What You Should Know About School Choice

One reform that people advocate to improve
the quality of schooling in the U.S. is to increase school choice. There are private
schools, charter schools, or magnet schools. Your city may provide a lottery to provide
access to other local public schools. Your city or state may provide tax credits or vouchers
to help parents pay for the cost of private schooling.
Many people are concerned about what increased school choice might look like. Here are four
things you should know about school choice: First, school choice doesn’t require parents
to bear the full cost of educating their child. Currently, local, state, and federal governments
both fund and produce schooling. But we can separate these two activities: governments
can fund schooling without producing it. For example, they can fund charter schools run
by private organizations, or they can provide vouchers to help pay for private school.
Second, school choice lowers the cost of schooling. A lot of people think that more choice means
more expensive education. But U.S. and international evidence show that areas that have more choice
spend less money per pupil. Providing families with more options about where to send their
child to school lowers the cost of educating that child.
Third, school choice raises the quality of schooling. A lot of people are concerned that
with more choices, parents may not make good educational choices for their children. But
U.S. and international evidence show that areas that have more school choice have the
same or higher quality schooling. When families have more choices, parents report being more
satisfied and less concerned about their children’s safety. Schools that depend on parents enrolling
their children to continue to operate are more likely to provide the educational environment
that parents want. Fourth, low income and minority students are
more likely to benefit from school choice programs. Many charter schools and private
schools, particularly Catholic schools, serve low income and minority students, and these
students are more likely to benefit from choice programs presumably because their public school
options are worse. Florida Special Education Voucher program is a good example of how more
school choice can lower the cost of schooling while maintaining the quality of education
for some of our most vulnerable students. The U.S. school system is failing our children.
We have thrown money at the problem for years with little or no effect. School choice lowers
the cost of schooling while providing at least as good if not higher quality schooling by
providing options for children and their families.

100 thoughts on “What You Should Know About School Choice

  1. BULLSHIT ALERT – do not buy the phony crap this video is peddling. I live in the UK and I know how school choice is killing our education system.

    All the parents push to get into the best school in the area. That school must expand to meet the extra demand and so deteriorates. Meanwhile the other schools are under-subscribed and perish.

    To create a market, you need to offer people choice even if they don't want it. School choice is the first step in privatizing school education.

  2. Well said. I'd like to know the source of this evidence. I live in the UK – school choice there is rife and it absolutely sucks.

    A school should be at the heart of a community. How can schools in competition fit in with that?

    And how can running several schools, some under-subscribed, some oversubscribed, be cheaper to run than one school where everyone in the neighbourhood goes?

  3. I live in the UK and I know by experience that competition does not improve schools.

    Parents rush to get into the best school, which leaves the other schools under-subscribed and languishing, while the best school must expand to meet the demand – it loses it's integrity and deteriorates. All the schools get worse and children suffer.

    Don't forget also that kids will have to travel further to school.

    School choice creates competition, which creates a market. Profit is the motivation.

  4. Well the undersubscribed school will need to adapt to remain relevant and an attractive option to parents. Should the better school give up it's quality for quantity it will soon loose its reputation and its marketability.

  5. Yeah – this will need to do that and that will need to do this, and pretty soon they are not thinking about how to teach effectively, but how to compete effectively.

    And that's the trouble with all of these schemes. Allocated funds will be spent with an eye to marketing – not necessarily for the best educational use. Let teachers get on and teach, don't force them to become business people.

    Is it not possible to improve the school you've got, without forcing it to compete in a marketplace?

  6. It's a trick. In Britain we have a National Health Service. Most Americans seem to despise this idea. We have to laugh at that. For over 60 years our National Health services has delivered better value health care than any in the world.

    But lobbying pressure means public money is being spent on exorbitant private health services, under the banner of the NHS.

    Patients are having choice forced on them. When you are suffering a stroke, the last thing you want is a choice of hospitals to visit.

  7. And so running a school for profit becomes a fine balance between increasing income via more students versus maintaining quality, soon-to-be-known-as marketability.

    And who is in charge of this balancing act? The headmaster – now a businessman? Or let him get on with his job and bring in managers – then they are running the school, not the head master. And who is paying for the managers?

    It's an expensive, inefficient nightmare, like your health service. A misery for parents.

