It's morning in Wisconsin

[derspiess]

Well, given what Alfred, derSpiess and Berkut have said about the demographics of suburban schools versus troubled urban schools, it seems to me that the urban schools are on the front lines of dealing with a number of the biggest social issues facing the US today. If a large part of the student body comes from difficult family situations, don't speak English, are from environments that devalue education, and/or are facing significant issues coming from poverty/ drug abuse/ nutrition etc, it seems that threatening to take away resources from schools with the most challenged student bodies would be counter productive; and isn't that what standards competition is about?

You know what, you're right.  We should definitely throw good money after bad.  It can only help, right?  Like in Kansas City, for example...

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.html

edit: Some more recent info from what you'll probably consider a more agreeable source:

http://www.npr.org/2012/02/18/147067123/kansas-citys-failed-schools-leave-students-behind

[Maximus]

When you talk about schools competing, where's the incentive to be competitive?

[Valmy]

I think the long-term goal is to either close down the shitty schools or force them to compete and become less shitty.

But how and why?  They will still be getting money from the vouchers and they will have all the worst students, the other schools are not going to want them and people are unlikely to start new schools to take such high risk kids.

It may work this was just always my main concern.

[derspiess]

When you talk about schools competing, where's the incentive to be competitive?

Loss of funding (i.e., pay/jobs) for teachers & administrators in under-performing schools/districts.

[Valmy]

Loss of funding (i.e., pay/jobs) for teachers & administrators in under-performing schools/districts.

So...the schools will just keep getting worse for the worst students?

[Berkut]

Loss of funding (i.e., pay/jobs) for teachers & administrators in under-performing schools/districts.

So...the schools will just keep getting worse for the worst students?

Why would the worst students stay in the underperforming schools though, rather than switch to a better school?

[Jacob]

You know what, you're right.  We should definitely throw good money after bad.  It can only help, right?  Like in Kansas City, for example...

I haven't suggested throwing good money after bad 

[derspiess]

But how and why?  They will still be getting money from the vouchers and they will have all the worst students, the other schools are not going to want them and people are unlikely to start new schools to take such high risk kids.

It may work this was just always my main concern.

I think you lost me.

[Valmy]

Why would the worst students stay in the underperforming schools though, rather than switch to a better school?

Because the better school wouldn't want them.  Unless schools are compelled to take every student who wants to go there somehow but that would not be physically possible...

[derspiess]

You know what, you're right.  We should definitely throw good money after bad.  It can only help, right?  Like in Kansas City, for example...

I haven't suggested throwing good money after bad 

Yeah, pretty much-- by continuing to fund failing schools.

[Valmy]

I think you lost me.

Good schools will have lots of students wanting to go there.  They will take the best applicants and on down the line.  The worst schools will get the high risk kids and there we are.

[derspiess]

I think you lost me.

Good schools will have lots of students wanting to go there.  They will take the best applicants and on down the line.  The worst schools will get the high risk kids and there we are.

Well, in that case at least the better students will have opportunities they wouldn't otherwise have.  In the meantime, I doubt the worse schools will just sit on their hands and not try to improve to get the better students (and funding) back.

[Jacob]

Why would the worst students stay in the underperforming schools though, rather than switch to a better school?

Isn't the issue that some student demographics tend to drag down overall school performance, rather than terrible teachers and administrators?

I mean, I know that that's a discussion that's pretty landmine filled and all, but if there's something to that - if the social circumstances of the student body makes it harder for them to achieve good results compared to other student bodies - it seems that shuffling those students around (or depriving them of resources because their school is under performing) would do little to address the quality of education.

It's not a guaranteed outcome of course, but it seems to me that one of the risks of such a system is that the students who need the least resources to excel will get the most resources showered on them, while the weakest students in need of the most support will get the least resources. I'm not saying it's inevitable, but I think it's a real risk that any solution should at least attempt to address.

[Valmy]

Well, in that case at least the better students will have opportunities they wouldn't otherwise have.  In the meantime, I doubt the worse schools will just sit on their hands and not try to improve to get the better students (and funding) back.

The first thing you said is true and it is a positive.  But it groups all the best students in one location which could encourage mediocrity elsewhere (I mean...not that we need any help with that....)

But I fail to see how these bad schools are going to heroically right the ship, they are bad schools for a reason and have only underperforming and/or behavior problem kids is not going to help.

It will help alot of individual kids, and that is good, but I wonder if the overall situation will be any better.  I have my doubts BUT we will see.  I just want to see it play out someplace where they try it and see how it goes.  Certainly something needs to be done.

[The Brain]

Why would the worst students stay in the underperforming schools though, rather than switch to a better school?

Isn't the issue that some student demographics tend to drag down overall school performance, rather than terrible teachers and administrators?

I mean, I know that that's a discussion that's pretty landmine filled and all, but if there's something to that - if the social circumstances of the student body makes it harder for them to achieve good results compared to other student bodies - it seems that shuffling those students around (or depriving them of resources because their school is under performing) would do little to address the quality of education.

It's not a guaranteed outcome of course, but it seems to me that one of the risks of such a system is that the students who need the least resources to excel will get the most resources showered on them, while the weakest students in need of the most support will get the least resources. I'm not saying it's inevitable, but I think it's a real risk that any solution should at least attempt to address.

In the Swedish system all schools (that are in the voucher system, there are still private schools for the rich with tuition and they don't get voucher money) get the same amount of money per student. Students with special needs (disabilities) get a bigger voucher.