<p>Haven’t read the whole thread but I can see many reasons why someone like Matt Damon might want to send his kids to a private school, aside from issues of curriculum and quality, among them security, flexibility, and a shorter annual academic calendar making it possible for the family to join Dad on location.</p>
<p>One of my daughter’s elementary school classmates at a private school was the child of a well known professional athlete. My sense was that the family felt they had more control at the prep school than they would have at the local public school and the security was tighter. The school was extremely careful about the information they released about the child and family.</p>
<p>If I remember correctly, NJ has an equalization scheme where money is distributed “equitably” among the various school districts. In some cases, poor school districts even get more money than wealthy school districts.</p>
<p>Newark is far from Millburn, kids in Irvington won’t be allowed to enroll in Maplewood or Millburn schools.</p>
<p>I support vouchers 100%, an academically inclined student should not be forced to stay in a failing school system because of the circumstances of his parents. I support Tom’s idea of using vouchers to move to better performing public schools.</p>
<p>The elephant in the room is parents, if the parents don’t care there is so much that teachers can do.</p>
<p>But this is how all taxation works. A taxing authority tells you, “We’re going to take some of your money and we’re going to spend it on” any number of things you may not like or use. “We’re going to spend it on a new Woodrow Wilson Bridge, even though when you cross the Potomac, you always use the American Legion Bridge.” Or, “We’re going to spend it on predator drones to blow stuff up in Pakistan, no matter how you feel about that.” Or, much to the consternation of many in the religious right, “We’re going to spend it on prescription-drug coverage for birth control pills, whether the use of birth control pills is against your religion or not.” It’s pretty clear that governments have the authority to take our money and spend it on services we may not like or want or agree with. </p>
<p>Why should we carve out an exception for education? Your taxes pay for some public schools. If you don’t want to use them, you don’t have to. You can send your children to private school, or you can even teach them at home. But if you choose to do that instead of using the public school that’s provided, you do it on your dime. Just as, if you buy a book instead of borrowing it from the library, you buy it with your own money.</p>
<p>Sure, those could be valid reasons to choose private over public, but those were not the reasons he gave. He said that the public schools were not “progressive” enough.</p>
<p>Looking for “progressive” doesn’t prove the Marxist accusations against him. Lots of parents favor something less rigid or less focused on standardized measurements.</p>
<p>My brother thought long and hard about putting his son on the track that emphasized “accomplishment” over exploration- in 3rd grade.</p>
<p>Many private schools don’t refund tuition if a kid does something bad enough to be expelled, and that is the agreement that is signed at the outset by the kid and his parents.</p>
<p>I’m wondering why monies are collected and apportioned by district instead of following the kid within, say, a state. It does tie them into a set of buildings and teachers. I get the economies. use what you have. But because it’s the tradition, does that make it the best way?</p>
<p>Who funds when kids go off to a governor’s academy or a specialized public math-sci or arts magnet? Home districts or state?</p>
<p>I suspect it’s because, if it were otherwise, it would incite an exodus that would send already troubled schools into an absolute death spiral. Which would make things even worse for the kids who can’t get to and from anything other than their troubled neighborhood schools.</p>
<p>Bay, that’s the flexibility I referred to. Damon said that he was looking for an education for his children similar to the public school education he received as a child.</p>
<p>As someone who sent their kids to 7 different schools (3 public, 4 private), my opinion is that there was no difference, other than the fact that the private schools were composed only of kids who were smart with involved parents. The schools, both public and private, tended to reflect the communities in which they were located, as far as “progressiveness” goes. </p>
<p>This could be different in a humongous city like LA. But LA is probably the most “progressive” city in the country, so I doubt it.</p>
Yes and no - vouchers permit comparatively high achievers to jump ship (and by doing so, artificially inflate the success of their landing school!), and while this does indeed “rescue” low-income high achievers, it does so at great cost to the those left behind. It is a culling, nothing less. Vouchers take those students left behind (usually a substantial majority) and take from them a large amount of resources, including funds as well as the support of their more advanced peers. And those left behind will ALL be poor.</p>
<p>So when I say it increases the class divide I say so because the rich stay as they were, while the “smart” poor (most of whom already had a decent chance at elevating their lots in life) are given an advantage at the cost of the “not smart” poor. Some poor people get help, but those who need the MOST help are all but abandoned.</p>
I would ask what was in it for them, since corporations are not known for undercutting their own sales - based on past corporate incursions into the public sector(buying bridges and then jacking up tolls, for example), I would be concerned that the goal of the business was to displace the non-profit public resources and then, once they were dead, turn it into a new revenue stream.</p>
<p>Of course, their board would probably already have asked this, as publicly traded companies risk lawsuits if they start giving away shareholder money.</p>
<p>Vouchers tend to be discussed as available to whichever families want them- why all this assumption it’s just a discount for wealthy folks? The excellent charters in my area, for low SES, still have fees. Fin aid, yes, but considering the results, why not lower the freaking hurdles? These schools benefit communities, as well as individuals.</p>
<p>Same for why the assumption it’s all about high achievers? Any caring family can want the change. And, contrary to public opinion, there can be undereducated families that support their children’s education.</p>
Yet that didn’t stop many posting here from making that decision for themselves - i.e. having their own kid head to the private at the (possibly) intellectual expense of the public.</p>
<p>On the bright (or not so) side - there are some not so smart kids of wealthier parents at privates also to help balance out the intellectual pool a bit.</p>
<p>Thanks for that, Sue22. I did not know that “progressive” referred to a specific educational pedagogy. I looked up “progressive schools” in LA, and there is one in Pacific Palisades: The Wildwood School. Maybe that is where his kids are enrolled.</p>
<p>I do wonder whether that really was what he meant, though, literally.</p>
<p>“I’m wondering why monies are collected and apportioned by district instead of following the kid within, say, a state”</p>
<p>Because not all the money a district has comes from the state. A significant portion comes from local property taxes assessed by the school district one lives in. Why should the money I am taxed, which is determined by the budget my district has put forth for approval by the voters of my district, go to fund another school district whose budget I have no say over?</p>
That it already happens does not mean that it should be encouraged. People look for loopholes in their taxes, does that mean we should advertise them?</p>
<p>
Of course, but that does not change the fact that this is a one-way transfer that artificially inflates the performance of private schools by cherry-picking only the best poor and middle-income students, all while abandoning those without the means or high achievement to make the leap.</p>