This seems like a good way for private companies to take taxpayer money while simultaneously providing subpar services, which means it aligns perfectly with Republican values.
This seems like a good way for private companies to take taxpayer money while simultaneously providing subpar services, which means it aligns perfectly with Republican values.
The private schools tend to not be subpar (homeschooling is a whole separate discussion). The bigger problem is the already-struggling public schools being hamstrung.
The private schools tend to not be subpar (homeschooling is a whole separate discussion). The bigger problem is the already-struggling public schools being hamstrung.
Hard disagree. Some private schools are quite excellent, namely ones geared towards the elites. But a lot of private schools are straight garbage. Charter schools are a plague. Many self-select...
Hard disagree. Some private schools are quite excellent, namely ones geared towards the elites. But a lot of private schools are straight garbage. Charter schools are a plague. Many self-select against students with special needs and language barriers, dumping these higher-cost students back into public schools.
Then they provide a sub-par education, kicking out kids that don't meet the standardized test scores, artificially inflating their quality relative to the public schools whom receive the "rejects." My aunt was an administrator whom had to place kids re-entering public school from charter schools and they were regularly being placed a grade or two lower because their academics were that bad.
One charter school in my neighborhood used the local library. You know how they used the library for 1st graders? The "teacher" brought them in to storytime for preschoolers, played on her phone, then let them roam free for 30 minutes then they left.
Pair that with the stated intention for a lot of "school choice" is to circumvent the secular nature of public school, and you have a recipe for breeding incompetence and bigotry.
The State of Ohio won a lawsuit against Betsy DeVoss' companies for basically taking school vouchers and then providing the barest of the bare minimum of online "schooling" to students, so I'm not...
The private schools tend to not be subpar
The State of Ohio won a lawsuit against Betsy DeVoss' companies for basically taking school vouchers and then providing the barest of the bare minimum of online "schooling" to students, so I'm not sure you can make a blanket statement like this today.
20 or 30 years ago, sure, most if not all private schools were probably more rigorous and "better" than many public schools but I don't think that is the case today. Of course, I'm also making a generalization here that maybe doesn't stand up to scrutiny either! (But I attended public school so cut me some slack :P)
Can you cite this? I can't find anything remotely related to this.
The State of Ohio won a lawsuit against Betsy DeVoss' companies for basically taking school vouchers and then providing the barest of the bare minimum of online "schooling" to students
Can you cite this? I can't find anything remotely related to this.
Sorry, it was for actually just taking money and then not teaching https://news.wosu.org/statehouse-news-stories/2019-02-28/ecot-case-still-ongoing-though-no-criminal-charges-so-far There were a...
Sorry, it was for actually just taking money and then not teaching
Not the person you responded to, but I found this timeline of her actions as Secretary of Education. https://www.psea.org/issues-action/key-issues/betsy-devos-timeline/
Not the person you responded to, but I found this timeline of her actions as Secretary of Education.
I did a little searching and I think this may be what the other person was thinking of. https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/betsy-devos-all-children-matter-election-fines-231954
I did a little searching and I think this may be what the other person was thinking of.
I'd encourage looking into how charter schools shape their enrollment. It masks a lot of failures by keeping the "hard" students back to the public schools, while letting the students that would...
I'd encourage looking into how charter schools shape their enrollment. It masks a lot of failures by keeping the "hard" students back to the public schools, while letting the students that would also thrive in public schools stay in the charter school.
As a public school teacher, I would almost see this as a good thing except for two serious concerns I have. A lot of these schools are going to be hyper-religious, alt-right crazy schools that...
As a public school teacher, I would almost see this as a good thing except for two serious concerns I have.
A lot of these schools are going to be hyper-religious, alt-right crazy schools that don't teach science.
Private schools aren't great for teachers. The benefits and pay can vary so widely that some teachers end up making the bare minimum with no benefits.
I worry that this will end up being another corporate cash grab. But to be fair, a lot of the public schools in conservative states already are, and they aren't good for students or teachers anyway.
