15 y.o. DBH student at ASU

I'd say that credentialing and mandatory reporting rules, as well as being, you know, in public, are controls for most (but not all) of the extreme bad stuff. As a parent, I feel public schools are better choice for my kids. With a caveat that parents MUST pay attention to their kids schooling regardless of sector AND that my assessment might be different if my kids' needs were a bit more exceptional (in any way) or a particular school district more problematic.

Also, I believe the homeschooling, charter, parochial school and overall "parental choice" movements are IN PART used by a right-wing movement to undermine all things public. In Florida, big push on charters and public funds for privates and homeschooling already leads to some neighborhoods losing their public schools. And I don't believe that is an unintended side effect, not entirely.

 

Freedom does have a way of allowing for "objectionable" views, however, there are fewer entities more regulated than government schools are they are well known for their corruption, scandals, and objectionable views. One might even argue that the new morality bears a remarkable resemblance to cultic thought.

 

From within your bubble, it may look this way.

 

...I must give it to the Right and to the homeschooling community. They made great progress in defunding the schools without giving the game away and scaring the normies with dumb slogans. Unlike our progressive friends.

 

On average, the taxpayer pays over $21k per student per year for the substandard education and administrative bloat that is the public school system. They're overfunded. Way overfunded. Many, such as myself, are forced to pay for schools that my children have never attended and will not attend. If we are going to talk about "great progress in defunding the schools," let's first talk about how the schools are funded. Moreover, the homeschool movement was initiated by leftists and still contains a significant amount of people who don't align with the "Right." It turns out that many parents, whether conservative or not, don't believe in gubment edumacation and do affirm their responsibility to educate their own children as they see fit. Fortunately, the COVID-related buffoonery of the teachers' unions has tipped off many.

 

Less than half that, in my state.

Cool. Now, do the police.

All taxpayers have to pay for public goods they don't necessarily use. That's how it works.

There always were wackos on the Left. Nevertheless, anti-public everything movement is undoubtedly Right at the moment.

 

I don't think school choice is being pushed to help economically disadvantaged families. The vouchers aren't enough to cover the average private school tuition. In my state, they proposed vouchers of 6,100 to $6,700, but the average private school tuition is thousands higher. How are poor families supposed to come up with the rest of the money if the private school doesn't offer scholarships?

Charter Schools - These are already public and free, and the only types of charter schools that perform better are selective. Meaning, they only take students with high parental involvement, and they reject students with serious learning and intellectual disabilities. But, vouchers don't apply to these anyway.

Transportation - Not every state is in the Northeast or a city like Chicago. Most of the U.S. is car-dependent, and many economically disadvantaged families don't have cars. If available, that means reliance on buses, which could take over an hour to get to and from the school. Where I grew up, it could take two to three hours to get to a different side of the city on buses. Some cities don’t even have mass public transportation. Arlington, TX has almost a half a million people and no mass public transportation. It would also be inappropriate for very young students to ride public transportation by themselves. If a single parent has a car, because of work, they might not be able to drop off and pick up their kids.

There are so many things that privileged voters and politicians don't think of. Why are we expecting most economically disadvantaged families to be living next door to nice private schools? The reason why public educators are worried about schools losing funding is because they know many children have no choice but to go to the schools that are close to them.

 

I'm not clear whether you are conflating homeschooling families and school choice advocates. You grab whatever option serves your kids best, no questions. My primary reason for keeping kids in the publics is not my political views; it's because problems are manageable, they benefit from HS athletics, and the district basically gives them an opportunity to get an Associate's degree for free through DE, books included. The POLITICAL question here is what to do when a key public resource (and schools are a key community resource) become plagued with problems. One approach is to try to fix it - with a range of options to do that. On the other hand we have an option to basically just burn it down, or optionally to "starve the beast" (which is, as you recall, a slogan on the right). "School choice", the way it is currently being used, is a "starve the beast" approach, making it right wing. Which, to be fair, doesn't mean that people duped into supporting it are all Right. A handful of Obama-Trump voters don't mean MAGA is a leftist movement. Likewise, current moaning from the Orange Julius doesn't mean that "defund the police" is suddenly a right wing idea, not a dumb slogan of posturing leftists who were late for the Civil Rights era protests.

