Tweet
CGVT:
Jon:
CGVT:
SLF:
I suspect, SLF, that you indeed do not have the expertise to discuss the urban "education" system. I on the other hand, have an interest in 81 charter schools in 7 states, almost all located in urban areas. I've spent the last 20 years of my life thinking about this problem.
First, the idea that single mothers in urban areas can move to good schools is nonsense on its face. It presupposes that these mothers desire to live in ghettos. Most don't. We call that poverty.
IMO, vouchers are a more efficient method of improving urban education than charter schools. They do not require a build-out of additional physical plants, which charters do require. But opposition to vouchers has a long history in the US, going back at least to the Know-Nothing party. The fear seems to be that religious or private education might be advantaged, which is the PC way of framing the question.
The proper way to phrase the question is to say that government schools employ government teachers who are unionized in most states. The teachers' unions are far and away the largest donors to the Democrat Party, (in 2012 donating more than the next 9 donors combined). The cost of teachers varies in the several states, but in almost every case, they are paid more than parochial or charter school teachers.
I've heard the progressives rail against the cost-plus purchasing by the military. Charter schools are funded in a cost-minus manner. In Michigan, for example, charters receive 63% of the grant per student that the local district school receives. In Detroit that is 63% of $ 19,000 or roughly $ 12,000. Every child that goes to a charter in Detroit saves the government at least $ 7,000. This is a built-in incentive for charters to locate in urban areas because those areas have the highest per pupil spending.
Would you please do a mental exercise. Suppose all the students that attend religious, parochial, private or charter schools show up in their assigned government school on the opening day of school. Just play that scenario out in your mind. Not enough school rooms, and not enough teachers. At the state level, massive underpayment of "school aid". Those of you who rail about non-government schools ruining public education have never even thought the problem through. Charters are open to all, but the problem in getting into a charter is admittance is by lottery. What non-government schools do is interrupt the hideous sacrifice of the young and poor in order to maintain a system which pays unionized teachers an excess in order to support the union which in turn elects the politicians who negotiate with the unions. The totally irrational polemic against vouchers or charters is really a question of Democrat activists who are willing to sacrifice the young and the poor on the alter of political power. Follow the money.
And I'd be delighted to have a separate discussion about school quality. I believe it is correct to say that charters are, in general, proving to be superior to government schools. But let's just suppose charters are as good. If there were a car on the market that was exactly as good as a Chevy, but was selling for $ 12,600 instead of $ 20,000, why would anyone (except the existing auto companies and unions) want to ban production of the cheaper of two identical autos? The "excess" spending on education in the US, as opposed to other western countries, is primarily graft going to the teachers' unions through teachers who are paid far more than market.
Oh, and DSL, if all schools in Michigan were run as efficiently as charters, there would be no property tax NEEDED for schools. Zero.
No to school vouchers. The parents that give a shit will move their kids. The rest will fall farther into the abyss.
School vouchers are a sham. It's the GOP paying off voters who send their kids to private school. Vouchers do nothing for at-risk kids. Giving a voucher to the parents a city kid stuck in a war zone does nothing when the parents can't afford the transportation, much less move.
School vouchers and "choice". Only work for those with the wherewithal to exercise that choice. The kids that really need the help don't benefit from it. They are stuck in bad schools that will only decline further as funds for these schools are stripped. Vouchers hurt the students that don't have supportive parents or those that don't have the funds to take advantage of the voucher.
I tend to agree with CGVT on this, but do not think I have the expertise to say what the answer is. I don't think vouchers are it though.
First, the idea that single mothers in urban areas can move to good schools is nonsense on its face. It presupposes that these mothers desire to live in ghettos. Most don't. We call that poverty.
IMO, vouchers are a more efficient method of improving urban education than charter schools. They do not require a build-out of additional physical plants, which charters do require. But opposition to vouchers has a long history in the US, going back at least to the Know-Nothing party. The fear seems to be that religious or private education might be advantaged, which is the PC way of framing the question.
The proper way to phrase the question is to say that government schools employ government teachers who are unionized in most states. The teachers' unions are far and away the largest donors to the Democrat Party, (in 2012 donating more than the next 9 donors combined). The cost of teachers varies in the several states, but in almost every case, they are paid more than parochial or charter school teachers.
I've heard the progressives rail against the cost-plus purchasing by the military. Charter schools are funded in a cost-minus manner. In Michigan, for example, charters receive 63% of the grant per student that the local district school receives. In Detroit that is 63% of $ 19,000 or roughly $ 12,000. Every child that goes to a charter in Detroit saves the government at least $ 7,000. This is a built-in incentive for charters to locate in urban areas because those areas have the highest per pupil spending.
Would you please do a mental exercise. Suppose all the students that attend religious, parochial, private or charter schools show up in their assigned government school on the opening day of school. Just play that scenario out in your mind. Not enough school rooms, and not enough teachers. At the state level, massive underpayment of "school aid". Those of you who rail about non-government schools ruining public education have never even thought the problem through. Charters are open to all, but the problem in getting into a charter is admittance is by lottery. What non-government schools do is interrupt the hideous sacrifice of the young and poor in order to maintain a system which pays unionized teachers an excess in order to support the union which in turn elects the politicians who negotiate with the unions. The totally irrational polemic against vouchers or charters is really a question of Democrat activists who are willing to sacrifice the young and the poor on the alter of political power. Follow the money.
And I'd be delighted to have a separate discussion about school quality. I believe it is correct to say that charters are, in general, proving to be superior to government schools. But let's just suppose charters are as good. If there were a car on the market that was exactly as good as a Chevy, but was selling for $ 12,600 instead of $ 20,000, why would anyone (except the existing auto companies and unions) want to ban production of the cheaper of two identical autos? The "excess" spending on education in the US, as opposed to other western countries, is primarily graft going to the teachers' unions through teachers who are paid far more than market.
Oh, and DSL, if all schools in Michigan were run as efficiently as charters, there would be no property tax NEEDED for schools. Zero.
Comment