[j_w]

Because the "sucky" schools are statistically where poor people go to school, which statistically is where minorities go to school.

School choice is bad because the only people who benefit from school choice are already wealthy - they can afford to transport their child to the school of their choice.

[wagwang]

The people who benefit are not the wealthy, who can afford to simply buy a house in the school district of their desire, but simply middle class parents who care about their kids.

[habinero]

Poor people care about their kids, too. They're just struggling to keep a roof over their heads and food on their plates instead of worrying about what college their kids are going to get into.

[wagwang]

Assuming we're talking about the US, this is just not true. If you are actually poor, then the government has incredibly generous programs to put food and shelter over your head. Where I live, the city government will literally paid for your daycare and you can enroll in lotteries to buy homes at 1/10th the regular price.

[j_w]

Middle class parents are wealthy compared to the average student of a "sucky" school. These schools are typically the in the poorest areas in the state/county.

[lo_zamoyski]

I am all for helping the worse off. However, one of the most repulsive ideas is that you can cripple everyone else, because some people have less.

This is slave morality and the logic of ressentiment and envy. It is also profoundly immoral.

Never mind that this approach condemns everyone to a state of perpetual mediocrity, and the poor will always be with us. Mind you, how much you value education is to a large degree a product of the family environment and how supportive it is.

How about we allow excellence to flourish as it does, support it any way we can, and also look for ways to lift those who are worse off out of their condition? The focus should be on making things better, not bizarre idealistic notions like "equality" or "equity", whatever they even mean in real, concrete terms. If we dispense with envy, we focus on objective improvement instead of status-obsessed insecurities.

Of course, I think the most pressing problem in education today is that most "educators" have no damn clue what it even means to be educated anymore. They think they know, but they absolutely do not. It isn't "getting a job", as important as jobs are, or some odd aim of the ideology du jour. Public education in an ideologically-charged society of our stripe is practically condemned to superficiality and poor quality, because all good education begins with an accurate anthropology. We can't even agree on that, so naturally, this produces a lowest common denominator effect. In such a situation especially, permitting a diversity of educational styles and programs is necessary.

And btw, if someone is wealthy enough, they'll move to another school district and make school choice a reality anyway within your regime. People do it all the time. Or would you like a return to latifundia to enforce your vision?

[habinero]

> I am all for helping the worse off. However, one of the most repulsive ideas is that you can cripple everyone else, because some people have less.

Bruh. It's easy to prattle on about "objective improvement" and "slave morality" and pretend everything's a zero sum game where funding is fixed and we can do nothing to change the system. Neither is true. This is just an excuse to absolve yourself of doing any of the hard work to improve things.

> The focus should be on making things better, not bizarre idealistic notions like "equality" or "equity"

Man, does anyone else hear that high pitched sound? Just me? Huh.

[lo_zamoyski]

Perhaps you should learn to read, because your response (even putting aside the juvenile bits woven into it) doesn't actually respond to it, and certainly not with any real substance.

> pretend everything's a zero sum game

This claim is truly amazing. My post is exactly a rejection of the notion of a zero sum game. How can you reconcile the assertion that you can both enable excellence and assist the poor? Perhaps your aren't familiar with what a zero sum game is.

You don't achieve true solidarity by crippling those better off. In fact, that is what produces zero sum game thinking, because people get defensive, and rightly so.

> absolve yourself of doing any of the hard work to improve things.

What does that even mean? A parent's responsibility is first and foremost to their own children. If you don't accept that, then we have nothing further here to discuss. Children are not the sacrificial lambs of your pet political project.

(I am a bit curious about your accomplishments here, since you so self-righteously demand "hard work" from others. Did you force your own children to attend a garbage school when you could have given them a better option? I suppose that's at least consistent, but it is still unjust and a failure of parenting.)

[j_w]

> However, one of the most repulsive ideas is that you can cripple everyone else, because some people have less.