I'm very fortunate to be in the state that I'm in. We are still struggling and people keep trying to make public education worse so they'll have grounds to kill it. But I have a strong union and a meager pension. My healthcare is better than anyone else I know.
Edit: I will add that every teacher I work with has a heart that just bleeds for the kids. The kids and parents don't always know it, but we absolutely stress about these kids in and out of school. Particularly the ones in bad situations. I parent far more than I teach. Public schools are facing financial and political attacks, yes. But we are also suffering because kids are, obviously, bringing the problems from our society as a whole into the classroom.
Public schools aren't great for teachers, either. My wife is a para in the local district. Wages are so low I half-jokingly consider it volunteer work. All of her co-workers are twenty-somethings,...
Public schools aren't great for teachers, either. My wife is a para in the local district. Wages are so low I half-jokingly consider it volunteer work. All of her co-workers are twenty-somethings, there are very few older teachers. Employee burnout and churn is high. We have to buy school supplies for students with our own money because the school doesn't supply enough and the school board is more concerned with low taxes and maintaining their positions on the board. None of them have any background in education. Cyberschools are sucking funds out of the district at an alarming rate as each student in the district that goes to one has a set amount of money sent from the district to the cyberschool. There's a teacher shortage. They backfill with paras and subs and when they can't find enough of them the kids go into the auditorium for the day. Staffing for special needs students is totally inadequate.
The only bright side of working for the school here is the health insurance, and if you're a teacher you have the union and a good pension plan if you can withstand working there enough years. I can't imagine if school vouchers become commonplace. It will kill our school district.
This is also a bit of a regional thing. I live in New Jersey. Local public school teachers easily make $60k a year, not too shabby considering summer break.
This is also a bit of a regional thing. I live in New Jersey.
Local public school teachers easily make $60k a year, not too shabby considering summer break.
Yeah, teachers with a Masters in my wife's public school district (a requirement to teach in my state anyway) make over 90k/year at the top of the pay band, and start around 60. It's not amazing...
Yeah, teachers with a Masters
in my wife's public school district (a requirement to teach in my state anyway) make over 90k/year at the top of the pay band, and start around 60. It's not amazing for the area, but it's pretty solid and the benefits + time off easily make it worth it.
Unsurprisingly, they have a lot of great teachers and the students perform well. Turns out investing in schools actually has positive results, who'd have thought?
Yeah unfortunately it does seem to just sap funds from public schools as well. That being said, I do believe people should have the right to put their kids in alternative schools, and if they pay...
Yeah unfortunately it does seem to just sap funds from public schools as well. That being said, I do believe people should have the right to put their kids in alternative schools, and if they pay taxes they should be able to get some form of return out of those taxes. Obviously the current system is extremely frustrating, but I don't think it should be removed, just reworked.
There are more reasons than just religion or political views that parents might not want their kids in public schools.
Right, they can get a return... by using the school system provided. If they choose not to, no skin off my back but the taxes should go there not their choice. I don't get a choice or any return...
if they pay taxes they should be able to get some form of return out of those taxes.
Right, they can get a return... by using the school system provided. If they choose not to, no skin off my back but the taxes should go there not their choice. I don't get a choice or any return when businesses get bailouts. I don't get a choice when trucking companies cause more damage to residential roads when they drive down them. I don't get a choice to somehow mandate that my tax dollars should only enrich me for anything else, so why schools?
If you decide to never use the library, your taxes still go there. If you decide to be a pacifist, your taxes still go towards war. Why, all of a sudden, is education the line in the sand? Education is for the benefit of everyone because I hate dealing with stupid people. The idea that we should give that money back is silly.
Absolutely. I've chosen not to use the public school system, should I receive money back from my taxes? I've chosen not to use the public school system by choosing not to have kids. Theoretically,...
Right, they can get a return... by using the school system provided. If they choose not to, no skin off my back but the taxes should go there not their choice.
