How is that different from the status quo? It seems likely that more students will end up going to private schools because of this subsidy, and some public schools will have to shrink, but why is that bad?
What we see in higher education are two types of private schools. One type are nonprofit and one type are profit. The for profit schools tend to be predatory have much worse outcomes than the public schools or nonprofit ones. The nonprofit ones tend to fall into two categories. The ones with nice endowments are exclusive and very good. We will see this happen with k-12 with vouchers.
From a school’s perspective a voucher is exactly as if a student got a student loan in that amount. Those who think federally backed loans are a problem in higher education ought to be opposed to vouchers for k-12.
- The schools must be accredited.
I can't find one good reason to restrict a poor student from choosing a magnet or a charter school over their local public school.
Magnet schools are public schools in the US that draw from multiple schools and usually have a particular focus (arts & languages, STEM, etc.). The main limiter on magnet school attendance is their capacity. I ended up in one in HS with a capacity of 1500 students, for a city with over 1 million people at the time (not sure the number of HS aged people). It cost nothing extra to attend, you had to apply and interview to get in and the public school bus system took care of getting everyone to the school no matter where they lived in the county.
EDIT: And I had to double check because I've only recently lived in an area with charter schools and have no kids yet so didn't really care much, but they're also technically public schools in the US. They are publicly funded and have no tuition costs to attend.
Most private k-12 schools are religiously affiliated.
Do you have this much concern for the poor when it comes to funding public transportation, healthcare, childcare, pre-school, school lunch, and dental care?
- Mississippi is richer than Germany and France without progressive social policies. Since you are questioning my motives, do you have a concern for the poor yourself?
By what measure? Using GDP Mississippi appears to have a GDP of around $100 billion. France and Germany both have GDPs in the trillions. Normalized by population, both are still larger than Mississippi.
Mississippi: $105 billion / 2.95 million = $34.90k/person
France : $2.958 trillion / 67.75 million = $43.66k
Germany : $4.26 trillion / 83.2 million = $52.2kFrance: 43,658.98
Germany: 51,203.55
Mississippi: 48,744*
I was off on Mississippi but they are still very close to Germany's, which is good considering they are the poorest state in the USA.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...
So you were half-right, congrats.
Having a few more dollars doesn’t make up for these discrepancies.
My comment was an attempt to point out this hypocrisy.
It's a hard problem, but I can't fault people who believe public schools should focus on not failing the bottom section rather than accelerating the top achievers.
This is already the case though. I grew up in a “low income” area and whenever I visit my parents I see people I went to Highschool with walking around in the streets.
Something’s got to change but unfortunately I do not have the answer. Hopefully AI will save us all.
The problem is they focus on not failing the bottoms section, and also completely fail the bottom section.