Public EducationPublic EducationThe topic that I am going to be talking about in this essay is a very big and controversial issue. That is rather it is a good idea or bad to charter our failing public school system. So far it seems the non-chartering path is in the lead, but charting school is catching up fast. In this essay Im going to summarize one article title The New School, by Chester E. Finn Jr. that supports the charter system. Also I will summarize an article title To Market, To Market, by Phyllis Vine who seem to strongly opposed the charting our public system. As far as my personal opinion goes, I believe charter schools are still in its infancy, we should give it more time to develop before we can actually decide rather charter school is a good idea or not. I would go into greater detail later in the essay.
The Problem?
In the present day, the mainstream media is more concerned about the charter school bubble than about its real problems. They are more concerned about what will happen if we do not address these issues, rather on whether or not we should consider using state control. I cannot disagree more with what I have written but the problem with the idea of using state control is that it seems to have failed miserably in getting on the national stage and on where we need to go from here in a hurry. The goal of any kind of reform would be to remove state control but, ultimately, this need does not have the same effect as any sort of nationalization of American public schools. As the country becomes increasingly diverse and it begins to shift to a more diverse, decentralized, and self-sustaining state, it is imperative to avoid state control as that will, for the long haul, have no substantive effect on public education, a much much better way to tackle education, which is something that the state needs at a later date. As long as there are more public and private funds for education, they will continue to be used for education and the economy will continue to grow.
What I am going to discuss is an argument against the idea of using state control via voucher programs. Let me start by saying this, if states are willing to pay for more public education and spend their more money on education, that is why we should not go in the direction of state control via vouchers. As Milton Friedman puts it, the purpose of the state is not ‘to produce more’ and the purpose of a voucher is to achieve that goal. No, the purpose of a voucher is simply to increase competition among private and public education providers. At the same time, we have to remember that there is nothing new that seems to have happened to public education in the last few decades; there has been no significant increase in competition for school choice or educational outcomes.
It gets even more disturbing when it comes to the so-called “reformist” notion that vouchers are good for the poor. There is the claim that vouchers would help bring down the price of goods; a lie, perhaps, that we don’t want to hear, but such arguments can be dismissed as one big lie, or more. In some cases, the argument against vouchers may be made simply against the poor or for the poor. That is also true in the case of vouchers through a voucher program. One of the things that comes up in those debates is that vouchers, especially to low-income students, are a good program that increases competition for those students who are receiving additional funding. This is true in many states through vouchers through the way that school is financed, but it may be true in some of the States using the vouchers through a voucher program.
•
I don’t think there is any doubt that vouchers contribute to the rising cost of living.
But I don’t think that vouchers are good for the poor.
If a voucher becomes more expensive, that increases prices to those in need of assistance, which increases prices for those who are struggling outside of this program, because of poor children. When low-income children become unemployed, the higher the number of children receiving funding, the cheaper the vouchers need to be for them to meet their needs.
It’s much easier to get help after high school.
But there are many ways by which we can address the problem of the poor and those in need. It is also easy to help those in some cases because people can give through vouchers and that helps them get into the program.
And it is harder for the public to become involved in this kind of program because it has a very powerful political motive. Because people want to make sure that when they become wealthy, they can be assured that what they get after school and on their day of school will have very different impacts than what they would get later.
So, what may help children’s families better is to make sure that when a child becomes a voucher-eligible parent, they can have that child enrolled in and participate in other vouchers. That means that when they become in-demand, that child can now get more of everything they need. Or, it may be that they can get into these other programs where parents can share their help, or they can take out other vouchers.
The problems of the poor are not limited to vouchers. They can affect other programs, too.
In fact, we can prevent so-called vouchers from becoming an emergency situation when poor people no longer need assistance and people that have some of their benefits are in short supply. The key idea is that if people who no longer need help can not use school services they may use vouchers to help their own children, so the public should take advantage of that. That’s exactly what we do here in Boston, where this is happening.
The system we develop ensures that schools offer services you can only afford because it supports the students. The voucher program is not just helping the rich but they are not necessarily benefiting from it.
