Will Alabama Legislators Make School Choice a Reality?
A major school choice bill is sitting in legislative limbo.

A comprehensive Alabama school choice bill is stalled in an Alabama Senate study group following objections from legislators and public school advocates. The Parent's Choice Act, introduced by Sen. Del Marsh (R–Anniston), would provide families with state-funded education savings accounts that could be used to pay for private school tuition, standardized test prep, and homeschooling, among other qualifying education expenses.
Because SB140 would use public education dollars to empower families to leave their local public school, the bill has faced considerable backlash from public school defenders, with Sen. Kirk Hatcher (D-Montgomery) describing the Parent's Choice Act as an effort to "dismantle public education."
The Alabama Education Association, which represents public school teachers, released a statement alleging that "The Parent's Choice Bill is nothing but a shell game of a voucher program to divert funding from our community schools." The group added that "Alabama's students and educators cannot afford to take almost a half a billion dollar hit from public education."
The bill has also faced considerable opposition in the Alabama Senate, where it's been assigned to a study commission, where some objections may get ironed. ("Study groups in the past have become graveyards for contentious proposals," the Associated Press noted in a February story about the bill.)
Legislators cite concern over reducing funding for Alabama schools as a primary issue with the bill, which a legislative estimate found would appropriate over $500 million from Alabama's Education Trust Fund. Some senators from rural districts with few private school or charter school options have also expressed hesitation about the bill: "If you have one great school in the district, everyone can't go there, because you have to turn people down," Sen. Bobby Singleton (D–Greensboro) reportedly said. "So it's not their choice."
It's a shame that SB140's fate is now a mystery, because Alabama students can't afford the status quo. Alabama currently ranks 47th in the U.S. News and World Report state education rankings, with 79 percent of Alabama 8th-graders scoring below proficient in mathematics. Only 16.3 percent of high school seniors in Alabama are college ready, and 26 percent of Alabama college freshmen require remedial classes. Doing nothing will not help Alabama students succeed. In fact, if trends continue, things will only get worse.
Giving Alabama parents more control over their child's educational future will help students who need it most. "I grew up in Columbus, Ohio, in the inner city, and was surrounded by poverty, crime and low expectations," Walter Blanks Jr., the press secretary for the American Federation of Children, said during a protest in support of the bill. "Thankfully, because of school choice, I was able to be out and removed from that educational environment and put in a place where I truly thrived."
The same was true for me. I grew up in a rural part of Alabama, zoned for one of the lowest-performing schools in the state. While there, I was under-stimulated and frequently bored. Despite being a smart kid, I failed math and spelling tests and almost never turned in my homework. The school I was zoned for wasn't right for me. Then, at 12, I was admitted to a selective fine arts magnet school in Birmingham. The school enrolled students from across the state, giving them intense academic education as well as several hours of rigorous training in a fine arts discipline.
For the first time, it felt like the whole world was open to me. My classes were challenging, but I was suddenly interested in what was happening in them. My grades improved and, despite the 45-minute commute, school became my favorite place. Six years later, I graduated with a full college scholarship to a great university.
School choice saved my life. However, not everyone was or is so lucky. Alabama has a handful of highly selective public magnet schools, and all are concentrated in the state's larger cities. The state approved the creation of public charter schools in 2015, and the success of young institutions like Magic City Acceptance Academy show there's a place for schools that serve students with specific needs and interests.
But until Alabama actually empowers families to be education customers, the reality for most Alabama students, regardless of what they can do or what they need, is a future tied to their home districts.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I'm just worried "school choice" is an excuse for racist white parents to pull their kids out of public schools with mandatory critical race theory classes.
#RadicalIndividualistsForRacialCollectivism
This will be chemjeff's argument later in the comments.
I'm a big fan of his "anti-anti-CRT" advocacy. 😉
Anti-racism is totally not racism*.
*Recall that racism is something that only white, privileged people can do to brown, oppressed people. So even if anti-racism actually promotes some races over others, it is not racist.