  8. Well said. It's a horrendous idea.

    Parents scramble for the 'good' schools, rich parents ensuring a place by buying property in the catchment area. Those schools become over-subscribed and are forced to expand pupil numbers. New buildings on playgrounds.

    Meanwhile the 'bad' schools become under-subscribed with mostly kids from poorer backgrounds.

    Headmasters become marketing executives, education funds spent marketing the school. Schools lose their place at the centre of the community.

  9. The point of education isn't to allow parents to teach children whatever they'd like. The point is to raise children to be intelligent, knowledgeable, capable citizens that can tell when an idea isn't good, like the idea presented in this video.

  10. What do you advocate? A centralized authority to be the sole determiner for what ideas are good and what ideas are not?

  11. You can't "force" the freedom to choose. It's an oxymoronic concept. If you have a choice, then it's not force.

  12. Simplified concept: Self select education guided by those known to be above them in the area of study. Mastery is judged by performance either through tests or jobs. As one pasts tests/completes jobs the employer/test reports to a database which applies "points" to a person & they "level up"

    Of course that's an ideal and unlikely to come about. Within the current system the best we can do is have a centralized system that takes into account gender differences & is modified by case at lower lvls

  13. A better system would integrate more options, rather than a centralized authority, who has very little incentive to strive for excellence. There needs to be more competition and less guaranteed subsidization, so that performance levels of schools can impact their funding. Having these options, as well as privately owned entities that can compete for consumer attention as well gives more incentive to both public and private institutions to improve.

  14. Save that it doesn't work as has been shown already where these types of things have been done already. The system itself is problematic due to them teaching wrote memory rather than critical thinking.
    And the we already have funding based on "performance" & it has resulted in schools cheating, more wrote memory, and less thinking which overall has produced a dumber student body overall while gov. erodes the very things we need to educate people about. So what you are talking about doesn't work

  15. If the point is to raise intelligent kids, then you liberals have failed. We have some of the dumbest kids coming out of our public schools.

  16. That's the point. When schools are motivated by profit they will start taking education more seriously. If you don't provide a good education you lose customers. When you allow a monopoly schools have no reason to improve.

  17. I think you have this wrong. If a student is doing well in a traditional public school, then there is no reason to remove them. It is the kids who do not do well that would benefit from school choice.

  18. You are for a standardized public school system. It's funny Matt Damon and his mother came out against standardized testing, but are against school choice. Which means they favor a standardized public school with no standardized testing. Are with them on standardized testing? If so, does that not mean you and Damon are contradicting yourselves?

  19. Mostly in places that are not actually liberal and which have had an always had significant resistance to public schools, specifically limiting effects on curriculum and a significant "social conservative" base.

    Southern and northwestern states have some of the worst public and private education systems, but the west coast and north east is significantly better-but still not perfect, of course.

    Another refutation is simply to look at some European systems that are dramatically successful.

  20. Yes. No. In essence, a standardized curriculum is different from standardized testing.

    Testing is a way of gauging progress and deciding which students we, as a society, should favor and which we should ignore based on capacity to succeed-and is HEAVILY flawed. Standardizing that is ignoring differences between students.

    However curriculum is what is being taught. Standardizing that is necessary to make sure that children learn the correct things-such as legitimate science, or correct history.

  21. Your political bias is showing. I come from a small conservative town in Michigan, that has a high performing school system, and no they do no teach religion. I would dispute your take on California schools being in good shape, why then is Matt Damon sending his kids to private school. The schools that journalists talk about all the time as being the worst are urban schools. Washington DC for example.

  22. Basically, my point was that "Standardization" is a means of pushing conformity.

    This is fine when you are dealing with things that really are objectively true, like science and history. Science says one thing is true, history says one thing happened. Standardization of its teaching just makes sure there is no muddling of the message.

    However there isn't one "best" test for all students because human beings have variance. Thus standardizing it just screws those different. It's subjective.

  23. What I get is people like Matt Damon and his mother want standardized schools because that means teachers won't have to compete. They don't want standardized testing because that might make some teachers look bad. It seems they believe what is good for teachers is good for students. I reject that logic.

  24. Don't bother asking for my opinion if you've already decided you know it. Besides, how did I EVER imply that? Why would standardized schools means teachers won't have to compete?

