{"items": [{"author": "Perry", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/628907746712?comment_id=628910700792", "anchor": "fb-628910700792", "service": "fb", "text": "The school issue has so many facets. Some time ago I thought that people should not pull their kids out of schools they see as poor schools - that they should stay and insist on improvement for their schools. But OTOH, if the school you're in IS bad, it's hard to tell a parent to sacrifice their kid's education to try to improve the school. That could take a long time, in the meantime, your kid is getting older but getting a poor education, thereby behind the eight-ball. So I USED to think that pulling kids out of public school was selfish, but not any more. The one thing that I STILL disagree with is the notion that \"the money should follow the student\". The taxes you pay for schools is not JUST to benefit your kid but to benefit education in general (which benefits all citizens to have an educated citizenry).
Also, public schools have changed so much since I went to school. My entire schooling is public education, back in the 1970s and 1980s. Things have changed. NCLB has really forced more \"teaching to the test\", which is not for the student's benefit, but for the schools' because they lose their precious funding if they fail, and that makes the schools worse.
Not to mention the prison-like atmosphere that I hear about schools so much. They no longer have the ability to discipline students for minor infractions, they have to get the police involved. Yes, kids have been ARRESTED for things like being late and talking in class. Not to mention kids getting in trouble for infractions so minor that I just can't comprehend. A plastic butter knife is considered a weapon, and aspirin considered hard drugs. Common sense has gone out the window of the people who are supposed to be educating us! No wonder so many people have turned to home schooling. I actually have seen some articles comparing schools to prisons and the comparisons have been pretty accurate.", "timestamp": "1379772878"}, {"author": "Mac", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/628907746712?comment_id=628912876432", "anchor": "fb-628912876432", "service": "fb", "text": "Absolutely, general education benefits all and should be supported by all regardless of where the taxpayer's own children go to school. Something of a tangent, ie, how to improve schools, \"studies\" show that the prime determinant of school quality, public or private, is parental involvement. Parents are the customer. The industry responds to involved parents.", "timestamp": "1379774724"}, {"author": "Phillip", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/628907746712?comment_id=628925725682", "anchor": "fb-628925725682", "service": "fb", "text": "Schools have little reason to change based on parental involvement since it has zero impact on budget. Further, schools are often constrained by many rules that don't let them do their best (this is something that parental involvement will mitigate) When the student can choose the school then those providing a higher quality will be rewarded.", "timestamp": "1379783656"}, {"author": "Ben", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/628907746712?comment_id=628935785522", "anchor": "fb-628935785522", "service": "fb", "text": "This is such a bizzare view. If something is bad we should consume less of it and more of its substitutes.", "timestamp": "1379791083"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/628907746712?comment_id=629015695382", "anchor": "fb-629015695382", "service": "fb", "text": "@Ben: \"If something is bad we should consume less of it and more of its substitutes.\"
The argument is that consuming the inferior product has large positive externalities.", "timestamp": "1379856839"}, {"author": "Andrew", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/628907746712?comment_id=629020126502", "anchor": "fb-629020126502", "service": "fb", "text": "The problem, which you point out, is that consuming it doesn't actually create any positive externalities. It just creates an incentive for you do to work to create positive externalities.", "timestamp": "1379860891"}, {"author": "Andrew", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/628907746712?comment_id=629020186382", "anchor": "fb-629020186382", "service": "fb", "text": "By the way, if any of you feel like creating some positive externalities and you get utility from and have skill in explaining things, my housemate teaches at a charter school and says they're looking for people to help tutor physics on the weekends.", "timestamp": "1379860980"}, {"author": "Marcus", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/628907746712?comment_id=629020825102", "anchor": "fb-629020825102", "service": "fb", "text": "Actually, part of the education experience is the other students around you - so I'd argue that consuming public school education does create a positive externality for the other students at that school, if you are above average. This is also a problem for developing countries - many of the best workers from developing countries leave for the industrialized world because there are better opportunities (aka, \"brain drain\"), but this makes things harder for the country as a whole to catch up. (my parents were both immigrants from developing countries, and I went to private school, so obviously I don't walk my talk)", "timestamp": "1379861670"}, {"author": "Daniel", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/628907746712?comment_id=629026663402", "anchor": "fb-629026663402", "service": "fb", "text": "I actually consider the linked-to article to be a form of hate speech. Any reasonable analysis would conclude that people who send their kids to private schools are benefiting the public schools enormously, by increasing their funding::student ratio, just as if they had donated money directly to the schools. The author hates wealthy people. This causes her some cognitive dissonance, because she wants to think of herself as a kind, tolerant, caring person. To deal with that dissonance, she needed to invent an ideological framework which justifies the hatred - thus the article. This phenomenon is actually quite widely observable - most ideologies are actually created by people who need to reconcile their Darwinian competitive desires with their pro-social self image.", "timestamp": "1379865527"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/628907746712?comment_id=629027172382", "anchor": "fb-629027172382", "service": "fb", "text": "@Daniel: \"increasing their funding::student ratio\"
It's bad that the linked article doesn't address this, but if you talked to the author I think they would claim that the funding effect is much smaller than the effect of having rich parents who want what's best for their kids active in the school.
