Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Charter schools killing private schools: compromise at it's finest

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/Charter-School-Paradox.pdf

One thing that's amazed me recently was hearing that libertarians were pushing very hard for charter schools. The justification is all about compromise: since charter schools are supposedly "more like" private schools (they aren't clear on how), libertarians are all for them.

Charter schools, for those who aren't familiar, are privately owned schools that get government funding roughly equivalent to public schools and operate to some extent like a public school.

If it sounds like a really bad idea its because it is: it's an unholy union of Wesley Mouch-like private companies and public money. Now instead of just a plain old public employee union lobbying the government for more money, charters are moving us into the express lane where the brightest minds in for-profit companies devise new and exciting ways to get more money from the government.

The above-linked Cato article tells of the punchline: that the last vestige of private education in the USA--private schools--are quickly being replaced with charter schools. Basically, a private school cannot compete with a local charter school that gets massive subsidies from the government, so they die. Or more likely, they convert themselves to a charter school and get some of that free money for themselves. The Cato study above points out an immediate problem with this as well: your taxes are going to go up since you are now going to start paying for a whole bunch of people's private school (before they were paying for it all now they are paying for only a portion and sticking taxpayers with the rest).

Make no mistake, although they are sometimes touted as having "less regulatory burden", charter schools are heavily regulated as one would expect from something supported by taxpayers.

So the plan is clear: first kill all true private schools in the USA in favor of pseudo-government controlled charter schools, and then slowly turn the ratchet on charter schools, eventually making them "privately owned" in name only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Charter schools, for those who aren't familiar, are privately owned schools that get government funding roughly equivalent to public schools and operate to some extent like a public school.

That sounds exactly the way American 'Private' Universities work at the moment.

I don't understand the following: what if many home-schooled children shared private tutors and study time by neighborhood easing the burden on the parents and allowing that fantastic socialization. Would that constitute an impromptu private school?

Does this thing even exists? I understand Brandon Cropper tried to do something of the like. I understand the van Damme Academy would constitute something like this, but on a fully organized, high cost basis. I'm asking whether grassroot unregulated classrooms exist in America?

Other than the Quaker schools....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand the following: what if many home-schooled children shared private tutors and study time by neighborhood easing the burden on the parents and allowing that fantastic socialization. Would that constitute an impromptu private school?
I suppose it could, but it would not be a "charter school".

I'm asking whether grassroot unregulated classrooms exist in America?
I don't think these exist to any significant extent. There are some "coop" preschools where parents take turns helping in the classroom, and there are groups of home-schoolers who get together for some activities. I don't think it goes much beyond that. I suppose there's no real market for something like that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good article and a good demonstration of why compromise only help the bad.

Although I don’t see how libertarians are pushing for more charter schools when the preeminent libertarian think tank released the report you highlighted. It didn’t go as far as they should have but it did offer feasible policies that would help private sector schools.

For the economically free-market leaning people (so-called fiscal conservatives and Tea-Party types) that do get trapped in the contradiction of Government funded private companies this will hopefully give them food for thought.

Edited by Spiral Architect
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I suppose it could, but it would not be a "charter school".

I don't think these exist to any significant extent. There are some "coop" preschools where parents take turns helping in the classroom, and there are groups of home-schoolers who get together for some activities. I don't think it goes much beyond that. I suppose there's no real market for something like that.

Not so long as Free Government Daycare (what used to be school) remains either in existence, or safe enough to trust your children for a few hours every day.

Do you suppose there will be a market for it once it becomes simply too dangerous, or rather the dangers will be countered by both guns and gun detectors, and a rationalization about how early exposure to social dangers help the psycho-social development of the child?

The those who become richer will take their children out of those hellholes instead of challenging the concept of hellhole as daycare, and the others will be left with little choice between truancy and rationalization. A third option in response to this, I suppose already existing situation, would be... correct me.. Charter Schools? (effectively completing/closing the trap)

Edited by volco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you suppose there will be a market for it once it becomes simply too dangerous, or rather the dangers will be countered by both guns and gun detectors, and a rationalization about how early exposure to social dangers help the psycho-social development of the child?