Absolutely. I've chosen not to use the public school system, should I receive money back from my taxes? I've chosen not to use the public school system by choosing not to have kids. Theoretically, I do still get that return on my taxes, because I get to live in an advancing country with an educated populace. If you do have children and do not enroll them in public school, you get the same benefits that I do. By receiving a voucher to send your children elsewhere, you're not only receiving more benefits than I am, you're actively reducing the benefits that I receive by reducing the state's ability to educate the populace.
There are options other than public schools. There have been alternative schools forever. Most of them have scholarships for families that can't afford it. If they don't like that or can't afford...
There are options other than public schools. There have been alternative schools forever. Most of them have scholarships for families that can't afford it. If they don't like that or can't afford it there is always homeschooling. However, let's face it, most parents can't be bothered. (For the record I did homeschool my children but I didn't complain about my taxes since it went to educating their peers)
I'm not comfortable with the thought of getting some form of return on your taxes if you don't use or like a service. My kids and I don't use the local park's sportsfields anymore, can I expect some form of return on those taxes? I don't use boat ramps in my county, can I expect some form of return on those taxes? My house has never caught fire so can I get my tax money back from the fire department?
Obviously not, nor should I since I still indirectly benefit--a healthy population means lower insurance costs, boat ramps brings in tourism and additional tax dollars on secondary spending relating to the boat ramp (gas, bait, gear, tags, etc) and it is in my best interest to have a fully funded and prepared fire department in case anything happens in my neighborhood.
FWIW, society does get a return on those school tax dollars even if that person doesn't have kids.
Is there a correlation between education and incarceration?
High school dropouts are 3.5 times more likely than high school graduates to be arrested in their lifetime. High school dropouts are 63% more likely to be incarcerated than their peers with four-year college degrees.
According to this CNN graph most states pay around double per prisoner than student per year (Washington pays 5x more per prisoner while Indiana and Kentucky look to pay roughly 1.5x as much)
How it's done in BC with private schools is kinda like this: they are required to "meet certain requirements for instructional time, subject offering, learning outcomes and other matters" at least...
How it's done in BC with private schools is kinda like this:
they are required to "meet certain requirements for instructional time, subject offering, learning outcomes and other matters"
at least for the catholic schools, they receive partial funding from the provincial government. So the parents get to pay a subsidized tuition and the province gets a discount on educating those children compared to public school.
You know what, I'll lean into this one as a thought experiment. This is great. Everyone deserves a share of "their money" that's been generated by federal tax policy. We should extend this beyond...
For many supporters, those are features, not bugs. They characterize the new ESA laws as letting parents take “their money” — the dollars that would have been used to educate their kids — out of public schools they have no interest in using.
You know what, I'll lean into this one as a thought experiment. This is great. Everyone deserves a share of "their money" that's been generated by federal tax policy. We should extend this beyond just schools though, we should make sure everyone gets money to help redistribute it as they see fit. Since this would be applied to everyone, we could call it some kind of universal income.
I think the place where a per-head funding model really breaks down in kids with special needs. The cost of educating a child varies dramatically depending on the child and this has nothing to do...
I think the place where a per-head funding model really breaks down in kids with special needs. The cost of educating a child varies dramatically depending on the child and this has nothing to do with the financial resources of the parents. It means there is an implicit form of subsidy or social insurance going on, and we might not want to be too explicit about it?
Even outside special needs, I suspect costs vary somewhat. Smart, well behaved children are likely cheaper to educate, particularly nowadays when so many resources are available for free online. To the extent that they’re also self-directed, the main thing to do for them is make sure they’re not bullied, and going to a different school might be an effective way of doing that.
Pretending that kids are all the same so they should get equal amounts of funding leads to market distortions. Private schools have strong incentive to cherry-pick; high test scores are a selling point and the easiest way to do that is to somehow pick the right kids.
That might not even be so bad, as long as it’s acknowledged and public schools get extra funding due to having a more difficult job?
I wonder to what extent the funding models already take this into account?
I think they are easier to educate in terms of 'learning per amount of funding’ because the teacher hopefully (depending on the rest of the class) has more time and energy to allocate but I’m not...
