A Question About Highschools in the USA

[Adam Smith]

The US evidence to date indicates that increased school choice both those who switch AND those who stay where they are, since public schools respond positively to increased competiton.

In this paper, I have presented evidence that suggests that the school choice debate should focus much more on how public schools respond to competition. It appears that public schools are induced to raise achievement when they are faced with competition and that this effect swamps any effect associated with cream-skimming, reverse cream-skimming, or the like. The choice reforms that are currently in place do not appear to generate winners and losers, but only winners. Public school students, who are often predicted to be losers, are winners because their schools apparently respond positively to competitive threats. This is not only good news for students; it should be welcome news to those who think that public schools have much good potential that is brought out only when need arises.

Source: Carolyn Hoxby, How School Choice Affects the Achievement of Public School Students, 2001. Study attached. Hoxby is a professor of economics at Harvard. There are other similar US studies, but this is the only one I can lay my hands on from home at this hour of the night.

In addition, I understand that the Netherlands have had school choice since 1917, Sweden has had school choice since 1992, and that Finland also has some form of school choice. What conclusions can be drawn from these cases?

edits: formatting

[Jon Miller]

I never understood why people dooming people to go to ****ty schools is a good thing. We should help those who can to have better opportunities, at the same time improving the school. It isn't... well, let's screw over all these kids because otherwise the school will be even worse (how?).

JM

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I never understood why people dooming people to go to ****ty schools is a good thing. We should help those who can to have better opportunities, at the same time improving the school. It isn't... well, let's screw over all these kids because otherwise the school will be even worse (how?).

JM

Strange you should say this. I've been following the thread and thinking how similar some of the issues and arguments are wrt the Canadian healthcare system. We impose/enforce poor service on everyone in the name of universality. Opting out is not allowed b/c that would just make it worse for those that remain, yadda, yadda...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I never understood why people dooming people to go to ****ty schools is a good thing. We should help those who can to have better opportunities, at the same time improving the school. It isn't... well, let's screw over all these kids because otherwise the school will be even worse (how?).

JM

Obviously if we can make education better for everyone, we should, but before that happens our priority should be giving the best education to those who will use it most.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by GePap
Except that there aren;t enough private schools to meet the demand, and unless you are going to force private schools to accept anyone and everyone, they can still chose what students they take. Maybe the parochial systems might take anyone, but they don;t have the facilities to replace public education, and of course, there is an issue with the State subsidzing parochial schools.

Good point. Economically speaking. Creating real competition is horribly inefficient.

If private schools are better its by a very small margin. More focus needs to be put on the students and not the schools. Students are the ones who can make the difference.

[Kuciwalker]

.

[Kidlicious]

I don't know if you think I was responding to what you said, but I agree with it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Obviously if we can make education better for everyone, we should, but before that happens our priority should be giving the best education to those who will use it most.

And we don't?

[Jon Miller]

No.

JM

[Kidlicious]

It's called no child left behind. It assumes that the school can prevent children from being left behind, but it doesn't work because schools don't have that power. Only children do.

[GePap]

Really?

Cause those who will use education most are generally the kids of financially successful well educated parents, and we have no only magnet and exclusive public highschools for them, but of course the entire private school system.

I fail to see any failure in the US to educate these kids - if anything, the US is awash with extra program for these kinds of kids, more than most countries have.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by GePap
Really?

Cause those who will use education most are generally the kids of financially successful well educated parents, and we have no only magnet and exclusive public highschools for them, but of course the entire private school system.

I fail to see any failure in the US to educate these kids - if anything, the US is awash with extra program for these kinds of kids, more than most countries have.

Oh, I agree. Sorry, I didn't read the whole thread.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by GePap
Really?

Cause those who will use education most are generally the kids of financially successful well educated parents, and we have no only magnet and exclusive public highschools for them, but of course the entire private school system.

I fail to see any failure in the US to educate these kids - if anything, the US is awash with extra program for these kinds of kids, more than most countries have.

We don't have much for intelligent kids in poor school systems.

Intelligence is a better at showing who will use the education than wealth of the parents.

JM

[Kidlicious]

Actually, they have their own schools and their own classes.

[Jon Miller]

No, they do not. At least, not in rural areas.

JM