Sound Politics: Stuck with whatever we're given

February 23, 2005

Stuck with whatever we're given

Nina Shapiro of Seattle Weekly wrote a good article last week on Seattle's public school choice program.

Parents in Seattle have the freedom to choose which public school they want their child to attend, but district officials are thinking of eliminating that option to save money on transportation.

One of the mothers quoted in the article captures the entire issue with just a few simple words: "If they take away our choice, we're stuck with whatever we're given."

Exactly. As consumers, we know monopolies breed expensive mediocrity. Why in the world should we tolerate that in something so crucial as a child's education?

Posted by Marsha Michaelis at February 23, 2005 11:13 AM | Email This

Comments

1. I can't tell you why we should tolerate this. But, I can tell you that we have been tolerating it for a long, long time.

Education available to all is such an important part of the fabric of our country. Somehow, this incredibly important cause was hijacked by unions and "progressives." Whenever anyone proposes a change, such as vouchers, these hijackers say that the real plan is for the government to pull out of paying for education.

So, we are stuck some less than mediocre and kids that are more indoctrinated than education.

Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on February 23, 2005 12:29 PM

2. I never understood the option to choose what school to send your kids to anyway. If the schools are Public schools, you'd hope they were created equally, right? And then there's the issue about neighborhood brought up in the SW article...How do you build up a neighborhood when the kids all go to different schools.

Of course, I would probably rather home school or send my kids to private school anyway, so I'm not really holding up my end of the neighborhood arguement.

Posted by: Amber on February 23, 2005 01:09 PM

3. because schools aren't businessess, students are not "products" and neither should be viewed as such?

Posted by: Kathryn on February 23, 2005 03:54 PM

4. because schools aren't businessess, students are not "products" and neither should be viewed as such? -Posted by Kathryn at February 23, 2005 03:54 PM

You're right the STUDENTS are not the product... the EDUCATION is the product and the students, their parents and society as a whole are the CONSUMERS who have the duty and the right to expect the 'product' for which they are dearly paying to be a quality one (such as they achieve in PRIVATE schools).

Posted by: Cheryl on February 23, 2005 04:05 PM

5. Cheryl wrote "the EDUCATION is the product and the students, their parents and society as a whole are the CONSUMERS who have the duty and the right to expect the 'product' for which they are dearly paying to be a quality one (such as they achieve in PRIVATE schools)."

No. Public school "products" are students with graduation papers (or not). Education takes place in spite of what happens at school (if you're lucky). Schools can never guarantee education. They can only guarantee that the students met "requirements" (however nebulous they are). As it was discussed in previous posts, why do think there are so many remedial classes at the college level?

"Consumers" are those who run the public schools. They collect money and spend it. Parents send money and their children to get indoctrinated (or molested or bullied or whatever else happens at schools these days).

By removing choice to parents, the tax money "income" becomes easier to manage (since fixed number of students will attend, which affects federal funding, etc.). Good for the "consumers" (tax spenders), while bad for parents (tax payers) and children.

As for "quality," I don't know how the quality of schooling (let alone education) can be measured in any meaningful way....

Posted by: DannyHSDad on February 23, 2005 04:32 PM

6. Whether or not parents can choose the public school a mile away or must go to the one down the block, it's still a monopoly. The 'choice' is still very limited. It's like you can choose any kind of laundry detergent - liquid, powder, allergen free, mountain fresh - as long as it's made by Kroger.

But I don't want Kroger brand (aka public schools). That's why I homeschool my kids.

Posted by: Shannon K on February 23, 2005 05:25 PM

7. The ideal is to eliminate all public schools (and associated taxation) and let every parent be responsible to home educate, join coops and/or send children to private school (part time or full time). Those who used to pay a lot of taxes (including businesses) would be free to spend their money for creating scholarships or even sponsorships. And other creative ways to help out those in need would be possible with private money. And even if the poor didn't get any direct aid, at least things will be cheaper from apartment rent to various business services since all business and home owners will be paying less taxes.

So, with no public schools, everyone wins! (Well, except maybe the poorly skilled public school teachers since they won't be able to start or join any decent school.)

Posted by: DannyHSDad on February 23, 2005 07:08 PM

8. I've always liked Nina Shapiro's reporting - she's the only role model at Seattle Weekly for me. Knute Berger needs a haircut really bad.

Posted by: Greg on February 23, 2005 09:52 PM

9. Thanks for the interesting, thought-provoking comments, all!

Posted by: Marsha Richards on February 24, 2005 11:48 AM

10. Sooo, ...anyone care to hazard a guess about the political ideology of THIS esteemed "educator":

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0223strangenames23.html

For Scottsdale schools, the receptionist is now 'Director of First Impressions'

Excerpts:
"Was the school bus late? Blame the "transporter of learners," formerly the bus driver."

"Got a problem with your school principal? Take it up with the 10-word "executive director for elementary schools and excelling teaching and learning," formerly known as the assistant superintendent of elementary schools."

"Scottsdale Superintendent John Baracy, who created the new titles for about a half-dozen employees, doesn't think so.

"This is to make a statement about what we value in the district. We value learning," said Baracy, who pledges to back up the new titles with better customer service."

Um... okayyyy...
Cheryl thinks: GOOD GRIEF!

Posted by: Cheryl on February 24, 2005 02:15 PM

11. This story represents a disturbing direction for public education. Choice is already compromised by the use of a "cluster model" that restricts the choice of schools in the interests of economy. The possible gains from "neighborhood schools" are unrealistic at this point, and more than offset by the "fright flight" that would see parents who are financially able frantically seeking to either move or find a private school option for their children. It also represents a betrayal of those parents who have made their decisions based upon the educational opportunities offered within the existing system.

The most sensible suggestion made in response to the financial crunch was that of charging a fee for extra distances, keeping the affluent within the system and potentially promoting the concept of neighborhood schools. Whatever is done, the market place principle of competition in producing value should not be lost in the shuffle. The ability to choose what is deemed best for one's children is what underlies this principle of competition, something public schools apparently need to relearn.

Posted by: RLG on February 24, 2005 03:38 PM