Even outside special needs, I suspect costs vary somewhat. Smart, well behaved children are likely cheaper to educate, particularly nowadays when so many resources are available for free online.
I think they are easier to educate in terms of 'learning per amount of funding’ because the teacher hopefully (depending on the rest of the class) has more time and energy to allocate but I’m not sure how that would translate to cheaper.
The cost of educating a child varies dramatically depending on the child and this has nothing to do with the financial resources of the parents. It means there is an implicit form of subsidy or social insurance going on, and we might not want to be too explicit about it?
Education is inherently local, but I do have a little insight for my province as my wife is a teacher.
Here, children can get placed onto IEPs (individualized education plans I think?) which have varying levels of support associated with them. These levels come with different funding/extra staffing requirements. I think all levels of IEPs come with preparatory time for the teacher (via a subsitute teacher or the principal covering) so the teacher can handle some of the administrative work associated with the IEPs. If a teacher has someone on an IEP with higher needs, they’ll get a CEA (certified educational assistant) that might be solely responsible for that student or splitting time among a few students depending on the level. Depending on the school, children on IEPs might represent 10-40% of the class.
So schools with geographically higher concentrations of IEPs for whatever reason do receive funding that exceeds areas with lower concentrations.
I suspect that better-behaved kids could be cheaper to educate because it would allow for larger class sizes and/or self-study. This is based on a general impression from from back in the dinosaur...
I suspect that better-behaved kids could be cheaper to educate because it would allow for larger class sizes and/or self-study. This is based on a general impression from from back in the dinosaur era that there was a correlation: the “smart” kids were less likely to be the ones who ended up in detention. Maybe it’s not true now?
This isn’t to say that smarter kids are necessarily better behaved. There’s a large cultural component to it and Americans seem to have a more unruly culture? See this article about a star teacher from the Philippines who found it really tough to teach in American schools.
Also, a lot of this just has to do with age. There’s a reason that introductory college classes can be huge lectures. Staffing for day care centers, not so much.
And it’s not that the smarter kids do get fewer resources, but it would harm them less.
I think this is probably theoretically true but highly unlikely to be realized. Here at least, class sizes are contractually defined and maximums are negotiated between the government and...
I suspect that better-behaved kids could be cheaper to educate because it would allow for larger class sizes and/or self-study.
I think this is probably theoretically true but highly unlikely to be realized. Here at least, class sizes are contractually defined and maximums are negotiated between the government and teachers' unions. These can be adjusted downwards in the presence of a higher number of IEPs but never upwards. Which is not to say they couldn't be, I just don't see how it would work. Adjustments downward are easier to quantify: these are medically designated behaviours/conditions such as ADHD, ODD, autism etc. that have real effects on classroom management. Its harder to identify the conditions in which a class would be well behaved enough to add a bunch of kids to a class list at the start of the year. Kids are always changing developmentally, so a well-behaved kid from last year may be a nightmare this year. Also, in addition to a student's individual track record also have social dynamics to consider.
It started with West Virginia in 2021 and Arizona in 2022, and then continued with a flood this year — Iowa, Utah, Arkansas, Florida, Oklahoma, Ohio, and Indiana. More may follow. “It’s happening!” Corey DeAngelis, a conservative activist who describes himself as a “school choice evangelist,” regularly tweets, joyfully chronicling each new victory.
The reform sweeping red America is slightly different from a voucher — it’s called an education savings account, or an ESA. In a voucher system, public funds go directly to schools. With ESAs, parents who opt out of the public school system get several thousand dollars in an account that they can use for private school tuition, homeschooling, or other education-related expenses.
But the biggest change is in who can use them: everyone. “It’s really hard to overstate how different from any kind of previous legislation these programs are,” said Liz Cohen, policy director for Georgetown University’s FutureEd think tank. “It’s not income-tested; it’s not about getting the lowest-income kids in the worst schools. Prior to three years ago, I would have bet a lot of money you would have never seen this happen.”
...