[JOIN NOW] I am making a real GOOD MONEY ($200 to $300 / hr.) online from my laptop. Last month I got cheek of nearly 50,000$. this online work is simple and straightforward. Don’t have to go office. tyu Its home online job. You become independent after joining this job. I really thanks to my friend who refer me this:-
..
SITE….., http://moneystar33.blogspot.com/
He may have finally had his obesity related heart attack. Been gone a while after the veneer of him being a libertarian came off with his support of statist policies a week or two back.
That is because historically that is what that term has been used for.
No it isn't, you dishonest fuck. Who do you imagine your tricking.
After Brown v Board white families pulled their kids out of public schools and moved them to private schools, or they redrew the school district lines to keep blacks out, and as a last resort they closed public schools. The modern "school choice" movement has roots that data back to that.
Who gives a flying F? Are people who are Black **ENTITLED** to anything people who are White have **CREATED/EARNED**???? Is that your definition of Non-Racist??
No matter what color one's skin is; everyone should have to *EARN* and be able to KEEP what they have created. Get off your racist mentality!!! Stupid Nazi.
Bullshit
The modern school choice movement is about parents of all racial backgrounds wanting to get their children into a better leaning environment. My wife teaches science in a homeschool coop and her students include blacks, orientals, Jews, American Indians and an assortment of others. The one thing they have in common is that they think the public schools suck. And despite spending more and more on them, they continue to suck.
Akshully... If the stipend is big enough, it does more to empower the poor to escape from the cycle of illiteracy and poverty. Most white parents already have options, though many live in districts where they don't need to escape. Granting vouchers or tax credits empowers poor, mostly minority families to access what white middle class families already have. Therefore, opponents of school choice are actually Jim Crow racists who want to keep poor blacks trapped.
"Doing nothing will not help Alabama students succeed. In fact, if trends continue, things will only get worse. "
Bug. Or feature?
Government schools were created to serve the public. It’s not the public's job to serve the schools.
How about if the schools serve the teacher unions, who in turn serve left wing politicians?
Oh like THAT would ever happen!
We've already got school choice. Parents can send their kids to any school they like, so long as they can afford the tuition. What the phrase "school choice" means is "My kids can go to whatever school I choose, and somebody else has to pay for it."
I suspect that the dismal academic performance of Alabama's youth is reflective of parental choice. For every set of parents who want little Bobby to have access to AP Calculus, there're a dozen who want him to be a linebacker. Give them vouchers to spend on education, and much of the money will go for domed stadiums and high-end weight rooms.
Instead of creating this new entitlement for the perpetrators of minor children, why not require public schools to collect a certain fraction of their budget in tuition fees charged to the parents? Like vouchers, this would tend to increase market competition between public and private schools; but unlike vouchers, it wouldn't amount to a massive and often wasteful transfer of cash from the taxpayer to a special-interest group.
And what happens to kids whose parents can not afford the tuition to public schools?
They can GO WITHOUT; as nature intended....
ENSLAVING others because one is too LAZY isn't a solution to anything.
Well Mr. Egg,
The question is not whether you will pay, it is only if you will get value from it. School choice does not spend more money, it spends the same money more effectively.
So the real question is not if you will pay, but rather will we get educated children out of it or indoctrinated children who can count past the number of fingers they have.
"We've already got school choice. Parents can send their kids to any school they like, so long as they can afford the tuition. What the phrase "school choice" means is "My kids can go to whatever school I choose, and somebody else has to pay for it."
You have the Teacher's Union talking point down pat. The people who spout that always forget one thing. Somebody else is PAYING FOR IT NOW. They are spending so much money per student as it is. All bills like this want to do is to allow that money to follow the child. If parents choose a school that cost more, they are responsible for the difference.
" . . . faced considerable backlash from public school defenders . . . "
'Public school defenders' being a codeword for 'those slurping at the trough of tax dollars.
"Legislators cite concern over reducing funding for Alabama schools as a primary issue with the bill, which a legislative estimate found would appropriate over $500 million from Alabama's Education Trust Fund."
I bet they are not intellectually capable of realizing that fewer students in public schools means lower operating costs. Or they do, but are self-serving fucks who think the purpose of schools is teacher employment and union dues (and political donations).
