Public Education and School of Choice

[UncleJoseph]

Does anyone else feel like School of Choice will be (or is) the downfall of public education?

In my area of Lansing, MI, our public schools in the City of Lansing are losing students at a frightening rate, thereby causing them to lose funding. Consequently, many of the "upscale" public schools in the surrounding area are taking on many more of the city kids. What I've noticed, is that there is a mass exodus of kids from the city schools, who are children of means (i.e, have parents who can drive them to the school of choice, purchase that laptop required by the school of choice, etc.) are transferring, and the underprivileged youth remain at the schools where funding is rapidly decreasing, becoming less diverse and where programs are constantly being cut. In my opinion, this is re-inventing segregation at some level.

Anyone experience similar things at different locales?

I want to add that I am 100% against school of choice, for several reasons (social impact being the biggest reason). I realize, however, that there are potential benefits to students and such, but I think the consequences outweigh any possible benefits.

[Serious Paul]

Since I have a child I am for schools of choice, not to say people with out children should be voided from making these decisions-but rather as explanation as to why I am for this.

While I certainly agree school of choice often equates to some sort of social stratification, I'm not sure that's entirely avoidable, or necessarily any one individuals responsibility. I certainly think every child should be afforded opportunity, but I have no particularly clever method of making that happen readily available. As such I, selfishly to a point, choose to do what's best for me and mine.

[Marius]

Thing is, my intelligence analysts tell me Paul's far from rich. If school choice is good for Paul, it's probably equally good for the rest of the middle class or working class. It's bad for the impoverished, but if you think that fully funded public schools will save the children of the impoverished, then you need to wear a helmet.

[Kai]

I don't know if you ever lived in an area with redistricting, but I can tell you that segregation already occurs by economic means of the area. In sixth grade my parents had to fight tooth and nail to let me go to the school 5 blocks from our house rather than get bussed across town to a different school in a less economically favored area in order to bus kids from there to the school near me, because this was 'helping fight segregation' and 'offering better opportunities'. It was a mess.

If parents choose to send their kids elsewhere, its not always for economic advantage or educational reasons. Maybe they want to take their kids to the school near their work so they can be there if something happens. Maybe the school in question is better equipped to handle a disability. A lot of times, the parents would like to enroll their kids in a religious school but without a voucher to defray costs couldn't afford it. I believe giving them that choice is a good thing.

[Serious Paul]

Or maybe we just don't want our kids in a war zone school, no matter how much that helps some eggheads social experimentation.

[UncleJoseph]

Part of what's creating the "war zone" schools in Lansing, though, is school of choice. Most of the kids in Lansing Public Schools are impoverished, underprivileged, and come from families who don't value education. In the state of affairs now, we can argue the proverbial chicken vs. egg. Do we want school of choice because it's a war zone, or did it become a wars zone due to school of choice?

I wholly understand the argument from parents that they want the best education for their kids. However, in our area one of of the upscale schools fosters the most arrogant, "the world owes me everything" attitude kids, who have overprotective people in their lives. They don't learn tolerance, responsibility or respect for those around them. Everything is handed to them on a silver platter.

I myself would like a more even playing field. Under school of choice, our inner city kids now don't have access to nearly the same resources for learning, nor do they have adequate faculties for supervision. This situation has been an issue for a long time, but has been made far worse by school of choice.

[Serious Paul]

I do think that if you're low income and you choose a school in an area that you couldn't normally access, because it's better for the child, that you should get some sort of help getting the child there, and fed, etc...but I'm not sure who should pay for that or how, or how it would actually work. But I'd be willing to entertain the idea.

[Cain]

The problem with "school of choice" is that the better schools already have the better students, for whatever reason. Generally, it's economic. Because they have better students, they have better test scores, and thus are considered "better schools".

Once school-of-choice reaches its pinnacle, every school will suck. Some will suck worse than others, due to the stratification Joseph mentioned. But overall, quality of education will drop at all but the private schools, and even those will take a hit. Only by economic desegregation can we even come close to ensuring a diverse and fair school environment.

[Marius]

Ah, there's that dry sense of humor I've been missing. Cain's jokes are always the funniest.

[Serious Paul]

Unless I am mistaken, Michigan doesn't require Private Schools to participate in "School of Choice" programs. Is that different elsewhere?

[Cain]

Depends on your area. The "school voucher" program deliberately opens up private schools, but doesn't force them to relax their enterance standards. So, for example, a Baptist school can bar non-Baptist children from attending, yet still accept vouchers from Baptist children.