Why is the left opposed to school choice?

[ElectionsGuy]

Why does the left not favor scholarships or vouchers? Why are they insistent on keeping kids in public schools that are failing? They don't want private or charter schools to exist, despite them doing better than public schools. If they care about the poor so much, they should want poorer kids who generally go to worse off schools to go to better ones, increasing their chance of not being poor in the future.

If I had to guess, I would say its because they're (and by they I mean left wing organizations and big money) a puppet for labor and teacher's unions.

[Samantha]

Education should not be a competition driven "industry", nor should government dollars finance private religious education.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

At least in this state, the school choice plans that have been floated have mainly been plans that could be taken advantage of only by those who can already afford to send their kinds to private school because they fail to provide enough to allow those who can't afford private schools to do so.  Thus they are plans that gut the public schools the poor go to and give benefits to the rich.

[TNF]

Why does the left not favor scholarships or vouchers? Why are they insistent on keeping kids in public schools that are failing? They don't want private or charter schools to exist, despite them doing better than public schools. If they care about the poor so much, they should want poorer kids who generally go to worse off schools to go to better ones, increasing their chance of not being poor in the future.

If I had to guess, I would say its because they're (and by they I mean left wing organizations and big money) a puppet for labor and teacher's unions.

What evidence do you have that public schools are 'failing', relative to charter schools or private schools? The methods that have been invented to test how well schools and students are doing in school always seem to find that schools are 'failing' and students are falling behind precisely because that's what they were designed to do. Pretending otherwise is naive. We have no way of accurately comparing education statistics when the U.S. school system is not comparable between tiered systems like in Germany (and most studies erroneously compare the average American student with students in elite German Gymnasiums or the highest ranked students in Shanghai), and attempts to do so are disingenuous on the very face of it, because you're not using comparable tests. Beyond that, how does one even begin to quantify knowledge?

There's also literally zero evidence that charter schools perform better than public schools. Private schools may perform better in certain cases, but this comes in part from the fact that these schools are well funded by the parents who have the money to send their children to these schools in the first place. Nothing is more of a determinant of how well schools 'perform' than the access these schools have to adequate educational materials, teaching staff, learning facilities, and, most important of all, the socioeconomic background of the students in question. The children of the employing class have no problem paying attention in school on account of say, hunger. You can't say that about kids who grow up in working class towns or ghettos where a lot of them don't get enough to eat, especially when you take into account that half of all U.S. public school students live in poverty.

Education is not going to solve poverty. Poverty is the result of a lack of money, not the result of the lack of an education. There are plenty of PhDs working at McDonald's these days, or, even those who have managed to land a job aren't being paid all that much. Just using that example alone, in academia, the proportion of adjuncts to tenure track professors is heavily weighed in the former direction, which means a lot more workers without benefits, without a retirement plan, without job security, and with low wages. This is purely anecdotal, but I have a friend who works as an adjunct and only makes about $30,000/year. So much for education being a path out of poverty! The United States has plenty of people with college degrees who either can't use them for want of job openings or because they've been certified with skills that are obsolete or unneeded.

The fact of the matter is that the Left favors high quality public schooling for everyone because most people can't afford public schooling and even if they could, there's something inherently unfair about making people pay for the privilege of being educated. This is a debate that we had in the early 1800s and won because most people agree with the left that the circumstances in which a child is born and brought up in should not deny them the most rudimentary abilities of citizenship, i.e. reading, writing, etc.

School choice would ultimately result in private schools jacking up tuition (after all, they've got the voucher, which essentially subsidizes a good portion of their total income, so why wouldn't they try to make even more? They are a capitalist enterprise, after all!) and would result in even more racial segregation, combined with, of course, religious quackery being inserted into the day to day education of students. I for one am not willing to sacrifice millions of people to daily sermons from pedophile priests on piety or snake oil salesmen teaching whatever 'science' benefits the bottom line of the company who owns the schools.

The assertion that the left (which, I assume in reality you're talking about liberals here) is under the thumb of the teachers' unions is cute. The Democratic Party is full of full-time union-haters like Chicago's Rahm Emanuel, who forced the Chicago Teachers' Union into a strike three years ago and has shut down schools across Chicago and appointed his cronies to the Chicago Board of Education. In Philadelphia last year, the city government cancelled its contract with the teachers union and forced a strike, and in Seattle just recently, the Democratic Party controlled local government picked a fight with teachers. Barack Obama, the head honcho of this entire operation, has put in motion the stealth privatization of education via Race to the Top and the Common Core system, and he's backed to the hilt of course by right-wingers Arne Duncan and former DC public school superintended Michelle Rhee. DC, of course, with its entirely Democratic Party run municipal government, was a trailblazer in the effort to destroy teachers' unions and public education.

