Talk:School choice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on July 10, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

I agree it is heavily biased. I suggest the following first paragraph: "School choice programs permit the parents of students to choose among participating private and public schools, based on a system of vouchers, tax credits, or scholarships at the county or state level. The goal of school choice is to create competition between schools for education dollars, which give schools an incentive to perform better. This also enables parents to choose, for example, a school which provides stronger discipline, a Christian or Biblical worldview in their instruction, or many other competing and desirable foci that other schools do not. Many public school venues forbid free religious expression, although this is unconstitutional."

This article needs a complete rewrite, but it really needs an American who follows the debate closely to do so. --Robert Merkel

I follow the debate closely, but this article is so ridiculously biased that it would take hours to even come close to making remotely neutral, and I would be on unpaid volunteer time. It's such an amateur hack job that I presume the partisan who wrote it was also an unpaid volunteer, but I don't have the time that he or she does. Cgrannan 06:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC) cgrannan

Upon further reflection: This article seriously needs to be deleted. It's just a poorly informed anti-public education rant, and the points in which it purports to describe the view of public-education supporters misrepresent them to a ridiculous degree in a hamhanded effort to make those who disagree with the author look stupid. It would undoubtedly even embarrass more-intelligent and better-informed SUPPORTERS of so-called "school choice." It degrades and discredits Wikipedia. Cgrannan 14:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be deleted, but much of the content is utter crap and should probably go. I am not familiar with the topic, but even I can smell the bullshit. I'll poke it a little bit, but someone more familiar with the subject should really have a shot at it too, preferably with a machine gun or three. -- Coffee2theorems | Talk 21:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I separated the criticism section into criticism and response, splitting it about in half. This affected the quality of the prose somewhat, even though the original wasn't particularly brilliant to begin with. I hope that instead of reverting this they will be edited to actually correspond to their titles, so that the criticism section actually contains criticism instead of being a "criticism and responses to each and every one so that I always get the final word" section. The responses don't need to be line-by-line either, but wholly separate, so that the sections don't need to be edited strictly in tandem. I didn't particularly clean them up, but added original research tags on both sections, because especially the criticism section needs attention from someone who's actually familiar with that POV. Too bad there's no "I strongly suspect this section to be total bull" template, this is a case where it would be useful.. -- Coffee2theorems | Talk 23:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] wheres the beef?

I'm an american, and the article looks pretty good to me. Do you have any specific objections, or has it already been rewritten?

One obvious objection is that the article devotes endless words to describing what the clueless author imagines are "school choice" critics' objections, thinking up moronic notions and shooting them down. Obviously, a scholarly, thoughtful and/or ethical author would have taken the trouble to learn what "school choice" critics' ACTUAL objections are, rather than dreaming up some idiotic-sounding notions.

[edit] Moved a paragraph or so in here

I read it a little more thoroughly, and decided to edit it a bit, and bring a couple things in here.

"Ultimately, politicians need votes, not money."

"After these limited programs have been established for some time, and society has sufficient confidence, then the experiment may be extended to the middle class. If the courts prevent full voucher programs, then limited ones using tax credits might still come into being. Tax credits have already been tested in U.S. courts, and would provide sufficient incentives to move many more children into private schools."

These seemed to be a bit too... insightful ;)

one more : "Also, these programs have substantial regulations on the private schools, and are justified by concerns for an equitable education."

JackLynch

Liberal political elites divide into politicans, and citizen activists such as the NAACP. These agree in theory that vouchers would not increase democratic instutitions. However the activists are coming under direct and increasing pressure from their traditional constiuencies, who are forming organizations such as Black Advocates for Educational Choice (BAEC).

Google finds no reference to "Black Advocates for Educational Choice" except for in our article. Does anybody know where they are, how large they are, and whether they indeed are "increasing pressure" on the NAACP? DanKeshet

The original author almost certainly intended to name BAEO, the Black Alliance for Education Options. Another organization worth mentioning is Hispanic CREO, the Hispanic Council for Reform and Educational Options. cheesedevil

In the U.S., many unaccredited public schools have per-student costs more than twice the tuition of accredited private schools in the same area. In many areas, the accredited private schools also have superior educational outcomes.