The those who become richer will take their children out of those hellholes instead of challenging the concept of hellhole as daycare, and the others will be left with little choice between truancy and rationalization.

I forget the complete context of this thread, but the really dangerous schools are in poorer neighborhoods. It is easy to overstate the negatives about U.S. public schools when one looks at middle-class and upper middle class neighborhoods. Public schools have made a lot of changes over the last couple of decades, in response to pressure from parents. For instance, things like phonics have made their way into public schools, even if in a watered-down eclectic version. A lot of public schools offer a special level of teaching for kids who are slightly above average: again not great stuff, but enough to quell the criticism of low standards.

This is not praise for public-schools: my point is that it is easy to over-state the problems. Public schools in U.S. have budgets of about $8000 - $12000 per child. The inexpensive private schools (e.g. the ones run by the church) have similar budgets. The main reason parents do not put their kids into private schools is that they would have to spend $10,000 a year and they do not see that much extra value. The government ought to stop paying for school through taxes. However, that is politically impossible looking forward at least a few decades. That explains why all movements have attacked this: trying to get the tax-dollars re-directed, based on parental choice, rather than ending it entirely.

Back to the idea of dangerous schools: there are some states that have allowed more charters and vouchers in poorer districts, while restricting them in most of the state. That's a good start too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to the idea of dangerous schools: there are some states that have allowed more charters and vouchers in poorer districts, while restricting them in most of the state. That's a good start too.

I understand that in suburbs, small towns, and good neighborhoods, an American public school might even compete with a religious private school, if money was not the issue. I'm not saying all public schools are necessarily bad when compared to the existing alternative (though they are very much so in principle).

But specifically for poor urban children, who happen to be, inexorably it seems, the fathers of the next majority, those who will shape society: what options are available to them? Besides getting 'picked' by a better school for athletic or otherwise merit: are there inexpensive private schools? Are inner city charter schools taking business from existing private alternatives? Or preventing such a market from being created?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But specifically for poor urban children, who happen to be, inexorably it seems, the fathers of the next majority, those who will shape society: what options are available to them? Besides getting 'picked' by a better school for athletic or otherwise merit: are there inexpensive private schools? Are inner city charter schools taking business from existing private alternatives? Or preventing such a market from being created?
My impression is that the schools available to the poorer segments in such places are mostly church-linked. A charter school would likely take some students away, thus hurting the private businesses. However, at least in my state, charters have to take all comers, without any entrance test etc. They end up using a lottery. So, I think it's safe to guess that the majority of their students would come from the public school system. There probably are some sites out there with the info.

A voucher system would be preferred by the private schools. The big debate there is whether government money should go to church-linked schools. People bring up examples of some muslim schools that add indoctrination to the curriculum. On a smaller scale, there are examples of church voucher schools that make it inconvenient for kids who do not wish to participate in religious activities. The separation of church and state argument has been a major factor blocking voucher programs. I think a voucher program that came with some strict rules about religious education, and which came with some basic curriculum requirements (e.g. evolution must be taught as accepted science) would be much better than the charters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who are these Libertarians who are arguing for charter schools?

Basically, a private school cannot compete with a local charter school that gets massive subsidies from the government, so they die.

Why not? What is the difference between competing with a charter school, and competing with a public school administered by bureaucrats?

