Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Muda69

School Choice is Good For America; round 3

Recommended Posts

Brown v. Board Did Not Start Private Schooling: https://www.cato.org/blog/brown-v-board-did-not-start-private-schooling

Quote

A common refrain in opposition to school choice is that choice is rooted in racial segregation. Specifically, that people barely thought about choice until the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision required public schools to desegregate, and racists scrambled to create private alternatives to which they could take public funds. I have dealt with this before and won’t rehash the whole response (hint: Roman Catholics), but a new permutation popped up on Vox yesterday, with author Adia Harvey Wingfield asserting:

Prior to Brown v. Board of Education, most US students attended local public schools. Of course, these were also strictly racially segregated. It wasn’t until the Supreme Court struck down legal segregation that a demand for private (and eventually charter and religious parochial) schools really began to grow, frequently as a backlash to integrated public institutions.

Kudos to Prof. Wingfield for making clear that many public schools were “strictly racially segregated,” which often seems to be soft pedaled when linking choice to segregation. But her assertion that private schooling didn’t “really” begin to grow until after Brown is not borne out by the data. As the chart below shows, while the share of enrollment in private schools spiked in 1959, the growth in private schooling didn’t suddenly increase right before that. In 1889—the earliest year available— the private school share was 11 percent, dipping to 7 percent in 1919, then pretty steadily rising until the 1959 peak. (Note, the earlier years of the federal data are in ten-year increments. Also, data include pre-K enrollments.)

private_school_share_0.png

History is clear that private education has long been with us, and while it has certainly at times been used to avoid racial integration, it has also been employed for reasons having nothing to do with that. This remains true even in our relatively modern era in which “free” public schools have crowded out many private options.

 

  • Haha 1
  • Disdain 1
  • Kill me now 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Achievement Gap Between Rich and Poor Public School Students Unchanged Over 50 Years: http://reason.com/blog/2019/04/08/achievement-gap-between-rich-and-poor-pu

Quote

Half a century of trying hasn't closed one of schooling's most vexing achievement gaps. According to a new paper, the gap in educational achievement between public school students in the bottom 10th socioeconomic status (SES) percentile and those in the top 90th SES percentile has remained essentially unchanged over the last 50 years.

"In terms of learning, students at the 10th SES percentile remain some three to four years behind those in the 90th percentile," report a team of researchers led by the Stanford economist Eric Hanushek in their disheartening new National Bureau of Economic Research study, "The Unwavering SES Achievement Gap."

It would be one thing, the researchers note, that "if all achievement were rising, i.e., if a rising tide was lifting all boats." But that's not what's happening. Young adolescents' performance has risen over the past 50 years, but their scores drift downward once they reach high school. The upshot is that there has been no significant improvement in the overall education achievement scores of American high school student cohorts born since the 1950s.

 

The researchers draw upon data from four periodically administered assessments of U.S. student performance: the Program for International Student Assessment, the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Survey, and two versions of the National Assessment of Educational Progress. They then divvy up the student cohorts based their parental socioeconomic status.

The researchers calculate the standard deviation between the scores of each socioeconomic cohort to compare how far the average achievement scores of students clustered in the top 10 and 25 percent of SES percentiles are from the scores of those students aggregated into the bottom 10 and 25 percentiles of SES. A declining standard deviation would mean that the gaps between the cohorts' scores are closing. That is not what they find.

As they report at Education Next, the socioeconomic achievement gap among the 1950s birth cohorts is very large—about 1.0 standard deviations between those in the top and bottom deciles of the socioeconomic distribution (the 90–10 gap) and around 0.8 standard deviations between those in the top and bottom quartiles (the 75–25 gap). Measuring cohorts of students born since the 1950s, the SES gap closes by about 0.5 standard deviations for students under age 14. But those gains among young adolescents disappear almost entirely by the time students reach age 17.

The persistence of the SES gap remains when the researchers compare only white students over time, and they take into account such factors as the changing ethnic makeup of American school children.

The researchers note that these disappointing results occurred despite the fact that "overall school funding increased dramatically on a per pupil basis, quadrupling in real dollars between 1960 and 2015." In addition, pupil-teacher ratios declined from 22.3 in 1970 to 16.1 in 2014.

Why do these gaps persist? The authors suggest that any negative impacts stemming from rise of single-parent familiesmay well be offset by factors that correlate with better educational outcomes, such as fewer siblings and the fact that today's parents in general are better educated. They hypothesize that a steep decline in the quality of teachers is likely a big factor.