A goal of public education is (or should be) to give every child equal opportunity for success. Parental wealth should not factor into this. But the "school choice" movement rejects this. Most private school tuition is higher then the value of vouchers, so those in effect subsidize parents who can afford the tuition. Charter schools have been shown to be effective alternatives to traditional public schools, but sometimes they are just crap. So in order to prevent crap schools from using tax dollars to not teach children you need oversight, which makes charter schools not that much different then public schools. In the end "school choice" usually means that poor kids get screwed in favor of rich kids.
I want to see a real commitment to make all public schools quality educational institutions. This means giving them the resources to pay teachers well, equip the schools, and support them by not making them political punching bags.
Parents wealth already factors into children education. Being able to buy into a neighborhood of $1 Mil+ houses in the good school district will get you a distinctly different education than the district over. Public education has not, is not, and will never be a place where every child obtains equal opportunity for success. The best place a left leaning system could get for equality in a community would be either 1 school or a lottery system. Even in the case of 1 school there will be inequality amongst the students unless it is extremely dumbed down.
If you look it up the average cost of private school to teach a student is less than that of public education in most instances. Which by the way the parents pay in addition to losing out on the “free” education of the public system that they had to pay for anyways.
Charters can be good or bad, but keep in mind test scores aren’t equivalent to an education. If parents are lining up for a lottery to get into a school it probable serves a need pretty damn well. If a charter school can’t attract enough students to cover its cost it should close, and that form of oversight is relatively free.
Public schools soak up large amounts of money and are largely unaccountable. Depending on where you live It can be incredible difficult to fire an incompetent teacher. Many public schools have more than enough money per student to provide them with anything and everything, but the money is spent wastefully. A room of 20 students brings 280K a year in California. A good classroom costs what like 25K a year with maintenance for something a lot nicer than those temporary shacks? The teacher costs an average of 85K and even with an extra staff per classroom that is still a third of the money unaccounted for.
I agree we shouldn’t use public schools as punching bags, there are a lot of great public educators. The problem is that they go to work for an irredeemably bad system. We will not be able to spend our way out of the problem when the problem is a lack of accountability. Top down accountability systems that the FEDs have been trying for the past few decades have been failing due to a lack of nuance. Vouchers aren’t a perfect system, but it’s a reform to turn the public education monopoly into a market to bring in some accountability.
If you de-linked school budgets from local property taxes and had all the money flow from the state it would go a long way to lowering the disparity between the rich schools and the poor schools.
If you give public money to private schools and require of them the same educational standards as public schools, how are they any different?
They wouldn't even have that special free market sauce that seems to come when only rich people can afford something. There's a reason nobody ever says, "What a nice yacht. It's so much better than that yacht my homeless crackhead friend has."
I agree with Molly that if you de-link school budgets and have the state or Fed fund them you could make them more equal. You would have to also have to account for variances in cost of living. You could control donations like some charters and divy donations into a general fund. I think achieving your goal is realistic, would harm some, benefit others and probable be overall an improvement. There would still be a problem of holding teachers accountable and spending money well. I would be curious if you have any ideas to solve that.
Tony the difference from a public school to a private school is that it would have to be competitive to survive. Schools that completely fail their students would only appear in a free market system in case of a scam or otherwise sudden burst of incompetence, but the school could be sued, and some other school could fill the need. That school most likely would be a chain. Like a school that uses the IB program to provide a consistent education between states. Otherwise you would have the option of a trade focused schools or other specialty schools.
Free markets are places where agreements are made between buyers and sellers. The seller sets a rate for the product/service they provide where the buyer looks to see what they need/want and makes deals. Free markets are powerful at aligning incentives with action. A lot of our markets are pretty distorted, education being one of them.
Publicly funded schools would still have problems to watch out for. You worry if everyone had the opportunity to get an education. To play around with incentives you could setup a system where there is X dollars per student and if a school only requires the X dollars they get a Y dollar bonus to incentivize "free education". Add a Z dollar amount if the kid has developmental issues to work out.