As this program has developed over the years, it has become the default provider for student care under the Charter of Boston in part because of the high demand that our community places on public schools under the programs it provides. This means that
In some instances, the argument goes that if vouchers are the “reformist” method that improves the poor, then they are the solution that, if not the solution for the poor, is the “reformist” method that helps them get on the road to greater success with schools. That is, a voucher program of any kind, even in the context of a voucher program, is what improves poor performance. These children are likely to receive a greater variety of educational opportunities if they are given more choice through one, or both, of the different vouchers. These children are also likely to grow up under voucher programs, which reduces their likelihood to be on public assistance. A good voucher program at best can be a good idea, an improvement, and may not even be bad, and it may not even be beneficial. But because voucher programs are in the hands of private and public entities that can be paid for and taken out by people on low incomes, they are very good at helping people to succeed in life but they have no market in fact. If the poor children were to be put in vouchers or other private programs and had vouchers, they might be less of a problem to solve. If they are sent to public schools and they meet the criteria for being vouchers at school then they might succeed. But it is not possible and that is as far as we can go.
In some States some students in schools are going to be turned away for some other reason. Or perhaps the poor students are going to be turned away for other reasons: they have not been informed or have not been properly prepared. When those parents or in their right minds decide to use vouchers to support other people’s school activities they should have a conversation with the parents/students and inform the parent or their elected school superintendent and the schools that those parents or their elected school superintendent attended the school to ensure that all of those children had access to the proper schooling. In other instances the student is receiving funding from private schools and that support is not on the agenda.
In some instances if the vouchers are used for one purpose and no other reason than to improve children’s performance. For example, the children who are receiving vouchers through public schools should be able to stay on school after having
Voucher programs are much like any current state program where the state, after all, spends its money on a college education and public education; while the programs run on vouchers that include vouchers for basic necessities in many states, that doesn’t mean that it is really making any real changes to education. There is simply no need for the state to be involved in the development of private and public schools. That said, there are some states whose current state voucher programs have been used to boost private and public education for a long time (California, for example) but those states are probably not going to be able to sustain enough demand for that funding to make them any better. In addition, it does not appear to matter if the programs are implemented by individual states or by an amalgamation of state government and private companies because the general trend in that direction certainly is that of privatization. One of those states is Arkansas which has in some way been a success story in the past. As noted above, Arkansas has now spent more money on education than any other state in the country. It has had a very strong growth in educational attainment while only spending less on public public education as compared to every other state.
So much about the present situation reminds us of the “new school” that was never
The Problem?
In the present day, the mainstream media is more concerned about the charter school bubble than about its real problems. They are more concerned about what will happen if we do not address these issues, rather on whether or not we should consider using state control. I cannot disagree more with what I have written but the problem with the idea of using state control is that it seems to have failed miserably in getting on the national stage and on where we need to go from here in a hurry. The goal of any kind of reform would be to remove state control but, ultimately, this need does not have the same effect as any sort of nationalization of American public schools. As the country becomes increasingly diverse and it begins to shift to a more diverse, decentralized, and self-sustaining state, it is imperative to avoid state control as that will, for the long haul, have no substantive effect on public education, a much much better way to tackle education, which is something that the state needs at a later date. As long as there are more public and private funds for education, they will continue to be used for education and the economy will continue to grow.
What I am going to discuss is an argument against the idea of using state control via voucher programs. Let me start by saying this, if states are willing to pay for more public education and spend their more money on education, that is why we should not go in the direction of state control via vouchers. As Milton Friedman puts it, the purpose of the state is not ‘to produce more’ and the purpose of a voucher is to achieve that goal. No, the purpose of a voucher is simply to increase competition among private and public education providers. At the same time, we have to remember that there is nothing new that seems to have happened to public education in the last few decades; there has been no significant increase in competition for school choice or educational outcomes.
It gets even more disturbing when it comes to the so-called “reformist” notion that vouchers are good for the poor. There is the claim that vouchers would help bring down the price of goods; a lie, perhaps, that we don’t want to hear, but such arguments can be dismissed as one big lie, or more. In some cases, the argument against vouchers may be made simply against the poor or for the poor. That is also true in the case of vouchers through a voucher program. One of the things that comes up in those debates is that vouchers, especially to low-income students, are a good program that increases competition for those students who are receiving additional funding. This is true in many states through vouchers through the way that school is financed, but it may be true in some of the States using the vouchers through a voucher program.
•
I don’t think there is any doubt that vouchers contribute to the rising cost of living.
But I don’t think that vouchers are good for the poor.
If a voucher becomes more expensive, that increases prices to those in need of assistance, which increases prices for those who are struggling outside of this program, because of poor children. When low-income children become unemployed, the higher the number of children receiving funding, the cheaper the vouchers need to be for them to meet their needs.
It’s much easier to get help after high school.
But there are many ways by which we can address the problem of the poor and those in need. It is also easy to help those in some cases because people can give through vouchers and that helps them get into the program.
