because it will end up being De Facto Segregation. Everything people conplain about . . .will only get worse When 'Good' School will simply reject the 'poor' students etc . . . or 'black' students . . . or this student or that student Why would they chance their reputation for money . . . when they can get the same money by accepting students they deem 'worthy'? Look at the hit and miss status of the Charter Schools. Rocket River
What is wrong with voluntary segregation? Let people live and go to school with whomever they want. It is when you force integregation that it fails, IMO. DD
I don't see how a voucher system and competition fixes the problem. Virtually all of our schools are at capacity. That means if my kid gets to go to a better school, some kid at the better school is forced into a crappier school. At the end of the day, all it does is shuffle people around - but your bad schools are still bad schools and they still are filled with kids. Maybe you get a small % of the kids squeezed into the better schools, but as a whole, it doesn't really address the problem.
It's not voluntary when the good school has to decide who gets to go there. Not everyone can go to the good schools.
Even at the expense of your child? Obviously that is not done in this case, but if someone does something similar for their child and it knocks your child down in the pecking order for a class placement or athletic endeavor, do you still support them?
You sound very institutionalized. <iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/yFN0nf6Hqk0?hd=1" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe> <iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/VOWh6mSsIvE?hd=1" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe> <iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/tsEP_5axdLI?hd=1" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>
Agreed Competition is not the answer to all problems primarily. . . because . . .someone will always lose. Rocket River
Don't mean to derail, but this is true in many key service delivery areas like health and human services. Privatization has a dismal success rate in Texas.
Why? After an enormous effort she'd probably lose. And, in the meantime her kids are languishing in a crappy school, and will have their salaries as adults depressed for a lifetime. The value proposition for committing fraud is oh-so-much better. All indications I see point to her being a good, engaged parent. If she were a ****ty parent, she'd probably acquiesce to the district she was supposed to be in.
This is a good argument for having a school voucher system. People send their kid to the school of their choice and the voucher sends the money to the chosen school. It would create competition in the schools to keep students and thus get more money and ultimately improve schools.
As was pointed out earlier, this isn't how it works. The good schools are full. If more kids go there, that means kids currently there have to go to the bad schools.
Wouldn't more good private schools open if there was a vast amount of money available in the form of vouchers and the market was clearly there for good schools? One would think at least organizations that are already in the business of opening schools like the Catholic Church would recognize an opportunity there and jump on it.
The thinking is the bad schools would improve themselves to compete or else be eliminated by upstarts who can do better. The good school/bad school dynamics would not remain static.
As of now, there's no evidence that private/charter schools generate better results or can do it at lower cost than public schools. Certain private/charter schools are great - and often that is the case by self-selecting students that are high quality - but so are certain public schools. But overall, the evidence with trials of charter schools is that they do no better than public schools. The vast majority of our past experience with privatization (whether it be military, prisons, etc) has been that it just costs more and is less efficient. What is the rationale to believe that schools will be different?
I don't understand why you have to enforce diversity? Plus how does this advantage any group let alone lower income whites?
Whose to say they have a choice in rejecting students? It's a public school. I didn't realize they had the choice on whether or not a student was allowed to attend their school. I say give people equivalent rights to choose where they'd like their children to go. Set aside a certain amount of transient seats for children on a first come, first serve basis. That way proactive parents can get their children out of terrible schools even if they can't afford to move away due to their circumstances.