(the OP in the thread SN linked to argues that the difference is that the charter school is better than the public school - in which case, his argument defeats yours; but I am curious if there is some other difference, that I missed, which is making it harder for a private school to compete)

If there are no other differences, then your argument is terrible because you're basically rooting for the public school system to fail so badly, that it gets replaced by private schools by default. However, that can't happen. As long as the government has the power to tax us to pay for public schools, it will just tax us enough so that most people cannot afford to also pay for private schooling, no matter how bad it gets. So there's no point in rooting for public schools to get worse, or to not improve. That won't help private schools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A voucher system would be preferred by the private schools. The big debate there is whether government money should go to church-linked schools. People bring up examples of some muslim schools that add indoctrination to the curriculum. On a smaller scale, there are examples of church voucher schools that make it inconvenient for kids who do not wish to participate in religious activities. The separation of church and state argument has been a major factor blocking voucher programs. I think a voucher program that came with some strict rules about religious education, and which came with some basic curriculum requirements (e.g. evolution must be taught as accepted science) would be much better than the charters.

The main obstacle in the way of a voucher system is union and special interest group opposition, not concern with the First Amendment. I don't think the Left and the Right would have much trouble disregarding the First Amendment, if it meant achieving an otherwise mutually convenient compromise. But a voucher system would be a direct and immediate threat to jobs in the public school system (since public schools would be in no position to compete with private schools).

A less radical improvement, in the same direction, would be allowing parents to choose the school they wish to send their kids to, even if it's on the other side of town (and allowing popular schools to hold entrance exams or some other objective selection criteria). That alone would create a hierarchy and competition among public schools, and open up the door to a voucher system, and even the privatization of public schools (well, their transformation from government property to government contractors funded through the voucher system).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My impression is that the schools available to the poorer segments in such places are mostly church-linked.

(...)

A voucher system would be preferred by the private schools. The big debate there is whether government money should go to church-linked schools. People bring up examples of some muslim schools that add indoctrination to the curriculum. On a smaller scale, there are examples of church voucher schools that make it inconvenient for kids who do not wish to participate in religious activities. The separation of church and state argument has been a major factor blocking voucher programs.

So the Church/State debate is not a reason vs mysticism debate but a power contest (or power grab at this point) between would-be-theocrats and would-be-Marxists. It is illegal to pray in school but quasi mandatory to pledge allegiance to the Flag and the Republic for which it used to stand. In a Theocracy, say independent Deseret, it would be quasi mandatory to pray in school but it would be sinful idolatry to recite to a flag as you would do to a saint, virgin, moron angel, or bible.

I must note at this point that I rather like flags, and although I'm not a citizen or resident of either country I've always had the Stars and Stripes and the Union Jack in my room - since childhood, instinctively.

The children feeling uncomfortable because some others pray, or the Muslim horror thing are red herrings, or rather extreme or meaningless examples that fail to seem a worse evil than that perpetrated by State Schools and their Social Studies (which in my age, the 90s, where still called history and geography, but then they suddenly merged and changed not just in name!)

I think a voucher program that came with some strict rules about religious education, and which came with some basic curriculum requirements (e.g. evolution must be taught as accepted science) would be much better than the charters.

Yes it would certainly be better but do you really think enforcing those strict rules would be moral, justifiable, or effective?

The more sovereign the school is the better it teaches math and language, and application (science and art) which is all that matters considering that all other subjects are prone to being vehicles of indoctrination. In science a religious school can teach genetics in practice growing peppers or flowers like Mendel the Catholic did. Forcing them to teach evolution would be forcing them to touch the issue of the origin in a scientific manner, where if left unmolested, they would teach it in a class easily identifiable as either fable or cultural studies (like Atheists Jews do when in 'Religion' class, which we treat as nothing but cultural history, or Cathequesis for Catholics, Bible Study for the Reformed... would it be so hurtful for children to study the Bible as literature instead of Catcher in the Rye or A Million Little Pixels?).

Who are these Libertarians who are arguing for charter schools?

John Stossel specifically argues for charter schools, and Celia Green basically argues for almost anything but State Education.

Why not? What is the difference between competing with a charter school, and competing with a public school administered by bureaucrats?

