I had someone (childless i might add) try to make me feel guilty for pulling my kids out of a school circling the drain and into a high performing one in the name of diversity. I told them, when the time comes, if they want to sacrifice their child on that altar then it's their decision but don't ask me to sacrifice mine.

Kind of wild and weirdly refreshing to finally see the "everyone is in it for themselves and their own" attitude on fully overt display in this article's comments. Usually it's masked behind talk of "freedom" and "individuality," but here, it's raw and out there in the open!

FWIW I probably could afford to send my kid to a better private school or alternate-schooling group, withdrawing from the community and not-so-great public school system, but I don't because then I'm just another contributor to the inequality problem. We Live In A Society.

One's job as a parent isn't to use their children to solve systemic issues in society, it's to do the best they can for their children.

There's a bit of a curve there. You may invest in a school for many community reasons if the school is near the same quality as the other option. If the quality is way below then the logic of family protection basically demands a move.

You sound like a terrible parent.

Sending your child to a bad school in the hopes of improving that school with your child is clear cut child abuse.

So you're shocked, just shocked, that someone would openly admit to doing something that . . . is common practice and has always been legal? (in the US, where I'm guessing we all live)

A common trope in movies is parents living vicariously through their children. Like the parents that pressure their kids to go to medical school even though the kid wants to be an artist. Or the parent who forces their kid in sports and ends up screaming at the coaches and referees.

It is interesting to think of parents that see their own children as props, like pawns in some larger game rather than as individuals. I think there are subtle ways that this can happen.

I think a lot of people grew up in overly conservative homes. A common story you hear nowadays is a kid who grew up forced to tow the line in some religion and only once they reached maturity did they even realize there was another world out there. They may even promise themselves that they won't allow the same thing to happen to their own kids.

I don't know anything about you or your family or kids, but your attitude made me wonder if there is a backlash coming. If kids raised in forced diverse circumstances may rebel against their parents since they are being coerced into their parents view of "ideal world", much like the parents of stereotypical tiger asian parents or nutty sports dads.

I think this hits the nail on the end.

No matter what way you cut it the will of the parent is subjected on the child. In my opinion that’s how it should be.

The decisive factor is what the focus of the parents will is. Is it personal glory? Is it trying to “make the world a better place”?. I would argue that choosing what is best for the child from the perspective of the parent is the best.

Giving them a robust worldview, a good set of morals and the capabilities to effect change when their older are the right way forward.

Our children are not missionaries that go into the world to make it a better place. Our children are to be nurtured so that when they grow up they can make a positive change in the world.

Answer this, how does sending your child to public school benefit others? It’s pretty clear schools do not work at scale. Focusing on small cooperatives where teachers, students and parents are valued is the way forward.

Eh there no clear cut answer that the alternative doesn’t disadvantage them either

I only exist as an educated person who can make a middle class income and live a normal life because of public education. My single mother is an experienced and gifted teacher, but would not have had the time to educate me. We could never have afforded to send me to any private school.

My only chance for a normal life and education was public school.

A huge amount of americans are poor in time and money. The only option their children have is public school. Their future is entirely dependent on a public that is willing to invest in them so that they even have a future, one that isn't just "wage slave at walmart". Sure, it often doesn't work out, it's a struggling system that has been abused and ignored for decades, and it fails millions every year.

You know what doesn't help any of those millions of kids? All the wealthy families sending their kids to private schools or homeschooling and removing their property taxes from the public school system. Society will not be a better place for your kids if they are individually 10% better but 10% of the children born in the US basically have no access to education.

The advocation of "School choice" as conservatives are currently selling it is about taking away the chance I had at a middle class life. It's about saving a few thousand dollars for already privileged individuals at the expense of swathes of people like me who were at least average intelligence who had the audacity to be born to a poor mother.

If you think public schooling in america is deficient, then let us fix it.

> Society will not be a better place for your kids if they are individually 10% better but 10% of the children born in the US basically have no access to education.

But that's not how they think. They believe the bottom 10% deserve their hard lives.

Capitalism needs an oppressed class to function.

The people on top write laws to ensure the oppressed class will exist. Then they sell it to the middle class using scary stories of crime, religion, etc.

Or, people believe that the school system as it exists now has serious problems under layers of unchangeable management so the best solution is a different option.

You’ll know this by the people who campaign for voucher programs that we’re all told are evil somehow. Yet the goal of vouchers is to make all options available to everyone.

Without vouchers, all options are only available to those with financial options.

You can go to public school, private school or a home school program. If you want a better public school, you have to move to a better rated school district. In order to do that, you have to be able to afford it.

Without vouchers, poor families only option is public school where they currently live. People opposed to vouchers have 1 goal: preserve the status quo. They’ll tell you absolutely anything to convince you otherwise too.

> All the wealthy families sending their kids to private schools or homeschooling and removing their property taxes from the public school system.

How exactly does that work?

We homeschool and I pay property taxes that fund our local school just like everyone else in town. I pay for services that I don't use and can be used for other children if the powers that be decide to allocate it that way.

The above poster is talking about "school choice" which is making its rounds through legislatures in red states. The legislation effectively defunds public schools if people decide to homeschool or can afford to send their children to private school.

You use defunding as if it is a bad thing. The purpose of the public school system is not to maximize funding or revenue.

School choice/vouchers defund public schools proportional to loss of public school responsibility for students.

Yes, but the argument goes that parents who are likely to move their kids elsewhere have kids where the cost to educate them is just a fraction of what is being spent on the average kid. Imagine a school system that spends $15k per student per year. But that is just the average. Some of the kids are only consuming $5k of resources while others require $60k per year. If the kids who are only costing $5k go to another school and take the $15k with them, they will presumably get a better education where more of the $15k will be allocated to them. Meanwhile at the school that was used to spending $60k on some students, they will presumably need to have less disparity in the amount they spend on each student.

Well maybe we shouldnt be paying schools the same for disabled and average students to begin with.

Besides, it is pretty said that the best counter argument against charter schools is that parents will take their fair share of funding and use it to buy a much better education for their children.

I believe that most school systems do get more money for disabled kids. But kids that do their homework, pay attention in class, etc. cost a lot less to educate than a kid who isn't really interested in learning--even without any disabilities.

To your point about charter schools, there is a strong argument to be made that when parents have a choice where there kids go, public schools will have to make sure they are providing more academic opportunities if they don't want to risk losing the academically minded families (and their money). That seems like it would be a good thing for everyone.

Couldn't there be a scheme by which parents could reduce their taxes by privately educating their children, but only up to some portion of the public schools' savings from not having to educate those children?

You'll find public school unions are very opposed to that idea.

Yeah, school choice is a bullshit policy, typical of the fuck-you, got-mine neocon movement.

I voted to raise property tax where I live specifically to improve the funding situation for our struggling public schools - I attended a great public school district growing up (because, surprise: my parents could afford to move into the district).

The funding situation needs to be fixed across the board, because indeed everyone attending public school deserves as good an education as I received, but the way the system functions currently is that poor areas get poor schools (at least in the midwest where I've lived).

So, while I whole-heartedly support education reform and improving funding as public policies: I still wouldn't send my own kids to the public school district where I live; they're terrible. I wish they weren't.

The problems public schools are facing aren't (all) funding related

Jimmy Carter did it - but those were more idealistic times for the US public school system.