Universal voucher bills had long failed because most parents didn’t want radical disruption of the public school status quo. The pandemic brought this radical disruption. Polarizing battles unfolded over school closures, mask and vaccine requirements, and (after reopening) how long kids should be kept home if classmates tested positive.
Then the culture war that erupted over race, gender, and sexuality teaching in schools in 2020 and beyond ensured that things never entirely returned to “normal.” Activists like Christopher Rufo argued that “critical race theory” concepts were pervading teaching about race, Twitter accounts like Libs of TikTok spread videos of educators discussing gender identity, and such matters became omnipresent on Fox News and in conservative media.
...
Arizona’s universal ESA program, which went into effect in fall 2022, is the furthest along so far. Arizona families who already sent their children to private schools or homeschools were immediately eligible for the $7,000-per-student benefit, if they signed up. Many have.
...
By mid-May 2023, about 61,000 Arizona students were enrolled in an ESA, and the state department of education estimated that number would rise to 100,000, about 8 percent of school-aged children in the state, over the next year.
Shortly after the universal program was opened, the state superintendent (then a Democrat) said that 75 percent of applicants had never attended public schools in the state. More recently, the current superintendent (a Republican) said 49 percent of enrollees had been in public schools. All we know for sure is that some families who weren’t using the public school system are now getting money to do what they were already doing, and some families who had been attending public schools are now getting money to go elsewhere.
There is so much variance in school districts and quality. It's unfortunate and disappointing. It does come down to what the school is willing to fund / request for funding and the tax payer base....
There is so much variance in school districts and quality. It's unfortunate and disappointing. It does come down to what the school is willing to fund / request for funding and the tax payer base. In my large metro area there are public schools that rank in the top of the nation and there are also garbage schools. The top tier schools have districts with pretty high property taxes. But, those property taxes fund the amazing schools and programs. That draws people to the district and brings home values up. The areas with poor schools are often the poorer areas with higher crime and lower home values.
We had to move from an area to get into a district able to fund special needs. We had to pay 50% more for our home and my property taxes went up, but my home value will continue to climb and my children are getting substantially better services and education. But, a lot of families don't have this freedom of mobility.
Here in Florida each school is graded based mainly on testing results. The schools that score less get less funding. They literally force "do more with less" and if that isn't a self-perpetuating...
Here in Florida each school is graded based mainly on testing results. The schools that score less get less funding. They literally force "do more with less" and if that isn't a self-perpetuating cycle I don't know what is.
And you've hit on the key problem with funding schools off property taxes. Several schools in PA successfully got them ruled as unconstitutional earlier this year (for the PA constitution)....
And you've hit on the key problem with funding schools off property taxes. Several schools in PA successfully got them ruled as unconstitutional earlier this year (for the PA constitution). Wealthy parents move to wealthy zip codes, the poor parents are stuck because they can't afford 50% more to get their kids into a better school. So the poor schools get poorer. School gets worse, property values drop. Owners with those properties are even less able to afford to move to wealthier district.
Interesting, it is basically modern redlining what's going on. I don't think anyone here that is already in a good district / neighborhood no matter their political affiliation wants to see this...
Interesting, it is basically modern redlining what's going on. I don't think anyone here that is already in a good district / neighborhood no matter their political affiliation wants to see this change deep down. You would be killing your property value or your school's advantage and be voting against yourself.
And that's why individualism is such a dangerous trait to be fostering as a societal ideal. The best decisions come when considering not just what is best for oneself (and family), but for all.
And that's why individualism is such a dangerous trait to be fostering as a societal ideal.
The best decisions come when considering not just what is best for oneself (and family), but for all.
This seems like a good way for private companies to take taxpayer money while simultaneously providing subpar services, which means it aligns perfectly with Republican values.
The private schools tend to not be subpar (homeschooling is a whole separate discussion). The bigger problem is the already-struggling public schools being hamstrung.
Hard disagree. Some private schools are quite excellent, namely ones geared towards the elites. But a lot of private schools are straight garbage. Charter schools are a plague. Many self-select against students with special needs and language barriers, dumping these higher-cost students back into public schools.
