Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-L] Economist Kern Alexander Explains the Problem with School Choice

On 2/2/2013 6:20 PM, John Denker wrote:
On 02/02/2013 05:53 PM, LaMontagne, Bob wrote:
Can anyone make a rational argument that giving parents no choice is
BETTER for students than giving them choice (even if they are not
fully informed when making the choice)?
Nobody is going to make that argument, strictly speaking.

To say the same thing another way: We can all agree to knock over
that straw man.

Having dealt with that, let's move on to some far more meaningful
questions, such as:

Consider a scenario where /some/ parents get a choice while others do
not. Consider the hypothesis that the parents who get to choose (and
their children) wind up somewhat better off, while the others get
royally screwed. Consider the hypothesis that this is very bad policy,
bad for *everyone* in the long run, bad in terms of overall economic
prosperity, military readiness, etc. etc. etc.

The straw-man argument is irrelevant because it tacitly assumes that
"parents" can be treated as a group. It makes the false assumption
that all parents are offered a comparable set of choices.

Unfortunately, you replaced one straw man by another. Your straw-man assumes that (a) one who chooses generally gets something better, and (b) those who do not choose, "get royally screwed."

If (a) was true, what to make of all the research teacher unions roll out every other day that show that (a) is not true, that charter schools are generally not better and often worse than the public schools? And regarding (b), if you accept that whoever stays in the public system gets royally screwed over, can't it effectively mean you that you really suggest we dismantle all public system and let everyone choose? After all, that is *precisely* what Sweden and Belgium did over the recent decade, and quite successfully it would seem. Not to mention the not-so-incidental fact that teachers in the public system today are generally better paid than in the charter and private schools.

We see excellent school districts that allow charters, we see lousy school districts that do not allow charters, and everything in between. And most charters reflect the demographics of the local school districts.

===========

To come at the issue another way: Much depends on what you mean by
"BETTER". Some folks are looking for a way to re-segregate the school
system along racial, partisan, and sectarian lines. For them, the
current school-choice programs are indeed vastly "BETTER".

I agree with the essence, if not with your -- yet-another -- straw man characterization. Indeed, what's better for one child or parent is not necessarily better for another. Only narrow (or childless?) minds argue that *their* way must to the best for everyone. And only mean minds argue that the reason for parents wanting choice is because they look for ways to "re-segregate" schools. There is quite a lot of evidence that many blacks do much better academically in historically black colleges, and that integration eviscerated high quality academics from many historically excellent black high schools. That is not to say that integration is always negative, but, by the same token, it is incorrect to try and measure excellence simply by measuring it through some -- generally badly done -- measures of "integration."

So yes, we need to agree on the goals of education, and on the meaning of "good" (or "better") schooling. But it will still come down to the question whether it is the right of the *state* to decide for your child where he or she should go and what type of education he or she would get, or whether it should be largely *your* choice. Clearly, Sweden and Belgium decided they can trust parents and they only seem better for that.

If you really want to make education more equitable and not disenfranchise parents, you should direct your focus to make sure that there is transparency of information for parents, rather than forcing them into what *you* think is right. After all, we do not stop trading on the stock market because some people buy or sell stock while uninformed. Instead, we try to make sure that information *is* transparently available to anyone who wants to trade. And if they don't want to bother, they can always buy mutual funds or treasuries.

Ze'ev