I believe on average parents does a better job of determining the best value education for their kids when they have a choice. You can disagree with me on that, and the data to try to resolve that disagreement is noisy.
But the buyer is still the government. A free market would be as I described: education only for the wealthy. It's expensive to send a kid to school for 13 years.
Parents' choice is an illusion. Are we going to have kids taking jets around the country to go to the school of their choice, with the best ones overflowing to the point of insanity?
Even if we had a free market, would that mean that our children would be pawns in market experiments, with the children of parents who made a bad choice simply not getting an education as their school fails to make a profit?
There's no way out of this that isn't just public school by another name or education that isn't universal.
Humorously; You don't seem to realize food is far more important than education yet everyone seems to get food a heck of a lot easier than education...
Maybe lazy self-entitled Nazi's shouldn't be wielding gov-guns at anyone's services they choose to to get what they think they deserve by the mere fact of breathing. One just has to love how leftards can pretend their "plans" are any different than those of an armed criminal that belongs in jail to protect 'others' from their actions.
Well, the food stamp program came into being in 1964, with various proposals and test programs existing for supplying subsidies for food to the poor since at least the 1930s.
And it worked so well; no one can get food anymore without "food stamps"?? lol.... You sure are painting with a big brush.
A goal of public education is (??or should be??) to *teach* every child *enslavement* of others at the point of a gov-gun is an opportunity for success.
You Nazi's are so sick in the head.
Yes indeed, "EQUAL OPPROTUNITY" for success.
You know happiness is very important to a good life. It is wholly unfair that some are happier than others, we should use government to make everyone equally happy.
Of course, no one can really make you happy ... but we CAN make you unhappy. So in the interest of fairness and equality, we WILL make everyone equally unhappy.
Substitute Wealthy for Happy, or Opportunity for Happy and it all comes out the same. The Government may be able to fix the problem, but they sure can "fix YOUR ass".
You want, you want, you want. I want to see all the dumbass socialist like you bleeding out on the sidewalk. I clearly am not getting what I want either.
The crap charter schools go out of business, but the crap traditional school just get more funding. D.C. schools are a good example of this. I worked for a year at a low income school in a small town. The middle school was brand new, but the school's test scores did not improve that year. We had some good experienced teachers who wanted to teach, but the school had serious discipline problems. They had too many students who didn't want to learn and continually disrupted class. Granted, many of those disruptive students were very poor readers who were well bellow grade level reading. They didn't come to schools prepared to learn. They weren't introduced to reading and books at an early age. Schools don't take corrective action in first grade to rectify the situation, and send these students to reading specialist for intensive learning. The parents need to do their job at home in the area of discipline and making sure their children are respectful. When I went to school, I didn't like all my teachers, but I did treat them with respect like I had been taught at home.
I am in favor of paying the good teachers more. But, what about the average and below average teachers. They should be paid more? Some are overpaid, while others need to be fired.
Right; I am in favor of paying the excellent babysitter more. But, what about the slacky lacky and below average babysitters. They should be paid more? Some are overpaid, while others need to be fired.
And when it comes to picking a "babysitter" I still have ALL that ability to make happen. But somehow Nazi's have managed to sell that ability down river and started poking/threatening with gov-guns about it as they pretended it was for "my own good".
As the armed robber poked his/her gun through the window and demanded my wallet for willfully babysitting the kids after I'd willfully stopping to pick him/her up.... He/She just kept repeating, "It was for my own good and the good of everyone."
After all; why is the government any different than any run of the mill business after all????? Oh yeah; it's the legal usage of those gov-guns of force. Sadly; those gov-guns of force are no longer there to protect *YOU* from armed robbery but are being used to commit armed robbery.
Do you guys really think that the culture war is going to distract from the plain fact that school vouchers are every bit as socialistic ("tax confiscatory") as public schools? It says so right in the first paragraph:
"The Parent's Choice Act . . . would provide families with state-funded education savings accounts that could be used to pay for private school tuition, standardized test prep, and homeschooling, among other qualifying education expenses."
