For a second straight year, school enrollment is dropping(text.npr.org)
text.npr.org
For a second straight year, school enrollment is dropping
https://text.npr.org/1062999168
129 comments
I would like to understand what schools actually do these days? I have to send my kids to separate Math lessons, - so they do not really teach Math. I have to send them to separate English lessons, - so they don’t teach English well either. All schools seemingly focus on is SEL, with highly questionable content. So now I need to monitor what schools tell my kids in class and then try to mitigate the damage. So what do we need these schools for, exactly?
That’s a tough question considering the massive variability in school quality and culture at the micro (neighborhood/district) and macro (state/region) levels. But the short answer is schools are in a constantly losing race to serve all students needs, as guaranteed by the 13th-15th amendments and enforced by civil rights legislation of the 1950s and 1960s (most recently reauthorized as the Every Student Succeeds Act).
I’d argue that schools, in an attempt to appease everyone, are designed for no one… modern democracy in action.
I’d argue that schools, in an attempt to appease everyone, are designed for no one… modern democracy in action.
> schools are in a constantly losing race to serve all students needs, as guaranteed by the 13th-15th amendments
I'm not following how those amendments establish a public school system or control it.
But regarding your last sentence, I agree. The concept of "no child left behind" necessarily means you optimize for spending your finite resources in the areas they will have the least return on investment.
I'm not following how those amendments establish a public school system or control it.
But regarding your last sentence, I agree. The concept of "no child left behind" necessarily means you optimize for spending your finite resources in the areas they will have the least return on investment.
My understanding is that there was no legal grounds for giving every student access to a basic education prior to these amendments.
The 13th Amendment gave slaves rights as citizens. The 14th Amendment gave freedmen and non-assimilating immigrants rights to claim access to public services (including education) where they’d previously been denied. The 15th amendment guaranteed every man a vote in who gets to administer those public services (unfortunately took another 50 years to include women)… fast forward 100 years and LBJ signed Elementary and Secondary Education Act (among other civil rights legislation) because these constitutional rights were being trodded over in the worst of ways. Title I of ESEA set forth a federal tax base to ensure equal access where states (that previously made most policy decisions) could or would not.
So that kinda established a good path that led to todays bad outcomes. I work a lot across U.S. K-12, including with large district superintendents, but I am by no means a policy or reform guru so take this with a grain of salt.
The 13th Amendment gave slaves rights as citizens. The 14th Amendment gave freedmen and non-assimilating immigrants rights to claim access to public services (including education) where they’d previously been denied. The 15th amendment guaranteed every man a vote in who gets to administer those public services (unfortunately took another 50 years to include women)… fast forward 100 years and LBJ signed Elementary and Secondary Education Act (among other civil rights legislation) because these constitutional rights were being trodded over in the worst of ways. Title I of ESEA set forth a federal tax base to ensure equal access where states (that previously made most policy decisions) could or would not.
So that kinda established a good path that led to todays bad outcomes. I work a lot across U.S. K-12, including with large district superintendents, but I am by no means a policy or reform guru so take this with a grain of salt.
Newt Gingrich, as Speaker of the House, was the Republican who enabled the creation of the federal department of education. After that was started, everything went toward the average as measured by standardized tests.
Newt Gingrich was a first-term congressman when the Carter Administration broke up the old Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) into the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services. HEW itself dated from the Eisenhower Administration, but there was an existing Office of Education.
They are a government run daycare so their parents can work so the government can receive their taxes.
> this could have been a watershed moment for online instruction
There are some private schools that are 100% virtual that are doing this incredibly well, but I don't know any public schools that fall into that category.
There are some private schools that are 100% virtual that are doing this incredibly well, but I don't know any public schools that fall into that category.
Then you have not looked very far at all.
It would be easy for me to identify public schools in PA with key clubs, AP classes, orchestra, all common sports, a series of foreign languages etc.
The note missing from these comments is the connection between local taxes and the quality of the school.
It would be easy for me to identify public schools in PA with key clubs, AP classes, orchestra, all common sports, a series of foreign languages etc.
The note missing from these comments is the connection between local taxes and the quality of the school.
I agree that local conditions make a huge difference, even within school district: but I think the parent comment's point had to do with virtual classes.
I would argue those things are usually tied together. The parents who are more committed are generally those who have the finances and time to be committed and thus are already in the better schools.
It's the main issue in the school I taught at. Parents didn't care and kids knew and it rubbed off. Until the kid failed, then it was the teachers fault. They see no value in education, very generally. Rural southern school. And until that's fixed, and the social issues at home (kids sleeping in cars, only 15% of our kids had both parents at home, etc) we can't truly make improvement. But nobody wants to tackle the social issues.
It's the main issue in the school I taught at. Parents didn't care and kids knew and it rubbed off. Until the kid failed, then it was the teachers fault. They see no value in education, very generally. Rural southern school. And until that's fixed, and the social issues at home (kids sleeping in cars, only 15% of our kids had both parents at home, etc) we can't truly make improvement. But nobody wants to tackle the social issues.
Those are public schools that are 100% virtual?
Related: 'Public Schools Are Causing Irreparable Harm to Themselves' published in Reason Magazine
> It hardly matters if proponents of education choice want to kill public schools if those schools commit suicide in mid-argument. Choice advocates at least have alternatives to offer: anything families want that suits the needs of their children in achieving an education. That could include traditional public schools, but only if the staff of those institutions don't first reduce them to hollow shells. It certainly allows for private schools, charter schools, homeschooling of all sorts, microschools, learning pods, and whatever else the human imagination might conceive.
> Unsurprisingly, public support for school choice is rising. EdChoice, which tracks opinion on a monthly basis, reports: Support for education savings accounts is at 70 percent in October, up five points from September; for school vouchers at 64 percent, up six points; and for charter schools at 67 percent, up six points. All of these approaches allow families flexibility in choosing how resources for education are used, rather than being taxed to fund take-it-or-leave-it district schools that just might decide to close their doors one day out of five without offering so much as a discount.
https://reason.com/2021/12/06/public-schools-are-causing-irr...
> It hardly matters if proponents of education choice want to kill public schools if those schools commit suicide in mid-argument. Choice advocates at least have alternatives to offer: anything families want that suits the needs of their children in achieving an education. That could include traditional public schools, but only if the staff of those institutions don't first reduce them to hollow shells. It certainly allows for private schools, charter schools, homeschooling of all sorts, microschools, learning pods, and whatever else the human imagination might conceive.
> Unsurprisingly, public support for school choice is rising. EdChoice, which tracks opinion on a monthly basis, reports: Support for education savings accounts is at 70 percent in October, up five points from September; for school vouchers at 64 percent, up six points; and for charter schools at 67 percent, up six points. All of these approaches allow families flexibility in choosing how resources for education are used, rather than being taxed to fund take-it-or-leave-it district schools that just might decide to close their doors one day out of five without offering so much as a discount.
https://reason.com/2021/12/06/public-schools-are-causing-irr...
I can't wait for more states to adopt school vouchers.
Yes, I also enjoy watching states adopt policies that are expensive and harmful. I am very smart.
Vouchers don't improve student achievement (Stanford): https://news.stanford.edu/2017/02/28/vouchers-not-improve-st...
Students who received vouchers in Louisiana learned less than their peers: https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/education/artic...
Vouchers don't improve student achievement (Stanford): https://news.stanford.edu/2017/02/28/vouchers-not-improve-st...
Students who received vouchers in Louisiana learned less than their peers: https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/education/artic...
> Students who received vouchers in Louisiana learned less than their peers: https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/education/artic...
Looks like that study wasn't peer-reviewed, and compared voucher students with those of the general population. A later study compared voucher students with those who applied for vouchers but didn't win the vouchers, and the bad effects largely disappeared: https://www.chalkbeat.org/2017/6/26/21107301/students-given-...
With school choice, bad schools are finally allowed to die and be replaced with good schools.
