What is "school choice" in the US?

I've been following US politics now since 2015. During that time, I have heard people talk about "school choice", but I have never understood what it means. Wikipedia defines it as:

"...a term for education options that allow students and families to select alternatives to public schools." School choice - Wikipedia

Does this mean that there are States or cities in the US where public schooling is the only option?
If so, what is the argument in favour of this? In Australia, we can choose a private school as long as we are willing to pay for it. Pretty simple really.

 

I think that in America, school choice means homeschooling. Meanwhile, public school attendance is mandatory for kids by law. And that's because school unions have fought to make themselves irreplaceable.

 

Well according to the same Wikipedia article:

"Other school choice options include open enrollment laws (which allow students to attend public schools other than their neighborhood school), charter schools, magnet schools, virtual schools, homeschooling, education savings accounts (ESAs), and individual education tax credits or deductions." School choice - Wikipedia

Public school attendance is mandatory for kids by law specifically BECAUSE school unions have fought to make themselves irreplaceable?

 

When I was homeschooled in the 1980s-90s it was the case that we'd have to coordinate with the local school to do it legally. Which my parents didn't want to do, so we did it illegally and had learning material shipped in from Oregon, at least in the beginning, that were more in line with what my parents wanted me to learn.

Not entirely. I've heard that the government of America switched to a secular education, from a religious education, in public school because America was falling behind the rest of the world in math and science. Not everyone agrees with taking God out of school and want to have a choice on that.

But right now public schools have a monopoly on kids' education in America.

 

You're lucky that your high school diploma (assuming you have one) is worth the paper it's printed on. Schools, including homeschooling, that don't adhere to school standards don't have meaningful diplomas. It's the equivalent of dropping out.

You heard wrong. Perhaps homeschooling wasn't the best idea. In the mid-60s, the Supreme Court finally got around to reading the US Constitution, and realized that public schools should have never been teaching religion, as it's improper under the separation of church and state. I don't think we would have had any way to compare the performance of US Schools to elsewhere back then, especially those inside the Iron Curtain.

I do not know which god it is you think belongs there, but the fact that the almighty, or whatever is out there has not made itself known (thousand year old books written by men who thought that viral infections were a divine punishment for having angered their deity by some 'sin' is not a very good reference, as the world has moved on considerably since then) means there is no one absolute correct answer, and government has no business promoting one over another. Or, even over none at all.

Not true. They only have a monopoly on government money, but I think those able (which we can argue about how to define later) should pay tuition even for public schools.

Generally it means one of two things. Either it means that kids have a voucher (which may not be a physical thing) to go to any public school in the entire district, which is defined differently in different places. Frequently it means per county, but if parents to send their child to a school not assigned to them, transportation is on them. In other cases, it can also include private schools. Both proposals are a bit controversial, especially with teacher unions who are scared to death of the idea of actual supervision and risking one's job if you are not effective enough in the classroom. Those that include private schools are doubly hated by teacher unions, because no only does it create competition they don't want to have (so does the public only idea), it also takes money out of public schools, as they get paid whether or not a child goes to a public school with the current way of doing things.

Which is outrageous, but they are about making teacher's lives easy, without concern for results or outcomes.

 

though there are many aspects of "school choice", the predominant feature in this landscape is the ability to move from your local school to a better one or to simply opt for home schooling. the reality is that those who cannot afford private schools or home schooling must choose between the various forms of indoctrination available to them.

 

Thanks!

I have an Associates Degree in Liberal Arts, a GED-equivalent from the same degree, and I'm currently working towards a Bachelors Degree in Management Information Systems (MIS).

Not to mention that I found college shockingly easy when I finally went in the 2000s.

Not my current opinion, but I have heard a lot of opinions that getting God back in school would solve a lot of problems. And what is school choice if not to decide what a kid gets taught and how that aligns with the majority opinion?

 

Where did @wgabrie say anything about a "god" which "belongs there?"

 

Isn't it "indoctrination" regardless?

 

So the govt is more powerful than god. Got it.

 

That would require a supermajority so big that a Constitutional Amendment could be passed. Won't happen, as religion is slowly turning into a dinosaur.

I do not believe that he did. But that's just it, if he picks his, you may not like it, if he picks yours, I may not like it, and if he picks mine (and mine is something quite complex that would take a lot of paragraphs to understand, but it (not he) doesn't have much if any representation in the US), you both may not like it. So to avoid such questions even being relevant, they choose none.

Plus, it's Unconstitutional for government, even at the State and/or Local level to pick any of them. Government schools are Constitutionally mandated to be secular. Period.

 

Which article in the Constitution?

 

Were you homeschooled, and not taught Civics 101??

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

You could say that but the real driver is allowing parents to use their tax dollars to choose the "indoctrination" of their children and not leave it up to school boards and teacher's unions.

 

Of course we have private schools here and if you want to sent you child to one and can pay for it you can. But the vast majority of kids go to public schools run by the government. Those schools are failing and have been doing so since the FEDERAL government started involving itself. Education is a state and local government function NOT federal. Nothing in the Constitution about the federal government running an education system. And then came the teachers unions and the move coming out of universities to morph academia with social policy and on and on with the continued decline in that public system of education.