    A standardized curriculum only means that teachers have to teach the same information-their capacity and understanding of that information is also gauged and they are kept or fired based on that.

    The question is how to gauge this-the answer is through their students-so the next one is how do you gauge students.

  25. To answer THAT question-how do you gauge student understanding-the grading system was created.

    But the simple fact is that standardizing this system is idiotic, because each student is unique.

    However it's much easier for instructors and administrators, and the assumption that you can simply look at a students relative grade compared to others and judge them is inherent in gauging the instructor. But it simply does not work and hurts students to use that system.

  26. In other words; you have it backwards. Standardized TESTS hurt students and help instructors and administrators (or at least make their job easier), while standardized schools HELP students by teaching them correct information.

    The question should be "what is a better system of grading" and "what is a better system of teaching the information". The actual theoretical act of having a standard system of teaching is not flawed at all, only its application.

  27. I want my kids to be taught by teachers who are motivated by a passion for educating kids, NEVER by teachers who are motivated by profit.

    I believe that teachers who are under the kind of pressure you find in that kind of system will not be able to teach to their best effectiveness.

    We need to get over this Reagan/Thatcher idea that everyone is a businessman/woman. There is so much more to life than commerce.

  28. Ok, lets say the current system of standardised public education for all is 'A'.

    If you then add other education choices – 'B', 'C', 'D', 'E', 'F', 'G' and 'H', then 'A' vanishes as an option. Because you can no longer select the standardised public education for all. That no longer exists.

    Now you can only select from 'B', 'C', 'D', 'E', 'F', 'G' and 'H'. These are all more expensive and of poorer standard than 'A'.

    That's what happens. It's an old trick, but it works again and again.

  29. So then you would never send your kids to private school. And of course you think Obama was wrong to send his kids to private school. I mean his daughters must be getting a terrible education, if it's motivated by profit. So then why would an intelligent man like Obama make such a mistake? You don't want your kids taught by profit seekers, but do you have a right to make that decision for everyone? If public schools were so great then people shouldn't want private schools.

  30. Actually I would send my kids to a private school, and I'd never prevent anyone else from doing so as if I have that power.

    The reason is that I don't believe that teachers in private schools are generally motivated by profit. Part of the reason that private schools are high quality is that they have to compete with a strong public system, and attract parents away from that. Would parents be lured by a school that valued profits above all else?

    Lose the public system and you are in trouble.

  31. But to make a profit you have to provide a service that people think is worth the value. If you don't have a school that works you won't make a profit.

  32. But value is relative. Take away a strong public standard and the overall standard goes down, down, down while costs go up, up, up. People are forced to settle for what they can get.

    Soon, what is perceived as value is far lower than before.

  33. Actually, if there were all of these options, then it would be "A' that would (rightfully) have to compete with the rest. And that's a very good thing. Education methods/styles, costs, and uses of resources would be (rightfully) compared with the rest, and people would have the right to choose according to their needs and desires. Competition naturally drives costs down, while increasing quality and weeding out ineffective methods. If more options caused "A" to fail, that'd be because A sucked.

  34. I always thought that was so funny. Most of the same politicians who push for forced public "options" would never be caught dead putting their children in a public school. They usually go to the best private schools that their money can pay for. Even in Europe.

  35. That's not how basic economics works. Forcing people to go with one option actually stifles innovation and inefficiency, causing costs to stay in one place, or even go up, while standards stay low. That's because there is no real incentive to improve your service. If your money is guaranteed, what reason do you have to improve your service?

  36. Because you love teaching. That's the only incentive worth having.

    The biggest problem with society today is everyone thinking it's all about economics. This issue is about education, and people who have a passion for teaching, not people who have a passion for making money.

    Sure there are plenty of entrepreneurs out there claiming they could run schools far better than currently, that's just hot air. The truth is they will do worse and cost a lot more than the public system.

  37. That is the honest answer – and that's the truth. In America, you are okay if you are rich, but screwed if you are poor. In Britain, everyone gets decent healthcare, whether you can afford it or not.

    If you want really expensive cutting edge treatment then by all means go to the US. As a nation we laugh at your pathetic, overpriced, chaotic private health service.

  38. But 'A' competing with the rest is what you've got right now.

    Anyone can set up a private school now and compete with 'A'. If you are right and they are much better, they will drive 'A' out of the market. But that hasn't happened, has it?