Something like this simply has to be cited, preferably to the original studies and not secondary sources. So we know what on earth they mean by "superior educational outcomes", etc. DanKeshet 01:13, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)

The advantages to society are supposed to be several. First, people will be as well educated as possible. In particular, vouchers might easily help equalize educational outcomes for underprivileged children and middle-class children. Second, that the available money for education should theoretically tend to flow to the best available learning methods, and institutions and possibly even save a lot of money.

The first 'advantage' is simply an assertion. You could just as easily say, "the disadvantages to this are that people will not be as well educated as possible." If you want to say the more specific assertion, that it will equalize educational outcomes for underpriviliged children, than you should say so, but you should attribute the claim. The second claim definitely needs to be attributed. Could we include some information on who, precisely, advocates school choice. For example, the Brookings institute or John Lott would be better than "politically-impotent libertarians". DanKeshet

I removed a large part of the article. It seemed redundant and non-encyclopedic to me. Also, there were many claims bandied about without any evidence to back anything up. It looked very POV to me so I removed most vague, over-reaching/sweeping statements. If anyone is dissatisfied, don't be angry, jut revert my editions as I don't intend to go on a big debate about this. I just think the text in the article that I deleted did not have much substance. Dori 04:46, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)

This is an extremely complex and controversial subject and much of what appears is way too simple (or shows strong bias toward one side of the debate or other) I've tried to suggest adding a link to the National Center for Study of Privatization of Education (NCSPE, <www.ncspe.org>) at Columbia University, which has a wealth of solid, balanced papers available on line. Bob McMeekin

[edit] picayune nitpick:

I do not understand the second word ["Moe"] of this parenthetical remark: "(See Moe, or ask accrediting organizations in your area)". MikeSchwartz

Based on the earlier mention "Moe and the CATO institute (see references, below)" it appears to be this book: John E. Chubb and Terry M. Moe, Politics, Markets, and America's Schools (Washington: Brookings Institution, 1990), p. 183. which I found as a footnote in a Cato article on the subject. Since the references do not appear in this wikipedia article despite being pointed to by the parenthetical remark I cite, it smells like a copyvio to me, but Googling the phrase didn't get any non-Wikipedia hits. Autiger 9 July 2005 05:05 (UTC)

You all are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. This entry is a one-sided, ill-informed anti-public-education rant that would embarrass even intelligent SUPPORTERS of so-called "school choice." It degrades and discredits Wikipedia and needs to be removed. Cgrannan 14:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some more information on School Choice

(I am not a very good writer, so I figured I would add some information here and let others decide what is good enough to be added and what needs to be edited.)

School Choice in America comes in a few different forms. The different options could be put into these categories: Vouchers, Tax Credits, Charter Schools, Magnet Schools and even Home Schooling.

Vouchers: When the government pays tuition to a private school on behalf of the parents, this is usually referred to as a Voucher. Vouchers currently exist in Milwaukee, Cleveland, Florida, and, most recently, Utah and the District of Columbia [1] . The largest and oldest Voucher program is in Milwaukee. Started in 1990, and expanded in 1995, it currently allows no more that 15% the district's public school enrollmentto use vouchers. As of 2005 over 14,000 students use vouchers and they are nearing the 15% cap [2].

Tax Credits (or Tuition Tax Credits): A Tuition Tax Credit is similar to most other familiar tax credits. Certain states allow individuals and/or businesses to deduct a certain amount of their income taxes to donate to education. Depending on the program, these donations can either go to a public school or to a School Tuition Organization (STO), or both. The donations that go to public schools are often used to help pay for after-school programs, schools trips, or school supplies. The donations that go to School Tuition Organizations are used by the STO to create scholarships that are then given to students. These programs currently exist in Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota and Pennsylvania [3].

Arizona has probably the most well known and fastest growing Tax Credit program. In the Arizona School Tuition Organization Tax Credit program individuals can deduct up to $500 and couples filing joint returns can deduct up to $625. About 20,000 children received scholarships in the 2003-2004 school year. And since the program has started in 1998, over 77,000 scholarships have been granted [4] [5].

