that is not addressed in standardized testing and is so crucial)
97.6% feel welcome at the scholarship school

This is the Louisiana program as described on it's website:

Louisiana Scholarship Program
The Louisiana Scholarship Program empowers low-income families with the same opportunity as more affluent parents already have – the financial resources to send their child to the school of their choice.

Launched in 2008 in New Orleans, the Louisiana Scholarship Program, formally known as the Student Scholarships for Education Excellence Program, was expanded statewide in 2012. For the 2014-2015 school year, more than 13,000 students applied for a Scholarship and nearly 7,400 students accepted a Scholarship and enrolled in a participating, state-approved private school.

131 nonpublic schools – nearly one-third of eligible schools – are participating in the program in 2014-2015.

To be eligible for a Scholarship, students must have a family income that does not exceed 250% of the federal poverty guidelines and must be entering kindergarten or enrolled in a public school with a C, D, or F grade.

Scholarship students must take the same assessments as students in public schools. Student achievement on these assessments is used to determine the status of a school's continued participation in the program.

https://www.louisianabelieves.com/schools/louisiana-scholarship-program

note, for the 2014 poverty guidelines, that would mean income less than $59,625 for a family of 4 ($23,850 x 250%)

Anyway, I will probably step somewhat back from this thread since my work week is beginning, and it will be a busy one. I'm sorry if I didn't communicate clearly or effectively. And I would welcome some solid data that supports the contention that the remaining schools or kids would be in a worse situation (not same but worse) if choice was implemented.

What is Wrong With School Choice?

all out of fucks to give

Always trust a geologist

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.

Burninator!

Life is good

delicate #!&@*#! flower

Cautious Daredevil

Revolutionize the World

delicate #!&@*#! flower

Rewriting My Destiny

delicate #!&@*#! flower

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.

Lover of Contemporary/Fantasy Romance (she/her)

Revolutionize the World

Delerium ex Ennui

Rewriting My Destiny

I meant to do that.