Why is the left opposed to school choice?

[muon2]

As I read the posts in the thread two thoughts seem worth noting. First, the thread seems to overlook the competitive mix of choices for higher education. For those who say that higher ed is different than K-12, I would note that reasonable lifetime earnings growth generally demands some post-hs ed, far more than was needed 30 years ago. Second, private education can be either for-profit or non-profit and they are quite different entities. Many supporters of school choice would say that public dollars could go to non-profit private schools, but not for-profit ones.

[muon2]

As I read the posts in the thread two thoughts seem worth noting. First, the thread seems to overlook the competitive mix of choices for higher education. For those who say that higher ed is different than K-12, I would note that reasonable lifetime earnings growth generally demands some post-hs ed, far more than was needed 30 years ago. Second, private education can be either for-profit or non-profit and they are quite different entities. Many supporters of school choice would say that public dollars could go to non-profit private schools, but not for-profit ones.

Sorry to break it to you but higher ed is an entirely different animal than K-12.  If there was no right to universal access to K-12, then it would be fine to run public education like the University system.  However, since K-12 education is a right in this country than equal access to it must be guaranteed for all regardless of location, race or socioeconomic status.    

Secondly, I don't have a problem with "for-profit private schools" per se but I do take severe issue with any amount of public money going to finance private education.  Ideally, tax dollars should be spent to the benefit of all students - not just those with the access and mobility to opt for a private school. 

In IL there is universal access to higher ed through the state community college system. It's even partially funded by a mix of property taxes and general state revenue, so it looks a lot like K-12 in that respect, too. The only difference is the tuition, which can be met by state need-based grants. Courses passed in the community colleges are guaranteed transfer credit at state universities and at private colleges and universities that choose to participate in the state's course articulation program. Why should I see K-12 as anything but part of a larger arc of education?

Both state and federal dollars are used to fund both public and private higher ed. Need-based grants and loans follow the student to whichever school they choose. Beyond student funding, both public and private schools benefit from direct grant support, often in the area of research. Should those dollars be cut off for private schools?

[muon2]

All schools should be the same. If we're in a situation where choice matters, we're doing something wrong.

How would you propose doing that? Geography and demographics are both extremely diverse. I'm not sure one could devise a one size fits all school outside of having every student access the same virtual classroom. Should physical schools all close? Even then the backgrounds of the students would be sufficiently diverse to prevent students from equally benefiting from identical virtual classrooms.

[muon2]

All schools should be the same. If we're in a situation where choice matters, we're doing something wrong.

How would you propose doing that? Geography and demographics are both extremely diverse. I'm not sure one could devise a one size fits all school outside of having every student access the same virtual classroom. Should physical schools all close? Even then the backgrounds of the students would be sufficiently diverse to prevent students from equally benefiting from identical virtual classrooms.

2+2=4 everywhere. The allies won WW2 everywhere. I don't know why demographics would matter. We need a unified national curriculum. There's no reason Butthole, North Carolina needs a special curriculum different from Chicago.

So you don't accept the wealth of data that suggests that learning ability is correlated to parental involvement and family income?

[muon2]

Muon, doesn't the standardisation of education serve to reduce the effects of family background on educational attainment, which is essentially the aim of the left? It is clear that the veritable patchwork of schooling choices produced by educational liberalisation is much easier exploited by upper middle-class families; and so serve to make the issue worse.

Not that I'm delighted with the idea of National Curriculums, because that comes with league tables and standardised testing and all associated silliness.

Standardization doesn't help if communities have high levels of learners that lack support on the home front due to parents or their income. The teaching skills needed are different in those communities. Note, I'm not saying that we can't and shouldn't have common minimum standards for outcomes. I am saying that the skill set of the teachers should be matched to the needs of the students to best reach those minimum standards.