Maybe - but if it's not handled by the school, then there's going to be some sort of access problem for some kids. Transportation, time to do it, financial for the parents, etc.
What's the right balance on perfect-is-the-enemy-of-the-good here?
On the one hand, centralization makes a potentially low-interest or high-expense experience more viable. On the other hand, equity.
When is it appropriate to trade some equity for an experience that would otherwise be unfeasible in a every-school-does-it-themselves cause everyone's budget cutting?
I really don't think this is the actual problem here. A town with multiple high schools is too big for a single central youth woodworking shop.
A town with multiple underfunded schools is not going to have the resources to provide this anyway, or if they do it's because of specific values & policies that are incompatible with providing universal services to citizens.
But once you have decided to do this, and come up with some funding for it somehow: should you use the currently existing infrastructure in place to move children around, and the adults in place with experience working with them, and the bureaucratic apparatus in place to manage them etc etc or should you just build a completely new thing that will totally be better.
Every non-programmer sees the obvious answer immediately. There's no tradeoff here really, these classes belong in middle and high school.
The only reasonable alternative is libraries but they have the same funding issues. The problem is the choice we have made to underfund these institutions. If you're working within these constraints without being able to change the funding, public schools have the most of the apparatus in place already, compared to the alternatives.
Yes, depending on the city it can be more or less complex. It comes down to how kids are viewed, and a good indicator could be how libraries are handled.
How much does the local library cost ? is it easy for kids to access ? is there a library in the first place ?
If the local library is thriving, a community center can be an extension of that. If it's dead, that city is in a pretty bad place from the start.
floatrock|1 year ago
On the one hand, centralization makes a potentially low-interest or high-expense experience more viable. On the other hand, equity.
When is it appropriate to trade some equity for an experience that would otherwise be unfeasible in a every-school-does-it-themselves cause everyone's budget cutting?
giraffe_lady|1 year ago
A town with multiple underfunded schools is not going to have the resources to provide this anyway, or if they do it's because of specific values & policies that are incompatible with providing universal services to citizens.
But once you have decided to do this, and come up with some funding for it somehow: should you use the currently existing infrastructure in place to move children around, and the adults in place with experience working with them, and the bureaucratic apparatus in place to manage them etc etc or should you just build a completely new thing that will totally be better.
Every non-programmer sees the obvious answer immediately. There's no tradeoff here really, these classes belong in middle and high school.
The only reasonable alternative is libraries but they have the same funding issues. The problem is the choice we have made to underfund these institutions. If you're working within these constraints without being able to change the funding, public schools have the most of the apparatus in place already, compared to the alternatives.
makeitdouble|1 year ago
How much does the local library cost ? is it easy for kids to access ? is there a library in the first place ?
If the local library is thriving, a community center can be an extension of that. If it's dead, that city is in a pretty bad place from the start.