When did I say that I'm in any way pro crippling other students? I'm simply pointing out the socioeconomic reality of school performance.

Comments like yours are vile. Brimming with vitriol.

[nradov]

False. Charter schools are public schools and often served by school bus routes or other public transit. Walking or cycling can also be options for some students.

The real differentiating factor isn't wealth but simply giving a shit about your children. Parents have to take some minimal effort to enroll their children in a charter school and many simply don't bother.

[mrgoldenbrown]

IME the differentiator is the fact that in most states charters have some way of filtering out the least profitable kids is a huge advantage for them, and concentrates the most expensive kids in the public schools.

[organsnyder]

It's not just giving a shit: it's also the capacity to act on giving a shit. I'm exhausted at the end of the day after getting the kids to bed, and I'm fortunate to be in a stable marriage, live in a large home that my wife and I own, and work a well-paying WFH job. I can only imagine how tiring it must be to not have those advantages.

There are the parents doing heroics that I can hardly imagine, and they should be celebrated. But we need to design a system that provides a sufficient level of support for those families that only have an average level of capacity.

[rayiner]

> I can only imagine how tiring it must be to not have those advantages

Yes, you can only “imagine” what it’s like for people who are less comfortable than you. But that cuts both ways. It could be that you’re also “imagining” the barriers you think exist to people accessing charter schools. In particular, I suspect you’re incorrectly assuming that people work as much as you do, just for less money.

[organsnyder]

Actually, I can more than imagine it. I have friends that are in those situations, and help out when I can.

[GoblinSlayer]

How difficult is it?

1. give a shit

2. enroll

3. ???

4. PROFIT!

[borski]

Have you ever lived below the poverty line? In order to enroll, you’d have to know about it and manage logistics.

Working 14 hours a day so you can clothe and feed your kid doesn’t leave much time for that.

That doesn’t mean you don’t give a shit.

[organsnyder]

There are so many pieces of that step 3 in trying to navigate a school system that isn't accustomed to working with lower-income students.

[dirtikiti]

>> School choice is bad because the only people who benefit from school choice are already wealthy - they can afford to transport their child to the school of their choice.

So what?

If "level the playing field" means my kid gets a sub standard education because you have to constantly lower the bar, I don't want to play your game.

This stuff isn't new. Everyone understands the importance of education, and everyone understands the importance of being involved in your child's education.

It isn't about poor and minority. It's about being a good parent.

Some people don't have that ability, and my kid shouldn't be punished for it, regardless of the money in my wallet.

There are plenty of examples of single parent and low income households where they value education and push their kids to doing better.

At some point, it has to be about personal responsibility and not blaming everyone else for your failure to be a good parent.

[j_w]

Okay but if you care this much about school choice why not move to an area with better schools? That's a tool most people already have.

And yes, most people who are complaining about "school choice" have this tool to some extent. Will your living conditions be exactly the same? Probably not.

> At some point, it has to be about personal responsibility and not blaming everyone else for your failure to be a good parent.

So why don't you take some personal responsibility and put yourself in a residence which is in district for a school that you want your child to go to? Is that not in part your responsibility as a parent? We can both play this stupid game.

[dirtikiti]

That's exactly what my single parent did. Took responsibility for being a teenage parent, joined a trade union, paid more for a crappy apartment on the edge of a good school district, and busted their ass everyday to provide.

I don't see what you're arguing here? You're the only one playing a stupid game.

If school choice is a thing, everyone can choose where they send their kid to school... they don't have to pay more for a crappy apartment on the edge of a good school district.

And to top it off, the only poor people this actually affects are poor people who live in an area where there is an actual choice of schools to be made.

Which means there is most likely access to transportation.

[a34ta3t]

I love to see the true colors of this vile place when topics like this come up.

[dirtikiti]

I know, personal responsibility is such a vile concept.

Everyone can be so much happier if they can blame everyone else and the system for everything bad in their life.