If Biden and Democrats Truly Support 'Equity,' Why Are They Silent on School Choice?

[Cow Poke]

If Biden and Democrats Truly Support 'Equity,' Why Are They Silent on School Choice?

481557_6_.jpg

This is National School Choice Week, and if there's been one benefit to the pandemic lockdowns of public schools across the country it's this:

Because working from home, many have had to go to school, too, listening along to the laptop learning on the kitchen table.

They might not be "woke," but they've certainly been awakened. And many don't like what they see.

Some have overheard political indoctrination of their children as a trend of "woke" public education spreads across the nation, from both coasts, and even in the heartland, like Illinois.

Others may not be so politically aware. And some may want their children indoctrinated, to enjoy the full Orwellian experience. But they might also like them to understand "Animal Farm" before living it. And to write and do math, rather than simply recite, "Four legs good, two legs better!"

Many parents aren't thrilled with the remote education their children receive.

And those with means -- Democrats and Republicans -- are already making school choice decisions. They're leaving the locked-down public systems for private schools or leaving for other states so their children may see the inside of a classroom and speak directly to a teacher, socialize with other kids, learn and play sports the way kids once did.

Democratic Party politicians, including mayors and governors, send their own children to private schools that are open, while the teachers unions to whom they answer keep the public schools closed.

So who is left behind?

Black and brown children, and low-income white children stuck in substandard urban public school systems that serve the power interests of the unions and Democratic politicians, but not the kids.

In big cities, these are mostly the children of the poor, and of many front-line workers who go to their jobs as store cashiers, as hourly health care workers, while teachers union members get paid for staying away from school.

There are efforts to give families educational options. In Illinois, for example, there are opportunity scholarships for private schools. While the program is successful, it is at risk in the hostile political environment of the state legislature.

What is required is more.

What is required is real school choice: to allow parents to use their tax dollars for the school they choose, public or private. It is the only way to break the corrupt education monopoly.

Because real school choice is the civil rights issue of our time.

The Democratic Party and the teachers unions that get out the Democratic vote aren't all that enthused about school choice.

In fact, they're all about limiting educational choice for families, as they make war on charter schools.

School choice threatens their monopoly on power. And it also slams uncomfortably into their new favorite word, "equity."

Democrats once talked about "equal opportunity" and quoted the late Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. But now they've hitched their wagons to "equity," which has nothing to do with opportunity but is all about using government to dictate outcomes based on race and gender.

Yet Democrats and progressives see "equity" as the only real answer to redress the nation's past sins.

And they're in the business of deciding who will pay for the sins of the fathers, even if that father was born in some land far away, across the ocean.

The Democratic Party's "equity" argument runs into trouble when confronted with school choice. They don't engage. They avoid.

I called Nathan Hoffman, a policy researcher at the nonprofit education group Empower Illinois, which supports the opportunity scholarships program.

Hoffman, who is Black, supports school choice.

"We cannot have an 'equity' conversation without talking about the most inequitable thing we do with respect to education, which is to force students into schools based solely on the ZIP code they reside in, whether the only way out is to either buy a home in a better neighborhood or buy a seat in a private school," said Hoffman.

"Those who would say the way we achieve 'equity' is by doubling down on the same schools that have failed to teach generations of students to read, write and do math -- while they themselves send their children to different (and better) schools are not interested in true 'equity.' Rather, it's an interest in convenient 'equity,'" Hoffman said.

If President Joe Biden were truly serious about treating Americans fairly, "no matter their ZIP code, race or religion ..." there is one thing he could do:

He'd push for school choice......

[rogue06]

If Biden and Democrats Truly Support 'Equity,' Why Are They Silent on School Choice?

481557_6_.jpg

This is National School Choice Week, and if there's been one benefit to the pandemic lockdowns of public schools across the country it's this:

Because working from home, many have had to go to school, too, listening along to the laptop learning on the kitchen table.

They might not be "woke," but they've certainly been awakened. And many don't like what they see.

Some have overheard political indoctrination of their children as a trend of "woke" public education spreads across the nation, from both coasts, and even in the heartland, like Illinois.

