Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

Allowing parents to choose the schools their children attend is inherently superior to forcing them to attend government-run schools. Proof of better outcomes is unnecessary. Sure, some charter/private schools are worse than government-run schools. Parents can easily avoid those.



Proof of better outcomes is unnecessary.

That sounds anti-science if ever I heard it.

Claiming inherent superiority while denigrating evidence and empirical approaches is cut from the same cloth as religion, and certainly won't convince those of us with higher standards.

-----


This is a great attitude to make yourself feel better, but it's not terribly productive if you can't produce some science yourself, or if you are, you know, any way inclined towards respecting humans' individual choices. Economists and sociologists, who are much better at science than educators, try to avoid making the mistake of knocking peoples' choices unless they're obviously irrational, because forcing peoples behavior to be a certain way in the name of "science" is an easy way to be disastrously wrong.

-----


Letting parents choose schools is not any more respective the choice of the individuals most directly affected than having government decide on the school.

-----


Are you saying children should choose their schools?

-----


The entire school curriculum will now be reduced to just two separate domain alternatives: Lady Gaga or UFC. I think we're onto something here!

-----


It depends on what you think "better" means. If you use "better" to mean "fits what I think ought to happen", then it makes sense to test market outcomes against nonmarket outcomes and decide which is better. If you use "better" to mean "what most people prefer", then the market is, in most cases, the best way we have to determine that, and talking about proof of better outcomes is analogous to asking for empirical proof that empiricism is a better way to find truth.

-----


> Proof of better outcomes is unnecessary

What I think natrius means, is that the burden of proof is on the anti-choice option. Surely the default should be giving parents a choice on which schools their children attend. In other words, we shouldn't need evidence to show giving parents a choice gives better outcomes because the evidence should be provided that taking away parents choice is better. If there is any doubt then give parents a choice.

-----


> Proof of better outcomes is unnecessary.

That could be the most ridiculous comment I have ever read on HN.

-----


Except where government run schools are the only option for schools, like somewhere with a fantastic education system.

Like, say, Finland.

-----




Applications are open for YC Summer 2016

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: