The cruel, ridiculous reality of 'virtual learning'

Re:The cruel, ridiculous reality of 'virtual learning' by lelanthran on Thursday January 06, 2022 @01:55AM (#29820278)

> The next step is “backpack funding”, or letting parents get a voucher for education that follows the student no matter where they attend school, public or private. This will drastically reduce the cost of private education, and combined with the widespread erosion of gifted programs and a general sense of mediocrity pervading modern public schooling, a vast downsizing of public education has started.

This, on the face of it, seems like a good idea[1]. I don't understand why it is being downvoted.

[1] I'm not in the US, if that helps.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The cruel, ridiculous reality of 'virtual learning' by beerandt on Thursday January 06, 2022 @04:34AM (#29821318)

Because broadly speaking, public schools rely on 100% of the local school tax revenue to educate somewhere between 50-90% of the students.

They rely on private school tuition to further subsidize public schools via reduced enrollment but not reduced budget.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The cruel, ridiculous reality of 'virtual learning' by MagnumOpus on Thursday January 06, 2022 @03:59AM (#29821048)

It is a good idea for (a) the top 5% of wealthy who would send their kids to private school anyway and save money with backpacking (b) the top 5% of wealthy who hold shares in private education startups and providers. Hence you would expect it to be popular in the HN bubble where nearly everyone is in the top 5%.

It is a bad idea for smart kids whose parents are poor or don't care - they will still get the lowest-cost 'public option' but now get left behind by the 50-80% of kids whose parents care to get their kids into selective schools or ones that need top-up payments, thus cementing hereditary stratification of society.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The cruel, ridiculous reality of 'virtual learning' by lelanthran on Thursday January 06, 2022 @04:08AM (#29821109)

> It is a good idea for (a) the top 5% of wealthy who would send their kids to private school anyway and save money with backpacking (b) the top 5% of wealthy who hold shares in private education startups and providers. Hence you would expect it to be popular in the HN bubble where nearly everyone is in the top 5%.

> It is a bad idea for smart kids whose parents are poor or don't care - they will still get the lowest-cost 'public option' but now get left behind by the 50-80% of kids whose parents care to get their kids into selective schools or ones that need top-up payments, thus cementing hereditary stratification of society.

Maybe I am missing something, but how is that worse than the current system? The top 5% are already sending their kids to the best schools currently, right?

The people who are too poor to afford the top-up in the proposed voucher system are currently not getting the best schools anyway. Under the voucher system I expect that some of the currently poor people who are not getting the best school would be able to switch to the best school that doesn't require a top-up.

Right now, as I understand it, poor people have no option to switch schools.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The cruel, ridiculous reality of 'virtual learning' by extra88 on Thursday January 06, 2022 @08:21AM (#29823204)

> how is that worse than the current system? The top 5% are already sending their kids to the best schools currently, right?

Because the taxes that were going to a public school are now going to a private one. School quality is about a lot more than money but taking money away from a struggling school isn't going to make it better.

Vouchers can mean the difference to a few kids between staying a failing public school and going to a successful private school, the money is enough for some motivated middle class families to make that change. But a lot more kids are going to be ones from families who were always going to send their kids to a private school so for them the voucher is a government-funded discount.

In theory, vouchers could be means-tested so the money only went to families truly had an economic need for it. However, means testing has costs of it own, often has loopholes, and can go against many people's sense of fairness, especially when you're talking about something for kids.

[ Parent | on HN ]