Looks like that study wasn't peer-reviewed, and compared voucher students with those of the general population. A later study compared voucher students with those who applied for vouchers but didn't win the vouchers, and the bad effects largely disappeared: https://www.chalkbeat.org/2017/6/26/21107301/students-given-...
With school choice, bad schools are finally allowed to die and be replaced with good schools.
Hopefully we're still not debating this 25 years from now..
The Steve Jobs 95 Interview on Education - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-8JiOQOe6U&t=6s
The Steve Jobs 95 Interview on Education - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-8JiOQOe6U&t=6s
What happens after vouchers is interesting from a game theory standpoint. Do people scatter to the wind? Do they create ultra-specific schools? Etc.
The elephant in the root is that the US already experimented heavily with a hybrid public/private model for educational delivery in its higher ed (colleges/universities) sector. Perverse competitive incentives on all fronts drive prices through the roof, quality stagnates/declines, and the downmarket options make impossible promises while offering curricula with such terrible outcomes as to be borderline fraudulent. When public funding is cut, it's replaced with debt, and people are deep under water to the investment class before they even start life.
I'm not here to defend the status quo, but reformers should carefully consider "how do we prevent turning American K12 into American higher ed."
I'm not here to defend the status quo, but reformers should carefully consider "how do we prevent turning American K12 into American higher ed."
> Perverse competitive incentives on all fronts drive prices through the roof
I don't think it's been established that competitive incentives are driving the price through the roof. There are other theories, e.g. that massive increases in subsidization via guaranteed loans and other mechanisms are driving the price from the demand-side.
I don't think it's been established that competitive incentives are driving the price through the roof. There are other theories, e.g. that massive increases in subsidization via guaranteed loans and other mechanisms are driving the price from the demand-side.
Sure, but if you are a private school charging $20k a year now, why wouldn't you charge $25k when every potential student gets a $5k voucher? Then we need to increase the size of the voucher to meet the original goals of the program. Rinse. Repeat.
Every child must either meet some government-mandated educational standard, or enroll in a program which brings some threshold percentage of its students to said standard. $VOUCHER_AMOUNT is adjusted on a per-region basis based on the average tuition within each region. If the institution's tuition is higher than $VOUCHER_AMOUNT, the parents pay the difference out of pocket. If the tuition is less than $VOUCHER_AMOUNT, the parents keep the difference.
Parents obviously want to minimize the amount they're paying out of pocket, and they'd like to keep some of the voucher money, so high-end schools as well as low-end schools are incentivized to keep their costs down.
Parents obviously want to minimize the amount they're paying out of pocket, and they'd like to keep some of the voucher money, so high-end schools as well as low-end schools are incentivized to keep their costs down.
Parents putting their kids in K-12 private school aren't optimizing for cost. They are optimizing for exclusivity and educational "quality". If their school just became more affordable to the unwashed masses, they will gladly pay the premium to keep them out.
That is true for some subset of wealthy parents, and if they want to pay extra for exclusivity, that's their choice. But I think it's reasonable to assume that the parents of the 90% of K-12 students who attend public or charter schools [1] are prioritizing cost over exclusivity.
It's true that many families will pay more to buy a house in a good school district, but I suspect that the school itself isn't the whole story: rather, many people interpret the school district's reputation as a proxy for the safety of the neighborhood and socio-economic status of its residents, as well as a proxy for their own socio-economic status.
Ulimately, I suspect that with the free market voucher system I described in my parent comment, legacy private schools would continue to charge outrageous tuition. But I think we'd also see some new, possibly virtual "bang for your buck" schools which would compete on price and which would be exclusive due to entrance exams and high academic expectations for enrolled students.
[1] https://www.edweek.org/leadership/education-statistics-facts...
It's true that many families will pay more to buy a house in a good school district, but I suspect that the school itself isn't the whole story: rather, many people interpret the school district's reputation as a proxy for the safety of the neighborhood and socio-economic status of its residents, as well as a proxy for their own socio-economic status.
Ulimately, I suspect that with the free market voucher system I described in my parent comment, legacy private schools would continue to charge outrageous tuition. But I think we'd also see some new, possibly virtual "bang for your buck" schools which would compete on price and which would be exclusive due to entrance exams and high academic expectations for enrolled students.
[1] https://www.edweek.org/leadership/education-statistics-facts...
> Parents obviously want to minimize the amount they're paying out of pocket
This spherical cow is fully confirmed by the higher ed market /s.
This spherical cow is fully confirmed by the higher ed market /s.
I'm not sure I follow. Many students/families choose community college for the freshman and sophomore years to minimize cost. Many opt for state universities over out-of-state/private universities for the same reason.
Well, you see, we take the naïve dupes who borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars in non-dischargeable, uncapped student loans for an MFA in film at Columbia, and extrapolate that to the rest of the population.
> I don't think it's been established that competitive incentives are driving the price through the roof.
I suppose the money for fancy facilities and armies of recruiting staff grew on a tree in the quad?
> There are other theories, e.g. that massive increases in subsidization via guaranteed loans and other mechanisms are driving the price from the demand-side.
As I stated,
>> When public funding is cut, it's replaced with debt
And, actually, that's the good outcome! The more realistic outcome is folks can't afford the price spiral and decide that Johnny doesn't need much more than a 6th grade education. Which I'm sure will bode well for our country.
I suppose the money for fancy facilities and armies of recruiting staff grew on a tree in the quad?
> There are other theories, e.g. that massive increases in subsidization via guaranteed loans and other mechanisms are driving the price from the demand-side.
As I stated,
>> When public funding is cut, it's replaced with debt
And, actually, that's the good outcome! The more realistic outcome is folks can't afford the price spiral and decide that Johnny doesn't need much more than a 6th grade education. Which I'm sure will bode well for our country.
> massive increases in subsidization
Vouchers are a subsidy, are they not? This "other theory" leads to the same conclusion.
Vouchers are a subsidy, are they not? This "other theory" leads to the same conclusion.
An additional outcome in higher-ed was the perceived dilution of the religious characteristics of Catholic universities (a large portion of the prominent private universities) who took the money; the more-religious types complain about Jesuit schools, Notre Dame, etc. for being beholden to the whims of the state for so much of their funding that they cease to serve their mission, and their remaining supporters are mostly the ones who care about sports and the brand-value of the school name. For charter-schools at the secondary level, I'd expect the same kind of thing, only much faster.
Everyone who wants to understand this should read Tressie McMillan Cottom's Lower Ed:
https://thenewpress.com/books/lower-ed
>>> The elephant in the root is that the US already experimented heavily with a hybrid public/private model for educational delivery...
And also for health care delivery.
And for the reconstruction of Iraq after Desert Storm.
And also for health care delivery.
And for the reconstruction of Iraq after Desert Storm.
In the college sector, the price ramped after Clinton signed law to prevent student loans being discharged in bankruptcy. And now parents co-sign and the parent's social security is sometimes taken to pay the child's non-dischargeable student loans.
K-12 public school is government paid.
I have some thoughts about this:
1. The state has to remain in the school business as a back-up for schools that fail, kids who get kicked out, and regions that have insufficient capacity because it's not profitable to run schools there. The public schools need to provide excess capacity so the private ones can operate at capacity and take financial risks. As a result, the state bears the risk.
2. A fleet of SUV's hit the road at 6:00 AM every day to carry kids to the far flung schools that their parents managed to get them into.
3. A shortage of available capacity, turnover in administration and ownership of schools, statistical variance, and opaque metrics make it impossible for parents to actually make an informed choice based on the quality of schools. It will be a crap shoot.
1. The state has to remain in the school business as a back-up for schools that fail, kids who get kicked out, and regions that have insufficient capacity because it's not profitable to run schools there. The public schools need to provide excess capacity so the private ones can operate at capacity and take financial risks. As a result, the state bears the risk.
2. A fleet of SUV's hit the road at 6:00 AM every day to carry kids to the far flung schools that their parents managed to get them into.
3. A shortage of available capacity, turnover in administration and ownership of schools, statistical variance, and opaque metrics make it impossible for parents to actually make an informed choice based on the quality of schools. It will be a crap shoot.