Others may not be so politically aware. And some may want their children indoctrinated, to enjoy the full Orwellian experience. But they might also like them to understand "Animal Farm" before living it. And to write and do math, rather than simply recite, "Four legs good, two legs better!"

Many parents aren't thrilled with the remote education their children receive.

And those with means -- Democrats and Republicans -- are already making school choice decisions. They're leaving the locked-down public systems for private schools or leaving for other states so their children may see the inside of a classroom and speak directly to a teacher, socialize with other kids, learn and play sports the way kids once did.

Democratic Party politicians, including mayors and governors, send their own children to private schools that are open, while the teachers unions to whom they answer keep the public schools closed.

So who is left behind?

Black and brown children, and low-income white children stuck in substandard urban public school systems that serve the power interests of the unions and Democratic politicians, but not the kids.

In big cities, these are mostly the children of the poor, and of many front-line workers who go to their jobs as store cashiers, as hourly health care workers, while teachers union members get paid for staying away from school.

There are efforts to give families educational options. In Illinois, for example, there are opportunity scholarships for private schools. While the program is successful, it is at risk in the hostile political environment of the state legislature.

What is required is more.

What is required is real school choice: to allow parents to use their tax dollars for the school they choose, public or private. It is the only way to break the corrupt education monopoly.

Because real school choice is the civil rights issue of our time.

The Democratic Party and the teachers unions that get out the Democratic vote aren't all that enthused about school choice.

In fact, they're all about limiting educational choice for families, as they make war on charter schools.

School choice threatens their monopoly on power. And it also slams uncomfortably into their new favorite word, "equity."

Democrats once talked about "equal opportunity" and quoted the late Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. But now they've hitched their wagons to "equity," which has nothing to do with opportunity but is all about using government to dictate outcomes based on race and gender.

Yet Democrats and progressives see "equity" as the only real answer to redress the nation's past sins.

And they're in the business of deciding who will pay for the sins of the fathers, even if that father was born in some land far away, across the ocean.

The Democratic Party's "equity" argument runs into trouble when confronted with school choice. They don't engage. They avoid.

I called Nathan Hoffman, a policy researcher at the nonprofit education group Empower Illinois, which supports the opportunity scholarships program.

Hoffman, who is Black, supports school choice.

"We cannot have an 'equity' conversation without talking about the most inequitable thing we do with respect to education, which is to force students into schools based solely on the ZIP code they reside in, whether the only way out is to either buy a home in a better neighborhood or buy a seat in a private school," said Hoffman.

"Those who would say the way we achieve 'equity' is by doubling down on the same schools that have failed to teach generations of students to read, write and do math -- while they themselves send their children to different (and better) schools are not interested in true 'equity.' Rather, it's an interest in convenient 'equity,'" Hoffman said.

If President Joe Biden were truly serious about treating Americans fairly, "no matter their ZIP code, race or religion ..." there is one thing he could do:

He'd push for school choice......

Because he is pretty much putting the teacher's unions in charge of the Department of Education. The same guy who kept babbling on about how he's gonna follow what science dictates, and the CDC has repeatedly said that schools should open, is instead ignoring that and paying off those who supported him by bowing to what those unions want.

[Cow Poke]

Because he is pretty much putting the teacher's unions in charge of the Department of Education. The same guy who kept babbling on about how he's gonna follow what science dictates, and the CDC has repeatedly said that schools should open, is instead ignoring that and paying off those who supported him by bowing to what those unions want.

Absolutely --- and the biggest problems we've seen with police abuse comes in departments run by UNIONS.

[kccd]

If Biden and Democrats Truly Support 'Equity,' Why Are They Silent on School Choice?

481557_6_.jpg

This is National School Choice Week, and if there's been one benefit to the pandemic lockdowns of public schools across the country it's this:

Because working from home, many have had to go to school, too, listening along to the laptop learning on the kitchen table.

They might not be "woke," but they've certainly been awakened. And many don't like what they see.

