They are just trying to cut down large education bureaucracies that don’t appear to be benefiting the students.
Generally very large or very small public school systems in America really underperform for the students. It’s not clear that the Federal resources in the Dept of Education are directly benefiting the students.
They are trying to give more control over education to parents and local communities especially those in underperforming areas.
It's not unfair at all, that is what they're trying to do. It would be a political career ender to say that so they say things like "trying to cut down large education bureaucracies that don’t appear to be benefiting the students." But there is an influential contingent of republicans that wants to effectively end american universal public education and they're not meaningfully opposed within the party.
> It’s not clear that the Federal resources in the Dept of Education are directly benefiting the students.
What's your area of experience with education where this is how you've come to see it? Because for what I do, it's extremely obvious that these resources do benefit the students.
And, depending on the district, those federal resources provide a significant chunk of the funding for schools.
In my local district in Kansas, it’s about 13% of public school funding, in the district next door it’s about 44%. Without that funding many public schools in the area would close with no alternative.
By cutting off those resources, there is no “choice” or “control” being given to local communities unless you mean a certain family in Wichita…
Federal funding is less than 10% of public school education funding and if it were reduced or went away, it doesn’t mean that a bunch of kids would just stop having any school.
As I stated above, this greatly depends on your school district. Some schools receive <5% of their funding from the DoE, others receive as much as 75%.
Some of this funding is explicitly for general operations and other funding like that through IDEA is for assisting students with disabilities.
Some of these public schools are already hanging on by a thread and having trouble paying high enough wages to fill positions.
It’s not a mainstream view that we are privatizing the public education system in the United States. It’s just a choice being offered where schools are severely mismanaged that is essentially political because of teacher’s unions.
Perhaps I'm wearing rose tinted glasses, but I think schools should be governed on a state or local level. That way you can better match the needs of the students, all of the students, in that area.
Would you tell me though, please, what language and cultural differences should inflect science or math or literature or history? Are you suggesting evolution not be taught where there are parents who object, or that the civil war be taught differently in the former confederacy, so as not to hurt anyone’s feelings? Those things are happening, of course. I’m just innocent of any defense for them.
Whoever "they" are in your assertion, they are not cutting down bureaucracy or promoting local control. The federal government has not issued new regulations to cap administrative overhead, for example. It simply abandoned its civil rights enforcement and slashed funding.
Agreed, public schools in America do a poor job. Something like 1/3 of graduating seniors are ready for college work, according to the "national report card". But that’s by design: elected school boards and administration determine salaries and standards. No principal wants to explain poor grades to a disappointed parent; no teacher wants to combat a parent’s prejudice by teaching real history or biology. So, the curriculum is mediocre and grades are high.
The situation isn’t much better at private schools by the way. Grade inflation is everywhere. Harvard just has the luxury of picking its students.
No Child Left Behind and civil-rights enforcement by the department of education did narrow the achievement gap, which has now begun to widen again. So it is clear the department directly benefits student. The complaint is not that; it is that it benefits the "wrong" students, if you get my drift.
somenameforme•4mo ago
More specifically the US currently spends more than the vast majority of the world per pupil [1], yet our outcomes in e.g. math leave us somewhere between Malta and and Slovakia. [2] Clearly it does not seem that 'more money' is the solution.
[1] - https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cmd/education-exp...
[2] - https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/pisa-scor...
alphawhisky•4mo ago
somenameforme•4mo ago
Simulacra•4mo ago
throwaway2016a•4mo ago
Which brings me to:
> The main reason "private" (in their sense of the word) schools are gaining in popularity is precisely because they are seen as delivering a better education by an ever wider chunk of society.
If you accept that the article is talking about charter schools, then yes, perhaps the narrow focus of the charter could allow for a stronger education in a specialized area could allow for better education in that area.
But, if you accept it as private schools as a whole, then I don't buy that argument fully. The administration has been very clear that the motivation is "anti-woke" and "traditional family values" and nothing to do with education quality. In fact, as someone who went to a religious school in a small town (granted 30+ years ago) I can vouch that my education (especially in science and math) was FAR worse than the public schools at the time and homeschooling quality varies wildly.