> opaque metrics make it impossible for parents to actually make an informed choice based on the quality of schools. It will be a crap shoot.
Nope, people will probably figure out the "best schools" via their private social networks and cloistered communities, and find ways to pull up the ladders behind them.
Nope, people will probably figure out the "best schools" via their private social networks and cloistered communities, and find ways to pull up the ladders behind them.
...or they'll send their kids to evangelical-Christian "schools" that don't really teach much except counter-factual history and creationism and of course their own particular ideology. The very same people who have totally fabricated a panic about teaching CRT in public schools are more than happy to do far far worse in their own schools. Most of my cousins spent at least some years in such schools. They were worthless money sinks even long ago, and I don't imagine they've gotten any better.
In my view the worst thing is that those schools can be well funded, and easily price secular schools out of the market. When I was living in Texas, it was before we had kids, but I noticed that among private schools, the secular ones were absolutely priced out of our reach.
Religious hospitals and medical clinics can do the same thing in rural areas.
Religious hospitals and medical clinics can do the same thing in rural areas.
I totally agree on #1 and #2.
#3 I think would solve itself. Wow is US News college rankings big business and important. And uppity New Yorkers seem to know quite well what the pecking order is in elite preschools (I'm facepalming that this is true)
Class paranoia is too strong. Something would serve it.
Vouchers would likely involve a lot of fraud, the charter school system already has. A shift to full vouchers would be an expensive cost, one that democrats won't get past republicans.
#3 I think would solve itself. Wow is US News college rankings big business and important. And uppity New Yorkers seem to know quite well what the pecking order is in elite preschools (I'm facepalming that this is true)
Class paranoia is too strong. Something would serve it.
Vouchers would likely involve a lot of fraud, the charter school system already has. A shift to full vouchers would be an expensive cost, one that democrats won't get past republicans.
Indeed, the question is whether emulating the current college system would be considered a success or a failure. I'm thinking more in terms of the middle and working classes, who will simply end up trading one bad school for another one that's also 40 miles away.
Also, it would remain to be seen if K-12 schools stay in business long enough to gain a reputation without becoming franchises of one or two giant nationwide corporations.
Also, it would remain to be seen if K-12 schools stay in business long enough to gain a reputation without becoming franchises of one or two giant nationwide corporations.
The for-profit colleges are the worst segment of the already degenerative upper education system. That fact alone indicates we should pause on full-on free market vouchers.
I think the problem is that, at least at the high school level, a school under 1000 kids starts to suffer in terms of services: not enough smart kids, not enough activity participants, not enough special needs for the special teacher. Perhaps "specialty" schools would help a bit ...
I think the problem is that, at least at the high school level, a school under 1000 kids starts to suffer in terms of services: not enough smart kids, not enough activity participants, not enough special needs for the special teacher. Perhaps "specialty" schools would help a bit ...
The vouchers won't be enough for normal people to buy private education.
They'll only be used by rich people to avoid subsidizing public education.
They'll only be used by rich people to avoid subsidizing public education.
We know what happens. Educational outcomes drop. There's a strong bloc of hard-right ultra-religious conservatives who don't care if Jonnie or Jayden or whatever learns how to read or add, and they really don't want Kayden or Charlotte or whatever to learn any biology or autonomy.
They vote with their vouchers for truly terrible schools. It siphons a tremendous amount of money from "traditional" public schools and delivers a hugely negative return.
It's a mistake, but it's a mistake we can't help but keep making because we're so determined to make everything function like a pseudo market.
They vote with their vouchers for truly terrible schools. It siphons a tremendous amount of money from "traditional" public schools and delivers a hugely negative return.
It's a mistake, but it's a mistake we can't help but keep making because we're so determined to make everything function like a pseudo market.
Is there any empirical evidence for educational outcomes dropping? The ultra-religious types would be homeschooling with or without the financial incentives to send children to private schools.
Vouchers don't improve student achievement (Stanford, 2017)
https://news.stanford.edu/2017/02/28/vouchers-not-improve-st...
Students in Louisiana's voucher program showed a decline in scores, especially math: https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/education/artic...
Not every hard-right ultra-religious parent has the means to homeschool their kid or to enroll them in private school. Vouchers really help lower that barrier.
Students in Louisiana's voucher program showed a decline in scores, especially math: https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/education/artic...
Not every hard-right ultra-religious parent has the means to homeschool their kid or to enroll them in private school. Vouchers really help lower that barrier.
> Vouchers don't improve student achievement (Stanford, 2017)
So not worse, then.
> Students in Louisiana's voucher program showed a decline in scores, especially math:
Let's see...
> Any changes in the second year of reading were unclear.
Hmm.
> Past research on Louisiana’s school-voucher program came to a bleak conclusion: Students who used the program to transfer to a private school saw their test scores plummet.
> A new study complicates that narrative, finding some good—or at least, less bad—news about the closely watched program.
> The research shows that, for students who received a voucher at the middle or end of elementary school, there were no statistically significant effects on their math or reading test scores by the third year in the program. That’s a boon for voucher advocates who have argued against judging a program by its initial impacts.
> The research shows that, for students who received a voucher at the middle or end of elementary school, there were no statistically significant effects on their math or reading test scores by the third year in the program. That’s a boon for voucher advocates who have argued against judging a program by its initial impacts.
They deliberately cut the results off in the second year because the study was conducted by those whose livelihoods are threatened by vouchers.
https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/532137/
So not worse, then.
> Students in Louisiana's voucher program showed a decline in scores, especially math:
Let's see...
> Any changes in the second year of reading were unclear.
Hmm.
> Past research on Louisiana’s school-voucher program came to a bleak conclusion: Students who used the program to transfer to a private school saw their test scores plummet.
> A new study complicates that narrative, finding some good—or at least, less bad—news about the closely watched program.
> The research shows that, for students who received a voucher at the middle or end of elementary school, there were no statistically significant effects on their math or reading test scores by the third year in the program. That’s a boon for voucher advocates who have argued against judging a program by its initial impacts.
> The research shows that, for students who received a voucher at the middle or end of elementary school, there were no statistically significant effects on their math or reading test scores by the third year in the program. That’s a boon for voucher advocates who have argued against judging a program by its initial impacts.
They deliberately cut the results off in the second year because the study was conducted by those whose livelihoods are threatened by vouchers.
https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/532137/
So at best it's net neutral in educational outcomes, with increased administrative costs? Neat. Sounds like a great policy.
What evidence is there that vouchers are helpful?
Who benefits? (the answer here isn't "everybody")
What evidence is there that vouchers are helpful?
Who benefits? (the answer here isn't "everybody")
> What evidence is there that vouchers are helpful?
> Who benefits? (the answer here isn't "everybody")
In areas that have done charter schools, the result is that poor-performing school administrations/companies (in terms of standardized tests) lose their charter and effectively "close down." Better performing ones are allowed to replace them.
The students benefit because they end up with better quality educations. They're no longer forced to go to terrible schools that keep getting money thrown at them despite having deeply-rooted problems: problems that the school has no incentive to fix due to the way the current public schooling system works.
> Who benefits? (the answer here isn't "everybody")
In areas that have done charter schools, the result is that poor-performing school administrations/companies (in terms of standardized tests) lose their charter and effectively "close down." Better performing ones are allowed to replace them.
The students benefit because they end up with better quality educations. They're no longer forced to go to terrible schools that keep getting money thrown at them despite having deeply-rooted problems: problems that the school has no incentive to fix due to the way the current public schooling system works.
Charters aren't vouchers. They've got their own issues, but they're a fundamentally different tool.
> The students benefit because they end up with better quality educations.
Citation needed. In fact, in many cases, students end up worse off.
> The students benefit because they end up with better quality educations.
Citation needed. In fact, in many cases, students end up worse off.
