Ironically, the 'choice' school in your "school choice" example is actually the lazy waitress in your illustration, while the public school is the hard worker getting screwed. Public schools are required to serve every student that walks in the door, regardless of academic aptitude, learning disabilities, physical handicaps or behavioral and emotional issues. Private and charter schools can be selective with their applicants. So, not only does the public school have to work harder for the same money per pupil, but the high-achieving students siphoned off by the for-profits bump up the test scores, which rewards the school with more funding, and punishes the "under performing" ones, i.e. the ones that need it most. So, they play by different rules, have different demands put on them and get paid the same per student. School choice rewards less effort, then, perversely, casts the unfair advantage as 'merit.' I wonder if you just stumbled on a bad example for your argument, or your general argument lacks merit itself.
Dave, I appreciate your taking time to read and comment on my column. You strike me as one who knows something of public schools - maybe you're a teacher or an NEA union official - my knowledge of public schools was my education in them and despite the fact that I only have a GED equivalency, I would rate those schools highly. Of course that was fifty years ago and schools have changed, and not for the better in my opinion, in that teachers unions have inordinate power and parents seem to be left with little real ability to have a say in their child's education - but that's just my opinion. In the sentence you mention, "an issue that leftist culture hates because it essentially turns a school into a version of our hardworking waitress described above – schools become competitive and accountable to those they serve", I agree that could be taken one of two ways. What I meant was that the public schools are forced to be competitive when presented with school choice alternatives. This is called "market forces" and I didn't stumble upon the example, I chose it as relatable to a lot of parents. And I'd like to point out that mine is an opinion column - not a news feed. My newsletter is titled, "Irked & Miffed", not "Facts and Figures", which gives me some license. And in case anyone wonders, my kids are homeschooled and we certainly aren't funded by anyone, period.
Yes, I've taught in public schools (K-12+community college), and am a product of them myself (K-12+community college+state university). Public school are not "forced to be competitive" when faced with school choice policies. They are, in fact, forced to do more with less because their funding is being siphoned away by policies that give equal funding to private businesses for doing less work. Not only does the 'lazy waitress' get the same tips, but she also gets the section closest to the kitchen, her choice of clients and constant recognition for her "success." "School choice" is a racket, supported by 1. people who make money screwing the public, and 2. politicians who sell people on ideology (which is easy) so they don't actually have to address policy (which is hard). My question, about whether you stumbled on examples, was rhetorical. Not only did you chose an example that, if actually examined, would prove the opposite of your thesis, but your thesis, being nothing more than holding one ideological position over another, is fatally flawed. This is because ideology (left, right, liberal, conservative, religious, secular) is the most worthless system for decision-making ever derived by the least exceptional minds of men. If a policy works, it is not because its proponents were conservative or liberal (utterly meaningless terms, by the way), but because the people who designed the policy were experts in "facts and figures." People who support an ideology are merely supporting their preference to feel right by surrounding themselves with enablers while avoiding the hard work of learning and thinking. If you want to talk about what's actually going downhill in our society, consider the state of learning and thinking, which necessarily requires frequent examination of one's own beliefs and a willingness to abandon them without hesitation in the face of facts.
Love the truth in this Drew
Ironically, the 'choice' school in your "school choice" example is actually the lazy waitress in your illustration, while the public school is the hard worker getting screwed. Public schools are required to serve every student that walks in the door, regardless of academic aptitude, learning disabilities, physical handicaps or behavioral and emotional issues. Private and charter schools can be selective with their applicants. So, not only does the public school have to work harder for the same money per pupil, but the high-achieving students siphoned off by the for-profits bump up the test scores, which rewards the school with more funding, and punishes the "under performing" ones, i.e. the ones that need it most. So, they play by different rules, have different demands put on them and get paid the same per student. School choice rewards less effort, then, perversely, casts the unfair advantage as 'merit.' I wonder if you just stumbled on a bad example for your argument, or your general argument lacks merit itself.
Dave, I appreciate your taking time to read and comment on my column. You strike me as one who knows something of public schools - maybe you're a teacher or an NEA union official - my knowledge of public schools was my education in them and despite the fact that I only have a GED equivalency, I would rate those schools highly. Of course that was fifty years ago and schools have changed, and not for the better in my opinion, in that teachers unions have inordinate power and parents seem to be left with little real ability to have a say in their child's education - but that's just my opinion. In the sentence you mention, "an issue that leftist culture hates because it essentially turns a school into a version of our hardworking waitress described above – schools become competitive and accountable to those they serve", I agree that could be taken one of two ways. What I meant was that the public schools are forced to be competitive when presented with school choice alternatives. This is called "market forces" and I didn't stumble upon the example, I chose it as relatable to a lot of parents. And I'd like to point out that mine is an opinion column - not a news feed. My newsletter is titled, "Irked & Miffed", not "Facts and Figures", which gives me some license. And in case anyone wonders, my kids are homeschooled and we certainly aren't funded by anyone, period.
Yes, I've taught in public schools (K-12+community college), and am a product of them myself (K-12+community college+state university). Public school are not "forced to be competitive" when faced with school choice policies. They are, in fact, forced to do more with less because their funding is being siphoned away by policies that give equal funding to private businesses for doing less work. Not only does the 'lazy waitress' get the same tips, but she also gets the section closest to the kitchen, her choice of clients and constant recognition for her "success." "School choice" is a racket, supported by 1. people who make money screwing the public, and 2. politicians who sell people on ideology (which is easy) so they don't actually have to address policy (which is hard). My question, about whether you stumbled on examples, was rhetorical. Not only did you chose an example that, if actually examined, would prove the opposite of your thesis, but your thesis, being nothing more than holding one ideological position over another, is fatally flawed. This is because ideology (left, right, liberal, conservative, religious, secular) is the most worthless system for decision-making ever derived by the least exceptional minds of men. If a policy works, it is not because its proponents were conservative or liberal (utterly meaningless terms, by the way), but because the people who designed the policy were experts in "facts and figures." People who support an ideology are merely supporting their preference to feel right by surrounding themselves with enablers while avoiding the hard work of learning and thinking. If you want to talk about what's actually going downhill in our society, consider the state of learning and thinking, which necessarily requires frequent examination of one's own beliefs and a willingness to abandon them without hesitation in the face of facts.