Edit: As far as
> More specifically the US currently spends more than the vast majority of the world per pupil
I also find this focus on spending per pupil very odd because it doesn't account for cost of living.
And if you dive into the fine print it says:
> Includes both government and private expenditures.
So what if (and this is a completely untested hypothesis) the reason we spend so much per pupil in that chart is being exasperated by the private school system.
Edit 2: after diving into it, that source provided is greatly inflated by private school spending including private colleges (which are insanely expensive). So that same data can also be used to argue the US is really spending too much on private schools not public ones.
somenameforme•4mo ago
In any case private schools will always perform better than public schools because they can be selective with who they admit. A handful of very bad students can easily derail the education of an entire class, and in public schools it can be somewhat difficult to get rid of these kids. And so I do think things like education vouchers, tax rebates, and other incentives to allow more middle and lower class families access to private education is a very good thing.
Lastly, on the woke stuff. Would you be happy if your child was taught creationism and intelligent design? Probably not. Why? Because it'd be ideologically motivated, rather than educationally motivated. If people want to teach their children that in their own time - more power to them, but it has no place in the classroom. And I'd feel exactly the same if my children were taught that e.g. math is racist, or the contemporary 'reimaginings' of history that mix critical theory and contemporary values, and retrofit them into the past in an antagonistic fashion. We went from a real problem of white washing history, to just inventing these sordid tales that are even further off base.
[1] - https://databank.worldbank.org/indicator/UIS.XGDP.1.FSGOV?id...
[2] - https://ncea.org/NCEA/NCEA/How_We_Serve/News/Press_Releases/...
throwaway2016a•4mo ago
To address you points though:
> A handful of very bad students can easily derail the education of an entire class
Private school had plenty of bad apples too. In fact, some kids I went to school with were explicitly there because they were trouble makers and their parents though the nuns would break them (they didn't). In contrast, I've found my daughter's public school to be pretty zero tolerance when it comes to disruptors.
But even if you are right, that is also the strength of public schools. The same thing that makes them unable to turn down the bad apple is also what makes sure kids with special needs or low family means don't get left behind.
> math is racist, or the contemporary 'reimaginings' of history that mix critical theory and contemporary values, and retrofit them into the past in an antagonistic fashion.
Except every time one of those stories come out and you dig deeper it is almost never actually what the media says. It's usually either extremely isolated or taken entirely out of context for sensationalism.
For example, there have been several documented cases of public school teachers teaching creationism, and also that the Civil war wasn't about slavery (despite slavery being specifically mentioned by multiple states when they joined the Confederacy), but I would never represent that as wide spread and try to tear down the whole system over it.
somenameforme•4mo ago
As for 'no child left behind' and the woke stuff. I can actually tie both of these together in California. [1] In an effort to increase equity they've essentially hamstrung their own education. They're making Algebra 1 a grade later (meaning less normal path access to calculus), offering "alternatives" to Algebra 2, swapping from a focus on mastery to one on "big picture" understanding, keeping classes integrated regardless of student performance, and generally dumbing down the mathematical education across the board. They want to achieve equity in outcomes, and so they're taking the easy route - lower the ceiling, rather than raise the floor. It's near to certain that outcomes in California will decline significantly over the next decade, but I expect there will also be better grades on average - laying a nice layer of paint on a building that's collapsing.
---
As for the Civil War, imagine the EU had a military and simply refused to accept Brexit, triggering a war. Would the cause of that war have been e.g. immigration (which was arguably the main factor leading to Brexit, and mentioned in numerous official documents relating to Brexit), or would it have been over the rights of EU member countries? Obviously without immigration you don't have Brexit and so you don't have a war. Yet similarly without our hypothetical effort of the EU to impose its will on member countries, you also don't have war. A key point to me is that one issue is variable, while one is fixed.
[1] - https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-07-12/californ...