> Colombia's PACES program provided over 125,000 poor children with vouchers that covered the cost of private secondary school. The vouchers were renewable annually conditional on adequate academic progress. Since many vouchers were assigned by lottery, program effects can reliably be assessed by comparing lottery winners and losers. Estimates using administrative records suggest the PACES program increases secondary school completion rates by 15 to 20 percent. Correcting for the greater percentage of lottery winners taking college admissions tests, the program increased test scores by two-tenths of a standard deviation in the distribution of potential test scores.
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.96.3.847
> The District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP) has operated in the nation's capital since 2004, funded by a federal government appropriation. Because the program was oversubscribed in its early years of operation, and vouchers were awarded by lottery, we were able to use the “gold standard” evaluation method of a randomized experiment to determine what impacts the OSP had on student outcomes. Our analysis revealed compelling evidence that the DC voucher program had a positive impact on high school graduation rates, suggestive evidence that the program increased reading achievement, and no evidence that it affected math achievement.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/pam.21691
> We use the introduction of a means-tested voucher program in Florida to examine whether increased competitive pressure on public schools affects students' test scores. We find greater score improvements in the wake of the program introduction for students attending schools that faced more competitive private school markets prior to the policy announcement, especially those that faced the greatest financial incentives to retain students. These effects suggest modest benefits for public school students from increased competition. The effects are consistent across several geocoded measures of competition and isolate competitive effects from changes in student composition or resource levels in public schools.
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/app.6.1.133
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.96.3.847
> The District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP) has operated in the nation's capital since 2004, funded by a federal government appropriation. Because the program was oversubscribed in its early years of operation, and vouchers were awarded by lottery, we were able to use the “gold standard” evaluation method of a randomized experiment to determine what impacts the OSP had on student outcomes. Our analysis revealed compelling evidence that the DC voucher program had a positive impact on high school graduation rates, suggestive evidence that the program increased reading achievement, and no evidence that it affected math achievement.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/pam.21691
> We use the introduction of a means-tested voucher program in Florida to examine whether increased competitive pressure on public schools affects students' test scores. We find greater score improvements in the wake of the program introduction for students attending schools that faced more competitive private school markets prior to the policy announcement, especially those that faced the greatest financial incentives to retain students. These effects suggest modest benefits for public school students from increased competition. The effects are consistent across several geocoded measures of competition and isolate competitive effects from changes in student composition or resource levels in public schools.
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/app.6.1.133
I benefit by sending my child to a school where the teachers are incentivized to teach them reading, writing, and arithmetic, while leaving their politics and activism at the door.
> What evidence is there that vouchers are helpful?
> James also said that school choice has “not proven effective at improving education.” That is also highly misleading. Ten of the 16 random assignment evaluations on the topic find that private school choice programs increased math or reading test scores overall or for student subgroups at a fraction of the cost. Only two of the 16 random assignment studies, both of which examined the highly regulated Louisiana voucher program, found negative effects on test scores. And four of the six rigorous studies on the topic found that private school choice increased educational attainment overall or for student subgroups. None of the six studies found that school choice reduced educational attainment.
https://www.cato.org/commentary/setting-record-straight-scho...
> Who benefits? (the answer here isn't "everybody")
Of course not everybody. Public school teachers and administrators will suffer tremendously should school choice be more widely adopted.
> James also said that school choice has “not proven effective at improving education.” That is also highly misleading. Ten of the 16 random assignment evaluations on the topic find that private school choice programs increased math or reading test scores overall or for student subgroups at a fraction of the cost. Only two of the 16 random assignment studies, both of which examined the highly regulated Louisiana voucher program, found negative effects on test scores. And four of the six rigorous studies on the topic found that private school choice increased educational attainment overall or for student subgroups. None of the six studies found that school choice reduced educational attainment.
https://www.cato.org/commentary/setting-record-straight-scho...
> Who benefits? (the answer here isn't "everybody")
Of course not everybody. Public school teachers and administrators will suffer tremendously should school choice be more widely adopted.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
I’m a teacher. I’ve seen similar numbers reported elsewhere.
Key take away appears to be that “many families simply opted out of remote learning in the non-compulsory grades of pre-K and kindergarten”.
The declines are real, but mostly because families are delaying their initial start rather than students unenrolling from the upper grades (though enrollments have shifted from public to private/charter).
Key take away appears to be that “many families simply opted out of remote learning in the non-compulsory grades of pre-K and kindergarten”.
The declines are real, but mostly because families are delaying their initial start rather than students unenrolling from the upper grades (though enrollments have shifted from public to private/charter).
Three authors to write a number without a denominator:
New York City's school enrollment dropped by about 38,000 students last school year and another 13,000 this year.
38k sounds like a lot, until you look up the total enrollment which is close to a million, so a change of 4%, about inline with the national trend.
Roughly 938,000 students are enrolled in New York City's public schools, down from about 955,000 last school year, when the system saw a significant decline related to the coronavirus pandemic.
https://www.thecity.nyc/2021/10/29/22753361/nyc-school-enrol...
What’s the natural variation from year to year and in larger cycles? From the below link, enrollment was sliding before Covid.
https://www.empirecenter.org/publications/historic-decline-p...
New York City's school enrollment dropped by about 38,000 students last school year and another 13,000 this year.
38k sounds like a lot, until you look up the total enrollment which is close to a million, so a change of 4%, about inline with the national trend.
Roughly 938,000 students are enrolled in New York City's public schools, down from about 955,000 last school year, when the system saw a significant decline related to the coronavirus pandemic.
https://www.thecity.nyc/2021/10/29/22753361/nyc-school-enrol...
What’s the natural variation from year to year and in larger cycles? From the below link, enrollment was sliding before Covid.
https://www.empirecenter.org/publications/historic-decline-p...
> 4%, about inline with the national trend
4% nationally is quite a lot - far more than enough to have serious social, political, and economic effects over the long term.
> enrollment was sliding before Covid
...which the authors acknowledge, right at the beginning. Their point is that it has accelerated.
4% nationally is quite a lot - far more than enough to have serious social, political, and economic effects over the long term.
> enrollment was sliding before Covid
...which the authors acknowledge, right at the beginning. Their point is that it has accelerated.
How do you know 4% isn't within the normal variability of the school age population? The authors implicitly conjecture a link to Covid related changes in education. They do not present any strong evidence.
For example, between 2010 ad 2020, the population of 15 to 19 year olds increased 9% to 22m. The next cohort sizes drop down to 20m in 2010, so as the bumper crop of kids born between 2000 and 2005 age out of school, the overall population of school-age kids will shrink.
For example, between 2010 ad 2020, the population of 15 to 19 year olds increased 9% to 22m. The next cohort sizes drop down to 20m in 2010, so as the bumper crop of kids born between 2000 and 2005 age out of school, the overall population of school-age kids will shrink.
Age 15 to 19
2010 20,219,890
2020 22,040,343
Diff +9%
Age 10 to 14
2010 20,528,072
2020 20,677,194
Diff +.07%
Age 5 to 9
2010 20,549,505
2020 20,348,657
Diff -1%
I can’t imagine ever having kids… but if I did I wouldn’t be able to put them in public school. It’s a circus. It’s daycare for the 80%. It’s not education.
I’d homeschool for sure. It’s a big commitment but I feel that’s the way to truly be a responsible parent.
I’d homeschool for sure. It’s a big commitment but I feel that’s the way to truly be a responsible parent.
> It’s daycare for the 80%. It’s not education.
This is a popular trope heavily marketed in certain circles but it’s not even remotely true and it’s deeply disrespectful to the teachers working in an underfunded but critical position.
Beyond the obvious politics, the other thing to remember is that student performance very closely tracks the parents’ socioeconomic status. This is most known for explaining the gaps on international testing but it also leads to people misinterpreting school data and drawing the wrong conclusion. My son’s school is notably bimodal because it has both recent immigrants who tend to be poor and affluent professionals, and people sometimes look at the averages and conclude that the school is bad when it’s really just rediscovering that being poor in America sucks.
This is a popular trope heavily marketed in certain circles but it’s not even remotely true and it’s deeply disrespectful to the teachers working in an underfunded but critical position.