Some have overheard political indoctrination of their children as a trend of "woke" public education spreads across the nation, from both coasts, and even in the heartland, like Illinois.

Others may not be so politically aware. And some may want their children indoctrinated, to enjoy the full Orwellian experience. But they might also like them to understand "Animal Farm" before living it. And to write and do math, rather than simply recite, "Four legs good, two legs better!"

Many parents aren't thrilled with the remote education their children receive.

And those with means -- Democrats and Republicans -- are already making school choice decisions. They're leaving the locked-down public systems for private schools or leaving for other states so their children may see the inside of a classroom and speak directly to a teacher, socialize with other kids, learn and play sports the way kids once did.

Democratic Party politicians, including mayors and governors, send their own children to private schools that are open, while the teachers unions to whom they answer keep the public schools closed.

So who is left behind?

Black and brown children, and low-income white children stuck in substandard urban public school systems that serve the power interests of the unions and Democratic politicians, but not the kids.

In big cities, these are mostly the children of the poor, and of many front-line workers who go to their jobs as store cashiers, as hourly health care workers, while teachers union members get paid for staying away from school.

There are efforts to give families educational options. In Illinois, for example, there are opportunity scholarships for private schools. While the program is successful, it is at risk in the hostile political environment of the state legislature.

What is required is more.

What is required is real school choice: to allow parents to use their tax dollars for the school they choose, public or private. It is the only way to break the corrupt education monopoly.

Because real school choice is the civil rights issue of our time.

The Democratic Party and the teachers unions that get out the Democratic vote aren't all that enthused about school choice.

In fact, they're all about limiting educational choice for families, as they make war on charter schools.

School choice threatens their monopoly on power. And it also slams uncomfortably into their new favorite word, "equity."

Democrats once talked about "equal opportunity" and quoted the late Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. But now they've hitched their wagons to "equity," which has nothing to do with opportunity but is all about using government to dictate outcomes based on race and gender.

Yet Democrats and progressives see "equity" as the only real answer to redress the nation's past sins.

And they're in the business of deciding who will pay for the sins of the fathers, even if that father was born in some land far away, across the ocean.

The Democratic Party's "equity" argument runs into trouble when confronted with school choice. They don't engage. They avoid.

I called Nathan Hoffman, a policy researcher at the nonprofit education group Empower Illinois, which supports the opportunity scholarships program.

Hoffman, who is Black, supports school choice.

"We cannot have an 'equity' conversation without talking about the most inequitable thing we do with respect to education, which is to force students into schools based solely on the ZIP code they reside in, whether the only way out is to either buy a home in a better neighborhood or buy a seat in a private school," said Hoffman.

"Those who would say the way we achieve 'equity' is by doubling down on the same schools that have failed to teach generations of students to read, write and do math -- while they themselves send their children to different (and better) schools are not interested in true 'equity.' Rather, it's an interest in convenient 'equity,'" Hoffman said.

If President Joe Biden were truly serious about treating Americans fairly, "no matter their ZIP code, race or religion ..." there is one thing he could do:

He'd push for school choice......

Let me begin by saying that I went to a church-run high school, where I got a great education. I had a partial academic scholarship, and my parents paid the rest of the tuition.

The general concerns with "school choice"::

1 - Charter and private schools are not held to the same academic standards as public schools. Some(many?) of the private schools getting taxpayer money teach creationism instead of science, and the curriculum includes religion classes that are reinforced by school prayers and worship services.

2 - Charter and private schools are not required to be open about their finances, and it turns out that the administrators of those schools can get many times the salary levels of public school administrators and engage in financial shenanigans like having ownership of the school building held by a subsidiary that charges the govt huge rental costs - which go into the same pocket.

3 - Many of these schools don't take special needs kids or minorities.

4 - Academic achievement is spotty in the private schools.

I see this as a way to destroy the public school system, which has been an important factor in the creation of the middle class. Privatization is also a way for unscrupulous people to get their hands on taxpayer dollars, often with little to no oversight.