"Because cognitive skills as measured by standard achievement tests are a strong predictor of future income and economic well-being, the unwavering achievement gaps across the SES spectrum do not bode well for improvements in intergeneration mobility in the future," they observe. "Perhaps more disturbingly, the U.S. has introduced and expanded a set of programs designed to lessen achievement gaps through improving the education of disadvantaged students, but they individually and collectively appear able to do little to close gaps beyond offsetting the probable decline in teacher quality in schools serving lower SES students."

In light of these findings, Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson makes some useful suggestions: "The national strategy of controlling the country's schools—through subsidies and regulatory requirements—has prevailed for half a century. It has failed. The federal government should exit the business of overseeing K-12 education.

Samuelson adds, "We should let states and localities see whether they can make schools work better. The grandiose fix-it national plans are mostly exercises in political marketing. We need solutions, not slogans."

But much more needs to be and can be done. As former Reason Foundation director of education policy Lisa Snell has pointed out:

Private school students have performed higher on NAEP exams and increasing evidence shows that both charter schools and private choice programs are improving student performance—especially for the most disadvantaged students.

We've seen little change in school performance for our pubic high school seniors, despite soaring education costs in traditional public schools. But school choice and competition show promise to improve outcomes for students by allowing families to find the schools and education services that best match their needs. Healthy competition can keeps schools focused on improving the quality of their services to students.

Competition drives continuous improvement in the quality of goods and services in every other part of our economy. It can do the same for educating America's children too.

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Government Control Turns Schools into Partisan Battlegrounds: https://reason.com/2019/05/06/government-control-turns-schools-into-partisan-battlegrounds/

Quote

As intractable as spats over who is best at cramming knowledge into little beasts' noggins have proven to be, nothing fuels a good argument like disagreement over the content of that knowledge. Given the perceived value of getting first crack at molding children's opinions, everybody wants a hand in spinning lessons and making sure they contain the "right" take on controversial issues.

The latest battles in the eternal curriculum wars demonstrate that, even if we come to an agreement over how to teach little Johnny and Sally to read, we'll never settle our differences over what they read. That may be the very best reason to keep government out of education and away from our kids.

In Michigan, Republicans and Democrats on the state Board of Education can't even agree on whether to refer to the United States as a "republic" or a "democracy." There's a legitimate, if overblown, debate over which of those terms more accurately describes the founders' vision for our political system. But these are politicians that we're talking about—not, generally, the sharpest knives in the drawer. It's enough to point out that Republicans want the schools to describe the U.S. as a "republic" and Democrats want to call it a "democracy."

That's only the tip of the iceberg of ideological squabbling over public school standards in Michigan.

"First, conservatives complained about a draft of new social studies standards for Michigan classrooms," as Bridge, a local magazine, summarizes the debate. "Then, liberals complained about a rewrite of those standards that appeared to favor conservative views. Now, some conservatives are up in arms again over a third draft of the standards, saying they are back to being too liberal."

Partisans disagree over how public schools should teach "core values," the cold war, gay rights, climate change, the Bill of Rights, and pretty much every other hot-button issue in an era that's not exactly short of vigorous disagreement.

And 'round and 'round we go…

"Standards have been politicized not only in Michigan, but nationally," points out Venessa Keesler, the state's deputy superintendent of education.

Texas, for instance, "streamlined" its public schools' social studies curriculum last year amidst charges that the changes reflected conservative spin. The Board of Education ultimately rejected a controversial proposal to eliminate such figures as Hillary Clinton from lessons. It also voted to retain references to the heroism of the defenders of the Alamo and provided specific guidance on the causes of the Civil War, including the debate over states' rights.

"As is often the case in these debates, the board again split along party lines," the Dallas Morning News reported. "The board retained several references to 'Judeo-Christian' values and influences, and shot down an attempt to cut Moses from a high school U.S. government standard that describes him as an 'individual whose principles of laws and government institutions informed the American founding documents.'"

Celebration and criticism of the revised standards broke down over the expected partisan lines, with groups on the right cheering and groups on the left jeering the changes.

Honestly, these battles are unavoidable so long as people of varying viewpoints are forced to support commonly used schools. Interpreting history and current events for students is as inherently subjective as it is necessary. If lessons are to be anything more than dry recitations of dates and names, educators must put the world into context. That context becomes all-important when ideological groups inevitably fight to present the world to kids as they see it—and when parents hear their children innocently parroting views they've been taught in school.

