[sgnelson]

I don't think anyone is going to say "offering parents more choices is bad." But the political reality is not simply "offering more choices." The political reality typically entails using funds set aside for public schools for charter schools. In reality, what happens all too often is that funding and resources are stripped away from the already resource poor schools and given to charter schools.

And that's probably why people seem as if they're saying "Charter schools bad." I'd argue they're really saying "Taking funds away from public schools to give to charter schools bad." We're creating a system where the already struggling schools will then be put on a downward spiral, unable to recover.

But I think our educations system is screwed up and we need to invest more resources into education at all levels, so what do I know.

There's also the moral question of your whole "it sucks for children of uncaring parents" quote, which I personally think is quite a selfish and uncaring perspective, that is also probably grossly not the truth for the variety of parents in lower performing schools, but I'm not going to get into that.

[throwaway101223]

> In reality, what happens all too often is that funding and resources are stripped away from the already resource poor schools and given to charter schools.

Where are you seeing this? D.C. has almost half of its students in charter schools, and it also has public schools that are funded more than almost anywhere else in the U.S.

Worth pointing out that the charter school enrollment is highest in the poorest wards with the greatest percent of the black population. It’s lowest in the richest wards with the greatest percent of the whtie population. See for yourself[1].

Like with the claims of “underfunded public schools,” a lot of these conversations seem to stem from people hearing talking points and assuming that they’re true, while not bothering to look at the facts that show the opposite to be the case.

https://dcpcsb.org/student-enrollment

[pixl97]

>Worth pointing out that the charter school enrollment is highest in the poorest wards with the greatest percent of the black population. It’s lowest in the richest wards with the greatest percent of the whtie population. See for yourself[1].

Now, what exactly do you think this is telling you?

[sokoloff]

> entails using funds set aside for public schools

That’s one framing.

Another framing is “using funds set aside to educate the children of the district”.

If you frame the funding as being for the schools rather than for the children’s education, you naturally object to it being spent elsewhere.

Are we trying to run public schools or trying to educate children in the district?

(My kids attended public schools.)

[seanmcdirmid]

Segregationists tried using that framing back in the 1960s/70s, but it the argument was ruled invalid by the Warren-led Supreme Court. Who knows what would happen these days, however.

[christophilus]

Joel Greenblatt has schools that focus almost entirely on low income / underprivileged students. Their results were really good last I checked (pre-COVID, so things may have changed). It doesn’t have to be about one race vs another. Choice can be good for all.

Edit: I should note, I think he doesn’t focus on race, but I got the impression that his students are predominantly minorities.

[sokoloff]

“I don’t want my kids to go to school with people of a different race” makes you an asshole.

“I don’t want my kids to go to a school that will fail to educate them” makes you exactly the opposite.

[seanmcdirmid]

> “I don’t want my kids to go to a school that will fail to educate them” makes you exactly the opposite.

And if you just happen know that the second overlaps with the former, you can convince yourself that you aren't an asshole. The segregationists of the 60s were self convinced they weren't assholes.

[sgnelson]

As to my earlier comment, I don't think anyone is saying "We shouldn't educate students" (except the parent comment that was like "only for kids whose parents care.") And for me, public schools are for the education of all the children in the district. In my head, I don't really separate the two. I believe in education for all, despite what resources their parents have. I'm going to reject the premise that I'm just for public schools just because. To me, it's one and the same.

If public schools aren't for the education of students, what are they for? To follow your question, if not public schools, do we just change all schools to charter and private schools and have the state fund them? (Well, then don't they just become public schools with slightly different administrations, that over time will surely become just another public school system?)

I should reiterate: I'm not saying that we shouldn't have school choice, but my very real concern is that school choice usually means that we take funding from one school, to send it to another school. And this is what happening* (* depending on the state/district you live in, maybe not. But it's happening in plenty of other locales.)

I think for a lot of middle class parents, Charter schools are very appealing. But I'm also talking about the students who need the most help. So the real question becomes "funds set aside for the education of _which_ students in the district."

Well, let's go back to the original post. Why do people go on and on about how school choice is bad? It's not about school choice. It's about school resources. It's politics. Who gets what, where, when and how. If the education system in America was so rich in cash that we were paving the hallways of schools with gold bricks, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. But they are not. It's a question of resources and how to direct those resources for the most good. And guess what, everyone is going to have a slightly different opinion of what "good" is.

But back to your question: Why aren't we trying to educate children in the district?

Okay, if it helps students, and if your tax payer dollars are there to educate that student, what's the problem? The reality is, this typically leaves the schools that are already struggling to fall further behind.

Teaching is hard. Teaching students who don't want to be there, don't care, have special needs, or a poor family life is even more so. This is especially the case because Teachers are asked to do a lot more than just teach English and Math, but rather provide some of the resources that may not be provided by their family or society at large.

All schools and school systems have their own needs and issues. And largely what happens is that schools which have the least resources need the most resources to be successful. There's also a very real economy of scale that can occur at schools, and once resources start getting stripped, those economy of scales start falling apart, and now those dollars you do have, don't go as far.

Getting teachers to work at Title 1 schools is hard. You need to pay them higher salaries. You need more resources, such as school psychologists, school resource officers, teacher aids, etc. Even things like having parents come in to volunteer is more of an issue, and if you don't have those volunteers, where do you get the replacement labor from?

Not too many people are creating (good) Charter schools to serve these students needs (not to say there aren't, there are some good schools out there, but not enough of them.)

I work in education (but you couldn't pay me enough to teach high school in America). I see the issues with the system everyday. The system is broken. Teachers are underpaid, overworked and leaving in droves. If you look at the statistics for number of students in education departments in colleges to become teachers, it has drastically fallen over the past 15 years. (I literally tell students of mine that are interested in education to stay away.) That's not likely to change in the foreseeable future.

Students are not getting the education they deserve. There aren't enough teachers. There are bad teachers. All too often the bureaucracy is uncaring and unyielding, and that's not a great way to educate individuals. Students are getting passed through the system regardless if they're learning or not.

The issue I have with your question is this: Are we trying to educate _all_ children in the district or are we trying to educate _your_ children in the district? Because if it's just your children, charter schools would be great. If it's all children, we can't just rely on Charter schools to solve all the inherent problems with the system (because they're not just going to magically fix things). We're going to have to reach deep down, work harder, and make a lot of even tougher decisions to fix the broken education system in America.

[sokoloff]

I may not have made my distinction clearly enough.

My city’s school district total proposed budget is $245M for next year. Enrollment is just shy of 7K.

One framing is “that $245M is for running the schools”

Another framing is “that $35K is for the education of each student in Cambridge”

The first leads you to conclude “of course we wouldn’t let a parent take even a dime of that money to put their kid in private school”

The second leads you to “of course they should have the choice to use at least 50% of that $35K allocated to each student to attend a school of their choice”

Of course the public schools are there for the education of students, but the difference in framing is whether the money starts there or rather ends there for students who choose to attend it.

[Terr_]

> I don't think anyone is going to say "offering parents more choices is bad."

Well, I will say that more-choice is not axiomatically good.

Imagine that on Monday the cafeteria has a choice of beef/chicken/vegetarian, and on Tuesday it adds a fourth option for methamphetamines.

There is strictly more choice, and the people who choose it might even express extreme levels of satisfaction... but somehow it doesn't seem like an improvement.