Then they provide a sub-par education, kicking out kids that don't meet the standardized test scores, artificially inflating their quality relative to the public schools whom receive the "rejects." My aunt was an administrator whom had to place kids re-entering public school from charter schools and they were regularly being placed a grade or two lower because their academics were that bad.
One charter school in my neighborhood used the local library. You know how they used the library for 1st graders? The "teacher" brought them in to storytime for preschoolers, played on her phone, then let them roam free for 30 minutes then they left.
Pair that with the stated intention for a lot of "school choice" is to circumvent the secular nature of public school, and you have a recipe for breeding incompetence and bigotry.
The State of Ohio won a lawsuit against Betsy DeVoss' companies for basically taking school vouchers and then providing the barest of the bare minimum of online "schooling" to students, so I'm not sure you can make a blanket statement like this today.
20 or 30 years ago, sure, most if not all private schools were probably more rigorous and "better" than many public schools but I don't think that is the case today. Of course, I'm also making a generalization here that maybe doesn't stand up to scrutiny either! (But I attended public school so cut me some slack :P)
Can you cite this? I can't find anything remotely related to this.
Sorry, it was for actually just taking money and then not teaching
https://news.wosu.org/statehouse-news-stories/2019-02-28/ecot-case-still-ongoing-though-no-criminal-charges-so-far
There were a bunch of other stories and I haven't kept up with this because it's been awhile, so I'm not sure what else has come of it.
Not the person you responded to, but I found this timeline of her actions as Secretary of Education.
https://www.psea.org/issues-action/key-issues/betsy-devos-timeline/
Nothing on this page about a lawsuit with the State of Ohio?
I did a little searching and I think this may be what the other person was thinking of.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/betsy-devos-all-children-matter-election-fines-231954
I found that but it's very far from what was described, nothing relevant to private schools being subpar.
I'd encourage looking into how charter schools shape their enrollment. It masks a lot of failures by keeping the "hard" students back to the public schools, while letting the students that would also thrive in public schools stay in the charter school.
As a public school teacher, I would almost see this as a good thing except for two serious concerns I have.
A lot of these schools are going to be hyper-religious, alt-right crazy schools that don't teach science.
Private schools aren't great for teachers. The benefits and pay can vary so widely that some teachers end up making the bare minimum with no benefits.
I worry that this will end up being another corporate cash grab. But to be fair, a lot of the public schools in conservative states already are, and they aren't good for students or teachers anyway.
I'm very fortunate to be in the state that I'm in. We are still struggling and people keep trying to make public education worse so they'll have grounds to kill it. But I have a strong union and a meager pension. My healthcare is better than anyone else I know.
Edit: I will add that every teacher I work with has a heart that just bleeds for the kids. The kids and parents don't always know it, but we absolutely stress about these kids in and out of school. Particularly the ones in bad situations. I parent far more than I teach. Public schools are facing financial and political attacks, yes. But we are also suffering because kids are, obviously, bringing the problems from our society as a whole into the classroom.
Public schools aren't great for teachers, either. My wife is a para in the local district. Wages are so low I half-jokingly consider it volunteer work. All of her co-workers are twenty-somethings, there are very few older teachers. Employee burnout and churn is high. We have to buy school supplies for students with our own money because the school doesn't supply enough and the school board is more concerned with low taxes and maintaining their positions on the board. None of them have any background in education. Cyberschools are sucking funds out of the district at an alarming rate as each student in the district that goes to one has a set amount of money sent from the district to the cyberschool. There's a teacher shortage. They backfill with paras and subs and when they can't find enough of them the kids go into the auditorium for the day. Staffing for special needs students is totally inadequate.
The only bright side of working for the school here is the health insurance, and if you're a teacher you have the union and a good pension plan if you can withstand working there enough years. I can't imagine if school vouchers become commonplace. It will kill our school district.
This is also a bit of a regional thing. I live in New Jersey.
Local public school teachers easily make $60k a year, not too shabby considering summer break.