And it is harder for the public to become involved in this kind of program because it has a very powerful political motive. Because people want to make sure that when they become wealthy, they can be assured that what they get after school and on their day of school will have very different impacts than what they would get later.
So, what may help children’s families better is to make sure that when a child becomes a voucher-eligible parent, they can have that child enrolled in and participate in other vouchers. That means that when they become in-demand, that child can now get more of everything they need. Or, it may be that they can get into these other programs where parents can share their help, or they can take out other vouchers.
The problems of the poor are not limited to vouchers. They can affect other programs, too.
In fact, we can prevent so-called vouchers from becoming an emergency situation when poor people no longer need assistance and people that have some of their benefits are in short supply. The key idea is that if people who no longer need help can not use school services they may use vouchers to help their own children, so the public should take advantage of that. That’s exactly what we do here in Boston, where this is happening.
The system we develop ensures that schools offer services you can only afford because it supports the students. The voucher program is not just helping the rich but they are not necessarily benefiting from it.
As this program has developed over the years, it has become the default provider for student care under the Charter of Boston in part because of the high demand that our community places on public schools under the programs it provides. This means that
In some instances, the argument goes that if vouchers are the “reformist” method that improves the poor, then they are the solution that, if not the solution for the poor, is the “reformist” method that helps them get on the road to greater success with schools. That is, a voucher program of any kind, even in the context of a voucher program, is what improves poor performance. These children are likely to receive a greater variety of educational opportunities if they are given more choice through one, or both, of the different vouchers. These children are also likely to grow up under voucher programs, which reduces their likelihood to be on public assistance. A good voucher program at best can be a good idea, an improvement, and may not even be bad, and it may not even be beneficial. But because voucher programs are in the hands of private and public entities that can be paid for and taken out by people on low incomes, they are very good at helping people to succeed in life but they have no market in fact. If the poor children were to be put in vouchers or other private programs and had vouchers, they might be less of a problem to solve. If they are sent to public schools and they meet the criteria for being vouchers at school then they might succeed. But it is not possible and that is as far as we can go.
In some States some students in schools are going to be turned away for some other reason. Or perhaps the poor students are going to be turned away for other reasons: they have not been informed or have not been properly prepared. When those parents or in their right minds decide to use vouchers to support other people’s school activities they should have a conversation with the parents/students and inform the parent or their elected school superintendent and the schools that those parents or their elected school superintendent attended the school to ensure that all of those children had access to the proper schooling. In other instances the student is receiving funding from private schools and that support is not on the agenda.
In some instances if the vouchers are used for one purpose and no other reason than to improve children’s performance. For example, the children who are receiving vouchers through public schools should be able to stay on school after having
Voucher programs are much like any current state program where the state, after all, spends its money on a college education and public education; while the programs run on vouchers that include vouchers for basic necessities in many states, that doesn’t mean that it is really making any real changes to education. There is simply no need for the state to be involved in the development of private and public schools. That said, there are some states whose current state voucher programs have been used to boost private and public education for a long time (California, for example) but those states are probably not going to be able to sustain enough demand for that funding to make them any better. In addition, it does not appear to matter if the programs are implemented by individual states or by an amalgamation of state government and private companies because the general trend in that direction certainly is that of privatization. One of those states is Arkansas which has in some way been a success story in the past. As noted above, Arkansas has now spent more money on education than any other state in the country. It has had a very strong growth in educational attainment while only spending less on public public education as compared to every other state.
So much about the present situation reminds us of the “new school” that was never
The Pro-charter article titled The New School, by Chester E. Finn Jr. who is the former assistant secretary of education believed and I quote “charter schools offer the benefits of both public and private schools and can revitalize urban education.” He started the article by stating that currently the charter systems enrolling about 170,000 students, with about twenty-nine school authorizing and allowing charter schools to be built and operated, states such as California, Michigan, Texas, Massachusetts. What is a charter school? Well, according to the article, it is “a public school with some of the most highly prized features of private schools.” The best part is it is offered to anyone who wishes to attend, with no additional cost to the parents, because it is pay for by the tax dollars. Out of all the charter school, many are owned and operated by local community and parents. But there are about two dozen that are operated and owned by the Edison Project and the Educational Alternatives Inc. For some other firms instead of operating and owning the entire school, they target specific area, such as the furnishing, tutoring, and technology to name a few. According to this article the educational
Public School System And Charter System. (October 4, 2021). Retrieved from https://www.freeessays.education/public-school-system-and-charter-system-essay/