It's just public school by another name. On the surface, you might even call it progressive reform of public school. Of course it's not that, it's a way for the Koch brother or some global pension fund or whom the fuck ever to take money that's currently allocated by the government to education and put it into their own pockets and those of their marketing department friends.
Understand the true audacity of this movement being under the libertarian banner. They don't want to innovate a way to education in the marketplace. They don't even want to run a private school. They just want to take money that the government prints and put it into their own pockets. Too much of it is going to teachers and libraries, see. We need a third yacht. The whole business model is to get on the government teat.
Absolutely right Tony... A true act of liberty would be for the State to entirely get out of the Commie-Education business.
Tony is worked up because the slippery slope might lead away from that tit and out of the cross-hairs of deadly coercion in the service of altruist collectivism. He is responding to a gradient: toward totalitarian control goood, away from totalitarian control, however slowly, gradually or indirectly, baaad Fabian individualism.
I'm explaining that your plan can't even get off the ground for lack of coherence. It's not about pragmatic steps toward some goal. The goal is the same: government funding universal education.
Of course, the real goal is public money for private entities, including churches.
Funny you think that would be bad since it's already happening in Commie-Churches (i.e. code-named "public education).
To Emma Camp,
I'm glad that you found success. Every child should have the same opportunity to grow and learn that you did. But I have to say that your experience isn't what school choice advocates are selling when they propose vouchers or education savings accounts with public money like this proposal in your home state.
Then, at 12, I was admitted to a selective fine arts magnet school in Birmingham.
Note that the program you entered was selective. That isn't just a "Parent's Choice" as the Act is titled, it is a choice by the school as well. Private schools don't have to admit all students. Their tax exempt status can still be threatened, I believe, if they discriminate based on race, but they can teach a specific religion (as the vast majority of private schools are religious schools) even if they don't limit enrollment to students that follow that religion. They can require a high level of parent involvement. They can admit students based on prior academic performance. They can expel students for misconduct far more easily than in public schools, where state laws and constitutions declare children to have a right to a public education. They don't have to accommodate students with special needs or with limited English proficiency if they don't want to.
It is that last part that is especially concerning with the kind of programs that school choice advocates want. Public schools have specialists that help students with a wide variety of special needs, which means that it is more expensive to teach those students than those without special needs. A private school has no incentive to hire enough of those specialists to provide the support for students and support and training for regular teachers if the public money would be the same as for any other student. I am highly skeptical that any system of choice that relies on private schools would truly be equal opportunity.
The other problem with laws like the proposed one in Alabama is how parents are supposed to know which schools are better than others for their children, either before or after they've picked one. Public school systems have all kinds of state and federal laws that they have to meet about what data they collect on what students are learning and how to report that data publicly. Will students at private schools using public money be required to take the same tests that public school students take? Will that data and data on graduation rates and other details be made as publicly available as the data is for public schools?
Florida has been a state with a large voucher system (often held up as an example around here at Reason). Oh, I should probably have said "scholarship" instead, but that was just to dodge the Florida Supreme Court ruling that public money couldn't go directly to religious schools. The Florida Republicans got around that by setting up dollar-for-dollar tax credit scholarships. But once Gov. DeSantis got to appoint 2 conservatives to the state Supreme Court, they dropped that pretense when they expanded the program. Of course, they were also worried that not enough businesses would donate enough of what they would have paid in taxes to the programs, especially after some showed reluctance to support the "scholarships" going to schools that discriminated against gay students or students with gay parents.
But the main problem with Florida's system is that there is essentially no accountability. The schools can administer almost any test that they'd like to the students receiving the public money, rather than the same tests regular and charter public schools are required to give, and it only gets sent to a university research group that makes a report to the legislature. Local newspapers have documented all kinds of other issues with many of these private schools, including having hired convicted felons, falsified safety reports, schools closing in the middle of the school year due to financial mismanagement, and so on. Some of these schools are truly just glorified babysitting services as the students work through packaged homeschool materials under the 'supervision' of someone with no training at all as a teacher.