Yeah, teachers with a Masters
in my wife's public school district (a requirement to teach in my state anyway) make over 90k/year at the top of the pay band, and start around 60. It's not amazing for the area, but it's pretty solid and the benefits + time off easily make it worth it.
Unsurprisingly, they have a lot of great teachers and the students perform well. Turns out investing in schools actually has positive results, who'd have thought?
Yeah unfortunately it does seem to just sap funds from public schools as well. That being said, I do believe people should have the right to put their kids in alternative schools, and if they pay taxes they should be able to get some form of return out of those taxes. Obviously the current system is extremely frustrating, but I don't think it should be removed, just reworked.
There are more reasons than just religion or political views that parents might not want their kids in public schools.
Right, they can get a return... by using the school system provided. If they choose not to, no skin off my back but the taxes should go there not their choice. I don't get a choice or any return when businesses get bailouts. I don't get a choice when trucking companies cause more damage to residential roads when they drive down them. I don't get a choice to somehow mandate that my tax dollars should only enrich me for anything else, so why schools?
If you decide to never use the library, your taxes still go there. If you decide to be a pacifist, your taxes still go towards war. Why, all of a sudden, is education the line in the sand? Education is for the benefit of everyone because I hate dealing with stupid people. The idea that we should give that money back is silly.
Absolutely. I've chosen not to use the public school system, should I receive money back from my taxes? I've chosen not to use the public school system by choosing not to have kids. Theoretically, I do still get that return on my taxes, because I get to live in an advancing country with an educated populace. If you do have children and do not enroll them in public school, you get the same benefits that I do. By receiving a voucher to send your children elsewhere, you're not only receiving more benefits than I am, you're actively reducing the benefits that I receive by reducing the state's ability to educate the populace.
There are options other than public schools. There have been alternative schools forever. Most of them have scholarships for families that can't afford it. If they don't like that or can't afford it there is always homeschooling. However, let's face it, most parents can't be bothered. (For the record I did homeschool my children but I didn't complain about my taxes since it went to educating their peers)
I'm not comfortable with the thought of getting some form of return on your taxes if you don't use or like a service. My kids and I don't use the local park's sportsfields anymore, can I expect some form of return on those taxes? I don't use boat ramps in my county, can I expect some form of return on those taxes? My house has never caught fire so can I get my tax money back from the fire department?
Obviously not, nor should I since I still indirectly benefit--a healthy population means lower insurance costs, boat ramps brings in tourism and additional tax dollars on secondary spending relating to the boat ramp (gas, bait, gear, tags, etc) and it is in my best interest to have a fully funded and prepared fire department in case anything happens in my neighborhood.
FWIW, society does get a return on those school tax dollars even if that person doesn't have kids.
Per this page
According to this CNN graph most states pay around double per prisoner than student per year (Washington pays 5x more per prisoner while Indiana and Kentucky look to pay roughly 1.5x as much)
How it's done in BC with private schools is kinda like this:
You know what, I'll lean into this one as a thought experiment. This is great. Everyone deserves a share of "their money" that's been generated by federal tax policy. We should extend this beyond just schools though, we should make sure everyone gets money to help redistribute it as they see fit. Since this would be applied to everyone, we could call it some kind of universal income.
/S - but only kind of
I think the place where a per-head funding model really breaks down in kids with special needs. The cost of educating a child varies dramatically depending on the child and this has nothing to do with the financial resources of the parents. It means there is an implicit form of subsidy or social insurance going on, and we might not want to be too explicit about it?
Even outside special needs, I suspect costs vary somewhat. Smart, well behaved children are likely cheaper to educate, particularly nowadays when so many resources are available for free online. To the extent that they’re also self-directed, the main thing to do for them is make sure they’re not bullied, and going to a different school might be an effective way of doing that.
Pretending that kids are all the same so they should get equal amounts of funding leads to market distortions. Private schools have strong incentive to cherry-pick; high test scores are a selling point and the easiest way to do that is to somehow pick the right kids.