One of these things is not like the other. Not all publics are great, this is a big red giant strawman. On the other hand, I don't think even you would argue all this push to "parental choice" (which just happens to coincide with burdening schools with unpaid tasks of looking for thoughtcrime in math textbooks and labeling all its faculty, staff and insufficiently MAGA board members as "groomers" - which is synonymous with "paedophile" so you know) is merely about "letting poor families have some say in where their kids learn". BTW, school boards are elected, whereas leaders of the mushrooming charters and privates are not.
In the long term, a public school is a place where a person meets and has to learn to coexist with someone with different backgrounds. Also, they are, or used to be, one of the most accepted parts of democratically controlled public sector. Which makes them targets, and not for the Left.

 

Exactly. Meanwhile, these programs are funded from the same pools of money public schools are also using, depriving their resources to improve, in turn feeding the appetite for more "school choice". Positive feedback loop. What could go wrong?

 

I am not sure why it is necessary to politicize this issue. Parents desire to have a say about where their child gets an education. They see the insane amount of resources poured into the terrible quagmire that is the public school system. They see the scandals, the domineering of the teachers' unions, and the ideologies that are increasingly out of step from their viewpoints. Since you're going the political route, let's not pretend the public school system, including its administrators and teachers, is not entirely given over to the hard left.

This statement implies that public schools are ideologically neutral in the education they provide-- a sentiment that is palpably unrealistic and demonstrably false.

 

I don't know how other states plan to do this, but Texas' plan in the last legislative session was to give the entire state allotment to the family. Texas gives $6,160 per student to schools; some schools with certain demographics get a little more. The voucher one gets is based on the allotment for the local school. If your school gets $6,160, then your voucher will be $6,160. One bill had $8,000 vouchers, but that still isn't enough for a lot of private schools.

This didn't pass the last legislative session, but it's supposed to be a top priority for the next one. Governor Abbott has even threatened to call special sessions until a school choice bill is passed.

Texas' school funding system is wonky. We don't have a state income or property tax. Property taxes are at the local level, and the state collects most of the sales taxes. Due to more affluent neighborhoods having higher property values, the school districts in those areas collected more money or were able to have lower tax rates. It's also less expensive to educate affluent students.

Texas came up with the Robin Hood aka recapture plan after the school funding system was ruled unconstitutional. This takes excess revenue from wealthy schools and redistributes it to poor schools. Wealthy schools have been challenging this ever since. Some have even refused to submit their excess revenues to the state. Abbott has been wanting to dismantle Robin Hood, but no one has come up with an alternative plan to adequately fund poor schools.

My guess is that school choice vouchers are being used in a way to dismantle Robin Hood without having to replace it. The next time Texas is sued, they can say that the students can go where they want, so the funding disparity shouldn't matter. Public schools in upper middle class areas of Texas are excellent. I doubt a lot of those families will send their kids to private schools because it would be more costly, even with the voucher.

 

Good for you. Not in mine. The average in my state is about $25k.

Category error. Unlike gov't education, law enforcement and the justice system are needed for a civilized society. Although, in many quarters, they are overfunded and militarized, which tends to go together.

And I am questioning whether a system that is both expensive and ineffective is a "public good." Moreover, there is a vast distinction between a public park or police department, which functions on the basis of a transparent law code, and a school district, which is divorced from municipal government and employs curricula established by the bureaucrats within an educational body somewhere else.

Finally, something we can heartily agree on.

Yes, well, "public" means taxpayer-funded and state-controlled. Are you convinced that the federal government or your local government is really good at handling money and running things? That 34 trillion debt tells me the Fed can't even balance a checkbook. Yet they pay for about 1/2 of most public education (sort of) and append their latest stipulations.

 

This assumes that 1) all voucher systems are the same 2) it takes same amount of money to educate every student, or students taken out are a representative sample 3) economies of scale don't apply in education 3) number of students has no bearing to the ability to offer programs (ie., there is no minimum number of students required to make eg. a gifted and talented program viable) and 4) funding per student will remain stable, even when the number of voters affected by the school system will decrease (despite the talking/scare points Pastor Burges helpfully listed for us). I'm sure that's not all. My best guess most or all these assignments are false. I know for a fact some are.

Went with a nice little charter for elementary and middle school for my girls. Do not regret, even though they somewhat outgrew it in the end. The fact it worked for me doesn't change the observation that the schools were predominantly white while the zoned district was like 51% Latino. I would not wager that this fact wasn't one of the driving forces to start the charters in the first place. Also, DeSantis' bribes make a local Catholic school possible for us. In comparison, the publics have more programs (like a "healthcare professions academy" and more convenient access to dual enrollment) and more robust volleyball teams. NOT going with a public school would have been a political statement; default choice tells yah nutin'.
P. S. I WISH unfundend book censorship mandates and "groomers" smear were caricatures. They were not; these are the mainstream GOP policy/-tics now. It was a guilty pleasure when Trump hit DeSanctimonious (who was a history teacher for a moment back in the day) with the same innuendo.