Beyond the obvious politics, the other thing to remember is that student performance very closely tracks the parents’ socioeconomic status. This is most known for explaining the gaps on international testing but it also leads to people misinterpreting school data and drawing the wrong conclusion. My son’s school is notably bimodal because it has both recent immigrants who tend to be poor and affluent professionals, and people sometimes look at the averages and conclude that the school is bad when it’s really just rediscovering that being poor in America sucks.
> underfunded
Per-student spending has more than tripled since the 1960s and stands at over $15k/yr on average[1]. New York spends more than $38k/yr (!) per student, which boggles the mind.
Of course, much of that money is absorbed in the ever-expanding bureaucracies of the system's program offices, services, departments, etc. Go find your local school district's website, download their most recent audit, and look at the proportion of employees who are teachers. When I performed the exercise, I found that fewer than 50% of employees were actually teachers.
I think it's high time we started funding students, rather than systems. The last thing anybody needs is yet another hulking bureaucracy sucking the life force out of our institutions.
[1]: https://www.publicschoolreview.com/average-spending-student-...
Per-student spending has more than tripled since the 1960s and stands at over $15k/yr on average[1]. New York spends more than $38k/yr (!) per student, which boggles the mind.
Of course, much of that money is absorbed in the ever-expanding bureaucracies of the system's program offices, services, departments, etc. Go find your local school district's website, download their most recent audit, and look at the proportion of employees who are teachers. When I performed the exercise, I found that fewer than 50% of employees were actually teachers.
I think it's high time we started funding students, rather than systems. The last thing anybody needs is yet another hulking bureaucracy sucking the life force out of our institutions.
[1]: https://www.publicschoolreview.com/average-spending-student-...
We're not spending $15K on every student. That's just the total spend divided by the number of students. In reality, we're spending substantially less than that on most students and substantially more than that on a small number of students with exceptional needs.
> since the 1960s
Right. The 60s.
The 60s are ALWAYS used as the reference point in these conversations. Every. Single. Time.
The ESEA, a cornerstone of the War on Poverty, was passed in 1965. Most other federal/state mandates that brought nearly everyone into the public education fold were passed after 1960. What it meant to educate the populace changed dramatically between 1960 and 1980. Huge swathes of people previously excluded were brought into the fold. Of course costs went up -- those people were excluded precisely because they're not the low-hanging cheap-to-educate fruit.
> fewer than 50% of employees were actually teachers.
Teachers are not the only class of employees who spend most/all of their time in direct contact with students. See above.
I'm not interested in the percent of employees who are teachers. I'm interested in the percent of employees who are not either in direct contact with students or providing essential services (janitorial, transportation, food services, etc.)
> since the 1960s
Right. The 60s.
The 60s are ALWAYS used as the reference point in these conversations. Every. Single. Time.
The ESEA, a cornerstone of the War on Poverty, was passed in 1965. Most other federal/state mandates that brought nearly everyone into the public education fold were passed after 1960. What it meant to educate the populace changed dramatically between 1960 and 1980. Huge swathes of people previously excluded were brought into the fold. Of course costs went up -- those people were excluded precisely because they're not the low-hanging cheap-to-educate fruit.
> fewer than 50% of employees were actually teachers.
Teachers are not the only class of employees who spend most/all of their time in direct contact with students. See above.
I'm not interested in the percent of employees who are teachers. I'm interested in the percent of employees who are not either in direct contact with students or providing essential services (janitorial, transportation, food services, etc.)
In terms of education spending, the US spends more than ever other OECD country other than Luxembourg.
The US spends an unusually large share on private education, but even public education expenditures are greater than that of the UK, France, Korea, and Japan, about the same as the Netherlands, and not that far behind Germany
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/5e4ecc25-en/index.html?i...
The US spends an unusually large share on private education, but even public education expenditures are greater than that of the UK, France, Korea, and Japan, about the same as the Netherlands, and not that far behind Germany
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/5e4ecc25-en/index.html?i...
You eventually get there: the US blows a ton of cash on private education, but our public education expenditures -- which this thread has been about up to now -- are unexceptional compared to peer nations. Smack-dab in the middle of the usually pack, really. (And we're also a far less dense country than many of the countries we technically out-spend, which is notable because rural schooling is horrendously expensive on a per student basis.)
If you rolled back to 60s level spending, even inflation adjusted, we'd be down the bottom of that distribution.
If you rolled back to 60s level spending, even inflation adjusted, we'd be down the bottom of that distribution.
Either way, claiming that education is underfunded is unfounded unless most of the other OECD countries are similarly underfunding education.
Why would we even count private education in this discussion? There are no policy controls on private school spend - of course, it's skyrocketing as the rich get richer.
This is moot; as I said, spending on public schools alone in the US is greater than many other OECD countries.
It's on-par with OECD countries, per-child.
It's greater than the UK, France, Korea, and Japan. Either way, hardly underfunded.
> Per-student spending has more than tripled since the 1960s and stands at over $15k/yr on average[1]. New York spends more than $38k/yr (!) per student, which boggles the mind.
Note that I specified teachers. A lot of that money goes to things like administrative overhead (often required by lawmakers) and support services for students — a single aide for a special needs kid costs far more than $15k. We run a lot of social programs through schools here which would be separate services in other countries which complicates these comparisons.
I mention that because I know a number of teachers here in DC. The public school pay here is high compared to the national average but not when you look at the cost of living, and most jobs which require multiple degrees but have inflexible schedules and long hours pay considerably more.
Note that I specified teachers. A lot of that money goes to things like administrative overhead (often required by lawmakers) and support services for students — a single aide for a special needs kid costs far more than $15k. We run a lot of social programs through schools here which would be separate services in other countries which complicates these comparisons.
I mention that because I know a number of teachers here in DC. The public school pay here is high compared to the national average but not when you look at the cost of living, and most jobs which require multiple degrees but have inflexible schedules and long hours pay considerably more.
Teacher incomes in the US are greater than Denmark, Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Japan, and Sweden. And while those countries may have universal healthcare, I don't think I've ever heard of a school district not providing health insurance to teachers.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/05/heres-how-much-teachers-arou...
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/05/heres-how-much-teachers-arou...
American private insurance still leaves a huge amount of money to be paid by the patient, far more than my European friends and coworkers expected. Repeat for things like retirement, elder care, etc. and you end up needing to personally save more to handle things which are paid out of general taxes in other rich countries.
What you really need is a comparison which is adjusted for both cost of living and alternative careers for comparable education. I described this as an underpaid profession because the combination of high demand, rigid schedule, and low respect is the primary reason I’ve known people to leave it.
The underfunding plays into two of those problems because teachers are asked to handler more, larger classes which ensures that everything is always close to the breaking point. The “slack” which that forces to be cut are things like personalized attention and more involved lessons.
What you really need is a comparison which is adjusted for both cost of living and alternative careers for comparable education. I described this as an underpaid profession because the combination of high demand, rigid schedule, and low respect is the primary reason I’ve known people to leave it.
The underfunding plays into two of those problems because teachers are asked to handler more, larger classes which ensures that everything is always close to the breaking point. The “slack” which that forces to be cut are things like personalized attention and more involved lessons.
Per capita out-of-pocket is about $800, barely changing that number. The top 5% spend an average of $8000[0], which still puts compensation ahead of countries like New Zealand, Norway, Japan, Sweden, and Finland, and that's not even accounting for the higher income taxes many of these countries have.
As for retirement, most public school systems have extremely generous pensions. Illinois, for instance, has over ten thousand former employees with six figure pensions - not just administrators, but teachers, too.
Do you have any evidence American teachers work harder than teachers in other OECD countries? For instance, US class sizes are just under the OECD average, although this is skewed by China's unusually large class sizes, at about the middle of the pack and behind countries such as Japan, Germany, France, and Australia, and the countries with smaller class sizes aren't that much smaller. [1]
[0]: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-...