"Nearly half of all respondents (49%) express concern about politics in the classroom," the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty reported after surveying 1,400 Wisconsin voters in March. "This includes 69% of Republicans and 25% of Democrats."

You might nudge the relative happiness of Republicans and Democrats by changing the makeup of school boards and thereby altering the spin on lessons—but you won't get rid of "politics in the classroom" because you can't.

"Americans are diverse – ethnically, religiously, ideologically – but all must pay for public schools," notes the Cato Institute in the introduction to a map that tracks battles over the lessons and values taught in government-run institutions. "The intention is good: to bring people together and foster social harmony. But rather than build bridges, public schooling often forces people into wrenching conflict."

The map's Twitter feed features a litany of fierce disagreements made inevitable by the public's forced funding of public institutions. That shared burden not only sets people against each other but often deprives them of the resources to take advantage of whatever alternatives might be available.

How to end the curriculum wars? We could let people choose the educational approaches that work best for them and don't leave them at the mercy of other people's beliefs.

My homeschooled son gets a good sampling of opinions and interpretations from across the spectrum, but he has no doubt about where my wife and I are coming from. Our disdain for intrusive governments and authoritarian policies permeate what we teach him. My lesson plans might well drive a friend of mine in Los Angeles apoplectic if they were taught to her sons. But instead of using my plans or supporting our educational endeavors in any way, she's free to send her kids to a school that teaches them all about intersectionality and privilege.

My friend and I don't have to fight over educational standards for the same reason we don't have to fight over housing choices or dinner plans—we choose our own. We could all benefit by letting everybody do the same.

But won't letting people select their children's education and the ideas to which kids are exposed harden the partisan divide? The evidence suggests otherwise.

"Greater exposure to private schooling is not associated with any more or less political tolerance" than sending kids to public schools, according to Albert Cheng of the University of Arkansas's Department of Education Reform in a paper published in the Journal of School Choice. Even more interesting, "students with greater exposure to homeschooling tend to be more politically tolerant—a finding contrary to the claims of many political theorists."

Could it be that letting people choose what they like without having unwelcome viewpoints jammed down their kids' throats could actually reduce conflict? What a welcome revelation for a society that could use fewer partisan battlegrounds.

 

  • Haha 1
  • Disdain 1
  • Kill me now 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

End School Compulsory-Attendance Laws: https://mises.org/wire/end-school-compulsory-attendance-laws

Quote

Imagine if Congress were to enact a law that required everyone to attend church on Sundays. The overwhelming majority of Americans would go up in arms. The concept of religious liberty is so deeply ingrained in our American heritage that there is no way that people, including devout Christians, would accept such a law. That heritage was enshrined in the First Amendment, which prohibits Congress from enacting such a law.

Now, suppose things had been the exact opposite. Suppose that from the beginning, the Constitution had authorized Congress to enact compulsory church-attendance laws. Suppose that immediately after the Constitution called the federal government into existence, Congress had enacted a law requiring parents to send their children to church, in order to be educated on religious, moral, ethical, and Biblical principles. Suppose that we had been living with that national compulsory church-attendance law for the entire history of the United States.

Now suppose we libertarians were to advocate the repeal of the church-attendance law, which would enable families to decide for themselves whether to send their children to church or not. Can you imagine the outcry?

“Are you libertarians crazy? If we let families make that decision, no one would send their children to church. Most parents are just too irresponsible. How could we be certain that children would receive the right education and training when it comes to morality, ethics, and religion? Wouldn’t some parents teach their children to be atheists or, even worse, to worship Satan? No, you libertarians are all off base. People aren’t ready for that type of freedom. Repealing the church-attendance law would destroy the moral, religious, and ethical foundation of American society.”

After all, isn’t that the mindset of many Americans when they hear libertarians calling for the repeal of compulsory school-attendance laws? Don’t they say that people just aren’t ready for that type of freedom — that parents are too irresponsible — that children wouldn’t get educated — and that a free-market educational system would destroy America?

But the fact is that there is no difference in principle between religious liberty and educational liberty. Just as people shouldn’t be forced to send their children to church, they shouldn’t be forced to send their children to a state-approved organization for secular education and training. Families have the natural, God-given right to make educational decisions for their children without state interference or meddling, just as they do with respect to religious decisions.

People obviously make vastly different decisions when it comes to raising their children, not only on religious matters but also on countless other issues. People often disagree with how other people are raising their children. But Americans have developed a high degree of tolerance with respect to how people raise their children. We simply have to have that same degree of tolerance when it comes to education.