The last thing I would like you to consider is why the school that was close to home was inferior to the magnet school you were accepted to. Perhaps if we all understood why your local schools failed to inspire you, that would be something that could be corrected. One other thing I noted was that the high school linked in your article (that I assume you never attended as you got into the magnet program at age 12) had a high percent of minority enrollment (65%, with 52% being Black, 12% Hispanic, and it was 35% White) and also just over half being listed as economically disadvantaged. The 45% that are receiving Free Lunch would need to have annual incomes 130% or less than the federal poverty line. The additional 8% receiving reduced lunch would have incomes between that at 185% of the poverty line.
What I found on the Alabama School of Fine Arts, showed it as 55% White, 14% Asian, 27% Black, and less than 1% Hispanic. There was no data about free lunch, and it has a 6:1 student teacher ratio.
Again, I am glad that you received the education that you needed to thrive and that you deserved. But I just don't see this as an apples to apples comparison. I am not convinced that the proposal being discussed is likely to provide many students in Alabama with similar opportunities.
"I am not convinced that the proposal being discussed is likely to provide many students in Alabama with similar opportunities."
....because obviously everyone should have the same amount of bread in the government hand-out bread lines.... Never-mind who EARNED the bread they're all just SLAVES in a slave camp... right /s
Collectivists want government schools. Fascists want schools to teach mystical superstition, while communists want them to inculcate lay collectivism elevated to the mystical status of brainwashed religion. Libertarians want government OUT of the school business, but through democratic channels we cannot wield deadly force the way our adversaries so eagerly do.
Libertarians want government OUT of the school business, but through democratic channels we cannot wield deadly force the way our adversaries so eagerly do.
What do you mean for government to be "out of the school business"? Do you mean not having any government-run schools? If you are envisioning a system where there are only privately run charters or even a system of universal vouchers for private schools, then either would be something that no developed country does, to my knowledge. Education is a complex issue that requires more thought and detail than a short and vague ideologically-driven statement.
If, on the other hand, you want to go all the way and have it where government doesn't fund education at all, then that isn't even a radical idea, but a completely foolish one.
...through democratic channels we cannot wield deadly force the way our adversaries so eagerly do.
Yes, "democratic channels" require majority support. If you don't convince a majority to go along with your idea, then it won't happen. That's kind of the point.
And yet humorously that, "that isn't even a radical idea, but a completely foolish one" is EXACTLY the idea that made the USA the wealthiest nation on earth.....
Majority Mobs get to steal and dictate all the Individuals?? Ya; that sounds like how Nazi's and Gangs think alright. It's humorous people can be so corrupt and evil and not even realize what they are selling.
And yet humorously that, "that isn't even a radical idea, but a completely foolish one" is EXACTLY the idea that made the USA the wealthiest nation on earth.....
What are you talking about? There has been publicly funded education in America since before the Civil War. Look up Horace Mann.
Majority Mobs get to steal and dictate all the Individuals??
Yes. The majority decides government policy. That's how the "consent of the governed" is achieved. Do you have a better alternative in mind?
Yeah; It's called rejecting communism as the U.S. Constitution provides. There was no Federal or State meddling in education when this nation was founded and very very limited *LOCAL* taxpayer-funded ones; generally very local.
per Wiki ---------
"By the year 1870, all states had tax-subsidized elementary schools."
"In 1821, Boston started the first public high school in the United States. By the close of the 19th century, public secondary schools began to outnumber private ones.[52][53]"
"Over the years, Americans have been influenced by a number of European reformers; among them Pestalozzi, Herbart, and Montessori.[52] "
Isn't it a disgrace; The colonists !!!!!-LEFT-!!!!! their communist nations to find the "land of the free". Fought to the death to claim their independence from commie-dictators and gov-gun toting thieves only to end up mimic-ING them again a couple hundred years later....
As history keeps repeating itself due to self-serving ignorance.....
Yeah; It's called rejecting communism as the U.S. Constitution provides. There was no Federal or State meddling in education when this nation was founded and very very limited *LOCAL* taxpayer-funded ones; generally very local.
