The alternative is to have public school that ensures that everyone has a chance for a quality education.
Conservatives tend to make the presumption that progressives want to limit their advancement. That’s simply not true. What progressives want to do is to create a floor, so that everyone has a chance to compete.
You want to send your kid to private school, have at. But don’t do it at the cost and detriment of public schools.
Tends to go with an assumption that all three of those things always go together, and also with an assumption that everyone, at all points along the line, had equal results from putting in the same amount of brains/talent/work.
And I’m not at all sure why people should be rewarded for being smarter or more talented. For using brains and talent in useful fashions, sure – though there are a whole lot of different useful fashions. But should we reward the smarter crook for being harder to catch? We do in practice, sometimes, because we can’t help it; but should we do it on purpose, and say the crook deserves to be rewarded because of being smart?
It is true that parents want advantages for their children.
Convincing them that it’s actually an overall advantage for their children if others in the society also get benefits, instead of being in its essence a matter that somebody’s gotta starve and the only question is who, is sometimes a hard sell.
Not all parents want that advantage only if it’s “over others”, though. Some of them want their children safe, well housed, well fed, well educated, able to do work that suits them, able to live with others of their choice who love them; have no objection to others having those same advantages; and are able to see that their children are actually more likely to have them if others aren’t deprived of them.
True to a point. Healthy families, including extended families, are communistic: to each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities.
Due to human nature, it doesn’t work that way in large groups. But, due to human nature, it does work that way in small ones.
Good cite, but the claim that @Velocity made was that 17% of high school graduates were functionally illiterate.
But your cite certainly does point out some serious deficiencies in our school system that should be remedied.
OTOH, there are those who look to those stats and think that justifies abandoning anyone who cannot afford private school.
To be fair, the one person I know who was homeschooled, her parents did it because they thought their district was too conservative. They are both very left wing biologists. She’s now persuing a Ph.D. in math at a prestigious university, so I can’t say her education was lacking.
I don’t see any comparison of private schools, homeschooling, and public schools in either of those articles. I only skimmed them; did I miss something?
Also, presumably all three types of schooling vary in their results from school to school.
If the results are actually much worse from public schools (which has not been shown) wouldn’t it make more sense to figure out which of those schools have better results, and try to do likewise in the poorer ones?
Yes. The goal should be reading first, foremost and always. Any student who is functionally capable of learning (and yes, there are a fair number in the public school system who are not, at least not with traditional methods anyway) but is reading more than two grades behind-needs to be put in remedial reading classes. Social studies, cursive writing, shop, gym, whatever- all need to bow to reading.
True ESL students are a special issues, but we need to spend the resources to solve that problem.
I thought charter schools WERE public schools, that you had to apply for.
The ones in this area have been little more than dumping grounds for the worst kids, and the teachers who were not quite terrible enough to fire.
Right, and knowing that some of those policies are specifically to curb the negative effects of human nature is part of that.
One of the negative effects of human nature is to try to elevate yourself, your family, and your tribe above all others, even if that ultimately costs not only others, but yourself as well. That is one of the tendencies that needs to be curbed, not used as a justification.
It works just fine on a small scale. But you are correct that people’s desire to put themselves above others tends to make it break down once it becomes greater than a family or small tribal unit.
Well, you just did, so…
One is talking about the individual, and the other is talking about social policy. Do you see a difference?
I don’t see why they would. But then you think that I accused you of endorsing segregation, when what you were doing was merely justifying its existence with a whataboutism argument.
And it would also make sense that if they didn’t want to support them, that they would claim that they are all bad. They would work to undermine and sabotage them.
So, you are saying that they want public school.
Accusations of hypocrisy are a pretty typical deflection tactic. No defense of your own actions, just an attempt to justify them by claiming that others are just as bad.
It’s the fault of a number of historical and even contemporary policies that tend to lower the quality of schools in areas that tend to be minority. There are proposals to attempt to fix these problems, but they are uniformly opposed by conservatives.
As I said earlier, not wanting your kids to suffer is not the same thing as wanting other kids to suffer. Democrats are not being hypocrites by not sending their kids to schools that have severe challenges.
So long as you admit that you are done with the whole meritocracy nonsense.
Those are all things that most parents would like to do, some don’t have the resources, however. If you yourself barely have a 5th grade education, how are you going to help your kid with their algebra homework? If you work 12 hours a day, how much can you support them in their extracurriculars?
Some do, some can’t find a way around it.
Really? You’ve never met anyone who is against public school? I thought that was the whole point here.
Right, they believe that they got where they are with no help from anyone at all, and so think that others needing help means that they are better and deserve more.
I agree that that is how they see it, but for not thinking that they are right, you are putting up quite the defense.
That was not the question. The question was- are about 17% of HS graduate reading really poorly? The answer is yes.
Sure, public schools have worse stats, we know that. But once the kids who have learning disabilities, language issues, poverty and serious home issues are filtered out (all of which private school do) , the numbers are about the same.
See, private schools pick and choose, while public schools have to take pretty much everybody.
However, a recent study that showed better private school outcomes has a huge caveat.
## When family wealth is factored out, the difference in private and public school outcomes disappears entirely.
Researchers at the University of Virginia found that when socioeconomic factors were controlled for in the study, all of the advantages of private school were negated. The study also found “no evidence to suggest that low-income children or children enrolled in urban schools benefited more from private school enrollment.”
Kids from the same socioeconomic class have similar outcomes, whether they attend public school or private school. In other words, it’s the ability to afford private school that makes the difference, not private school itself. Since private school attendees tend to come from wealthier families, they generally have better outcomes.
But money, not the educational approach or quality of instruction offered in private schools, appears to be the driving factor.