No one should be forced to attend church. By the same token, no one should be force to submit to a state-approved education. For that matter, no one should be forced to fund a state-approved school any more than he should be forced to fund a state-approved church. The state has no more business in education than it does in religion.

I agree.

 

  • Haha 1
  • Disdain 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DanteEstonia said:

How about no? There are parents that are so negligent that the only reason they make their kids attend school is that they will suffer legal repercussions if they don’t comply.

Yes, the force of the state is the only way.   And to the parents that do make their children attend government school due to threat of force the institution is nothing more than a baby sitting service. They don't give a hoot about education. What does the state do to counter  that attitude, Dante?   Make laws stating the parents will suffer legal repercussions if their child(ren) don't academically perform at certain.  Force them to take government education seriously,  is that the ticket?

 

 

  • Disdain 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Muda69 said:

Force them to take government education seriously,  is that the ticket?

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, DanteEstonia said:

Yes.

I don't want to live in the America you want to live in, Dante.    Any individual who values freedom, personal responsibility and abhors authoritarianism would feel the same.

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Muda69 said:

I don't want to live in the America you want to live in, Dante.

You already live in the same country as me; your glasses are just too rose-colored to see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DanteEstonia said:

You already live in the same country as me; your glasses are just too rose-colored to see it.

You missed the phrase "the America you want to live in, Dante."  You have made it clear you dislike our current federal governmental system and want it to change radically.

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

You missed the phrase "the America you want to live in, Dante."  You have made it clear you dislike our current federal governmental system and want it to change radically.

 

You got that right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Muda69 said:

made it clear you dislike our current federal governmental system

Pot, meet Kettle

  • Thanks 1
  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, gonzoron said:

Pot, meet Kettle

Where I have stated that I dislike the U.S. Constitution, gonzo?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

Where I have stated that I dislike the U.S. Constitution, gonzo?

 

Virtually every post you make criticizes our government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

Virtually every post you make criticizes our government.

Sorry that you don't see the difference between supporting the U.S. Constitution and being critical of the U.S federal government.   That body violates that storied document, the foundation for our country, on almost a daily basis.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Sorry that you don't see the difference between supporting the U.S. Constitution and being critical of the U.S federal government.   That body violates that storied document, the foundation for our country, on almost a daily basis.

 

“That body” is part of the system that you constantly criticize. 

Although admittedly, you almost always use someone else’s words, so it’s unclear what your actual personal views are. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

“That body” is part of the system that you constantly criticize. 

Although admittedly, you almost always use someone else’s words, so it’s unclear what your actual personal views are. 

 

Yes, I do criticize it.  That doesn't necessarily mean I want to underpinnings of it (aka the U.S. Constitution) to change.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2019 at 11:09 AM, Muda69 said:

Yes, I do criticize it.  That doesn't necessarily mean I want to underpinnings of it (aka the U.S. Constitution) to change.

 

 

white men politics.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, gonzoron said:

 

white men politics.png

What does this mean gonzo?  That there needs to be a U.S. Constitutional amendment which limits the number of "white men" that can hold elected office in Congress?

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some People Are Buying Their Way Into Top Public Schools. That's Not How School Choice Should Work: https://reason.com/2019/06/21/some-people-are-buying-their-way-into-top-public-schools-thats-not-how-school-choice-should-work/

Quote

It turns out that public schools aren't actually free and open to all. One Texas district, Lovejoy Independent School District, has been collecting tuition from students living outside of district boundaries since 2013—with current annual rates sitting as high as $14,000 per student. The district only offers a limited number of spots to paying outsiders and selects finalists based on their academic performance and disciplinary records. Even then, the lucky students still have to reapply each year, there is no guarantee that their siblings will be admitted, and transportation isn't provided.

Lovejoy isn't alone, as districts around the country use a similar tactic. Just in Texas, the school districts in Sharyland, Rockwall, and Magnolia all have their own policies demanding thousands from students coming from outside the district. They justify these restrictive policies and fees by arguing that outside students don't contribute to the district's local tax base. This is true—but it points to a deeper problem. The current public school system only gives freedom to wealthy families that can afford to get their child enrolled in the right school, making school choice a luxury rather than a basic right.  

Texas law allows districts to be selective with transfers, to cap them, or to shut them out entirely.  Unsurprisingly, these types of restrictions cater to political motivations over student needs—hurting disadvantaged families the most. A 2017 study of Ohio, which has restrictive enrollment policies similar to those in Texas, found that wealthy suburban school districts are far less likely than other types of districts to accept students from outside district boundaries. The report refers to these districts as "walled" districts because they surround the state's largest inner cities—such as Cleveland and Cincinnati—and trap disadvantaged students in those inner-city districts.

