• sugar_in_your_tea
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    why bus students from a poor district to a rich one

    For the same reason that universities have different curriculum despite all being accredited. It’s less a case of which one is better funded, but more which one has the program you want.

    I think kids (and adults) do better when they have a say, and I also think they do better when they’re learning things they’re interested in.

    My ideal is for a city to have multiple schools all with different emphases. Maybe one focuses on fine arts, one on STEM, and one on debate/communication. They’d all cover the same core curriculum (e.g. Common Core), then add what makes them special on top. Then students and parents decide where to go, and the counselors help figure out transportation. If we do it right, kids will have employment prospects right out of high school because they gained specialized skills through their school track.

    I’m not suggesting we divest anything, I’m suggesting we change the funding model to get the same dollars to work better. If we can combine school and city buses, we save money that can instead go toward attracting better teachers or providing specialized equipment. But more importantly, we can have schools specialize without excluding lower income students whose parents can’t afford to take them to school every day.

    • heavy
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      So, anecdotally, the school I had to go to didn’t have a robotics program, or laptops to lend out to students, but other schools (probably in other districts) did. My colleagues today who did have those things, have experiences that are different from mine as a result, arguably better as they had earlier exposure.

      My school did offer sports and orchestra I participated in, and with people closer to where I lived where I could hang out with before and after school.

      I don’t think being sent to a school farther away in a different community would be an ideal solution, or necessarily make me a better person as a whole. Besides being treated like an outsider and the unavoidable stress and time loss that comes with travel, I would probably be stressed out and struggle to be happy in that environment.

      Again, I’m speculating but school isn’t just about what job you want to have, it’s about exploring and developing, not only as an individual but also as part of a community. I think my ideal is one where communities have more access to opportunities, rather than limiting opportunities to specific locations. To clarify that location matters a lot, and I think history (redlining as an example) provides guidance to that.

      Either way, it sounds like we both would like folks to get access to the resources they want and need so I’m cool with that.

      • sugar_in_your_tea
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        different community… outsider

        Sure, but that’s only because you “belong” to the school that’s closer to you, so going somewhere else feels different than if you didn’t have a default. If nobody had a default, everyone is an “outsider.”

        What do you think would happen if most people in your neighborhood went to a different school? I think your notion of what a “community” is would be quite different. That’s the case for my kids, there are ~10 kids of elementary age in my neighborhood, and they go to ~5 different schools. They still play together, and my kids play with kids from their school, we just need to drive them around a bit more. When my kids finish elementary school, they’ll go to the local public school for the rest of their education, so they’ll get that experience as well.

        If you had 3-4 schools to pick from that were all equally “far” in terms of bus access, wouldn’t you prefer to go to the one that interests you more? You’d make friends with similar interests instead of just friends who happen to be in the same class as you, which means your extracurriculars are more than just a place to hang out with friends.

        And yeah, it’s not all about getting a job, it’s about learning how to learn, as well as learning to set and achieve goals. And what better way is there to do that than to realize that you actually need those boring classes to really do what you enjoy? For example:

        • if you love political science, you need some math to be able to run statistics to research a policy proposal
        • if you love programming, you need to be a competent writer to collaborate on projects
        • if you love music, you need to understand theory to really understand music structure

        And so on. Kids should be exposed to a variety of subjects, but they should also be encouraged to pursue their passions, and the boring stuff should help them with what they’re truly interested in.

        limiting opportunities to specific locations

        And that’s always going to be an issue.

        Let’s say a city has three schools:

        • A - inner city school with mostly working class families, and therefore limited parental involvement
        • B - school in a wealthy area with many single income households, and thus lots of parental support
        • C - rural school with mostly farmers and day laborers; limited parental involvement

        If funding is exactly the same, where do you think teachers are going to want to go? Obviously the one with more support from parents. And the inner city school is likely to be more difficult because the kids likely have less support at home, so they’ll struggle with independent learning. So I guess we could pay teachers more to teach at the other two, but does that really solve the problem?

        Instead of trying to equalize the schools, how about moving the students around as needed? Pardon the stereotypes, but let’s say school A has a great sports program, school B has a great STEM program, and school C has a great fine arts program. Inner city kids could choose to go to B or C if they aren’t interested in sports, wealthy kids could go to A or C if they’re not interested in STEM, etc, and the only difference would be which bus they get on. You’d get better mixing of students in classes, kids would likely be more engaged because they chose that school, and if kids are already familiar with taking the city bus, they can experience what life is like from a different background.

        Growing up, I had friends from various economic and ethnic backgrounds because my school covered a wide range in its boundaries, and now there’s a new school that separates the wealthier area from the poorer area. I want my kids to have that exposure that I had and mix with those of different backgrounds, and having school choice is a great way to get that.

        we both want folks to get access to the resources they want and need

        Absolutely. We just differ on who decides what those resources are and how they get them.

        I think spontaneous order is a great thing and want to encourage more of that, whereas the two major parties think their respective solutions are better so they push a top down solution. I certainly believe that there’s a place for top down solutions, but I think they’re relied on too much.