> Oh, do you think the right is going to improve upon the US's current system of incentivizing/forcing families to fight over/make big sacrifices for homes in the wealthiest school districts in order to give their children a half-decent shot at a good education?
Yes? Ever heard of school vouchers? The political right would love to reform the education system, from teachers unions to university professors, the entrenched interests are core Democrat voting blocs.
Interestingly, black and Hispanic people support vouchers at a slightly higher rate than white people. That is remarkable because whites overall skew heavily conservative. (Trump and Romney won white non-Hispanic voters approximately 60-40.) White liberals are the only demographic that strongly oppose school choice and vouchers.
We already have school choice for universities. You go where you want and you either pay for it or find funding from the government/charities. No one finds it weird that you're not tied to your local neighborhood for higher education.
We already have something that's not too far from school vouchers for universities, which is FAFSA. The government provides aid that you can use at any accredited institution, not just the institution into which you were geographically zoned.
Wikipedia sums it up: "the evidence to date is not sufficient to warrant recommending that vouchers be adopted on a widespread basis; however, multiple positive findings support continued exploration."
Seems pretty reasonable that we don't let people replace the entire country's educational system with this new one until the evidence in favor of it is extremely compelling.
Didn't your public school teach you not to consider Wikipedia a convincing reference for validating political opinions? Maybe you could have used some vouchers...
> Didn't your public school teach you not to consider Wikipedia a convincing reference for validating political opinions? Maybe you could have used some vouchers...
I think they were too busy teaching me that randos on the internet disputing Wikipedia's sources are definitely more reliable than Wikipedia.
Haha maybe you should wonder how many Wikipedia editor accounts I maintain. Or maybe reading, you could try that. ITT we're talking about political opinions: vouchers good, vouchers bad. No one with a multiple-digit IQ is going to find such an answer on wikipedia.
I lean to the right and I'm opposed to school vouchers. We all pay for public schools on the theory that it's a public good. Why should only people with children get to decide where resources go? All taxpayers should get equal say.
It's telling that state GOPs typically support vouchers in the name of choice, but not actual choice within the public option.
Allowing any student to enroll at any public school regardless of their home zip code would be a much more meaningful form of choice than vouchers.
Why not just let anyone in a metro area attend high school at the richest/best high school in the area?
If you can answer that question, you can pretty well predict what systemic issues would be caused by a voucher system.
I'm generally skeptical of mixed public/private education systems with partial choice and subsidies for private options. We have exactly such a system for higher education and it's a fucking disaster.
You have 80% of the story but the last 20% is important.
Why not let anyone attend any public school? Because public schools are largely funded by local taxes. So a school in an expensive neighborhood with high taxes will naturally be a magnet for everyone else who can be a free-rider (in the economic theory sense). School vouchers fix this problem by carrying revenue along with the student instead of tying it to geography.
School vouchers with dollars attached to kids is effectively "choice, as long as you can pay for it". It's the status quo of zip code based schooling access, on steroids. That's exactly the "systemic issue" I'm referring to in my original post.
The claim that school choice would improve access to quality education for students in poor-performing schools is a complete farce.
I'm not saying that our current system works well or that it's particularly just. I'm just pointing out that vouchers make the tie between wealth and educational access even more explicit and codified than it already is. A voucher system would deepen, not alleviate, the inequities in our educational system.
I suspect we're just going to disagree on "as long as you can pay for it". In a publicly voucher system a large part of your ability to pay is provided by the government. This is not the case today. Vouchers take the ~$5-10k allocated for you that is "locked up" in your zip code and allows you to spend it anywhere you want. This doesn't fully equalize ability to pay but it's a large step toward equalizing it.
Secondly it fixes incentive structures. Good schools in high-tax areas can now see inbound students from elsewhere as partially subsidizing the cost of the school, rather than being a pure cost center. Again this doesn't perfectly equalize anything but it's a step in the right direction.
Allowing low income students more freedom in how they spend their government-allocated funds mitigates the problems of wealth disparity. This is already how the university system works so assertions that it is a complete farce should also justify the abolition of the FAFSA system in exchange for federal funds that can only be used at the university nearest your home.
Yes? Ever heard of school vouchers? The political right would love to reform the education system, from teachers unions to university professors, the entrenched interests are core Democrat voting blocs.