    What 'B', 'C', 'D', 'E', 'F', 'G' and 'H' want the Government to do is dismantle 'A', so they can have a much easier ride to profits. The conservative nanny state assisting business at the expense of people.

    Don't let them do it, America.

  39. Well, you're right in a way. A parent has a duty to their kids to provide them with the best upbringing they can afford, and make sacrifices to do so.

    That doesn't stop them from having a social conscience and wanting their society to be bettered by providing a decent education service for all, and be willing to contribute to that end. That's probably a bit too sophisticated for a yank to comprehend.

  40. There is always an incentive to improve a school service. Parental input. Parents have an overwhelming biological instinct to the best by their children they can.

    What is needed is for a school to be at the heart of a neighbourhood community that is committed to making it the very best school it can be.

    If there is a choice of schools in the neighbourhood, then none can be the centre of that community. A choice of schools is inefficient by design, as some class rooms will always go unfilled.

  41. False dichotomy (money vs love of teaching)

    Sorry, but that's not how the world works, buddy. There are people who just teach to teach, and there are people who like to teach and like making money for it. Whatever incentive you personally feel is "worthy" is a matter of opinion and nothing more.

    No, one of the biggest problem with society is people who want to speak boisterously about things that they don't even understand. Everyone does economics on a regular basis. You too. That's the truth.

  42. Again, this is an example of people who don't know what they are talking about. The healthcare industry in the US is NOT a fully privatized industry. It's a government enabled monopoly. That's the very point of above videos like this: to break the monopolies and allow competition.Take a look at this for example: misesDOTorg/daily/5066

    The US healthcare industry is NOT a free market. Stop making up things.

  43. You don't know a thing about our education system. The amount of "choice" varies from state to state, but public schools still maintain a monopoly.

    And what you are criticizing (conservative crony capitalism) has nothing to do with what is being spoken about in this video. Libertarians are against government giving handouts to anyone, and that includes big businesses.

    Perhaps you are in the wrong place?

  44. Drop the ad hominems, buddy and have a real conversation. The point of videos like the above is to IMPROVE education for all. The lack of choice and competition is the REASON our education sucks.

  45. What is needed is for people like you to allow the citizens to solve the education problem instead of rooting for more government monopolies, which don't guarantee quality, but lower the incentive for it.

  46. No, it's your false dichotomy.

    The public system is not perfect. You say the reason is not enough money incentive.

    More money incentive, better education.
    Less money incentive: worse education.

    That's your dichotomy, and it's false.

  47. Quote: "Drop the ad hominems, buddy"
    Quote: "this is an example of people who don't know what they are talking about."

    Let's both agree to drop the insults then?

    What you will have is schools competing instead of cooperating, spending budgets with one eye on marketing instead of fully focused on education, headmasters replaced by business managers, over-subscribed schools, under-subscribed schools, cut throat competition, head hunting, dirty tricks, parents fighting for spaces, etc.

  48. You implied that me being an American (or a "yank" as you would prefer it), I wouldn't be able to understand what you are talking about. That is an ad hominem. When you made false statements, I said you don't know what you are talking about. That's just the truth.

  49. And no, what you will have is choice and innovation. Right now, what we have right now is crappy education. Crappy PUBLIC education. Yet we throw BILLIONS into it every year. I wonder why it isn't getting better? Because we just need MORE government involvement? Do you not realize how involved our gov. already is in public education? Like I said, you don't even understand what you are talking about.

  50. No, the fact is that people teach for various reasons, whether it's a better life, enjoyment, care for others in the world, the personal challenge, or a mix of all of them. That's fine. However, if those people want better opportunities to get what they want (whichever one is most important), then all of them will need money. Nothing is free friend. It doesn't matter whether they like money or not. They still need to have it to accomplish their goals. Just like everyone else, including you.

  51. You are saying costs would go up. yet the American public school system is already the most expensive in the world. You claim standards would go down, yet it is liberals like Matt Damon and his mother that do not want standardized testing. If standards go down in a for profit school, then parents would take their kids out of that school and put them in a school with higher results. A for profit business understands that they have to provide a decent service if they want to stay in business.

  52. The false premise is that public education means there is "one option". Within a public education system you can have innovation, change, and different ways of teaching-in short, multiple ways of doing something within a single overarching theoretical premise.