I am OK with charter schools that implement novel curricula with emphasis on science or the arts, accompanied by a basic curriculum, as long as there is oversight on academic curricula and finances.

[Cow Poke]

Let me begin by saying that I went to a church-run high school, where I got a great education. I had a partial academic scholarship, and my parents paid the rest of the tuition.

The general concerns with "school choice"::

1 - Charter and private schools are not held to the same academic standards as public schools. Some(many?) of the private schools getting taxpayer money teach creationism instead of science, and the curriculum includes religion classes that are reinforced by school prayers and worship services.

2 - Charter and private schools are not required to be open about their finances, and it turns out that the administrators of those schools can get many times the salary levels of public school administrators and engage in financial shenanigans like having ownership of the school building held by a subsidiary that charges the govt huge rental costs - which go into the same pocket.

3 - Many of these schools don't take special needs kids or minorities.

4 - Academic achievement is spotty in the private schools.

I see this as a way to destroy the public school system, which has been an important factor in the creation of the middle class. Privatization is also a way for unscrupulous people to get their hands on taxpayer dollars, often with little to no oversight.

I am OK with charter schools that implement novel curricula with emphasis on science or the arts, accompanied by a basic curriculum, as long as there is oversight on academic curricula and finances.

First of all, thanks for your reasoned and clear response.

Secondly, if the "voucher" went with the parents of the students, the parents would be free to choose those schools which are in the best interest of their children, and were actually TEACHING.

Third, in many cases, the public schools - run by unions - are so badly broken they can't be fixed, because you often cannot fire bad teachers or administrators, and the unions represent the teachers, not the students.

As for your comment about "it may destroy the public school system" --- if any company were run as poorly and with the incredibly failed results as our public school system, the share holders would toss out the management in a heartbeat.

There is not that option in a UNION-run public school system.

[rogue06]

Third, in many cases, the public schools - run by unions - are so badly broken they can't be fixed, because you often cannot fire bad teachers or administrators, and the unions represent the teachers, not the students.

That ^^

A couple decades ago someone did an expose on a conference held by the National Education Association (NEA). They noted how that none of the subjects scheduled for discussion had anything whatsoever to do with teaching. But they did have things about organizing protests as well as boycotting Snapple because at the time they advertised on Rush Limbaugh's show.

This was a few years after then NEA president Keith Geiger said on Larry King's radio show, during a discussion about school choice, "we can't let kids escape from public schools." Interesting choice of words there. "Escape"

It reveals the teacher's union mindset -- they must keep education under lock and key, no matter how how bad it may be. And Geiger freely admitted it was bad. He said that inner city schools "are absolutely terrible -- they ought to be blown up." Still, it matters not. Children should not be allowed to "escape" from the very bad public schools they are attending. They need to be sacrificed to the teacher unions^[1].

A case in point, something I've brought up previously, is what happened at Mollie E. Ray Elementary in Orlando, Florida as the 2002-2003 school year began. The school had received an "F" rating for the past two years (1 of only 10 schools to "earn" such a distinction), as judged annually by the state of Florida so the victims of such failed schools are allowed to apply for vouchers to help them escape. So how did the school react? Vowing to fix the problem? To work on improving education?

Nah.

To start, students were met by teachers wearing T-shirts proclaiming "F = Fantastic." Getting an "F" grade was now considered a positive thing. The union educrats chose to brainwash young minds with Orwellian double-speak into thinking that flunking is actually a good thing.

Then school officials attacked the scores of parents, who did choose to opt out, for "abandoning" their schools in a time of need. Excuse me. Apparently some parents had the temerity to want the best for their children rather than sacrifice them on the altar of public "edjumakatun" and were savaged for it.

Still it would have been interesting come Report Card time when the little darlings still stuck in that unrepentantly failed school explained this "F = Fantastic" concept to their parents. Trouble is, too many might fallen for it. Especially those in "blue" districts."





1. Public school teachers are more than twice as likely to send their own children to a private school than a the general public. It's almost like they know something.

