Isn’t it obvious that good teachers want to teach children with parents that want them to learn? And punish their children when they are disruptive? And the school can kick out bad kids?
The current vogue of reducing everything in education to the lowest common denominator - eliminating gifted programs, enabling disruptive kids to ruin classes, removing suspensions and expulsions - is exactly why private schools are growing. I don’t want education to optimize for the worst kids who won’t go to college and into intellectual pursuits anyway. I want to optimize education for the kids who will actually get value out of it.
Perhaps, but that kind of school is doing a different “job” than one tasked with ensuring a base level of education for all young people.
Unlike many on the left, who despise monopolies in business and ruthlessly hunt them down, yet worship monopolies the government has (like in public education), I think public dollars should be allocated to the parents to make decisions they feel are best for their children. Saying “just move if you don’t like your public school” betrays the reality of how difficult it is to relocate for the non-tech elite who can’t just work from anywhere.
I don't know how to fairly evaluate a school's performance. I guess we could ask if the students perform better in the job market 10-20 years later, but that's not obviously not helpful or useful information on which to make a decision now.
I get why the voucher system is appealing on first glance. After all, you often can evaluate the quality of goods and services. You can, say, estimate that a shirt you find at the mall will last a few years or that it will fall apart in a month. I just don't think you can do the same for schools. I have a feeling most people will evaluate education based on their beliefs (religious, etc) and the grades their kids "earn".
Further, how many Harvard-level grade schools do you think we can run as a society? Given that private school pay is substantially worse than public school pay on average, how could one say that private schools, again on average, would outperform public schools?
I went for cheap 20 years ago, but my younger siblings did not. Not even a discount
America is unique. A lot of our public services are quite expensive and quite low quality. Our system is organized around the private sector and the more we embrace the private sector the better things are.
https://rebekahjbuchanan.com/2018/10/21/teaching-in-norway
The environment Rebekah describes seems like a modern US tech business. Everyone is expected to be where they're needed, treat each other with respect and focus on their work. Sometimes I wonder why successful businesses can create the environment schools can't and then remind myself that businesses (and private schools) can easily exclude troublemakers, malcontents and people who don't fit in for whatever reason. Also some of the things you mention (e.g. mono-culture) make it easier to create an environment suitable for learning.
It shouldn't be a priori to honor the private sector and shit on the public sector but as long as we do we shouldn't be surprised at the results. Teaching and education simply needs to be valued more than it is. We shouldn't have to beg people to do the job. Instead we should reward and honor the profession so well that we can set high standards for teachers and still have a surplus of applicants.
Perhaps if we compensated teachers more like police or firefighters and required advanced credentials as more successful countries do our schools would be better.
Like it or not students are not born genetically equal. Throw in poverty and lack of effective parenting and there’s no hope that endless funding will somehow fix that situation.
I do appreciate your perspective by the way, thanks for engaging.
You’ve got a point - quality schooling does exist, if schools can pay well and offer sensible class loads. However to apply that to the current public school system requires significant dollars long term, and a lot of people don’t want to pay for that - think retired people whose children are out of school, or couples who have no children.
I don’t agree with that, but I’m simply stating some different positions from people whom I’ve talked to about this topic.
What confuddles people in education is the same thing that causes endless articles about housing, healthcare, inflation… it’s called “basic economics”. Just because education is heavily regulated by the government and full of people ideologically predisposed to pretending economic rules don’t apply, doesn’t mean supply and demand is false and the normal rules of gravity are suspended.
I myself have children and live in Boston, Massachusetts. The per-student funding here is $25,000 per year. Yet excluding a few meritocratic public schools that you have to test into (which they are making ever harder for my Asian children to get into as they reduce the seats allocated to tests and give away to “underprivileged” races, aka not Asians or whites) the schools are dog shit and anyone with a few bucks avoids them like the plague. So money is not the problem in Boston, it’s the horrible nature of the public school system.