[ameminator]

I don't understand why offering parents more choices in how their children are taught could be a bad thing. Maybe the public school system is failing its students. However, it always seemed unfair to trap parents who would otherwise have other options in a failing system. Yes, this does suck for the children of uncaring parents - but for the parents who DO care, shouldn't they have a means of meeting their obligation to their children?

[seanmcdirmid]

> I don't understand why offering parents more choices in how their children are taught could be a bad thing.

I am going to give my kid all the advantages I can, of course. But...personal optimization != societal optimization. Yes, I can put my kid in a better spot to succeed, but we aren't making progress as a society, things are getting very much worse actually (e.g. income inequality).

> Yes, this does suck for the children of uncaring parents - but for the parents who DO care, shouldn't they have a means of meeting their obligation to their children?

Again, those kids left behind...they are going to be expensive in terms of prisons, homeless services, lost productivity, etc...You can see this happening already, it is just going to be much worse when our kids are adults. And really, this is the only time we (or society) will have much influence on these kids. It is much easier to set a kid straight than try to fix an adult.

[logicchains]

>I am going to give my kid all the advantages I can, of course. But...personal optimization != societal optimization. Yes, I can put my kid in a better spot to succeed, but we aren't making progress as a society, things are getting very much worse actually (e.g. income inequality).

Good intentions but empirically it doesn't work; forcing troublesome kids to be in school with the kids who genuinely want to learn drags down the score of the kids who want to learn and doesn't improve outcomes for the troublesome kids. Countries with school choice like Sweden have much better educational outcomes than the US.

[inglor_cz]

"Again, those kids left behind..."

It seems that you suppose that keeping those kids in "normal" school is better for them than moving them to some schools tailored to their needs.

There is nothing obvious about that. Removing the worst disruptors from standard classes may be a win-win. People are diverse and cannot be all served by a one-size-fits-all school type.

[xormapmap]

> It is much easier to set a kid straight than try to fix an adult

Is this true? Adults have free will & personal responsibility, kids are sort of at the whim of their parents and have no real legal rights when it comes to escaping a bad situation

[greenhexagon]

Framing the situation as kids being "left behind" feels disingenuous if not outright inflammatory.

Many European systems have been thriving for decades with different school options for different students, based on interest, aptitude, etc. We'd be far better off as a society if we had one classroom for the 8th graders who read at a 1st grade level and one classroom for the 8th graders ready for Infinite Jest. The curriculum and instruction could then be tailored to the needs of each group. Instead, we lump them all together and end up with an outcome where the majority of the students are underperforming their potential.

[shiroiuma]

So basically the solution is to identify problematic kids very early, then take them away from their parents and put them in institutions to be raised by the state.

Because what you're expecting is for schools to take the place of parenting. If you're going to do that, you might as well just cut the parents and families out of the equation altogether.

[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

[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.)

[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.

[dfxm12]

The philosophical issue is charter schools use public resources yet are not accountable to the public. Adding to that, having public education system that is available to the public is kind of the key part here. So, the practical issue is that if some students are being excluded, that misses the point of public education terribly (other practical issues involve profiteering by the charters, just like with private prisons). Additionally, having several overlapping choices with government funding is an inefficient use of the money.

As far as choice, there's nothing wrong with that, and religious and other private schools (which didn't get public funds) have co-existed with public schools almost everywhere well before our lifetimes. So equating charter schools (or vouchers) with choice in this context is disingenuous.

[logicchains]

>The philosophical issue is charter schools use public resources yet are not accountable to the public.

They absolutely are accountable to the public in their school district, who can choose to send their kids not to that school if they don't like the school, depriving the school of revenue.

[femiagbabiaka]

Simplistic arguments like this are one of the more annoying parts of the rhetoric of charter school advocates. It assumes that all charter schools are of high quality and that making education yet another thing that is economically stratified in the US is good. It’s ok to say that things that sound nice like choice in education can have knock on effects that are bad for society.

Very few things in this world are purely good.

[sokoloff]

It seems like a charter school that develops a reputation for low quality is a self-solving problem in a way that a public school which develops the same reputation is (currently) not.

One goes out of business; the other goes along indefinitely, with perhaps the wealthiest parents nearby withdrawing their kids, but most families and children are forced to endure it or move away.

[linuxftw]

If public schools weren't awful, there would be no need for charter schools.

The public school experiment has failed.