That might not even be so bad, as long as it’s acknowledged and public schools get extra funding due to having a more difficult job?
I wonder to what extent the funding models already take this into account?
I think they are easier to educate in terms of 'learning per amount of funding’ because the teacher hopefully (depending on the rest of the class) has more time and energy to allocate but I’m not sure how that would translate to cheaper.
Education is inherently local, but I do have a little insight for my province as my wife is a teacher.
Here, children can get placed onto IEPs (individualized education plans I think?) which have varying levels of support associated with them. These levels come with different funding/extra staffing requirements. I think all levels of IEPs come with preparatory time for the teacher (via a subsitute teacher or the principal covering) so the teacher can handle some of the administrative work associated with the IEPs. If a teacher has someone on an IEP with higher needs, they’ll get a CEA (certified educational assistant) that might be solely responsible for that student or splitting time among a few students depending on the level. Depending on the school, children on IEPs might represent 10-40% of the class.
So schools with geographically higher concentrations of IEPs for whatever reason do receive funding that exceeds areas with lower concentrations.
I suspect that better-behaved kids could be cheaper to educate because it would allow for larger class sizes and/or self-study. This is based on a general impression from from back in the dinosaur era that there was a correlation: the “smart” kids were less likely to be the ones who ended up in detention. Maybe it’s not true now?
This isn’t to say that smarter kids are necessarily better behaved. There’s a large cultural component to it and Americans seem to have a more unruly culture? See this article about a star teacher from the Philippines who found it really tough to teach in American schools.
Also, a lot of this just has to do with age. There’s a reason that introductory college classes can be huge lectures. Staffing for day care centers, not so much.
And it’s not that the smarter kids do get fewer resources, but it would harm them less.
I think this is probably theoretically true but highly unlikely to be realized. Here at least, class sizes are contractually defined and maximums are negotiated between the government and teachers' unions. These can be adjusted downwards in the presence of a higher number of IEPs but never upwards. Which is not to say they couldn't be, I just don't see how it would work. Adjustments downward are easier to quantify: these are medically designated behaviours/conditions such as ADHD, ODD, autism etc. that have real effects on classroom management. Its harder to identify the conditions in which a class would be well behaved enough to add a bunch of kids to a class list at the start of the year. Kids are always changing developmentally, so a well-behaved kid from last year may be a nightmare this year. Also, in addition to a student's individual track record also have social dynamics to consider.
From the article:
...
...
...
There is so much variance in school districts and quality. It's unfortunate and disappointing. It does come down to what the school is willing to fund / request for funding and the tax payer base. In my large metro area there are public schools that rank in the top of the nation and there are also garbage schools. The top tier schools have districts with pretty high property taxes. But, those property taxes fund the amazing schools and programs. That draws people to the district and brings home values up. The areas with poor schools are often the poorer areas with higher crime and lower home values.
We had to move from an area to get into a district able to fund special needs. We had to pay 50% more for our home and my property taxes went up, but my home value will continue to climb and my children are getting substantially better services and education. But, a lot of families don't have this freedom of mobility.
Here in Florida each school is graded based mainly on testing results. The schools that score less get less funding. They literally force "do more with less" and if that isn't a self-perpetuating cycle I don't know what is.
And you've hit on the key problem with funding schools off property taxes. Several schools in PA successfully got them ruled as unconstitutional earlier this year (for the PA constitution). Wealthy parents move to wealthy zip codes, the poor parents are stuck because they can't afford 50% more to get their kids into a better school. So the poor schools get poorer. School gets worse, property values drop. Owners with those properties are even less able to afford to move to wealthier district.
I have no doubts PA will be better for this.
Interesting, it is basically modern redlining what's going on. I don't think anyone here that is already in a good district / neighborhood no matter their political affiliation wants to see this change deep down. You would be killing your property value or your school's advantage and be voting against yourself.
And that's why individualism is such a dangerous trait to be fostering as a societal ideal.
The best decisions come when considering not just what is best for oneself (and family), but for all.