Andrew Cuomo wants to destroy the 'public school monopoly', and Hillary Clinton has likewise been a big-time backer of so-called 'reform' efforts. Perhaps the actual left is tied to the teachers' unions, but the liberal left, of which you and other right-wingers refer to when you ask these kinds of questions, is certainly not in the pocket of the teachers' unions.

You should do some research before you come in brandishing wild, nonsensical arguments about how much the 'left' doesn't care about poor kids because it doesn't want to subject them to PepsiCola Elementary School or the Church of the Holy Pedophile Middle School.

[bedstuy]

I think TNF made some good points. 

It's correct that you can't expect a school full of impoverished students to compete with a suburban rich kid public school.  Many public high schools in the inner city have 30% of their student miss school on any given day. If you can't get your students to show up, you can't blame the teachers.  Many poor elementary schools have students show up to kindergarten already a year or more behind their rich peers who got top-notch nursery school.  Honestly, so much of this is SES and student effort, not teaching. 

My big problem with school choice is this: What about the kids whose parents aren't proactive enough to find their child a new school?  If you have a failing school and all the proactive parents and students leave that school community, it's going to go from bad to worse.  And, of course a charter school will look better.  If you can screen all your students and parents, just accept the bright, on the ball kids with involved parents, you're going to look more successful, even if your methods are no better.  That's cooking the books.

Here's where I differ though.  I think public schools are often totally mismanaged and need to be reformed.  I would prefer less red tape, less testing and assessment, more variety in what is taught and just less silliness.  Tons of standardized tests and bright-eyed Teach for America people are not going to turn a ghetto school into the peer of a rich, white enclave school.  If you think that, you're an idiot.   

[Hatman 🍁]

The left supports equality, so the left supports an equality of education. If some public schools are worse than others, then that is a problem too.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

In the UK's experience the "free schools" are a nightmare. Middle class areas are being overloaded with a surplus of spaces, to the extent that well-performing comprehensive schools are being shuttered and replaced with weirdo new schools; while even less attention is drawn to the crowded comps. Not to mention these schools are allowed to be free of the red tape (including stuff like the standardised testing and  National Curiculum ordered by the same "education reformers" that demanded the free schools and academies in the fit place) that burden the comps (see also: the Tories none-too-subtle strangling of the NHS ).

Worse because the people running these things at best have "good intentions" the whole exercise becomes a bit farcical. There are at least a few schools which are running (and qualified for public subsidy), despite not having buildings, teachers or students. Even some of the top flagship schools have had some skullduggery - the Tory Right star teacher who praised Gove's reforms at a conference still has not opened her school (and she seems to be blaming everyone apart from herself, despite the fact that apparently all the fire exits led to a railway line and the project is now massively overbudget and cycled through three buildings several miles apart). Not to mention the Acadamies found promoting Biblical literalism and the like.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Why does the left not favor scholarships or vouchers? Why are they insistent on keeping kids in public schools that are failing? They don't want private or charter schools to exist, despite them doing better than public schools. If they care about the poor so much, they should want poorer kids who generally go to worse off schools to go to better ones, increasing their chance of not being poor in the future.

If I had to guess, I would say its because they're (and by they I mean left wing organizations and big money) a puppet for labor and teacher's unions.

They dont oppose school choice for their kids, they oppose school choice for other kids because the left is built on hypocricy.

[Murica!]

Why does the left not favor scholarships or vouchers? Why are they insistent on keeping kids in public schools that are failing? They don't want private or charter schools to exist, despite them doing better than public schools. If they care about the poor so much, they should want poorer kids who generally go to worse off schools to go to better ones, increasing their chance of not being poor in the future.

If I had to guess, I would say its because they're (and by they I mean left wing organizations and big money) a puppet for labor and teacher's unions.

They dont oppose school choice for their kids, they oppose school choice for other kids because the left is built on hypocricy.

The fyck?

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Why does the left not favor scholarships or vouchers? Why are they insistent on keeping kids in public schools that are failing? They don't want private or charter schools to exist, despite them doing better than public schools. If they care about the poor so much, they should want poorer kids who generally go to worse off schools to go to better ones, increasing their chance of not being poor in the future.

If I had to guess, I would say its because they're (and by they I mean left wing organizations and big money) a puppet for labor and teacher's unions.

They dont oppose school choice for their kids, they oppose school choice for other kids because the left is built on hypocricy.

0110000101111001011110010010000001101100011011010110000101101111

[OSR stands with Israel]

Why does the left not favor scholarships or vouchers? Why are they insistent on keeping kids in public schools that are failing? They don't want private or charter schools to exist, despite them doing better than public schools. If they care about the poor so much, they should want poorer kids who generally go to worse off schools to go to better ones, increasing their chance of not being poor in the future.