[1]: http://www.oecd.org/education/skills-beyond-school/EDIF%2020...
As for retirement, most public school systems have extremely generous pensions. Illinois, for instance, has over ten thousand former employees with six figure pensions - not just administrators, but teachers, too.
Do you have any evidence American teachers work harder than teachers in other OECD countries? For instance, US class sizes are just under the OECD average, although this is skewed by China's unusually large class sizes, at about the middle of the pack and behind countries such as Japan, Germany, France, and Australia, and the countries with smaller class sizes aren't that much smaller. [1]
[0]: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-...
[1]: http://www.oecd.org/education/skills-beyond-school/EDIF%2020...
> Per-student spending has more than tripled since the 1960s
In the meantime, college tuition and medical costs have tripled in only 20 years.
In the meantime, college tuition and medical costs have tripled in only 20 years.
> This is a popular trope heavily marketed in certain circles but it’s not even remotely true and it’s deeply disrespectful to the teachers working in an underfunded but critical position.
This is a quite shallow dismissal. I'm the father of five and my wife is a teacher. The truth is, many public schools have deteriorated into free day care, and the poorer the area the school serves, the more this rings true.
> student performance very closely tracks the parents’ socioeconomic status.
Perhaps, but this is often an urban/suburban issue where wealth is concentrated in a (usually) suburban school, and that in turn leads to the school being better resourced.
This is a quite shallow dismissal. I'm the father of five and my wife is a teacher. The truth is, many public schools have deteriorated into free day care, and the poorer the area the school serves, the more this rings true.
> student performance very closely tracks the parents’ socioeconomic status.
Perhaps, but this is often an urban/suburban issue where wealth is concentrated in a (usually) suburban school, and that in turn leads to the school being better resourced.
I’m married to a teacher who’s taught at public and charter schools, mostly Title I. There are many areas they’d like to do better but I certainly haven’t seen anything which fits the unsourced “daycare” label and the other kids we know in, for example, a poor rural district also have not had that experience so I’d like some supporting evidence that this is a widespread problem.
Add me to the list. Just today my young lady was lamenting how she learns virtually nothing because disruptive kids ruin it for everyone else.
That was also my experience growing up in school. And it was also my partner's.
That is way too many experiences to dismiss.
That was also my experience growing up in school. And it was also my partner's.
That is way too many experiences to dismiss.
I don't live in the US, but from seeing my brothers go through school it seems pretty true to me. Butts in seats matters more than students actually understanding the material.
Eh, the schools aren’t even effective daycare as far as I can tell. There’s no discipline. One of my teacher friends won’t send kids to the principal because it’s worse than doing nothing.
She cares for the students. They are all very underprivileged. The school system is driving her out.
She cares for the students. They are all very underprivileged. The school system is driving her out.
>She cares for the students. They are all very underprivileged. The school system is driving her out.
I've heard this from close friends and family who taught. All were teachers, all loved teaching, all taught underprivileged kids at challenging schools, and all of them quit teaching before turning 30. Each quit due to the lack of support they receieved from uncaring, petty, and inept school administrations. Teachers can't teach when they don't feel physically safe, or are abruptly reassigned to different classes mid-year, or know their performance evaluations will be sabotaged by jealous senior teachers or administrators who are poor performers themselves yet impossible to fire. These experiences took place in the US, both in large costal and small Midwestern urban school districts.
I've heard this from close friends and family who taught. All were teachers, all loved teaching, all taught underprivileged kids at challenging schools, and all of them quit teaching before turning 30. Each quit due to the lack of support they receieved from uncaring, petty, and inept school administrations. Teachers can't teach when they don't feel physically safe, or are abruptly reassigned to different classes mid-year, or know their performance evaluations will be sabotaged by jealous senior teachers or administrators who are poor performers themselves yet impossible to fire. These experiences took place in the US, both in large costal and small Midwestern urban school districts.
My kids are going to school right now in CA. It does feels like a daycare. Core curriculum, such as Math and English, is being downgraded with a frightening pace. All we hear is SEL, SEL, SEL. I don’t need my kids to learn SEL. At this point, I fail to understand what schools actually do in California.
[deleted]
Teachers have earned every ounce of disrespect they receive.
I felt the same way before having kids. We live in Brooklyn, which offers Pre-K for all, and we decided to try for it if for no other reason than free daycare. We had a great experience in Pre-K, our daughter learned a lot, made a bunch of friends, and we all gained a community. We had the same experience in Kindergarten before Covid hit. We unenrolled her for first grade, homeschooled instead of doing the school's remote option[^1], and also had a great experience. That said, after a year at home and the birth of our second daughter, we were all ready for her to return to public school for second grade, and we are all are thankful she's back.
Parenting is a continual exercise in evaluating tradeoffs. With all due respect, folks don't know what they'll do as a parent until they're a parent.
1: https://baugues.com/homeschool
Parenting is a continual exercise in evaluating tradeoffs. With all due respect, folks don't know what they'll do as a parent until they're a parent.
1: https://baugues.com/homeschool
>>"With all due respect, folks don't know what they'll do as a parent until they're a parent."
Oh man... Are those words ever true.
I lived through civil war, Was a child refugee, switched countries and continents, lost parents and loved ones, had first job first love first wife,and generally had a fairly interesting life... And ALL of that was "Phase 1". Nothing compared to complete transformation of life priorities prerogatives options perspective free time disposable income attention sleep et cetera that having a child did.
It's astonishing to me how ... Pervasive and common, and yet unique and personal and shocking the experience is! :-)
But I will be first to admit that pre-children me and post-children me will have multiple areas of vehement disagreement and inability to understand each other :->
Oh man... Are those words ever true.
I lived through civil war, Was a child refugee, switched countries and continents, lost parents and loved ones, had first job first love first wife,and generally had a fairly interesting life... And ALL of that was "Phase 1". Nothing compared to complete transformation of life priorities prerogatives options perspective free time disposable income attention sleep et cetera that having a child did.
It's astonishing to me how ... Pervasive and common, and yet unique and personal and shocking the experience is! :-)
But I will be first to admit that pre-children me and post-children me will have multiple areas of vehement disagreement and inability to understand each other :->
Is it possible to have children without succumbing to the lifestyle of a common parents?
As a non parent I had 100% faith and intention.
As a parent, yes I think it's possible and eminently achieveable,if that is and remains your goal.
BUT! Some stereotypical parenting behaviours that I found ridiculous before, now make a lot more sense.
Silly illustrative example - I spent years trying to persuade my friends against SUVs and large vehicles. Braking distance visibility handling price etc, I vehemently made my arguments. Now I cheerfully drive a minivan because it makes my life manifestly better and I couldn't care less about image or non-parent perception or judgement :-)
More importantly, There are also a lot of relationship paradigms that make a lot of sense when you are a young independent couple, that completely break down when you are sleep deprived not for a day or week or even a month but seminpermanently, while having the biggest demands and constant responsibility for your actions and behaviour, and influence on and safety of another human being! Add lack of free time and lack of disposable income and your preferences are definitely nudged in certain direction. And don't get me wrong, it's not that you are forced to behave a certain way... It's just that things that were impractical or undesirable before, are now practical and desirable. It's transformarive, in a way that I 100% know I would not be able to even explain let alone convince my pre-children self.
That being said, for empirical counter example - Musk still be Musk :-)
As a parent, yes I think it's possible and eminently achieveable,if that is and remains your goal.
BUT! Some stereotypical parenting behaviours that I found ridiculous before, now make a lot more sense.
Silly illustrative example - I spent years trying to persuade my friends against SUVs and large vehicles. Braking distance visibility handling price etc, I vehemently made my arguments. Now I cheerfully drive a minivan because it makes my life manifestly better and I couldn't care less about image or non-parent perception or judgement :-)
More importantly, There are also a lot of relationship paradigms that make a lot of sense when you are a young independent couple, that completely break down when you are sleep deprived not for a day or week or even a month but seminpermanently, while having the biggest demands and constant responsibility for your actions and behaviour, and influence on and safety of another human being! Add lack of free time and lack of disposable income and your preferences are definitely nudged in certain direction. And don't get me wrong, it's not that you are forced to behave a certain way... It's just that things that were impractical or undesirable before, are now practical and desirable. It's transformarive, in a way that I 100% know I would not be able to even explain let alone convince my pre-children self.