    A good example is that there is more then one way to sell a shirt, but they can be divided into "online ordering" "store-front ordering" or whatever the technical terms are. But there IS variance in HOW online ordering works.

  53. As such the argument is that public education has been shown to be the best system, much like the GPS system is vastly superior to using a map to determine your position. It's simply better, so now all further innovation should be focused on improving the system rather then trying to make better maps.

    You can, of course, challenge the first statement, but the fact that there is one system does not automatically mean that innovation has stopped-it just focuses innovation into that system.

  54. The problem is that "business profit" is different from "societal profit". Ultimately there is a false cultural premise that making money should be an immediate payoff-exacerbated by certain aspects of our modern business models that favor quick profit.

    In other words, business society favors innovations that make quick bucks-which in an education system is simply not gonna cut it, because true reform would only yield results in something like 18 years (a full education cycle, today).

  55. But for profit businesses don't innovate in the correct way to get results up for EVERYONE. For profit public schools game the system by selecting students with great natural aptitude, wealthier parents, and then educating them.

    This doesn't help people who are poor or who have trouble learning, but educating those people helps society as a whole as well-just not any one business, because they won't succeed as much and thus give the school as much prestige.

  56. Actually, it's not a false premise. There are people who don't like the public system. Many of them don't participate in it. They either home school their children or send them to private or charter schools. Yet, they are still required to pay for the public option. Public school taxes are still a requirement. Whatever you do after that is up to you. But you still have to pay for it.

    So yes, you are forced to go with one option, no matter how much "variance" is in it. It's called monopoly.

  57. Yet, you're not forced by the govt to use the GPS system.

    I'm not seeing innovation get focused at all. In fact, I see billions of dollars get thrown at the system on a yearly basis by every new administration, while kids continue to fail and drop out. Heck, from my personal experience, many kids that graduate can barely write a research paper or do intermediate algebra.

    Do you realize how much money goes into our public school system? Where's the innovation you're speaking of?

  58. Children are inherently forced into taking any action, be it by their parents or the government. If the government can be shown to right over there parents, why is it wrong for them to "force" the child to be educated in a specific way? It's going to happen regardless.

    Your statement about innovation not being there is sadly true and I won't refute it. But I have seen nothing to suggest that private schools solve this problem-they are just more expensive, and often teach wrong information.

  59. Yes, but forcing most of your population to be educated in a specific way can harm the potential for growth, because you have very little opportunity to test out methods and see what works and what doesn't. This is how businesses that don't offer good products or services fail. Increasing choice by allowing parents to fund whatever they want to fund allows ineffective systems to reveal their flaws, including in private schools. I'm also including homeschooling too. We homeschool our children.

  60. You did not refute my point in the slightest, because I was not talking about any of that. I was saying that you can still have innovation within a system even if the system is locked in place. "One Option" does not apply under what I define as "One Option".

    There are multiple paths the collective public can take with a public education system even if individuals do not appear to have any obvious choices; but remember-we are a republic, we operate on Representative democracy. Thats expected.

  61. Again, that is not an inherent flaw of public schools being the only choice but a flaw of how we do public education.

    We can have public education systems that purposefully experiment with education and innovate, but education is basically ignored by our political sphere in favor of the newest moral or foreign panic, so that change isn't going to happen until the public sits down and forces it to.

    But private, charter, or homeschooling is not an option for most people-due to money, time, etc.

  62. You're right, I didn't directly address the point. Sorry about that.

    Sure, granted it's "possible" for innovation to still happen even when dealing with one option. And there are various factors that can cause such innovation. I think a better way for me to say it then is that less choice has a strong potential to dramatically reduce incentive for innovation.

    We believe that there needs to be some kind of incentive for innovation, and punishment for failure. There's little of that today.

  63. You're splitting up the issues here, though. I'm saying that there is little incentive to do things differently BECAUSE of the fact that there is little choice. There's no incentive to compete.

    I'm not saying that we must take away public school as an option. I'm saying to stop forcing people to pay for a failing system, and allow them to fund the one they prefer. Failure should be punished, not continually paid for. Stronger and more effective systems would then emerge.


  64. I agree. The public school system is not very innovative, and the private system does change more.

    My main concern is that I see private/homeschooling "innovating" in the wrong direction, almost without fail. Many private schools teach drivel, but get fringe customers, like fundamentalists.