[Cow Poke]

That ^^

A couple decades ago someone did an expose on a conference held by the National Education Association (NEA). They noted how that none of the subjects scheduled for discussion had anything whatsoever to do with teaching. But they did have things about organizing protests as well as boycotting Snapple because at the time they advertised on Rush Limbaugh's show.

This was a few years after then NEA president Keith Geiger said on Larry King's radio show, during a discussion about school choice, "we can't let kids escape from public schools." Interesting choice of words there. "Escape"

It reveals the teacher's union mindset -- they must keep education under lock and key, no matter how how bad it may be. And Geiger freely admitted it was bad. He said that inner city schools "are absolutely terrible -- they ought to be blown up." Still, it matters not. Children should not be allowed to "escape" from the very bad public schools they are attending. They need to be sacrificed to the teacher unions^[1].

A case in point, something I've brought up previously, is what happened at Mollie E. Ray Elementary in Orlando, Florida as the 2002-2003 school year began. The school had received an "F" rating for the past two years (1 of only 10 schools to "earn" such a distinction), as judged annually by the state of Florida so the victims of such failed schools are allowed to apply for vouchers to help them escape. So how did the school react? Vowing to fix the problem? To work on improving education?

Nah.

To start, students were met by teachers wearing T-shirts proclaiming "F = Fantastic." Getting an "F" grade was now considered a positive thing. The union educrats chose to brainwash young minds with Orwellian double-speak into thinking that flunking is actually a good thing.

Then school officials attacked the scores of parents, who did choose to opt out, for "abandoning" their schools in a time of need. Excuse me. Apparently some parents had the temerity to want the best for their children rather than sacrifice them on the altar of public "edjumakatun" and were savaged for it.

Still it would have been interesting come Report Card time when the little darlings still stuck in that unrepentantly failed school explained this "F = Fantastic" concept to their parents. Trouble is, too many might fallen for it. Especially those in "blue" districts."





1. Public school teachers are more than twice as likely to send their own children to a private school than a the general public. It's almost like they know something.

Many public schools are simply asylums run by the crazies. And the goal of many "educators" is for more toward "climbing the ladder" to become ADMINISTRATORS.

Now I will quickly add that there are MANY public school teachers who sincerely want to interact with students - TEACH them - and help them graduate. But, all too often, they have to fight "administration" to do that.

The teachers in my Church complain that they spend FAR more time in "compliance" than in teaching.

[rogue06]

Many public schools are simply asylums run by the crazies. And the goal of many "educators" is for more toward "climbing the ladder" to become ADMINISTRATORS.

Now I will quickly add that there are MANY public school teachers who sincerely want to interact with students - TEACH them - and help them graduate. But, all too often, they have to fight "administration" to do that.

The teachers in my Church complain that they spend FAR more time in "compliance" than in teaching.

That makes me think of thinking about how when, back in the mid-80s, a federal judge ordered that Billions of dollars be spent upgrading Kansas City's schools. The educrats were positively giddy with delight. They set about adding enormous gyms to the schools, built an Olympic swimming pool, TV studios, a planetarium, a zoo, and even a wildlife sanctuary. After burning through $2 Billion it was discovered that what they did not get was a single new textbook to replace the worn-out sadly outdated ones they had. And IIRC not a single new teacher was hired although a lot more administrators were^[1].

Results? The schools got worse. Markedly so. Something like five years later the Kansas City school district failed 11 performance standards and lost its academic accreditation for the first time in the district’s history.




1. When I started High Skewl it was so overcrowded that not only were there nearly a dozen trailers setting in the parking lot being used as classrooms but we had to go in shifts with juniors and seniors going in the morning and freshmen and sophomores in the afternoon. Yet we only had 4 principals. Now after expanding the building and with several new schools being built, resulting in a smaller school population, there are somewhere between a dozen and 15 principals at my old school.

As they used to say, too many chiefs and not enough Indians.

