How about we start with the assumption that all coercion is bad, but that some coercion has benefits that exceed said “bad”.

Do public schools’ benefits exceed its costs? If not, why are we doing it?

Do you really want to say that public school folk, when left to their own devices, will waste money and not educate kids?

If that’s how they behave, why should we give them money?

It is not the job or responsibility of parents or anyone else to fix public schools. If the folks who think that public schools are a good idea don’t fix them, they’re going to lose the money.

Almost no one pays for public schools because they believe that public schools are some inherent good. We pay because we want kids educated. If public schools aren’t going to do that, we’re going to stop paying.

And no, we don’t have to come up with an alternative. We can get failure for free.

And one thing I should clarify, that I think got to Margo is that I would certainly have state paid vouchers for all children.

Margo/Mom wrote:

[i]Sure, Ms. D. Blow up the system. Take us back a couple of centuries. Who will benefit? Only the children of those with means.[/i]

Oh sure, the current system’s working so well for the poor that Mrs. Davis suggestion would be a devastating blow to the educational aspirations of the poor. [/sarcasm]

The current *system* sucks and the poor get the lousiest schools. That’s not a shortcoming of the system, that’s both how it was designed and how it turned out.

The whole point of school districts was to ensure that spending *wouldn’t* be equal. If spending were equal back when public education were being rolled out the wealthy would’ve bolted the system and being wealthy would quite likely have had the political clout to avoid having to pay for public schools as well as private. Districts allow the wealthy to have a de facto private school system within the framework of the public school system.

Interestingly enough, many of the schools attended by the poor, especially urban poor in urban districts, aren’t living hand to mouth. In many cases the schools of the poor are quite well-funded, but because the poor are generally poor-equipped to apply the sort of pressure that a public school bureaucracy responds too they get expensive schools that do a lousy job.

My disagreement with Mrs. Davis isn’t in her goal but in her approach; the poor will never get decent schools with the current system but envisioning an end isn’t the same thing as describing the means.

If you do think that the public education system is an inherently bad idea, corrosive of democratic ideals, then you have a responsibility to find and promote realistic approaches to bringing about the system’s end, not just a harrumph about how terrible it is and the use of high-explosive metaphors.

it’s pretty clear that DP did work better for the DP kids than the existing system and thus should be expected to work well for similar kids who didn’t get a chance to go to DP.

It did. It should. What fraction of kids are “DP kids” lacking the opportunity, and what fraction wouldn’t ever be?

IIRC, Margo, I said that a parent should look first at providing for his children. I also said that if he then provided for other children, his actions would be quite admirable. Right?

But you disagree. And there’s the rub: by your logic, you should provide for other children before you take care of your own. Right? And since there’s an infinitude of “other children”, you’d never get around to your children? Right?

And have you actually practised this?

Do you really think the system we have now is working any better than even the straw man you set up?

The vast majority of poor kids in the inner cities are not getting any kind of education from the state schools to prepare them to succeed in main stream society. I don’t say that my alternative would solve every problem for every child, but it would give every child a fighting chance which is more than they get now and succeed for more as well.

Every time the residents of the inner city are given the opportunity to opt out of state schools, they line up in droves for the chance. They deserve more of a chance, more choice, more authority and more control over their education than they are getting now. That would set them free, not condemning them to start life with a 10 year sentence in public schools.

…Ragnarok’s every man for himself version of “meritocracy”,…

Where did I say that?

As Susan said, “If we throw more money at them and their schools, the problem will be solved.”

The North San Jose school board wants $455,000,000 to build a school and possibly another one in the future. What do you say to that, Margo?

I realize that some who post here view this as ideal. I do not.

It’s an aristocracy if your parent’s leave you a pittance? (See, I can make up a strawman argument, too.)

Seriously, the hyperbole is getting silly. We aren’t talking about the Joads or the unwashed hoards of 18th century France here. Well, maybe you are.

And I’m not sure what popular wisdom you’re challenging. The only popular wisdom, according to the “experts”, that I ever hear is that the poor learn less because they are poor and their schools are poor. If we throw more money at them and their schools, the problem will be solved.