Because the third semi private option, a charter school, is what validates the other two options (too exclusive private schools, and way too pervasive state schools) and suck the market dry for truly inexpensive private institutes. Educating doesn't take too many resources... look at the Greek Philosophers, the etymological root for Peripathetic or the concept of a forum. You don't need a swimming pool or an up to standard building that doubles as refugee bunker to educate children. You can just do it in rotating living rooms turned class-roms.

It would seem that charter schools, unlike a voucher system, prevents private schools from growing less exclusive (or rather, it prevents more flexible, cheaper, private schools from being created).

Education should be an entrepreneurial pursuit, but instead is the last resource of an average witted second earner with a hubris complex.

The main obstacle in the way of a voucher system is union and special interest group opposition, not concern with the First Amendment. I don't think the Left and the Right would have much trouble disregarding the First Amendment, if it meant achieving an otherwise mutually convenient compromise. But a voucher system would be a direct and immediate threat to jobs in the public school system (since public schools would be in no position to compete with private schools).

Yes unions (why interest groups?) can exact force to keep their jobs and keep hiring regardless of results, that's what they've been fighting for for decades, it's their batch of honor. How could anyone take that away from yet another of the many fleshless backbones of America? (while the muscles are left without support)

I understand that at this point (much like in Latin American countries) the Department of Education's task is not only to provide education to young citizens, but also, independently from that task, to provide a facade of employment to otherwise unemployable adults. Sure this might be true of any Government agency, but it is compromising a very private and literally generic part of the citizenship: could you imagine a Department of Health that employed malpracticing doctors and kept them in Rubber rooms instead of firing them in a context of limited resources, aka reality? Could any American, left or right, stomach such a thing?

A less radical improvement (...) would be allowing parents to choose the school they wish to send their kids to, even if it's on the other side of town (and allowing popular schools to hold entrance exams or some other objective selection criteria)

Amen! That's after all how it's done in the rest of the World (at least in Europe, Latin America, Japan, and most of the Commonwealth). I can't wrap my head around the geographic-based system in the U.S. I've met people (Americans) whose parents moved at great expense and inconvenience to the fringes of better counties or school districts just to ensure a better education for them. I understand this is also standard practice, not wild exceptions. Only in America real estate is advertised so tightly tied to school districts, whereas in the rest of the world the question of a house being walking or commute distance to a variety of surrounding schools is infinitely more flexible. It's not uncommon to see poor and rich children commuting every day to their schools of preference just as their parents do with their jobs! Sure it's less 'cozy'.

I could wildly speculate, that this has to do with the positive American aspects of very local government and 'neighborhood sovereignty', but would I be correct? What's the origin of this bizarre system (I can find that myself) but do any of YOU who experienced it firsthand see anything positive in it?

Another wild, negative, speculation is that a school district is the government's 'scientific' version of the Parish, and the school itself of the chapel, where in the Reformed Christian tradition it involves local tight communities, not universal cathedrals and pilgrimage. This would suggest that (any country's) State Schools are little more than industrial era replacements for church.

In that pessimistic light, I would view religious schools being ambivalent about Darwin as a very easily overlookable downside compared to the States insidious indoctrination. The rational would that if the children will be brainwashed either way, it would be wiser to allow the weaker agent to try it, as it is likely to be less effective in their destructive pursuit. But naturally I'm, from Geographical distance, grossly underestimating the obliterating power that true religious freedom allows to emerge in America. Or is Mormon Deseret-secession-like Theocracy a boogeyman for more State expansion? Oh yes, thank goodness the Federal Government fought a war to outlaw polygamy. Now, as decreed by law, citizens always have in practice only exclusive partners, right? derailed...

I think Education is one of those few things that were plain better in the past, I have my grandparent's elementary school books to prove it.

Not in whole, I'm just talking about the institutions. Probably the internet, video games and self education is doing a compensatory and even better jobs than institutions. And I'm not being ironic, I embrace that. It's time for de-centralization. The education system as it is, I don't think it can be saved.

Edited by volco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...