So what?
Schools should not be run for the benefit of the school; they should be run only and solely for the benefit of students. If the students are getting a better education at the charter schools, or the same education at a lower cost, then the public schools can go pound sand. They aren’t entitled to the same funding if they don’t have the same number of students.
Regards,
Shodan
Even adjusted for cost of living, I suspect school funding is still wildly unequal. That’s something we could strive to fix, even if we don’t fund all schools with a flat rate across the board.
But still, suppose we do pay teachers the same regardless of location, and it causes some good teachers to gravitate towards poorer areas with lower cost of living? Is that such a bad thing?
I’m normally not the type to want all things to be totally equal, but isn’t that sort of the point of public education? That we all have a standard, basic set of knowledge we can collectively expect of each other? If it’s okay that even elementary education is more accessible to the rich than the poor, then why have public schools at all? Just let people keep their taxes and fund their children’s education on their own dime. The poor will still get an inferior education and little else will change.
No, we shouldn’t force all kids to go to public school. Some kids simply are not suitable for it and vice versa. In a free society, people shouldn’t be coerced into something unless there truly is need for it, and there isn’t one here.
Private schools are fine as long as they meet a minimum set of education standards (that public schools also must adhere to) but they should never receive a penny of tax payer money in any form.
What should be disallowed is home schooling.
There’s home schooling and then there’s home schooling.
Home schooling to isolate kids from the influence of dangerous things like thinking for yourself and learning about the world is far too common. It’s mostly religious.
Home schooling because the school is not equipped to handle a particular kid’s needs, and where making it be equipped in that way would be unreasonable, is sometimes necessary. Including for example a kid who is physically incapable of listening when there is background noise. No school can be expected to eliminate all background noise all day every day, so other arrangements have to be made.
How about parents doing something for the school instead of whisking the kids out. (Which can be a last resort.) Schools - at least the ones my kids went to in two states - are grateful for parental involvement. Or parents can organize to push for more funding. Or to press for remediation of bad teachers.
The quality of schools depends a lot on parents and how involved they are, which accounts for different outcomes over a single district.
I agree. But I think there needs to be standards for those schools.
And, no public funds.
If you are a registered voter, you can vote the officials out, and you can run yourself. If that is not "real recourse’ I don’t know what is.
And in actuality, taking everything into account, private schools are not better than public.
Would your post be an example of that kind of education?
The problem with rich districts is that parents within them have no incentive to call for funding increases to benefit schools without rich parents.
I thought you lived in SoCal. In California all the money goes to the state where it gets reallocated according to a formula set when this started by court order, and based in part on funding back then. My district gets screwed because we were more rural when this program started. LA does well, and since they have most of the legislature it will never be changed. New Jersey also has an equalized funding system.
Parents in rich districts do lots of good without cash donations, by volunteering for instance. And there is likely a more supportive home environment.
No, that’s the bad news. I dont want my tax money going to a school that teaches evolution is a 'theory" like creationism.
All things considered, that is false.
That is a highly biased cite. Altho yes, there is a *small *increase in test scores, that is due to the fact that private schools are not forced to take learning challenged or background challenged students. Nor do the tests take into account the blatant lies taught in many private schools. And of course some prvate schools for the rich do skim the cream off the top.
In 2014, a study by two researchers from the University of Illinois found that, when you control for these socio-economic advantages, private school education performs on par or worse than public schools. There was little evidence to support the notion that private schools had a positive influence on the academic standards of the students…Another study by the Center on Education Policy challenges traditional perceptions about private schools. President of the Center Jack Jennings sums it up: “Contrary to popular belief, we can find no evidence that private schools actually increase student performance, instead, it appears that private schools simply have higher percentages of students who would perform well in any environment based on their previous performance and background.”
No, we don’t. We have a duty to provide enough funding to run a good education system, such that students are well-educated. We owe no duty to the public school systems per se. They are a means to an end, not an end in themselves.
No teacher or education administrator or education bureaucrat is ever going to admit that any level of funding is enough.
Plus, it misses the point. If enrollment at a public school goes down because some number of students are entered into private schools instead, why should we spend the same amount on the public school?
Regards,
Shodan
There are two overlapping groups.
Some parents think of “corrupted” as “they got addicted to drugs” or “they joined a gang”.
Other parents think of “corrupted” as “they had science class” or “there was a kid who doesn’t go to our church”.
And, unfortunately, some - perhaps most - of the second group, do everything they can to make it seem as if they only belong to the first group.
IMO the second group should be illegal.
What?
Regards,
Shodan
So far, this is all about k-12.
The problem does not stop there.
Our economy (US and world) is moving toward college as a requirement for success - an increasingly large segment where brains are the raw material.
And, the US has 5% of that raw material.
We can’t afford to be wasting that. We can’t afford to be creating new backwaters like we did with coal mining and some manufacturing where we end up supporting workers who did not have the opportunity and encouragement to be prepared for the change that is happening.
In the US, college applicants usually have to make a gigantic bet that they will be successful in completing their degree. If they don’t, they end up with huge debt and no degree. Plus, if they do graduate they often have debt too large to allow pursuing innovative new opportunities that tend to be more risky, but that account for employment growth.
What is our competition doing?
Germany:
https://www.mastersportal.com/articles/358/university-tuition-fees-and-living-costs-in-germany-low-cost-german-degrees.html
France:
Sweden:
India:
https://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/international/asia/india/
etc.
You stole my joke 
Nice but a hijack. We dont need to get into the debate about free college here. Please.
That’s a neat little trap.
Build private school, take students and money away from public school. Public school is left with the kids the private school won’t accept some of which are more expensive to educate (e.g. kids with learning problems) and not enough money to do so.
Then people like you point to the private school and declare it is a real piece of crap because it has too few teachers and the infrastructure is falling apart so more money should be withheld because why throw good money after bad?
Rinse and repeat till the public schools are gone.
This also sounds dictatorial.
This isn’t what’s happening.
In general, vouchers and other methods of sucking funding out of public school is going to those who can already afford private school for their own kids. Here in Seattle, private high school tuition is $20k, these schools are not for profit, and these schools are wait listed. No realistic voucher size is going to make private school a choice for those who doesn’t have the wealth and belief in eduction to spend thousands of dollars per year per child.
The question is NOT whether there is enough spending on public education.
The question has to be what we need to do to make public education successful.
Luckily enough, we have plenty of successful public high schools. We also have successful private high schools.
But, we’re not finding those schools and promoting their methods throughout the public high schools of our nation.
There isn’t any good excuse for that failure. We should be demanding this. This is one of the reasons we got so crazy about testing.