[Cow Poke]

That makes me think of thinking about how when, back in the mid-80s, a federal judge ordered that Billions of dollars be spent upgrading Kansas City's schools. The educrats were positively giddy with delight. They set about adding enormous gyms to the schools, built an Olympic swimming pool, TV studios, a planetarium, a zoo, and even a wildlife sanctuary. After burning through $2 Billion it was discovered that what they did not get was a single new textbook to replace the worn-out sadly outdated ones they had. And IIRC not a single new teacher was hired although a lot more administrators were^[1].

Results? The schools got worse. Markedly so. Something like five years later the Kansas City school district failed 11 performance standards and lost its academic accreditation for the first time in the district’s history.




1. When I started High Skewl it was so overcrowded that not only were there nearly a dozen trailers setting in the parking lot being used as classrooms but we had to go in shifts with juniors and seniors going in the morning and freshmen and sophomores in the afternoon. Yet we only had 4 principals. Now after expanding the building and with several new schools being built, resulting in a smaller school population, there are somewhere between a dozen and 15 principals at my old school.

As they used to say, too many chiefs and not enough Indians.

Even back in the 70's an 80's, we had series like "Why Johnny Can't Read" and "Why Johnny STILL can't read".

It's the same reason we can't clean up Police Departments --- UNIONS who are far more worried about protecting their dues paying members than the children in schools or citizens on the streets.

[Cow Poke]

And, since we're sharing anecdotes --- we had a principal who continually showed up drunk, so they promoted him to "Administration" where they could keep an eye on him and cover for him.
After all, he was only 1 year away from full retirement and all the benefits that went with that.

[kccd]

First of all, thanks for your reasoned and clear response.

Secondly, if the "voucher" went with the parents of the students, the parents would be free to choose those schools which are in the best interest of their children, and were actually TEACHING.

Third, in many cases, the public schools - run by unions - are so badly broken they can't be fixed, because you often cannot fire bad teachers or administrators, and the unions represent the teachers, not the students.

As for your comment about "it may destroy the public school system" --- if any company were run as poorly and with the incredibly failed results as our public school system, the share holders would toss out the management in a heartbeat.

There is not that option in a UNION-run public school system.

Vouchers take money from the public schools, and having parents choose religious schools that have no oversight is not in the interest of those students or in the interest of furthering education in general and producing an educated populace.

My husband went to a religion-run elementary school, and when we had kids, he was interested in having them go to such a school. I did not like the idea but was willing to check it out so we visited a few schools. One of those schools refused to show us test scores for their students (red flag!). Another had a depressing kindergarten classroom, with art supplies that consisted of broken crayons, paper and well used paints. So my husband changed his mind and we sent the kids to public schools and were extremely happy with the results. Luckily we live in an upscale neighborhood with good quality schools. Both kids went to universities in the USNews list of top 50. Both have graduate degrees, and both are doing extremely well financially.

I do think unions should have less power, but when it comes to public sector unions, the first in line for real reform should be the police unions.

I do recognize that some public schools are bad, but I think the solution is to improve them, not skim off some students and the money attached to them.

[kccd]

That ^^

A couple decades ago someone did an expose on a conference held by the National Education Association (NEA). They noted how that none of the subjects scheduled for discussion had anything whatsoever to do with teaching. But they did have things about organizing protests as well as boycotting Snapple because at the time they advertised on Rush Limbaugh's show.

This was a few years after then NEA president Keith Geiger said on Larry King's radio show, during a discussion about school choice, "we can't let kids escape from public schools." Interesting choice of words there. "Escape"

It reveals the teacher's union mindset -- they must keep education under lock and key, no matter how how bad it may be. And Geiger freely admitted it was bad. He said that inner city schools "are absolutely terrible -- they ought to be blown up." Still, it matters not. Children should not be allowed to "escape" from the very bad public schools they are attending. They need to be sacrificed to the teacher unions^[1].

A case in point, something I've brought up previously, is what happened at Mollie E. Ray Elementary in Orlando, Florida as the 2002-2003 school year began. The school had received an "F" rating for the past two years (1 of only 10 schools to "earn" such a distinction), as judged annually by the state of Florida so the victims of such failed schools are allowed to apply for vouchers to help them escape. So how did the school react? Vowing to fix the problem? To work on improving education?

