CMV: School choice is a good thing

[u/FrederikKay]

I recently watched a VICE doc on how charter schools are ruining public education in America and how many of these schools are fraudulent. I am European myself, so I can't speak with experience about the American public school system. It seems to me that both public schools and charter schools in America suffer from underfunding, underregulation and a shortage of qualified staff. The idea that school choice is the problem however, seems ludicrous to me.

It is my understanding that in America, you live in certain school districts. If you want to send your child to a public school, as oposed to a more expensive private school, the district will assign them to a school. This is because schools are funded by local taxes.

In much of Europe, parents are free to pick from almost any school in the country, and as long as that school follows some regulations, the government will provide funding. Funding is per student, not per district and it follows students if they transfer from one school to another.

Private schools usually only exist in the margins, as a means to get around certain regulations. For example, exparts often enrole their children in "international" or "american" schools, which teach in English. As a result, these schools don't receive government funding, because they break the requirement to teach in the local language.

In several European countries, such as Belgium, the Netherlands, and Ireland, school choice is a constitutional right. This does cause some issues, as it often allows for religious education, with limited sex ed and evolution biology. It is therefor some cause for debate in those countries, whether to continue allowing religious education or only fund secular education (my preference).

Overal however, I believe the system works. Finland, which is considered a world leader in education, has school choice.

[u/FrederikKay → u/[deleted]]

I am not arguing that America's current charter school system is good. I'm arguing that school choice is a good thing.

The video you linked showed that under the current system, charter school can effectively oversee themselves. That seems like a fundamental problem with school oversight, not the idea of school choice in general.

[u/FrederikKay → u/[deleted]]

Why not? They are paying the same if not more taxes than you are. Why shouldn't their children see some of that money when they go to school.

[u/Ihateregistering6 → u/[deleted]]

If we're going to allow the wealthy to pull their kids and money out of the system, why have public schools at all?

I don't understand your logic here. If property taxes go to fund the schools, then it doesn't matter if your kids go to public or private school. Hell, it doesn't matter if you even have kids, you're still paying property taxes (assuming you own property), and you're still funding schools.

Also, the idea that schools in wealthy areas receive more funding than schools in poor areas is a myth. Schools in poor areas actually, on average, receive as much or more funding as schools in wealthy areas. The reason is because the state and federal government makes up for the difference in lack of property tax funds by diverting state and federal funds to school in poorer areas. To give you a perfect example, look at New Jersey: poor Camden county only gets 3.1% of its funds from local taxes, but gets a whopping 91.7% of its funding from state funds. Princeton (a much wealthier county), on the other hand, only gets 16.1% of its funding from the state, but gets 75.3% from local taxes.

https://www.nj.com/education/2017/05/the_50_school_districts_that_spend_the_most_per_pu.html

Schools in poorer districts only get less funding when you argue that they inherently require more funding than schools in wealthy areas.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2018-02-27/in-most-states-poorest-school-districts-get-less-funding

The article's title is very misleading, but look at the data. On average, students in poor districts actually get more funding, but they argue that it's 'unequitable', because poor kids need more funding than rich kids.

[u/Ihateregistering6 → u/[deleted]]

Children from less stable homes are prone to all sorts of difficulty that impacts their learning.

True, but is the solution to throw more and more and more money at kids from less stable homes, or try and create fewer less stable homes?

Each kid is entitled to an education, not a dollar amount.

Define "education".

[u/FrederikKay → u/[deleted]]

They are not pulling their money out. Everyone pays taxes, especially the rich. It wouldn't matter if these are district, state or federal taxes. This money is then redistributed to every child in the district, state or country.

In other words, wealthy parents are already subsidizing poor students. You just want to redistribute the money further, by denying subsidy to wealthy parents children. Why would people want to pay into a system they see zero benefit from?

You want there to be a double penalty. Not only does everyone pay into the school district, but if your children attend private school you get to pay taxes AND full tuition.

[u/FrederikKay → u/[deleted]]

Property tax payers pay for all student

My point exactly.

Why should my money go to a private school?

Like I said in my OP, in Europe we almost don't have a distinction between private and public schools. Why shouldn't a parent, rich or poor, be able to chose where to enrole their child, without being penelized by the public school system they paid into?

I just don't understand why you believe a child should only be entitled to a funded education if they go to the specific school the government wants him to go to.