Charter Schools: Charter schools are public schools with more relaxed rules and regulations. These relaxed rules tend to deal with things like Teacher Union contracts and state curriculum. The majority of states (and the District of Columbia) have Charter School laws. Minnesota was the first state to have a charter school law and the first charter school in the United States, City Academy, opened in St. Paul, Minnesota in 1992 [6].

In places like Dayton, OH, Kansas City, MO, Washington, DC more than 14% of public school students attend charter schools [7]. Of the states, Arizona has the most charter schools per capita with over 20% of their public schools being charter schools.

Charter Schools can also come in the form of Cyber Charters. Cyber charter schools deliver the majority of their instruction over the Internet instead of in a school building. And, like Charter Schools, they are public schools, but free of many of the rules and regulations that public schools must follow.

Magnet Schools: Magnet schools are public schools that often have a specialized function (i.e. science, technology, art, etc.). These Magnet Schools (unlike charter schools) are not open to all children. Much like many private schools, the students must test into the school.

Home Education: When a child is educated at home, or is having his education instructed or directed primarily by a parent, then this is usually referred to as Home Education or Home Schooling. Home Education has obviously been around for a very long time, but in the last 20 years the number of children being educated at home has grown tremendously. The laws relevant to Home Education differ throughout the country. In some states the parent simply needs to notify the state that the child will be educated at home. In other states the parents are not free to educate at home unless at least one parent is a certified teacher and yearly progress reports are reviewed by the state. Currently there are over a million children being educated at home. (A note on Home Education statistics: right now I would say that almost any statisitic that you see about the number of Homeschoolers and Home Educators in America is suspect. As far as I know, there have been no official data gathering done by the Federal Government or by some reputable polling company. Also, Home Educators tend to be at least a little skeptical of government intrusion and might not welcome any attempt at gathering accurate information. But this is just my opinion.)

Uncategorized School Choice: There are still some examples that do not fit well in any of the previously mentioned categories. One such example is in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. In Edmonton each school principal has near total control of the school budget. That is, the principal does not need to go through some central bureaucracy to get things built or changed. This gives each school and principle more autonomy. This might be considered similar to Charter Schools, but these are traditional public with VERY traditional budgeting schemes.

More information on School Choice in the United States can be found at:

POV vs NPOV: Traditionally, school choice advocates have been on the right and school choice detractors have been on the left. So, those looking to find information to support School choice should look to these Think Tanks:

Those looking for information to oppose School Choice should look here:

I have started to provide references for the things that I have stated. If anyone feels that these references are insufficient or that some things need to be referenced that have not, please tell me.

Some Notes: Vouchers also exist in Vermont and Maine and have been in place since the 1800s. These programs are very small and serve only those students that live in rural areas that do not have a public school. Also, there are privately funded Voucher programs around the country. The two largest are the Children's Educational Opportunity (CEO) Foundation and the Children's Scholarship Fund. I will add more about these later.

Some Notes on School Choice around the World: Different School Choice programs have been implemented in Chile (as already noted), Colombia, Australia, Sweden, Denmark, Canada, New Zealand, and the Netherlands. Also, in Japan, High School (i.e. grades 10-12) is not mandatory but attendance is wide-spread. Hopefully I can give an introduction to these programs at a later date.

I hope this was helpful.

Ian Lewis

p.s. Someone was asking about "Black Advocates for Educational Choice". The original user was incorrect. I am assuming that they were referring to the Black Alliance for Educational Options. They were started in 2000 and have a number of chapters around the country.