Nah.

To start, students were met by teachers wearing T-shirts proclaiming "F = Fantastic." Getting an "F" grade was now considered a positive thing. The union educrats chose to brainwash young minds with Orwellian double-speak into thinking that flunking is actually a good thing.

Then school officials attacked the scores of parents, who did choose to opt out, for "abandoning" their schools in a time of need. Excuse me. Apparently some parents had the temerity to want the best for their children rather than sacrifice them on the altar of public "edjumakatun" and were savaged for it.

Still it would have been interesting come Report Card time when the little darlings still stuck in that unrepentantly failed school explained this "F = Fantastic" concept to their parents. Trouble is, too many might fallen for it. Especially those in "blue" districts."





1. Public school teachers are more than twice as likely to send their own children to a private school than a the general public. It's almost like they know something.

So is the solution to shut down inner city schools and divide those kids up among the private schools? How would those schools deal with kids who are behind, special needs kids, and maybe kids with behavioral issues? How would the parents of the other kids react?

Well, if those schools are getting public money, I don't see how they could complain.

How are the schools in your neighborhood?

[kccd]

Many public schools are simply asylums run by the crazies. And the goal of many "educators" is for more toward "climbing the ladder" to become ADMINISTRATORS.

Now I will quickly add that there are MANY public school teachers who sincerely want to interact with students - TEACH them - and help them graduate. But, all too often, they have to fight "administration" to do that.

The teachers in my Church complain that they spend FAR more time in "compliance" than in teaching.

I think the proliferation of "administration" afflicts many professions. Just ask healthcare providers. Or police.

[rogue06]

So is the solution to shut down inner city schools and divide those kids up among the private schools? How would those schools deal with kids who are behind, special needs kids, and maybe kids with behavioral issues? How would the parents of the other kids react?

Well, if those schools are getting public money, I don't see how they could complain.

How are the schools in your neighborhood?

The solution would be to break the stranglehold that unions have on the schools so that they are held accountable for their actions. You know, like the rest of us are.

[Gondwanaland]

First of all, thanks for your reasoned and clear response.

Secondly, if the "voucher" went with the parents of the students, the parents would be free to choose those schools which are in the best interest of their children, and were actually TEACHING.

Third, in many cases, the public schools - run by unions - are so badly broken they can't be fixed, because you often cannot fire bad teachers or administrators, and the unions represent the teachers, not the students.

As for your comment about "it may destroy the public school system" --- if any company were run as poorly and with the incredibly failed results as our public school system, the share holders would toss out the management in a heartbeat.

There is not that option in a UNION-run public school system.

Can't help but agree.

My wife was (until this summer) a public school teacher for around 2 decades. The tales she could tell of bad teachers protected by the unions would curl your toe-hairs.

Fortuntely when we moved to Colorado, we learned (IIRC a year or so into her new job), that union membership is not required for teaching (something they lied to her about when she started the job... claimed she had to join), though many did.

She finally went to a private school that's been trying to poach her the last few years, after seeing how the public school was handling (and the union especially) the teaching during covid. It was rather disheartening for her to see students she cared about slowly just disappear.

Not from covid death or anything like that, but simply because everything was online and many had limitations, bad home situations during lockdown, unable to get decent internet, etc., and they slowly just stopped attending online classes, stopped taking tests, turning in homework. And the school didn't seem to give a damn, and all the unions are interested in is pay raises in return for even longer 'work from home' restrictions. She finally had enough, went to the private school here who had been interested in her for some time, and she's been greatly enjoying both reigniting her passion for teaching with a school that actually cares about the kids it's teaching, and getting out of the atmosphere of public schools and union politics and bad fellow teachers. The public school she taught for still has yet to have in-person classes. I hate to even think about the futures of the kids that slipped through the cracks with this remote schooling.

School choice is SO important, and very needed to end union control, and something my wife and I have been very passionate about for years. I've personally helped out homeschool groups that friends of our family have belonged to, in several of hte cities we've lived in, helping out teaching their science/geoscience as a guest teacher.