It's been an article of faith since Milton Friedman first started fantasizing about getting government out of education and replacing it with a voucher system. Competition will spur excellence. Free market schools will save students from failing schools in poor districts. Free markets will stave off inequity.
To start with, there is no such thing as a free market. Going back to ancient history rulers declared jubilees, that is the cancelling of debts, because of the tyranny of the rich and their fucking free markets. Capitalism wouldn't exist without government regulation; it would destroy itself.
Even the staunchest capitalists are now saying things like "Competition is for suckers." Competition creates winners and losers. Is that what we want for our children? Competition is the most wrong tool. The law of civilization is basically that within our in group (family, tribe, etc.) cooperation rules. We only compete with potential enemies. Should not all American children be in our in group? Should we not cooperate to educate them to the best of our ability?
The thinking of these troglodyte economists is appalling. They are recommend monopoly and regulation capture to their business clients saying basically, do not compete or let anyone else tell you what to do and then they turn around and recommend unbridled competition to the public sector.
Public school teacher here. I want to be sure I understand: What do you advocate *for*?
I live in Indiana where students can transfer schools easily. I teach in a county with four different high schools. I teach middle school, and I've had many kids transfer *in* because they do poorly elsewhere, and after a few months in my classroom, they excel. Isn't that *good*?
By way of analogy, is switching from public school to public school like choosing a different McDonald's or choosing Taco Bell?
Public schools try to equalize as much as possible, but there's no changing human nature. Students reflect socioeconomic status and parenting more than any other factor.
Honest question: if a student has done poorly elsewhere and if SES and parenting are the prime factors in the students’ performance, how do you account for them suddenly excelling in your class?
The two things aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, although you're free to argue that if you want to.
Can SES reflect on a school overall (the "general" student)? Can some students do better in some environments than others (a specific student)?
Regardless, if some schools are better for particular students and families, shouldn't parents have the right to move them? That seems to be the core issue here.
That’s the point of the question. Until you identify the cause(s) of the poor performance, recommending a course of action is guesswork at best. While a school transfer might be appropriate under some circumstances, it might be detrimental under others. There are many other possible actions that could be considered, but again only after the cause has been reasonably identified.
Your framing misses the reality that vouchers and other free-market solutions to education tend to benefit wealthy families with the time and capacity to make the best choice for their children while relegating poor students to the worst schools. Saying that someone has a "right to choose" sounds nice, but the point Greene is making is that isn't what free-market solutions do.
Additionally, some school districts (Montgomery County, MD being an example) allow students the choice to select their high school and transfer between schools while being public.
I don't have a problem with students being able to move from one public school to another. There is no "one size fits all" school. Some students need smaller schools, or bigger schools. or schools with special programs. or schools close to a parent's workplace, etc. But the schools students enroll in using my tax dollars, need to be PUBLIC. They need to be open to all students, they need to be accountable, they need to be responsive to the community through elected boards and open meetings. Private schools have none of these.
To start with, there is no such thing as a free market. Going back to ancient history rulers declared jubilees, that is the cancelling of debts, because of the tyranny of the rich and their fucking free markets. Capitalism wouldn't exist without government regulation; it would destroy itself.
Even the staunchest capitalists are now saying things like "Competition is for suckers." Competition creates winners and losers. Is that what we want for our children? Competition is the most wrong tool. The law of civilization is basically that within our in group (family, tribe, etc.) cooperation rules. We only compete with potential enemies. Should not all American children be in our in group? Should we not cooperate to educate them to the best of our ability?
The thinking of these troglodyte economists is appalling. They are recommend monopoly and regulation capture to their business clients saying basically, do not compete or let anyone else tell you what to do and then they turn around and recommend unbridled competition to the public sector.
Bad actors, one and all.
Sorry for the rant!
Public school teacher here. I want to be sure I understand: What do you advocate *for*?
I live in Indiana where students can transfer schools easily. I teach in a county with four different high schools. I teach middle school, and I've had many kids transfer *in* because they do poorly elsewhere, and after a few months in my classroom, they excel. Isn't that *good*?
By way of analogy, is switching from public school to public school like choosing a different McDonald's or choosing Taco Bell?
Public schools try to equalize as much as possible, but there's no changing human nature. Students reflect socioeconomic status and parenting more than any other factor.
Honest question: if a student has done poorly elsewhere and if SES and parenting are the prime factors in the students’ performance, how do you account for them suddenly excelling in your class?
The two things aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, although you're free to argue that if you want to.
Can SES reflect on a school overall (the "general" student)? Can some students do better in some environments than others (a specific student)?
Regardless, if some schools are better for particular students and families, shouldn't parents have the right to move them? That seems to be the core issue here.
That’s the point of the question. Until you identify the cause(s) of the poor performance, recommending a course of action is guesswork at best. While a school transfer might be appropriate under some circumstances, it might be detrimental under others. There are many other possible actions that could be considered, but again only after the cause has been reasonably identified.
Your framing misses the reality that vouchers and other free-market solutions to education tend to benefit wealthy families with the time and capacity to make the best choice for their children while relegating poor students to the worst schools. Saying that someone has a "right to choose" sounds nice, but the point Greene is making is that isn't what free-market solutions do.
Additionally, some school districts (Montgomery County, MD being an example) allow students the choice to select their high school and transfer between schools while being public.
I don't have a problem with students being able to move from one public school to another. There is no "one size fits all" school. Some students need smaller schools, or bigger schools. or schools with special programs. or schools close to a parent's workplace, etc. But the schools students enroll in using my tax dollars, need to be PUBLIC. They need to be open to all students, they need to be accountable, they need to be responsive to the community through elected boards and open meetings. Private schools have none of these.