[edit] This information needs to be added to the beginning of the article

The beginning of the article that we are all commenting on starts off with a commentary about vouchers without really describing the multitude of options involved in school choice. The above information should be added to the beginning of the article to give the reader an understanding about these options. Many of these options include public schools such as charters that choose students through a lottery process. These types of schools do not discriminate against any population of students and are open to all applicants. Also, the article makes a statement that the purpose of school choice (vouchers, charters etc.) is to create competition between public schools for education dollars. The real intention of public school choice in the form of charter schools is to create an environment of research and development in the public education environment so that different curriculum models can be tried and observed by other school systems to determine their effectiveness. Many traditional public school systems are in crises when it comes to curriculum deivery and they are not using curriculum that is the most effective for achieving learning goals that are now required by the "No Child Left Behind Act". Creating an environment that allows schools to use alterntive methods of curriculum delivery allows all schools to benefit.Mklang 20:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added two paragraphs

I added 2 paragraphs to the pro side. In the against side, the last reason is remarkably tenous, and in my opinion, outright communist/socialist. It sounds like, to me, it is saying that, well, kids under the voucher system will be better educated, get rich, and will then segregate themselves from the other kids, so better to not let them get rich in the first place. The only possible way that clause makes sense is if these formerly poor but now rich families would, had their not been vouchers, put their kids in a public school with rich and poor. Even that assumption is terribly weak. First, if they were rich, they would have the wealth to put their kids in a private school anyway. Second, if the first reason were untrue, and these rich parents actually did put their kids in a public school, it would be in an affluent public school, reflective of the affluence of the parents (or affluent surroundings), because the public school one attends is based on the residence of the parents. so, vouchers would not change anything either way. In fact, rich parents whose children already attend a successful public school in an affluent area would have no incentive to switch schools, unless truly better schools were available. If everyone gets a better education, then there will be no segregation. And, if you are rich, vouchers are not going to make a difference, because you can afford private schooling with or without the funds provided by vouchers. I deleted it because, as I demonstrated, the reasoning is atrocious and fallacious. Also, I think this article should be merged with school vouchers. Additionally, the first two paragraphs are terribly written; How can one be a "school choice proponent" if one does "not advocate it at all." It's an ambigous pronoun. I edited it a little. - ashernm

[edit] Suggestions

One quick reference for the arguments for school choice is the Heartland Institute's "Ten Principles of School Choice." http://www.heartland.org/pdf/16856.pdf

Another issue that should be presented is the amount of governmental interference involved in different school choice efforts. Critics of school choice often make lack of rules and oversight over private schools an issue. Private schools do not have to be accredited by the state (approving/dictating the curriculum) or have their teachers certified (private schools often choose people coming out of industry to teach and so this would be a problem) by the state. It turns out that the vast majority of private schools are already judging these things by much tougher standards than the state requires, though. In school choice movements, critics will want to attach requirements to dictate how a private school can be run (thus increasing the power of the state and nullifying the advantage that private schools had to begin with.) As this is an issue that is brought up in every school choice movement it should be in the school choice article.

M. J. Cooper

[edit] Response to M.J. Cooper

That is a good suggestion, to include amount of government choice. I think school choice programs generally have optional participation. Thus, if a private school found the regulations mandated by a school choice program too onerous, it would simply not participate in the program.

[edit] This has become ridiculous

...and poorer incomes can afford Ramen noodles for the family...

This is not evolving into an encyclopedic article, but rather devolving into a collection of silly arguments.

Is there a way we can improve this entry into something more intelligent?

Probably not. It's really pathetically stupid and probably beyond repair. Cgrannan 06:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC) cgrannan

[edit] Home School Legal Defense

We might want to remove the link to the Home School Legal Defense Association. I have nothing against Home Education, which is why I included it in my additions, but this link might be more appropriate on the Homeschooling entry.

Ian Lewis

[edit] Support: Private vs. Public

Their seems to be an Edit War happening in the Support/Criticism section of this article. And, at that, the war seems focused on Private Schooling vs. Public Schooling with a focus on Vouchers. I think that this is a shame since Wikipedia has articles on Private Schools, Public Schools and Vouchers.

Hopefully we could have something intelligent written concerning the Pros and Cons of all forms of School Choice and possibly dedicate more energy to increasing our knowledge of the most recent developments in School Choice as well as School Choice around the world.

Well, that is my 2 cents.