And "the USA became the wealthiest nation on earth" after it had public education supported by taxpayers.
You're just trolling, as usual.
Oh... You mean the decade long Great Depression that came shortly afterwords??? Or the compulsive debt and economical collapses that occurred after the USA Progression of Communism started??
Keep worshiping that Venezuelan plan of destruction....
And be sure to tell yourself that all those USA patriots are just Trolling....
Because heaven forbid the "land of the free" could ever be successful without commie-dictators..
And P.S. "consent of the governed" =/= consent of the biggest Power-Mad [WE] mob....
Hint, hint; It's about Individual Liberty and Justice.
Sen. Kirk Hatcher (D-Montgomery) describing the Parent's Choice Act as an effort to "dismantle public education."
Dismantle Commie-Education????? Heaven forbid any state in the USA reject Communism!!! Screams the Nazi's... lmao...
Democrats really have ZERO business being in the USA; short of trying to invade and take-it-over; after which they will completely destroy it as history has shown time and time again. Stupid is trying the exact same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Frankly leftards only advertise their Commie-Plans as success while their MAIN motivation is Selfish Greed and the ability to ENSLAVE others for their own comfort.
Alabama had choice in schools before it was fashionable. Segregated schools, here. Mixed race schools, somewhere else.
Mussolini's Italy established religious brainwashing in government schools in a deal with the Pope: https://tinyurl.com/2p94xwar
"If you have one great school in the district, everyone can't go there, because you have to turn people down," Sen. Bobby Singleton (D–Greensboro) reportedly said. "So it's not their choice."
Because the DEMAND from parents who actually have money to put children in better schools will absolutely not cause growth in private schools, right?
Just another lying scumbag Democrat bought and paid for the the teacher unions.
Because the DEMAND from parents who actually have money to put children in better schools will absolutely not cause growth in private schools, right?
Um, yeah. That is exactly how it works now. Parents with wealth can afford to send their children to exclusive private schools, paying tuition double or more what the public schools spend, and they, unsurprisingly, get results to match that money.
I think you missed the point Sen. Singleton was making. If you set things up in such a way that parents are competing to get their kids in the few "great" schools, while other schools are inadequate, then that is not the goal of public education. Providing an "escape" from "failing public schools" to only some of the children in those schools is not how public education should work. The goal is that every school should be the best it could be, so that every child has equal opportunity, regardless of parent wealth, parent educational levels, or anything else.
That goal is unattainable, of course, as wealth and parent support and education and other circumstances are never going to be equal and will always affect a child's development. But it is the ideal that public education should strive for. Parents that have extra resources and abilities beyond what is average will always be free to expend resources greater than what is provided by public education if they choose to do so. But publicly funded education should aim to provide sufficient resources toward education for families of modest means.
I just love how leftards have to use "equal" as a replacement for FAIR *EARNINGS*....
My kid slacked off all day, was a spoiled self-entitled snot with a cruddy attitude and some other kid/parents strives to make the world a better place with *EARNING* and working and developing responsibility and social skills and somehow "equal" outcomes must be forced by gov-gun point?????
Thus no penalty for crimes or being a complete P.O.S. --- but nature pretty much ensures such crimes are punished in one form or another so why not punish those who WORK to cover for those who don't..... So more people can be LESS motivated to make the world a better place....
Ya; sounds like a recipe for a sh*thole alright.
To reiterate most private schools cost less to educate a student than public schools. For example in CA the majority of CA private schools cost half of what the state pays to educate a student in public school, that is before scholarships and other help that private schools tend to provide.
Even in an all public system there is competition to get your kid into the best school, the only difference being is rather than use a lottery or buying a home in an area a private system can upcharge and use the profit to expand or offer scholarships for low income families.
There are plenty of issues to work through on a private system. I am wary of Wall St. coming in and destroying the value proposition of private. I could imagine slick advertisements, a curriculum that makes it hard to transfer to another school, and an overall focus on a profitable soulless form of educational remote learning gruel. That being said it would bet it would still be better on average than public, and if not at least you can sue those providers into oblivion unlike public education.