The term "school choice" is about policies to allow vouchers for every child, based on the cost per student the taxpayers are paying now in the public system, which follow the child to whichever school they want to attend public OR private.

Many, if not most. parents feel their children are trapped in a government system which does not listen to the parents, or taxpayers for that matter, which without their permission engage in topics not appropriate for their child and the fact their child is not getting an acceptable education. Put some competition into the field of education. Make all schools compete for those education dollars but showing the results the school can attain. Make room for more experimentation in specialized schools for special needs or advanced courses and anything in between.

 

School choice means the choice of private schools or home schooling both of which are readily available and allowed with maybe an exception here and there. It also means choice of public schools which I like but recognize it can cause much administrative difficulties for the public school systems.

 

School choice is a euphemism in US politics to allow the government to "pay" parents to send their kids to whatever school they choose. It is basically a "handout." Louisiana is one set example with about half of the private schools participating,. So far, it has not panned out the way the conservatives thought it would since the educational achievements are pretty much the same as it was prior to the school choice voucher system/credits being implemented. Texas is also pusuing this with its new $16 billion package. But the irony is a lot of rural towns and areas, that tend to vote Republican and conservative, are fighting against it.

Personally, I do believe in options, but in many cases, the parents need to take the responsibility, if they are able to, for which type of school they want their kids to attend. There are public, charter, private/parochial, and homeschool. Each has its own unique advantages and disadvantages.
"

 

But parents have always had that choice here. If they choose to allow their kids to go to private school or homeschool, they were allowed to do it. They just had to pay out of their own pocket to do so. However, it is the use of public funds to send students to whatever school there is, public, charter, private, or homeschooled. I have a problem with the use of public funds being used to pay for private or homeschool education. And since parents already had that choice to begin with, it is essentially a handout to parents without any accountability or responsibility by the parents. In addition, we have Coverdell ESAs and 529 plans already in existence too.

Instead of Parental rights, how about parental responsibilities for their kids in education?

 

Not really a handout. The parents still pay school taxes for the school where they are not sending their child.

 

Pretty much what I said except for the clarification I made in another post the parents still have to pay the school taxes in their home's district.

 

It is not the payment of school taxes, it is how the money is used and whether or not any accountability is involved. So far, I have seen none. And in some cases, the proposal is for anyone who pays a property tax to obtain an ESA even if they don't have kids, retired, empty nesters, etc. So, without any accountability or responsibility by the person who is supposed to use the funds, it is a handout with tax dollars.

 

Maybe I am not folksinging, but from my experience it is quite simple. I have a daughter who raised (and is raising) 6 kids, home schooled all of them (which isn't cheap by the way) and sent some to private schools that cost mucho bucks. None of her kids have ever attended public primary or secondary schools yet she paid full school property taxes as if she did. Now if she would get a voucher that in essence allows her taxes to go for her home/private schooling I cannot see how that can be viewed as a handout. I don't follow your accountability thought. Where would my daughter escape accountability and responsibility?

What is an ESA?

 

School choice is targeted to poor or middle class families-giving people who can't afford private schools --the funds to go towards better schooling and a safer environment.

Some schools in US...especially inner city schools...are chaotic messes with out of control kids, gangs and unsafe or chaotic learning environment. School choice allows families in these school districts to look to private options.

It still takes work and resources for these parents. The children have to show they will be good students. They can be kicked out if they have behavior problems. There is no bus taking kids across town to a private school and parents are expected to do their part. Parents are offered financial vouchers but it's not an easy way out for parents. Just offers them options.

https://www.edchoice.org/school-choice/faqs/who-uses-school-choice-programs/

 

In practice, it generally means "I should get everything I was and screw everyone else.". It builds on the trend to perceive the state, government (and by extension, state schooling) as a "them" and an enemy operating against our personal benefit rather than being something were all part of, through which we should be working together for what is best for everyone.

Where there are problems with individual schools or wider districts (real or imagined), a growing number of people don't see that as an "our" problem that we all need to work together to address but a "their" problem that I just need to get away from. That leads to the pushes for schools to submit to any demands of small groups of vocal people (regardless of how reasonable or practical their demands might be) and independent or home-schooling with little or no external regulation. All of that tends to put massive pressure and unrealistic expectations on already struggling schools and tends to be used as justification for reducing their funding (often redirecting it to support those alternatives). That also doesn't help the large number of parents and students who don't have the time, money or ability to improve the situation for themselves.

This certainly isn't an exclusively American thing. We have similar debates here in the UK, with various pushes for Grammar schools, state-funded but privately run schools and home-schooling and I'd be surprised if there was none of that in Australia too.

 

One, your daughter has made that choice. Good for her. Her choice, her responsibility. Period. And I will leave it at that. If she owns a home, then that too is her responsibility, taxes and all. Her choice, her responsibility along with homeowners insurance and all that. If she lives in a flood plain designated by FEMA and the state, then she will be required to obtain flood insurance above and beyond what traditional homeowners insurance covers, which is not flood by the way.

Second, an ESA is an Education Savings Account. Think an IRA for Educational purposes, which is what Texas is proposing for every homeowner who pays into the property tax system. And yet, they can withdraw that money for education or for any other purpose without penalty. Again, no accountability for such. It is better just to get a refund of said property taxes and be done with it. But somehow Texas wants to hold onto that money for whatever reason