PopPop51
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2010
- Posts
- 447
Ohhh boy, this turned out to be long.cadee2c said:Simple. They can pick an choose what students they accept, i.e. only the brightest, no learning disabilities, higher socioeconomic status etc.
That's a mighty broad brush you're painting with there.
I won't speak to charter schools as I have no experience with them.
For the Catholic school I attended through junior high I can most certainly attest that was not true. All levels of students were accepted regardless of ability to pay. We all rubbed elbows with each other in the same crowded classrooms year after year: The doctors' and lawyers' kids, the shopkeepers' kids, the factory workers' kids, the ditch diggers' kids, and the poorest families' kids. We all played together: All races, mostly but by no means all Catholic. And we all grew up as friends. If the parents wanted their children to attend, the pastor found a way to finance it. The only limit was the school's physical capacity, and it was stretched to the limit. For many families it was "Please donate what you can."
That was a few decades ago, and is probably not possible today. The unfunded regulations imposed on non-public schools probably make it impossible.
But I would not assume that just because an institution doesn't trumpet its charity cases that they don't exist, funded by those high advertised tuition bills paid by those who can afford it.
Regarding homeschoolers, I will not paint with a broad brush myself, but I do have significant first-hand knowledge as my grandchildren are homeschooled.
They are homeschooled because the public system can't (or won't, but I'll assume the benign "can't") deliver a product that properly addresses the specialized needs of either gifted kids, twice-exceptional kids or otherwise learning-challenged kids. (Look it up: "Twice Exceptional". There's a whole world of finely-nuanced people out there you probably completely misunderstand.)
The homeschooler parents I've met through my grandchildren's education community most certainly do not "choose" to homeschool. They feel compelled to homeschool because there are no good publicly funded solutions. Most of them have taken significant household income cuts rather than send their kids to any institutional school or off to daycare, because they felt it was their responsibility to place the quality of their children's lives above money. (Funny. That's what I remember my parents doing, too.)
Certainly there are a lot of religiously-centered homeschoolers. After all, they more or less started the practice. But the ranks of secular homeschoolers are large and growing rapidly.
Blaming the state of public education on the flight of high-income families or on the growth of homeschooling makes no sense. First because the public systems still educate the vast majority of students, representing a valid distribution of the population. Blaming the results of an entire system on the absence of a tiny fraction is poor mathematics.
Next, rich parents produce babies with pretty much the same distribution of innate ability as the rest of the population. So even if you remove them from the population you wouldn't generate a major shift in the innate ability of the remaining student population.
Nor does income predetermine how much a parent cares. Removing the families who homeschool and those to use private/parochial schools from the population still leaves a huge population of families far from devoid of caring parents.
So what do I think is wrong with public education?
First, I submit that the question is pre-loaded with bias and is disingenuous. I'm not of the opinion that public education is terrible or anything close to it. I think it does a pretty good job for the vast majority of its students. If it's failing at the edges, well that's not unexpected. Edge cases are by definition those that are hardest for a large institution to serve.
But I do think that public education is fiscally inefficient and wasteful, and I think that the results shown by private, parochial and homeschool education illustrate that.
It's not that public education is useless or bad. It's that it's a bad bargain.
The one place I don't lay that bad bargain is at the feet of the front-line educators. I lay it on the layers upon layers of administrators, regulators and bureaucratic kingdom-builders that inhabit huge, palatially-furnished offices. I lay it on the desks of the legislators who've never seen a law or program not worth imposing on the educators, impinging on the educators' time available for, and freedom to, teach our children to the best of their ability.
If the system is collapsing, it's doing so under its own weight, and not at the fault of anyone utilizing an alternative.