That being said, for empirical counter example - Musk still be Musk :-)
Delegate raising your children to your parents or adopt them away.
A lot of the non-parents saying "I'll home school because the schools are just daycare" have an incredibly inflated notion of their own ability to teach. Major Dunning-Krueger effect. A few manage it and manage it well, but in my experience the more common outcome doesn't even qualify as daycare. I suggest that anyone repeating that talking point actually try to teach anyone anything before they assume they'll be the next Maria Montessori.
Only poor kids get the daycare experience actually. Many public schools have incredible facilities, teachers, honors and AP classes, extracurriculars… the question is why not supply that for everyone regardless of socioeconomic background.
I went to one of those "incredible facilities" schools and it was no better than daycare for me, because none of the classes were appropriate for me. And of course nobody cared, instead I was punished.
I had a similar experience, I empathize heavily. One of the big gaps in all public school is that it has to optimize for the middle 50% of all kids. Given constraints that ends up being probably good for society, but so many people get left behind to fend for themselves as a result.
Poor kids? That’s a shallow assertion. Reading between the lines I think you’re trying to say that poorer communities without as many resources offer a lesser experience than a wealthier community.
That’s part of the issue - it’s not the same across the entire country or even within small municipalities. If you live in a community where the school system is good - that can work.
But that was pre-COVID and pre- all the other shit that is surely about to come crashing down like a house of cards. Masks? No masks? Metal detectors at school? Do we need armed police? When are we going to knee jerked our kids back home to remote zoom “learning”? It’s traumatic and absolutely has a detriment to mental health and learning potential/performance. It sucks to be a student right now.
Then in a more broad sense: the American dream is on the verge of collapse. Inflation is here. Homes are unaffordable. People are fed up and don’t want to take low income jobs. Boomers set us up for their notion of the American dream - go to college, get a solid job, pay your dues and you’ll get yours. But it’s a fallacy.
So what is our education system preparing people for? It’s all going to change. It already has.
That’s part of the issue - it’s not the same across the entire country or even within small municipalities. If you live in a community where the school system is good - that can work.
But that was pre-COVID and pre- all the other shit that is surely about to come crashing down like a house of cards. Masks? No masks? Metal detectors at school? Do we need armed police? When are we going to knee jerked our kids back home to remote zoom “learning”? It’s traumatic and absolutely has a detriment to mental health and learning potential/performance. It sucks to be a student right now.
Then in a more broad sense: the American dream is on the verge of collapse. Inflation is here. Homes are unaffordable. People are fed up and don’t want to take low income jobs. Boomers set us up for their notion of the American dream - go to college, get a solid job, pay your dues and you’ll get yours. But it’s a fallacy.
So what is our education system preparing people for? It’s all going to change. It already has.
This depends on the school and town.
I went to a northern suburban public middle school and it basically felt like college. We were encouraged to explore our interests and there were classes catering to basically everything—loads of foreign languages, 3D art, wood shop (in 7th grade, not even high school), cooking, and so on. Few students acted out.
Then I moved to the south for high school. Want to continue learning the foreign language you’ve studied since 6th grade? Nope. We only offer that for upperclassmen because young students don’t have the mental maturity for language learning(what?). Want to explore art? Nope. You’re painting by numbers. Fights everyday. Straight up gangs and kids selling drugs when the teacher is looking away. Teachers chatting on the phone with friends all class everyday and just playing random movies unrelated to the subject.
My public education in middle school was far beyond what I got in high school. I’d dare say I regressed since I was doing less advanced subjects in high school. But my point is—great public schools exist. It’s all in where you live.
I went to a northern suburban public middle school and it basically felt like college. We were encouraged to explore our interests and there were classes catering to basically everything—loads of foreign languages, 3D art, wood shop (in 7th grade, not even high school), cooking, and so on. Few students acted out.
Then I moved to the south for high school. Want to continue learning the foreign language you’ve studied since 6th grade? Nope. We only offer that for upperclassmen because young students don’t have the mental maturity for language learning(what?). Want to explore art? Nope. You’re painting by numbers. Fights everyday. Straight up gangs and kids selling drugs when the teacher is looking away. Teachers chatting on the phone with friends all class everyday and just playing random movies unrelated to the subject.
My public education in middle school was far beyond what I got in high school. I’d dare say I regressed since I was doing less advanced subjects in high school. But my point is—great public schools exist. It’s all in where you live.
One of my former coworkers who went to private schools said the same thing. All I could think to myself was that we have the same job and title except my education cost $300k less after going to public school and a public university. If it's a circus I guess I'm just a stupid monkey who didn't get an education dancing my way to becoming a neurosurgeon...
And we all know that salary and title are the true measure for one's happiness and fulfillment.
[deleted]
It is not just daycare. I live in Chicago and CPS is generally regarded as never closing for the simple fact that its the easiest way to feed children.
My school keeps sending my kid home with food for “supper” simply because they keep buying so much of it to act like a soup kitchen and they need to get rid of it all. I keep telling them not to accept it, but they apparently have no choice. It’s weird.
I don't have children but making them all take home dinner versus letting them choose isn't really a good idea because they don't necessarily make the best decision.
> I wouldn’t be able to put them in public school. It’s a circus. It’s daycare for the 80%
As someone with kids in both public and private school, let me assure you that both are 80% daycare. And someone without kids might not understand this, but daycare is highly educational. Children don't learn by sitting through a lecture, they learn through the process of someone taking care of them.
Also while we're both throwing around totally unsubstantiated statistics about other fields of work, I would suggest that white collar work is also 60% daycare for the worker, since jobs are a in large part an income redistribution technology.
As someone with kids in both public and private school, let me assure you that both are 80% daycare. And someone without kids might not understand this, but daycare is highly educational. Children don't learn by sitting through a lecture, they learn through the process of someone taking care of them.
Also while we're both throwing around totally unsubstantiated statistics about other fields of work, I would suggest that white collar work is also 60% daycare for the worker, since jobs are a in large part an income redistribution technology.
The social skills kids pickup in daycare and school is fundamentally important in a child's development. Yes, you can have kids hanging about with your friends kids but the ability to interact with strangers, and people outside your bubble is incredibly important.
I'm sorry you went to a bad public school but there are hundreds of millions of us who went to public schools and turned out just fine. If you didn't go to a bad public school and have formed a blanket opinion that poors == bad then you're proving my point.
Any parent who have home schooled during the pandemic will tell you that most teachers are worth their weight in gold. It's not remotely anywhere near as easy as you think it is.
I'm sorry you went to a bad public school but there are hundreds of millions of us who went to public schools and turned out just fine. If you didn't go to a bad public school and have formed a blanket opinion that poors == bad then you're proving my point.
Any parent who have home schooled during the pandemic will tell you that most teachers are worth their weight in gold. It's not remotely anywhere near as easy as you think it is.
> Any parent who have home schooled during the pandemic will tell you that most teachers are worth their weight in gold. It's not remotely anywhere near as easy as you think it is.
I've been homeschooling my oldest this year. I first started teaching him to read last year while he was in Pre-K at a parochial school, and decided to just continue teaching him this year rather than do the public school thing. It's honestly been a joy.
I love his curiosity and his joy learning new things and his excitement when he does it. Yes, there are days where he's just in "a mood" and doesn't want to do school, but those are also times where I can talk with him father-and-son about integrity and hard work and discipline, and empathize with him over the fact that, in fact, some of the things we have to learn are boring. The time I spend teaching him is something I wouldn't trade for the world. I'm just lucky I have the opportunity - I wish all families could.
I've been homeschooling my oldest this year. I first started teaching him to read last year while he was in Pre-K at a parochial school, and decided to just continue teaching him this year rather than do the public school thing. It's honestly been a joy.