When districts do accept outside students, they often do so only as long as it benefits them financially. Lovejoy first rolled out its inter-district enrollment program in 2013 because it wanted to generate more revenue. Ted Moore, the district superintendent at the time, announced the strategy as a way to counteract a recent $2.5 million cut in state funding. He further added that the district would "get out of the transfer business" once Lovejoy's schools were filled by district residents. It's understandable that schools would be concerned about their bottom lines, but the perverse incentives created by this government system favor those least in need.

It doesn't have to be this way. Many states offer open enrollment policies. Florida, for instance, implemented a choice-friendly law in 2017 that requires districts to accommodate outside students. Any schools in the state with the space must let kids in via a lottery process, and must give priority to certain types of disadvantaged students. Those schools are not allowed to charge tuition.

Another way to knock down the perverse incentives that restrict choice for disadvantaged students is to reduce the school system's reliance on local tax revenues. Local dollars usually don't follow students across district lines, making it so that many districts—especially property-wealthy ones that don't receive as much state funding—have little incentive to accept outsiders. States that reform their school finance systems so that they are less dependent on local taxes often see families choosing schools outside their home districts—a phenomenon that's been observed in Indiana. Once local revenues stop being a factor, state dollars more easily follow students across district lines—giving educational freedom to more families.

Even with the high tuition rates and the competitive application process, the Lovejoy Independent School District reports that its open enrollment program is still popular. One look at the district's accolades explains it all—it boasts test performance scores in the top 1 percent of Texas districts, and provides a robust college preparatory curriculum. While it's hard not to be happy for the families that do get access to a quality education, that access shouldn't be determined by a public school system that favors deep pockets and political leverage.

 

  • Haha 1
  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Muda69 said:

What does this mean gonzo? 

I don't know what it means. I would recommend you contact Mr. Riot to ask him.

 

14 hours ago, Muda69 said:

That there needs to be a U.S. Constitutional amendment which limits the number of "white men" that can hold elected office in Congress?

I could be wrong, but I don't see the words Constitution, amendment, or Congress in the tweet. Why do you think it requires a Constitutional change? Shouldn't that venerable document remain untouched?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

I don't know what it means. I would recommend you contact Mr. Riot to ask him.

 

I could be wrong, but I don't see the words Constitution, amendment, or Congress in the tweet. Why do you think it requires a Constitutional change? Shouldn't that venerable document remain untouched?

So how do you effectively prevent the "white men" from having the majority of political power in the United States?  Is there objective, verifiable proof that non-"white men" having the majority of political power will be an improvement?

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

School Choice Could Have Stopped Battle Over Holocaust-Denial at a Florida High School: https://reason.com/2019/07/11/school-choice-could-have-stopped-battle-over-holocaust-denial-at-a-florida-high-school/

Quote

It took a year and a half for public school officials in Palm Beach County, Florida, to remove a high school principal who wouldn't commit to saying that the Holocaust is a documented fact. It would have saved a lot of time and aggravation if parents horrified by the administrator's indifference to history had been freer to just pick a better school, managed by better people.

Beyond arguments about teaching philosophy, quality of instructors, and test results, endless battles over curricula make it clear that governments are lousy stewards of education. Conflict is baked into the concept of letting government officials exercise near-monopoly power over schools.

The controversy over former Principal William Latson began with a parent contacting Spanish River High School in April 2018 to inquire as to how the Holocaust was taught to the heavily Jewish student population. Latson responded that the Holocaust was taught, but not emphasized, because not all families have the same beliefs about its occurrence. He doubled down in a second email, writing:

 

Not everyone believes the Holocaust happened and you have your thoughts but we are a public school and not all of our parents have the same beliefs so they will react differently, my thoughts or beliefs have nothing to do with this because I am a public servant. I have the role to be politically neutral but support all groups in the school… I can't say the Holocaust is a factual, historical event because I am not in a position to do so as a school district employee.

And so began a running battle that culminated, just days ago, in Latson's reassignment to a school district position that allows the professional educator to apply his slippery grasp of history and eccentric punctuation in a less public way.

The debate over what to teach kids at Spanish River High School echoes similar controversies around the country over lessons about events past and present. It varies from other such incidents primarily in that it represents a mushy failure to take any position rather than the triumph of one ideological approach or interpretation over another.