    The problem is that parents are deciding for their children here, and will simply choose the schools that confirm their own biases instead of challenging them, which means those biases become inherited.

  65. Where I live is see advertisements for schools that specialize in dealing with students with learning problems. If schools game the system for kids who are rich, then wouldn't that same logic apply to colleges? Using your logic poor kid would not have any chance at going to college. We also use public funds for college, like pell grants. We let poor kids to take pell grants and go to a school of their choice. Of course that doesn't mean they always pick the right school.

  66. It also doesn't mean that all colleges are good, some rip off students. Congress needs better standards as to what colleges get pell grants.

  67. Can you be more specific about what you mean by "drivel", "fringe", or "fundamentalist"? I know the terms, but they are quite ambiguous without a context attached to them.

    But if you are merely talking about bad education methods/styles, then those methods will fail, thus revealing the failure of that particular school. People will stop funding it and sending their children to it, thus it will die, just like any other loser in the market. That's supposed to happen to bad public options too.

  68. And why do you keep referring to public schools as if they only have an "innovation problem"? The fact is that they are doing much worse than before. We are way down the list when compared to other developed countries in the realm of education.

    You do know that some private schools are bad and some are quite good don't you? And homeschooled children, on average, do quite well, in comparison to many public schooled kids. Yes, some do bad.

    But that's the point. Bad methods need to be revealed.

  69. Drivel, fridge, and fundamentalist as in biblical literalism in religious schools, as an example, and simply incorrect information in general. Not ALL private schools have this problem, but several do.

    Part of the reason why I disagree is that the self-correcting mechanisms for business only really works when someone is rational. Insane people will continue to send their kids to insane schools, even if they aren't working. Furthermore their children, newly biased, will do the same.

  70. Translation: "things I don't agree with". I simplify it this way, because concerns like this should be irrelevant in a system that separates church and state. We have been trying for years, to get religious interest groups OUT of bed with the government, but not to just put government in bed with anti-religious interest groups. Whatever the state (hopefully through a democratic process) decides should be taught in public school, that's their issue. But leave individuals and their families alone.

  71. While I'm far from being anything close to religious, I tend to find that the people who are most dangerous to this country are two types of people:

    1. Those who refuse to do anything for themselves or anyone else but hold out their hand.
    2. Intellectuals that think they can simply socially engineer all of the world's problems away.

    Yes, there are small groups of religious wackos here and there, but these people are much scarier than mainstream groups like Protestants, Catholics and Muslims.

  72. Oh, and one last thing: The reason that those particular private schools (the ones that teach the stuff that you don't like) continue to survive is because they are providing a valuable service to their customers. As long as no one is violating child protection laws, then they have every right to train their kids in the manner that they see fit. It's their right as an American citizen.

  73. A valuable service? Lies are not a valuable service, and their education is not benefical to the students. But yes-they are providing a valuable service to their customers-the parents. Not the children. They are screwed over by the business..

  74. Irrelevent? No-you see, the reason I have a problem with biblical literalism because it's factually wrong. Teaching it to children is teaching a lie-one which, if properly brainwashed, prevents them from ever living a healthy, sane life again.

    The right of a parent does not extend to dooming their children.

    And if "anti-religious group" is code for "science", then yes, that's accurate. Separation of church and state breaks down when the church is scientifically wrong.

  75. Actually, no. You can hate on religious parents as much as you want, but their rights are constitutionally protected. There are millions of productive people living in this society that also happen to be religious. I'm not a big fan of religion either, but I'm also not willing to exaggerate the situation.

    As long as they aren't trying to force their belief systems on anyone outside of their families, and as long as they aren't violating child protection laws then it isn't your business, friend.

  76. No, they are educating their children while maintaining the principles and values that are important to them. They aren't turning these people into serial killers.

    It's not your responsibility to control whether a child is religious or not. It's simply not your business. It's a slippery slope. The only thing you should care about is that they abide by the non-aggression principle and produce. Again, there are millions of decent and productive religious people in this country. Leave them alone.

  77. Those aren't logical arguments against. So the US having the most expensive system means costs must go down, right? Wrong. Costs can still go up – and they will.