I love his curiosity and his joy learning new things and his excitement when he does it. Yes, there are days where he's just in "a mood" and doesn't want to do school, but those are also times where I can talk with him father-and-son about integrity and hard work and discipline, and empathize with him over the fact that, in fact, some of the things we have to learn are boring. The time I spend teaching him is something I wouldn't trade for the world. I'm just lucky I have the opportunity - I wish all families could.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Perhaps a lot of school is social, extracurricular activities, etc. but if you strip all of that away you are left with the core educational content. That core is what was being taught remotely where the parents could observe. Some parents were perhaps delighted with what their kids were learning. Others may have discovered it fell below what they felt was acceptable.
It doesn't seem surprising that a percentage of those parents would seek out alternatives that they felt were a better fit for their kids.
It doesn't seem surprising that a percentage of those parents would seek out alternatives that they felt were a better fit for their kids.
There is a fascinating, ongoing natural experiment related to education reform & school choice happening on the ground, right at this time.
Consider the post-katrina education in New Orleans. Sarah Carr (reporter & author) does a good job of summarizing the landscape, which include wins, [1] and concerns [2]
It started with the massive failure of education post-katrina. Public schools were left hollow, unable to restart. Entrenched interests simply walked away from their power bases.
Career bureaucrats were left with students.. and not much else: No obvious way, or know-how, to re-start the assembly line of public education. Thus, said govt pragmatists were left no choice (and critically - faced no repercussions) , except to haphazardly adopt school choice as the education standard for the city.
[1] https://www.econtalk.org/sarah-carr-on-charter-schools-educa...
[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/12/how-str...
Consider the post-katrina education in New Orleans. Sarah Carr (reporter & author) does a good job of summarizing the landscape, which include wins, [1] and concerns [2]
It started with the massive failure of education post-katrina. Public schools were left hollow, unable to restart. Entrenched interests simply walked away from their power bases.
Career bureaucrats were left with students.. and not much else: No obvious way, or know-how, to re-start the assembly line of public education. Thus, said govt pragmatists were left no choice (and critically - faced no repercussions) , except to haphazardly adopt school choice as the education standard for the city.
[1] https://www.econtalk.org/sarah-carr-on-charter-schools-educa...
[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/12/how-str...
They talk about aggregate enrollment, but never whether share of the school age population enrolled is dropping or not.
The population with a given birth year falls with later birth years through the whole Gen Z age cohort, so a downward trend in school enrollments is to be expected, to a certain extent.
The population with a given birth year falls with later birth years through the whole Gen Z age cohort, so a downward trend in school enrollments is to be expected, to a certain extent.
Students opting out for charters, private schools or homeschooling can hurt public schools because their funding is based on headcount.
Public schools also see their expenses drop when their headcount drops, yes?
Public schools also see their expenses drop when their headcount drops, yes?
Yes but not continuously, they have a bunch of fixed costs and they can’t fire 1/30th of a teacher for every student who doesn’t enroll. At some level of shrinkage the overall costs go down, but it’s not easy with a slow slide downward over the course of years.
We're talking a 4% decrease in enrollments, right? That reduction in staff numbers can be handled through unforced attrition (~ 3% retirements plus a handful of career changes).
We pulled my son (type 1 diabetic) out of public school and into homeschooling a month prior to the public schools going all virtual due to the pandemic last year. He's finally vaccinated, but we're in no hurry to send him back (he loves that he can get his work done in 2-3 hours - this is a 9 year old self-directed kid, admittedly a rare breed.) Our daughter is in a small charter high school (~400 students) that decided they were going to be "flexible" about mask wearing to appease parents who didn't want their rights infringed. Last week her school went full virtual again until the new year because several staff members (including the principal) contracted COVID and exposed (according to their contract tracing) most of the staff & half of the students.
As a parent the only plus I see from an in-person education is the socialization aspect (which can be both positive and negative.) I'm fortunate enough to work from home, so I don't need school to be my babysitting service. Despite living in a good town with "highly rated" schools, I've found the middle schools & up education system to be quite lacking.
As a parent the only plus I see from an in-person education is the socialization aspect (which can be both positive and negative.) I'm fortunate enough to work from home, so I don't need school to be my babysitting service. Despite living in a good town with "highly rated" schools, I've found the middle schools & up education system to be quite lacking.
So, public schools are free daycare. Yeah, education is great, but almost everyone is two-income (or single parent working). So schools provide childcare.
The public schools weren't providing daycare. I can tell from my facebook feed loaded with affluenza sufferers that Zoom classes were not cutting it.
Parents went where there was daycare (private).
Other alternatives: people stayed home with gov't assistance, and did the childcare themselves and homeschooled.
That's about the gist?
The public schools weren't providing daycare. I can tell from my facebook feed loaded with affluenza sufferers that Zoom classes were not cutting it.
Parents went where there was daycare (private).
Other alternatives: people stayed home with gov't assistance, and did the childcare themselves and homeschooled.
That's about the gist?
I send my kids to private school even though I can't afford it. Public school in the US is just that bad.
Depends where you live. My public school education was amazing and I had better instructors than I did at both my name brand undergrad and highly regarded grad schools.
But I grew up in a place most of those on this site would not want to live (including me, though I appreciate growing up there) and as such the teachers were paid enough to buy modest homes on their own salaries without a spouse/roommate.
But I grew up in a place most of those on this site would not want to live (including me, though I appreciate growing up there) and as such the teachers were paid enough to buy modest homes on their own salaries without a spouse/roommate.
For us, private is too expensive and public has become an indoctrination mill instead of an institution focused on teaching a kid the fundamentals, so it's probably going to be home schooling or moving to another country where we can afford a private school.
Is it because npr is surveying large districts, but during the pandemic many families moved to smaller districts outside the big city?
Tl;dr
Private School
Private School
Hmm...
> In 2019-2020, public school enrollment dropped by 3 percent nationwide
Later
> The National Association of Independent Schools comprises private, non-parochial schools. They report a net enrollment growth of 1.7% over the two pandemic years.
> In 2019-2020, public school enrollment dropped by 3 percent nationwide
Later
> The National Association of Independent Schools comprises private, non-parochial schools. They report a net enrollment growth of 1.7% over the two pandemic years.
Considering that private/independent school population is much smaller, a 3% drop in a large population is not made up for in a 1.7% increase in a smaller one.
Homeschooling is also a factor, but there have been kids that have simply disappeared from school: I've seen it first hand, and have contacts that tell me it's systemic throughout my state.
Homeschooling is also a factor, but there have been kids that have simply disappeared from school: I've seen it first hand, and have contacts that tell me it's systemic throughout my state.
My nephew is one of those. Such a thing was always hard to inagine growing up where I was. So weird.
A lot of these enrollment metrics have been driven by early childhood education, so I wouldn't put that much stock in this being some sort of wider trend in terms of desire to enroll a child in school. But there absolutely is a trend in terms of the LACK of desire to be in a school as an adult; it has gotten harder and harder to recruit, and, speaking quite candidly, the job of being a teachers has actually just gotten worse. Naturally, this correlates with a reduction in the quality of the folks that we get to be in our classrooms (even at institutions like mine that pay top dollar for teaching talent).
Even from where I am sitting it is extremely hard to confidently extrapolate what the long-run equilibrium of this will be. There's a camp that believes that this could have been a watershed moment for online instruction, but if you followed the play-by-play on the ground, it was almost the complete opposite: folks have been so disappointed by what counted as online instruction that in-person, good-ol-fashioned teaching has never been so highly sought. My guess is we will normalize with COVID protocols, staffing, and the rest fairly soon, and we'll returns to previous trends. The worst kept secret in primary education is that even at the high-school level for the most part we're little beyond a glorified day-care, and that the folks' who ought to matter most (the students) are pretty voiceless. This all combines for a fantastic recipe for why there is so much stasis in education, and unfortunately I think the smart money is on betting this won't change much at all, even after COVID.