"Americans are diverseethnically, religiously, ideologicallybut all must pay for public schools. The intention is good: to bring people together and foster social harmony," the Cato Institute notes on its Public Schooling Battle Map, which tracks education disagreements nationwide. "But rather than build bridges, public schooling often forces people into wrenching conflict."

In Michigan over the past year, conservatives and liberals squabbled over whether the U.S. is a "republic" or a "democracy"—and that's just where the disagreement begins. Lessons over the Alamo, the causes of the Civil War, and states rights set off similar fights in Texas.

Curriculum battles have been common in government-run schools, since they offer an opportunity for victors to "correctly" teach children while suppressing the alleged errors of the opposition. But modern curriculum battles occur in a country where intolerance of disagreement is widespread and on the rise (82 percent of polled likely voters said last year that they think Americans are less tolerant of each other's opinions). Education doesn't help, either: Better educated people are less understanding of opponents' beliefs. That makes conflicts more intractable than ever.

How do public school administrators and teachers keep their "customers" happy when tweaking lesson plans to please one faction means alienating another? Almost certainly, they can't.

In this environment, William Latson very likely tried and failed to walk an unwalkable line by refusing to commit to fundamental historical facts so he wouldn't anger anybody. And Latson didn't confine his bureaucratic slipperiness to this one issue—it seems to be his guiding philosophy.

"I do the same with information about slavery," Latson told the mother in an email. "I don't take a position but allow for the information to be presented and parents to be parents and educate their students accordingly."

"The mother, who asked not to be named to protect her child's identity, said in an interview that she did not believe Latson was anti-Semitic but worried that he feared confronting parents who deny the Holocaust's reality," reported The Palm Beach Post.

 

Ultimately, refusing to take a position in a futile bid at inoffensiveness bred as big a controversy as the sort of curriculum battle Latson hoped to avoid.

Ironically, Florida is actually pretty good when it comes to educational choice, offering charter schools, scholarships, relatively easy homeschooling, and virtual schools. But traditional public schools remain the default choice for most students. Certainly, the families that currently use Spanish River High School should more thoroughly consider their education options and look for something better; voting with your feet now must be an improvement over waiting a year-plus for a bad administrator to be replaced. At the very least, they might consider charters, which have a good track record in Florida, don't charge tuition, and offer a variety of educational approaches.

Improving access to education options and encouraging people to choose schools that work for them would replace curriculum battles with self-selection toward people's preferred offerings. In doing so, it could enhance the "social harmony" that public schools try and fail to generate. Graduating adults might even get along better if more families chose their kids' educations.

"Greater exposure to private schooling is not associated with any more or less political tolerance" than sending kids to public schools, wrote Albert Cheng of the University of Arkansas's Department of Education Reform in a 2014 paper published in the Journal of School Choice. Even more interesting, "students with greater exposure to homeschooling tend to be more politically tolerant—a finding contrary to the claims of many political theorists."

That makes sense, given that the public schools that are supposed to bring Americans together have done so only in the sense that the Colosseum brought together Christians and lions. Sure, it's a shared experience—but not necessarily a positive one.

Ultimately, curriculum battles are inevitable in schools that people are forced to fund with their taxes and which many children have to attend because of government restrictions on alternatives, including regulation of private education. Even for families with means, that can leave little from which to choose.

So, we can continue our endless battles over what our kids are taught, or we could enhance social harmony by replacing struggles for control of shared institutions with choices that prevent conflicts from occurring. There are choices to be made either way; either we make them for ourselves, or they'll be made for us.

 

  • Haha 1
  • Disdain 1
  • Kill me now 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Just saw (didn’t read too thoroughly, but plan to) an article by Fox News, via the trending tool on Google, saying the SCOTUS is preparing to hear a case on School Choice. 

Espinoza vs Montana  

I’ll see if I can figure out how to copy and paste the link with my IPad. 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/scotus-to-hear-major-school-choice-religious-freedom-case.amp

Hope this works. 

Edited by DannEllenwood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, DannEllenwood said:

Just saw (didn’t read too thoroughly, but plan to) an article by Fox News, via the trending tool on Google, saying the SCOTUS is preparing to hear a case on School Choice. 

Espinoza vs Montana  

I’ll see if I can figure out how to copy and paste the link with my IPad. 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/scotus-to-hear-major-school-choice-religious-freedom-case.amp

Hope this works. 

I’m glad Nevada doesn’t have a program like Montana.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...