What Is 'School Choice?'

preview_player
Показать описание
In this Majority Report clip, Richard Kahlenberg calls in to discuss education policy.

President Trump, and his education secretary, Betsy DeVos, are largely focused on the T for "trapped" part of the problem. They talk about creating escape routes, largely by expanding charter and voucher programs.

"Richard Kahlenberg has spent decades stumping for a third way. His idea: Create public schools that are more integrated. He helped innovate the use of social and economic indicators to do that — instead of race and ethnicity, the use of which is prohibited by a 2007 Supreme Court decision.

His strategy could be summed up as: Give poor kids the opportunity to attend school with not-so-poor kids."*

Рекомендации по теме
Комментарии
Автор

Holly How hard would it be for a poor un educated minority family to simply decide that the school on this side of town is not as nice as the one 5 miles away and decide to send their kids there instead?

"Blah blah blah, don't have the education blah blah resources blah blah"

Please someone explain to Sam the difference between a poor person and gold fish. He seems to think they are the same thing.

samh
Автор

What a load of shit. With a voucher program a school could easily cater to the poor. transportation and all of that could easily be included.

aaronleedescombes
Автор

My child, my choice. Keep your prison pipelines.

Fourtonmantis
Автор

We have this in Sweden, it's been a fucking disaster. We fell from being in the top of PISA rankings to being at the average. An avalanche of research has come out to show time and again what a horrible policy this has been for us. There is no choice, there's just an even more heavily segregated school, lower scores and knowledge on average, and more profits for private school conglomerates that open schools in areas where they can control the demographic so they don't get children that need extra help and thus lets them cut staff to make more profit. The Swedish people is turning around on this now.

SomeOne
Автор

School choice has been proven to be effective when utilized correctly with strong standards and real consequences for bad charters. Private education is not necessarily (and in most cases is not) for profit. Majority of empirical studies have shown some improvement in student achievement in using school choice. Experiment in Chile started off neutral (small increase in test scores but decreases in equality) but after 5 years they reformed it and actually increased equality and test scores considerably

ArthurWahoowa
Автор

What is the range of choice? What is the low end of the choice for that matter? Shitty to Great? Fair to Midland? Good to Great (I would hope, at least)? If choice actually is important and effective at providing a quality educational system (which I doubt), choice would need to be all great schools (at general ed) with a few percentage points of differing flavor specialization (arts, science, etc.). Otherwise, you are talking about unequal education that will ultimately be based upon income, locale, or parent effort. Even in the case where you have parents that make no effort to "choose" a school, why should the child suffer under a doctrine of fair, free, quality, public education?

The myth of providing choice is, in reality, to allow the few proactive "vulgars" to opt out of there shitty schools. But spots in schools are not infinite. For every "peasant" student that is allowed to leave their station and rise to a "chosen school", another student is relegated to the shitty school. Probably because their parents either couldn't afford the inconvenience of the locale or didn't feel the effort to choose was important. The school choice supporters seemed to think that shitty schools happen because either most of the students and families that go there don't care or want it that way, or that the most ineptly crappy teachers and administrators just happened to end up there and fucked it all up, or a combination of both and it all can be fixed by running it like a business. A silver bullet! Those crappy teachers and administrators, who don't give a shit or must like it that way, could be suddenly incentivized to turn everything around, and the students wanting and trying will suddenly increase because of the incentivized personnel. Well, I'll tell you, I have never found a school of 20%, let alone 100%, shitty teachers who don't care. I have seen some teachers that are burned out by facing an surmountable challenge, with little support. I have met teachers year after year trying new "Educational Programs" sold to school districts as the new silver bullet by the education industrial complex. I have met teachers teaching the majority of their curriculum as test prep for standardized testing, while knowing it does little to give their students what THEY need.

What we need is to start providing fair resources regardless of zip code. If that means some years of unequal resources to well off schools, to catch other schools up, so be it. We need curriculum based upon need, not testing. We need school funding to be done federally so, as a student, I am not hurt by where my parents chose or were forced to live. We need to increase the pay of teachers and their educational requirements, along with ongoing, meaningful training. And finally, we cannot ever have teachers end up on the tonight show's "Jay Walking" segment, not being able to answer what countries fought in World War II. (I know "Jay Walking" doesn't exist anymore)

sevilnatas
Автор

The only reason why Democrats oppose School Choice is because the Teachers Union need those Union Dues, and they donate to the Democratic Party. School Choice would require inner city schools to do more than prepare students for prison as parents would be able to transfer their children to good schools or home schooling.

romulus
Автор

School choice is an idea for fools. If you think about it for more than a second it is easy to see why.

I live in a rural area, a few thousand people in town, there is one high school. How can my town possibly have a "choice" in schools? How can a town of only a few thousand support two high schools? How will the new school that must be built to have a choice be paid for? Who is going to staff these new schools? Will the old school shrink in size to do this?

So lets pretend a new school is built and staffed (somehow) what happens when one of the two schools is the obvious better school? Won't everyone just go to the better school? And what if the better school cannot accommodate all the extra students? What happens to the bad school? Are the students at the bad school just segregated and forced to submit to separate and unequal? Does the bad school fail and get closed, then there isn't a choice any more, right? So does ANOTHER new school need to built and ANOTHER new faculty get hired? Where will all these new teachers come from? They certainly can't hire the old staff since they failed, right?

PaddyCollector