I also don't know enough about how schools are funded to be sure, but it's possible they get some amount per student, in which case you leave the town with more money by paying for private school but that doesn't necessarily go to the school or help the other kids.", "timestamp": "1379865772"}, {"author": "Richard", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/628907746712?comment_id=629031728252", "anchor": "fb-629031728252", "service": "fb", "text": "Funding public schools with local property taxes is the most deranged goddamned thing.", "timestamp": "1379868807"}, {"author": "Daniel", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/628907746712?comment_id=629041089492", "anchor": "fb-629041089492", "service": "fb", "text": "I think that the funding::student ratio is not affected by sending a marginal student to private school as strongly as one might naively think. Fewer students in public school will likely lead to long term decreases in funding (i.e. when the taxpayers realize that they can get away with paying less).", "timestamp": "1379872977"}, {"author": "Josh", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/628907746712?comment_id=629045281092", "anchor": "fb-629045281092", "service": "fb", "text": "The government in many places actually *fixes* the funding:student ratio. It's fucked up, but they do.", "timestamp": "1379875508"}, {"author": "Kali", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/628907746712?comment_id=629081638232", "anchor": "fb-629081638232", "service": "fb", "text": "\"You could demand that people send their kids to public school and live in poor areas. \"
Everyone can't live in rich areas. There are a finite number of houses that could be zoned and built in, say Lexington/Newton/Bedford, so then only those that could afford Lexington/Newton/Bedford (were they built to capacity) would be able to live there, but those that can't afford Lexington aren't necessarily poor, so then they'd live in say, Arlington, which would then price some people out of Arlington, which could then price people out of Medford, etc. In any case, wouldn't that mean, that while yes there would still exist poor areas, more area on the whole would consist of better schools? And that the schools would be better on the whole? It doesn't help the poorest of the poor, but I'm not sure that it would be the worst scenario either.
Not that I really sit anywhere on opinion with this there's an internal argument I have between the two all the time.", "timestamp": "1379895932"}, {"author": "Ron", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/628907746712?comment_id=629083319862", "anchor": "fb-629083319862", "service": "fb", "text": "There are haves and have nots and that is a problem.", "timestamp": "1379896871"}, {"author": "Stephanie", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/628907746712?comment_id=629183119862", "anchor": "fb-629183119862", "service": "fb", "text": "This is too narrow a view. Many people can only afford to live in neighborhoods where the schools aren't great. But, beyond that, there is a vast middle of the country where the majority of towns don't even have a private school. Not even a parochial school. No options. One would have to leave the family home, perhaps it is even the family farm, quit their job, and then be able to find a new job in some town with a private school.", "timestamp": "1379979867"}, {"author": "Gianna", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/628907746712?comment_id=629843481492", "anchor": "fb-629843481492", "service": "fb", "text": "Even if the cost of cheaper town + private school were the same as expensive town + public school, the other dimension of the choice is how much control you want to have over both your environment and your school. Once you move to a given town for the schools, you are committed to both the town, and the schools, and it is costly (in time and money) to change your mind. If, on the other hand, you choose each independently (a town you want to live in, and a private school you want your kid to go to) you can make changes to one without necessarily affecting the other. that's oversimplifying a bit, but still a worthwhile consideration. Although, my sense is that at least in metro Boston, it is likely cheaper to move to a better town with good public schools than to own property in a cheaper town and send your kid to private school. Private school (unless parochial) will cost upwards of 20-30k if you're paying all out of pocket, per year - you'd have to move to a REALLY expensive town to spend that much extra in housing costs per year while your kids are in school.", "timestamp": "1380553233"}]}