After reviewing data from over 1,000 students, researchers from the University of Virginia found no evidence to suggest that students from low-income families and children enrolled in urban schools benefited more from private than from public school education. These results are particularly relevant as legislators fight to move toward more a more privatized public education system. They also make it clear that the assumption that public schools are inferior to private schools is wrong.
Was it? I thought the answer was that 13% of 17 year olds were functionally illiterate.
Now, that’s still a problem, and I’m not too worried about the difference of 13-17%, but @Velocity’s claim was that these were high school graduates, implying that public schools routinely graduate people who cannot read.
That’s the implication that I was challenging here.
But I have no problem continuing this discussion, either.
Exactly, public schools cannot choose to only take high achievers, they cannot choose to only take the smartest. They have to work with what they get. When the smartest and hardest workers have already left, of course the stats for the school that’s left with the rest are not going to be as great.
But that is then used as a justification to further destroy them, rather than helping those students who need the most help.
Yes, and we have two sets of stats- about 13% of 17 yo are poor readers. But that is while they are IN HS.
Then we have the stat that about 20% of adults are functionally illiterate.
Thus, if there was a stat that showed 17% of HS graduates were functionally illiterate I would not be surprised. Somehow we have to get from 13% to 20%.
That’s not the alternative, that is meritocracy.
This is what I was saying in my reply to @suranyi. Why does someone who is lucky enough to be born smarter than average, or much more athletic than average, deserve to have a better lifestyle than others? Not for their own benefit, I would say, but because we want them to develop and use those talents to benefit society. And we may also want to consider how much disparity we support in our society, and use taxes and benefits to adjust it. But if we reduce the disparity to zero, we arrive back at communism, where there is no incentive for people to work hard, develop themselves and benefit society.
Is it really a hard sell? I think most people recognise that a generally educated populace is a good thing. Of course, they might well think that if 13% of school leavers are functionally illiterate, then they aren’t actually achieving that, and there are big problem with the schools.
There was a thread recently about how much more competitive college entry had become. If you don’t have the perfect grades, ideal combination of extra-curriculas, and professionally-edited essay, you can forget it. Sometimes your kid really is competing against others, and an advantage is only an advantage if others don’t have it. But I’m not sure how applicable that is to the topic of this thread.
Sure. In some ways humans are like animals living in the zoo. Out of our natural environment, and struggling to adapt to the stresses of an unnatural one. Unlike zoo animals, we have some ability to change our own living conditions, though.
That’s a rather uncomfortable conclusion. Yes, it says that public schools are not doing a bad job. But it also leaves no obvious way in which they could do a better one. If family wealth determines outcome regardless of quality of education, where does that leave the idea of equality?
Note that the comparison does not say both types are doing a great job, with no room for improvement, it just says the end result is equally as good … or as bad.
It also says we are not doing a good job with our inner city public schools where poorer families would be expected.
AFAICT, charter schools are privately owned but publicly funded, they are owned by a wide variety of organizations including churches.
That said, I’ll admit I don’t know a lot about how charter schools operate in the real world, with what it typical and what is uncommon.
I am familiar with a case where a polygamous religious cult in the Salt Lake City area had their private school found a charter school, funded with taxpayer money. The case is under investigation, in part because of their all-white student body. Their defense to that claim is that they accept every student that applies - which is actually plausible as there’s probably not much demand for learning the cult teachings outside of the cult. There’s also a financial investigation, as this cult has its own private economy inside the greater economy, owning their own network of stores, banks and service providers.
But honestly I don’t know if the practice of a church or religious organization starting charter schools in order to give their students a religious based education on the taxpayer dime is common or rare. I just know that the system seems to be capable of facilitating that structure.
How open are you to the possibility that the choice isn’t one extreme or the other?
In fairness, that’s a situation not exactly unique to public schools.
Once again, the ignorance and arrogance in this thread is astounding. People, quit running your mouths about things that you know nothing about. Voyager here flatters himself that he knows how conservatives think, when it is clear that he knows nothing about the subject whatsoever.
Most conservatives are emphatically NOT “fine” with police unions. They are grudgingly tolerated, whereas most other unions are actively despised. And the toleration is partly due to the fact that police unions are weak compared to most others-- in many jurisdictions, it is illegal for public safety workers to go on strike.
As much as I hate to agree with you about anything ( 
), yes, they did. And as American liberalism came to be influenced by the aging radicals of the New Left, liberalism morphed into neoliberalism. And neoliberalism has a lot to answer for.
Which is in no way whatsoever intended to indicate any opposition on my part to public education at taxpayer expense (with unionized teachers, although that’s not a sine qua non for me). My own children attend NYC public schools. By (their parents’, given their ages) choice. We could send them to Catholic schools if we wanted (and, as a practicing Catholic, I have no problem with that, but in our neighborhood, the public elementary school is better than the nearest Catholic elementary school). Maybe, maybe, to private school, if we made some fairly radical alterations in our lifestyles, and savings habits, and so on.
At what age?
If a lot of them are over, say, 30 or 40, that’s not a problem with the current schools.
We can hardly do that by declaring that the children of those who were previously lucky are the only ones who can get a good start now.
For one thing, nobody’s talking about reducing the disparity to zero for adults.
For another, money is very far from the only incentive.
I don’t understand why so many people seem to think that, if not driven by the terror of abject poverty, almost everybody would just sit on their asses and do nothing whatsoever. Very few say that they themselves would do so; at least, once they’d finally caught up on their sleep.
Since we’ve got more people going to college than ever in history, this seems unlikely.
It may apply to a small handful of schools.
Maybe we need to look at whole families, and not only at children?