If I had to guess, I would say its because they're (and by they I mean left wing organizations and big money) a puppet for labor and teacher's unions.

They dont oppose school choice for their kids, they oppose school choice for other kids because the left is built on hypocricy.

The fyck?

The far right is also built on hypocriacy, Centerism works best and arent hypocrites .

[Murica!]

Why does the left not favor scholarships or vouchers? Why are they insistent on keeping kids in public schools that are failing? They don't want private or charter schools to exist, despite them doing better than public schools. If they care about the poor so much, they should want poorer kids who generally go to worse off schools to go to better ones, increasing their chance of not being poor in the future.

If I had to guess, I would say its because they're (and by they I mean left wing organizations and big money) a puppet for labor and teacher's unions.

They dont oppose school choice for their kids, they oppose school choice for other kids because the left is built on hypocricy.

The fyck?

The far right is also built on hypocriacy, Centerism works best and arent hypocrites .

I have no words on how stupid this is...

[Samantha]

Why does the left not favor scholarships or vouchers? Why are they insistent on keeping kids in public schools that are failing? They don't want private or charter schools to exist, despite them doing better than public schools. If they care about the poor so much, they should want poorer kids who generally go to worse off schools to go to better ones, increasing their chance of not being poor in the future.

If I had to guess, I would say its because they're (and by they I mean left wing organizations and big money) a puppet for labor and teacher's unions.

They dont oppose school choice for their kids, they oppose school choice for other kids because the left is built on hypocricy.

The fyck?

The far right is also built on hypocriacy, Centerism works best and arent hypocrites .

LOL because there are no moderate hypocrites.

[Hatman 🍁]

Ugh, another moderate hero.

[Phony Moderate]

There is a right-wing meritocratic case for completely abolishing private education.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Why does the left not favor scholarships or vouchers? Why are they insistent on keeping kids in public schools that are failing? They don't want private or charter schools to exist, despite them doing better than public schools. If they care about the poor so much, they should want poorer kids who generally go to worse off schools to go to better ones, increasing their chance of not being poor in the future.

If I had to guess, I would say its because they're (and by they I mean left wing organizations and big money) a puppet for labor and teacher's unions.

They dont oppose school choice for their kids, they oppose school choice for other kids because the left is built on hypocricy.

The fyck?

The far right is also built on hypocriacy, Centerism works best and arent hypocrites .

0110101010010000001010

[DemPGH]

In essence, because education should never be for-profit and because the Right uses "school choice" as another one of their misleading monikers to do something underhanded - in this case to undermine public education, the public sector, teachers, etc. Caveats related to anecdotal evidence apply, but I know of a few first hand accounts of charter schools being utter, complete jokes. To give public funds to send kids to for-profit schools or to religious schools is a complete travesty.

[Del Tachi]

Ideally, public money should be spent on public education and it is honestly a travesty when tax dollars flow towards already well-funded private schools through vouchers at the expense of students in poor-performing public schools.  Struggling schools should be given access to more resources in order to improve outcomes for their students, not have funding and their best and brightest students stripped away from them due to vouchers.   

Additionally, "school choice" as conservatives like to call it, is oftentimes an underhanded tactic to lock poor and minority students in under-performing school districts.  In the most recent legislative session in Mississippi, for example, the Governor and Lieutenant Governor pushed for a bill in the state legislature that would have allowed parents to send their children to school in other counties/school districts if their local public school was ranked as under-performing.  Of course, the end result of such a measure would be that wealthier parents (read: White people) would be able to transport their kids to neighboring, Whiter school districts while children with two working parents or without access to a vehicle would literally be stuck in a failing school due to lack of mobility.  Even more dastardly was that, coupled with this proposal, was a call that funding "should follow the student" and that school districts should lose funding based on losing students to neighboring districts.  Essentially, White, urban school districts would have seen an increase in funding while the poorer, Blacker rural districts would have lost money, leaving their school districts with even less funds to educate their predominantly impoverished students who need more resources to reach the same outcomes as better-off students.

Our public schools should be the center of our communities.  This means that parents who live and work within a community should be forced to send their kids to local public schools.  We all need to have a stake in our local communities' public schools if we are serious about improving them.

Ideally, my model for public education would be extremely radical even by the left's standards.  I would favor a complete federalization of K-12 education where all teachers/school administrators would become employees of DeptEd and all local financing would be eliminated in favor of federal per-student funding formulas that heavily took into consideration student need.  Washington bureaucrats would write national benchmark standards for every grade, and passing a standardized test would be required for grade advancement.  Place on ban on vouchers and charter schools, of course, and, if found to be Constitutional, I would support an outright ban on private education.         