 

Matter of opinion, I guess, but boy oh boy how do I disagree with this one. BTW voters tend to disagree on this as well, that's why the education systems are undermined by backhanded tactics.

Many, many people would bigly disagree with characterization of LEOs, with their unions, civil forfeiture slush funds, codes of silence, and qualified immunity doctrine to shale homicide rep as "transparent".

Thank you very much for the Right take on things. It's amazing how much vitriol towards We The People comes from a bunch of flag-waving patriots.
What I am convinced of is that, at the very least, governments pay SOME attention to the voter - even one without gobs of money. Not nearly enough attention, and democratic deficit needs addressing, but enough for a very clear difference with more corrupt places and even more difference with totalitarian societies like Soviet Union or putinist russia. In practice, public services tend to be horribly inefficient (I worked for a government - specifically the Canadian Crown - and know the kinds of mess it could be), but privatizing them can lead into even bigger problems. Examples include DOD contractors, military-industrial and prison-industrial complexes, and so many more.
Let me ask you this: what kind of country do you want to live in? The Framers envisioned a strong, united country where the people have a say in how the country looks like. Hence, a democracy. There are only so many ways to govern groups of people, all involving getting other people to do what you want. You can direct them with credible threat of violence - which the Framers wanted to limit. You can rely on established ideological/religious dogma and propaganda - no less problematic. Or you can provide economic incentives by spending money. Threaten them, lie to them, or bribe them - there is really no other choice. So the Constitution gave the Congress the means to wield economic influence, through Article 2 (power to collect taxes and spend money for the common welfare). So, the whole opposition to "taxpayer-funded state directed" stuff, as well as the "regulations" simply means reducing the ability of We the People to govern. The Right under Trump actually graduated to directly opposing the elections, as well. Notably, private citizens and corporations with excess money to spend also have the same ability to lie to and bribe people, legally - and they don't enjoy the competition.

 

...because it works. See "Younkin, Glenn" or "DeSantis, Rob". It's already politicized. Besides, "politics" refers to the mechanics of making collective decisions. Like what kind of country we, as in the society, want to live in.

...so the proposed solution here is just to let people self-segregate along the ideological, economic and, yes, racial lines. That'll make education more neutral. Besides, a school doesn't have to agree with everyone - just tolerate them. Mere presence of different backgrounds is an opportunity to model peaceful coexistence and cooperation.

BTW, the fact that you don't like some positions doesn't mean that they don't represent the society at large. Cultural warriors demonstrate the ability to find evidence of bias in schools teaching that racism is bad on Nazis were wrong.

 

I'd like to live in a country wherein our founding documents are interpreted according to authorial intent, where the rule of law is upheld, and where freedom and personal determination are safeguarded from novel rights, movements, ideologies, and corruption. The US is a democratic constitutional republic and not a democracy. There are boundaries that circumscribe the fed. Article I §8 is what gives Congress the power to tax for both the national defense and the common good, not Article II. Our disagreement lies not with the existence of Congress or its power to tax the populace. Our disagreement is about whether government education, which is demonstrably ineffective, corrupt, and in service to a very specific set of ideologies, is either what the framers envisioned or for the common good of the nation. The principle of subsidiarity (something all framers affirmed) tells me, along with a rather long list of other reasons, that public education is problematic.

And, just an FYI, I think Trump is %100 wrong about election fraud. I certainly believe election fraud exists, but not to the degree of shaping the outcome of a federal election. Further, let's not pretend the left didn't try opposing elections first (have you forgotten about 2016?)?

 

By "politicize" I mean define this issue according to partisan politics. And clearly, given the diversity of homeschool families, their not viewing this along partisan lines.

Several significant problems here. First, children belong to parents and not to a community or government. Parents are responsible for their child's education. Only if one assumes, as you have, that parents do not possess the right to educate their children according to their values does your objection come close to coherence. Second, I don't believe in neutrality. My gripe is that it isn't neutral and that it can't be. Toleration is quite different than decking out the school in pride flags for June.

No kidding. I never claimed society at large believes everything I like. My point is that education presupposes a worldview. It isn't neutral morally, theologically, culturally, or politically. When a school district engenders an approach to education that is in absolute conflict with the values of parents (as in Virginia) and defends itself on the basis of the professionalization of education, it is feigning ideological neutrality when everyone knows it is illusory. Frankly, I'd prefer to keep my hard-earned cash and educate my kids within an ideological and pedagogical context that accords with reality.