Ian Lewis


[edit] School Choice is for Parents

I agree that this article has a focus on vouchers. School choice encompasses all public, private and alternatives to education. The introduction of this article is not comprehensive regarding the wide range of alternatives available in the United States today. Ten years ago parents were expected to send their children to the nearest public school. Today, parents of preschoolers expect to have a choice and in America today there is a growing variety of educational programs. As a parent and educator I can appreciate this on many levels. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mklang (talk • contribs) 18:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] POV

Despite "school choice" being a heavily debated concept this article staets only what supporters are saying. Not one criticism of the concept is reflected in the article. Homey 00:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This is certainly true! It provides a lot of verbiage on what "school choice" supporters claim to THINK the other side is saying, though either the "school choice" supporters deliberately wrote up some ridiculous arguments to make their opponents look like idiots, or they are honestly, truly clueless. Regardless, a scholarly and ethical contributor would have made some effort to find out what the other side is ACTUALLY saying rather than making up a bunch of ridiculous hooey. Cgrannan 06:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC) cgrannan

I tried to present as much information as I could about the present status of School Choice in America with a NPOV. That is, provide a basic definition of each type of School Choice and then some updates on the numbers: What States/Towns, how many children, etc.
I also provided links to some of the more popular sites, both Pro and Con. I was hoping that this would help anyone who thought the article was biased. That is, they could follow the links and then update the article with more accurate data.
Since there was already a lot of text in the Support and Criticism sections of the article, I left them alone and will probably continue to do so. I dont want to get into an Edit War, I just want to see lots of good info on what is currently happening.
If you have some more good info on the many changes that have happened in the last 18 months (i.e. Utah, Colorado, DC, Cleveland, or even outside the USA), I would love to see them. I have been busy at work and have not had much time to updating this article. Ian Lewis 15:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The introduction remains completely one-sided. It needs to become neutral with either all advocacy removed or with it balanced out with criticism. Also, the "criticism" section is completely bereft of sources. Perhaps the critical links you've added should be mined for information that can be integrated into the article?Homey 15:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the first paragraph is not that bad. Either way, I will need to leave this task to someone else. I am much more interested in the actual data, which is what I originally thought you were refering to. Ian Lewis 20:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The entire entry is ridiculous and degrades Wikipedia. Cgrannan 06:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC) cgrannan


I think that is an interesting article not deserving indiscriminate criticism but data-supported and specific contributions.

Anyhow, I understands that Sweden have an interesting system, I appreciate if somebody knowable in the situation there can expand the article with a entry on Sweden Milton 17:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the "criticism" section with some actual criticisms, rather than the straw-man arguments that were there before. Not going to spend the time cleaning up the overly-enthusiastic other sections, though. Eceresa 16:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charter Schools offer opportunities for research and development of effective curriculum practices

I would like to see the following point made in this article. Different forms of school choice such as vouchers, charter schools, private schools and home schooling should be defined at the beginning of this article. Also, school choice does not just benefit parents, it allows charter schools to try different approaches to designing and implementing curriculums in an atmosphere of research and development. Other schools can observe the impact that "non-traditional" curriculum delivery has on students and consider adopting things that seem to work. Evaluating the success of schools is a very different issue, however.Mklang 18:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links to nowhere

It has been a long time since I have made any additions to this Wiki, but I got curious and attempted to read some of the referenced articles in the Criticism section. Well, 3 of the 4 links went to a login page and the 4th referenced an article on the Milwaukee Voucher system that is 13 years old.

So, reference #12: Opponents argue that many parents in impoverished areas might be unable to make informed decisions, and that certain types of parents are more likely to flee neighborhood schools, reinforcing social-class inequality. [12] ...goes to a login page.

And, #13: School choice in the form of vouchers could result in nothing more than a cash-handout for many middle-class and wealthy families already sending their kids to private schools, with poorer families either unable to secure enrollment or unable to cover costs in addition to the vouchers. [13] ...goes to a login page.

14: Students who are unable, because of their parents' educational level or the lack of reliable transportation, to leave their local schools will be hurt as additional funding is cut from their schools. [14] ... references a very old article.

And, finally, #15: Studies by the Indiana Center for Evaluation have shown that the use of vouchers does not improve student test scores. [15] ...goes to a login page.

Now, I have no problem with people criticizing School Choice, but considering how many articles have been written about it, I see no reason to have outdated and unreachable sources.

Ian Lewis 18:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/c/h/Talk%7ESchool_choice_77bf.html"