[Mercenary]

It seems comparable to the health industry.

Should hospitals all be public property ran by the government or should they be private property or a mixture of both?
If we then have a single payer health insurance can it be used to pay for those who go to private hospitals or only those who go to a public one?

I don't think school choice will really improve education honestly. The reason private schools typically do better is they have better funding for amount of kids and can just kick out those who either under perform or have behavioral issues. If the private schools had to accept all the under-performing students as well, they'd probably compare more evenly with public schools.

That said I support school choice, not because I think it will improve anything, but I just think if someone wants to send their kid to a religious school and already has to pay taxes to fund schooling in general that it amounts to basically having to pay tuition twice which can be quite the burden on a family with low income.

[muon2]

As I read the posts in the thread two thoughts seem worth noting. First, the thread seems to overlook the competitive mix of choices for higher education. For those who say that higher ed is different than K-12, I would note that reasonable lifetime earnings growth generally demands some post-hs ed, far more than was needed 30 years ago. Second, private education can be either for-profit or non-profit and they are quite different entities. Many supporters of school choice would say that public dollars could go to non-profit private schools, but not for-profit ones.

[Del Tachi]

As I read the posts in the thread two thoughts seem worth noting. First, the thread seems to overlook the competitive mix of choices for higher education. For those who say that higher ed is different than K-12, I would note that reasonable lifetime earnings growth generally demands some post-hs ed, far more than was needed 30 years ago. Second, private education can be either for-profit or non-profit and they are quite different entities. Many supporters of school choice would say that public dollars could go to non-profit private schools, but not for-profit ones.

Sorry to break it to you but higher ed is an entirely different animal than K-12.  If there was no right to universal access to K-12, then it would be fine to run public education like the University system.  However, since K-12 education is a right in this country than equal access to it must be guaranteed for all regardless of location, race or socioeconomic status.    

Secondly, I don't have a problem with "for-profit private schools" per se but I do take severe issue with any amount of public money going to finance private education.  Ideally, tax dollars should be spent to the benefit of all students - not just those with the access and mobility to opt for a private school. 

[Blair]

Well yeah the only reason the left does anything is to support those evil unions.

I take a different view with education-if you can afford to spend $29,000 sending your kid to school you can afford to pay $20,000 more in tax. Education shouldn't be a race to the top, and I don't think that sending one or two working class kids to a private school is going to somehow transform society

[muon2]

As I read the posts in the thread two thoughts seem worth noting. First, the thread seems to overlook the competitive mix of choices for higher education. For those who say that higher ed is different than K-12, I would note that reasonable lifetime earnings growth generally demands some post-hs ed, far more than was needed 30 years ago. Second, private education can be either for-profit or non-profit and they are quite different entities. Many supporters of school choice would say that public dollars could go to non-profit private schools, but not for-profit ones.

Sorry to break it to you but higher ed is an entirely different animal than K-12.  If there was no right to universal access to K-12, then it would be fine to run public education like the University system.  However, since K-12 education is a right in this country than equal access to it must be guaranteed for all regardless of location, race or socioeconomic status.    

Secondly, I don't have a problem with "for-profit private schools" per se but I do take severe issue with any amount of public money going to finance private education.  Ideally, tax dollars should be spent to the benefit of all students - not just those with the access and mobility to opt for a private school. 

In IL there is universal access to higher ed through the state community college system. It's even partially funded by a mix of property taxes and general state revenue, so it looks a lot like K-12 in that respect, too. The only difference is the tuition, which can be met by state need-based grants. Courses passed in the community colleges are guaranteed transfer credit at state universities and at private colleges and universities that choose to participate in the state's course articulation program. Why should I see K-12 as anything but part of a larger arc of education?

Both state and federal dollars are used to fund both public and private higher ed. Need-based grants and loans follow the student to whichever school they choose. Beyond student funding, both public and private schools benefit from direct grant support, often in the area of research. Should those dollars be cut off for private schools?

[Torie]

One key factor to look at, is whether by virtue of students having the option to vote with their feet, and leave the comprehensive public school system, that such competition, and fear of empty desks and loss of public school teacher jobs, will incentivize the public schools to offer a better educational product because they no longer have a captive student monopoly.

[Ebsy]

One key factor to look at, is whether by virtue of students having the option to vote with their feet, and leave the comprehensive public school system, that such competition, and fear of empty desks and loss of public school teacher jobs, will incentivize the public schools to offer a better educational product because they no longer have a captive student monopoly.

You obviously have never spoken to a public school teacher or administrator.