    Standards and standardised are not the same. Results testing is not the same thing as a good education. Schools just learn how to play the system to return good results. Meanwhile a good education is pushed to the sideline.

    For example, schools start cramming the kids and pushing up their workload – this is not the same as educating.

  78. As long as it doesn't fund religious schools, I have no problem with government providing funding for people to attend private school.

  79. true all children have the right to receive an education. Even if the student go to a private school their parents still pays taxes for education and their child should receive their equal share.

  80. True Having multiple school options allows innovation and give parents options on their child's education. The main problem with public schools is the lack of teachers & educational professionals influence & impact on education policy & curriculum planning. true educators that teach, research and study education are strongly motivated in designing improved education. Schools need more funding for teacher&aides & additional stuff & more influence over curriculum planning rather than politics.

  81. also public school get all the low income, trouble and low-grading students who are refused entry into most private schools which has impacts on other students at the school and the overall school performance.

  82. Home school! Why do people always ignore the best form of education when they discuss school choice? Home school policy is critical.

  83. well, in Malaysia we have lots of school choices. the public school where most Malay go, the Chinese school, the Indian school, the catholic school, the Islamic school and the private/international school for the wealthy. did freaking great job in segregating us, barely ever see the races or faith mix. sure in theory everybody can choose which school to go to (except the school for the rich – you gotta be rich) but realistically people usually choose their race. we are a powder keg. 

  84. She needs to acknowledge her bias in that she works at a Catholic college and that her assertion about Catholic schools providing services to low-income and minority students is certainly not true in every Diocese.

  85. This is very misleading, one of the problems with the "freedom of choice" argument, is like that movie "Waiting for Superman" poorlow income students are less likely to have the opportunity to go to top privatecharter schools because they are far away from, poor neighborhoods and the poor peoples don't have the time to take off to submit the paperwork in hopes you might get in to a nice school like those ones.

  86. voucher schools promote inequalities along with school and social segregation. there is international evidence about the hypothesis that competition between schools for founding would increase the quality of education in schools its completely wrong. instead of that, voucher schools compete for enrolling students with higher SES therefore better educational backgrounds becouse they are easier and cheaper to educate, thus schools end up having better resoults from having "better" students, and poor kids gets relegated to poorer schools generating a vicious circle ending in a "segregation ladder" or social stratification. Chile its the best example, after 30 years od friedmans voucher model, now is the most socially segregated school system in all OCDE and PISA-applied countries.

  87. The angle on this video is way too far left. The subject should be looking at the camera or slightly to the left or right of the camera. This is tough to watch.

  88. did not work in Chile, the voucher system poster boy. It implies more segregation and school owners running a for-profit business. The US is going backwards is they opt for this model as public policy.

  89. the entire model of; September to June, 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. lumping the kids together by age and passing them along every year is archaic and should be abandoned. it holds back students who are ready for more challenges and withholds the extra time and attention from students who need it.

  90. only most European, Scandinavian and East Asian countries don't do this at all and are much more successful than any education program we ever put together. The problem is the bureaucracy in our education system form the current left and the religious right trying to get their way in the public sector. How about we follow the better models that work instead of privatizing and making our education a dog eat dog system.

  91. all schools are practically based on the same tragic level of dictating corrupted culture. No one provide or deliver education no one has taken in consideration price instead on judgment, No one has interest in developing personal qualities, No schools are playing the role of having fun as per matter of facts you can see students running at the ring bell and stress growing on Monday. Primary secondary level are a fraud to school services Kindergarten an illusion to what is to come.

  92. “There are no shekels without shackles. The government is never going to give you money without attached requirements, even for ‘opportunity scholarships,’ as vouchers are called today.

    Example: “A Florida proposal for school vouchers insisted that (1) you can’t require a child to attend a religious chapel, (2) you can’t discriminate in hiring practices, and (3) you can’t select students from just your church body, but must open the school to anyone who wants to attend. Also with the government’s fresh take on what constitutes male and female, your place of learning must provide transgender bathrooms.” Amireh Al-Haddad

    Vouchers are a Trojan Horse for private schools, because flowing right behind the money are the government regs that will make the private schools government schools. At that point there will be NO choice at any price, because all schools will have become the same.

  93. When you take money away from public schools, it immediately creates a brain drain. Good teachers, good students, good parents leave. What you have left is a shamble of segregation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *