I think the "per capita" bit is misleading. Because it lumps in certain area with other areas.
Certain school districts are way underfunded compared to others. Part of that problem is that a lot of school districts are funded through property taxes. Which has a way of reinforcing the cycle of poverty.
Your voucher system would simply exacerbate the problem. You know what happens when you allow people to be selective about their schools? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight
In your case, it would just be a move to private schools and if you don't think those people wouldn't be able to vote out all taxes that go to schools now, then you are naive.
And breaking up the teachers' unions? Yeah. That's a race to the bottom. Already schools in those underfunded districts do their best to discourage long-tenured teachers as their pay is directly related to years of service. Make it easier for schools to churn teachers and that's exactly what you'd see. Not a selection for the "best", but for the cheapest.
Education is a service with no direct material benefit. Investing in it does not pay off any particular person or group in any noticeably tangible way. However, having a well-educated population benefits everyone and everything.
Education is one area where we probably need less privatization rather than more.
And...? Race of citizens doesn't matter. The city schools, since they face the most competition (due to proximity) would improve the most quickly.
>In your case, it would just be a move to private schools
Exactly. New models would crop up. Overnight, a new multi-billion dollar industry would be created. Startups would spring up everywhere to get certified and capture that new value.
>And breaking up the teachers' unions? ... That's a race to the bottom. ...
That's because there is no competition. In a non-competitive marketplace, there is no forcing function for quality.
>Education is a service with no direct material benefit.
Education is a service with the greatest material benefit. It is the foundational service. It allows all other goods and services to be generated.
>Education is one area where we probably need less privatization rather than more.
This does not follow from your previous assertions. Homogenizing education has clearly failed. It is a race to the bottom.
The education system has been captured by the political class via teachers unions. That is why they want to churn out homogenized thinkers who are only smart enough to vote for their aligned political faction.
I’d just like to point out that if you want to radically change the education system the burden of proof should probably be on you. Being skeptical about introducing some alternative ways for funding (e.g. a voucher system) is the natural thing to do, and pointing out possible flaws is actually helpful. Yes it cannot be proven without testing, but it cannot be disproven either. Even with testing it is hard, as the test might be biased, or does not generalize to other neighborhoods.
I think parent was simply answering logic with logic, and dismissing parent’s logic because it has no empirical backing while promoting your own logic which doesn’t have one either, is a bit disingenuous.
But your assumption is that it would be better, also without any testing. It's the very definition of a wicked problem.
> And...? Race of citizens doesn't matter. The city schools, since they face the most competition (due to proximity) would improve the most quickly.
And... that's what happens when people are "allowed to choose their schools". People will find ways to segregate. Unless you want a perpetual chase of the students in the poorer schools to the richer schools? Which is weird. And white flights aren't some hypothetical thing that might happen. It happens. It happened. We know why it happens. We've seen it as a response to things. We shouldn't do those things again and expect a new result.
>Exactly. New models would crop up. Overnight, a new multi-billion dollar industry would be created. Startups would spring up everywhere to get certified and capture that new value.
Private schools exist now. And it's not really "new" value. It'll just redirect the tax money to private enterprises. And those disadvantaged will continue to be. It will further entrench the disenfranchisement of millions of children. And it'll enrich some private citizen.
> That's because there is no competition. In a non-competitive marketplace, there is no forcing function for quality.
Has the education system failed you? I said that breaking up the union would be a race to the bottom. You then infer that the union itself is the race to the bottom. I don't see how you can make that inference from what I said. The "forcing function" wouldn't be one for quality, it would be one for cost.
> Education is a service with the greatest material benefit.
First, I said direct material benefit. Tell me. What does education directly produce in the way of material goods? I'll answer that, nothing. Because education, like you said, is foundational. It is indirect, much like infrastructure and dozens of other things no one wants to pay for. Because the reason no one wants to pay for it is that there is no direct benefit. And I don't care how much people say they care about foundational things or indirect sources, where they prioritize their efforts say otherwise.
Education is not "homogenized". Not by a long shot. Having goals is not the same as the process of achieving those goals.
> That is why they want to churn out homogenized thinkers who are only smart enough to vote for their aligned political faction.
That is a weird way to say that you don't know any teachers at all. Or at the very least, don't listen to them.
Certain school districts are way underfunded compared to others. Part of that problem is that a lot of school districts are funded through property taxes. Which has a way of reinforcing the cycle of poverty.
Your voucher system would simply exacerbate the problem. You know what happens when you allow people to be selective about their schools? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight In your case, it would just be a move to private schools and if you don't think those people wouldn't be able to vote out all taxes that go to schools now, then you are naive.
And breaking up the teachers' unions? Yeah. That's a race to the bottom. Already schools in those underfunded districts do their best to discourage long-tenured teachers as their pay is directly related to years of service. Make it easier for schools to churn teachers and that's exactly what you'd see. Not a selection for the "best", but for the cheapest.
Education is a service with no direct material benefit. Investing in it does not pay off any particular person or group in any noticeably tangible way. However, having a well-educated population benefits everyone and everything.
Education is one area where we probably need less privatization rather than more.