All schools should be 'choice" schools. Federal gov't should collect no tax money for schools. States should give tax money vouchers to parents to spend at the school of their choice. If a school can't compete, it ceases to exist. Simple.

Teachers should have no contracts, either. Cant teach? You're fired. Simple.

We went to a highly rated charter for a few years. They completely failed to teach my very bright kids math. After 1/2 a year back in our public school, but oldests test scores got her the attention of the Duke Talent Identification Program. From failing the math STAAR, to 98% percentile, in 5 months. SO, not all public schools are bad and not all charters are great (charters and publics all take the same state exam, it's not like I'm comparing apples to kiwis, on the test scores). But..I Was Able To Leave that school. So many in shitty schools don't have that option. It's pathetic.

In Freekanomics, they report on inner city Chicago students who, by lottery, chosen to attend a charter school. These students went on to great things. They graduated with top scores and went on to prestigious universities. What about those poor students who were not chosen to go to the excellent charter schools where it seemed that the students were guaranteed success? The students that were put into failing schools also found success and went on to score highly on standardized tests and attend prestigious universities.

The conclusion: charter schools attract bright, motivated students from families willing to go out of the way for success. These students tend to be successful wherever they go. The schools, as a whole, were still failing, but these kids succeeded.

Teachers and Community Organizers should be held to task as should parents if they refuse to accept help or discipline.

Set up alternate schools w/2 - 3 on 1 for trouble kids. Make 'em sit in corner or jail cell until they realize you have all the time in the world and accept the fact that they have to do basic math, read a simple contract, and learn a trade.

A large part of what made Chris Christie popular here in New Jersey was his willingness to take on the Teacher's Union.

In NJ, as it may be in other states, one cannot be a teacher without joining the union and paying union dues; even if you do not support what the union does. (even some support staff such as classroom aides, school administrators, clerks, and others must pay union dues. Even part-time workers pay! The Teacher's Union has their hand in everybody's pocket)

I do believe that if they made it so that union dues were strictly voluntary (and it was kept secret who was union and who wasn't) the Teacher's Union would be forced to close its doors due to lack of funding.

It's pretty easy for a charter school to have higher average scores, when they can simply push out the students who are doing poorly. The only real test is whether they can do better when they have to include all the students, not just the ones they like. Having charter schools for the better students and public schools for the rest is not a great solution.

States should give tax money vouchers to parents to spend at the school of their choice.

The entitlement of American parents astounds me. That's my tax money as well. What's next -- parents receiving subsidized breakfast and lunch for their kids demanding vouchers to the restaurant of their choice?

"Parental trigger" is a much better idea -- it requires parents to exert some effort and have some skin in the game, but it hasn't shown many results yet. But it's a far better solution than dipping into the public purse for private spending.

"Having charter schools for the better students and public schools for the rest is not a great solution."

Well, Steve Gerrard, it is a great solution for the better students. Do you dislike good students?

The entitlement of American parents astounds me. That's my tax money as well.

Yes, and? it's my tax money, too, you know. But I do want my neighbors kids educated. In theory, they will be the workforce of the future. More bluntly: future taxpayers.

If they're left innumerate and illiterate, that does me precious little good. And with teachers unions involved, if the kids are lucky, they're 4th or 5th in the list of importance.

Yes, and? it's my tax money, too, you know. But I do want my neighbors kids educated. In theory, they will be the workforce of the future.

I want them educated, too. But if I'm chipping in for the education, I want a say in how the money is spent, not just an Uncle Sugar voucher handed over to someone with no oversight.

"It's pretty easy for a charter school to have higher average scores, when they can simply push out the students who are doing poorly. The only real test is whether they can do better when they have to include all the students, not just the ones they like. Having charter schools for the better students and public schools for the rest is not a great solution.
Posted by: Steve Gerrard at December 27, 2015 11:05 AM

Of course it isn't a great solution. It is just better than the alternative, which is no choice at all.

Areas of the country with no access to a charter school or a magnet school safety valve are experiencing a huge increase in home schooling.

This also is a common socialist fallacy. The belief that since a solution to a problem doesn't work for everyone that it shouldn't be allowed at all.

At the same time they will ignore that fact that the state mandated solution like Obama care screws almost everyone to benefit a few because it is a program that consolidates Democratic Party political power.

I do believe that if they made it so that union dues were strictly voluntary (and it was kept secret who was union and who wasn't) the Teacher's Union would be forced to close its doors due to lack of funding. ~ Posted by: charles at December 27, 2015 10:13 AM

That's what Scott Walker did in Wisconsin. No longer would the state take dues out of paychecks automatically for unionized state positions. Union members would have to send checks. Almost overnight, union membership declined. People opted to keep the money for their own uses.

The greed of American parents?? Name one country in the developed world that doesn't have taxpayer funded schooling for its kids? Heck, name a country in the undeveloped world that doesn't.

I'm against a lot of things government does, and the money it takes from us to do them, but educating kids is the cheaper option for society, and it benefits all of society. Nor do I think people should get a check for schools with no oversight. I'm ok with state-level standardized testing. Schools that can't teach the basics, whose kids fail the state test, get closed down. Of course, right now, that standard would shut down a good half of public schools in some cities, if not more.

Everything Kevin is complaining about we already have with the current system. You can pick which school you want your kids to go to. You just have to spend ~$200k to do it (buy a house). All charters do is lower the ridiculously high deposit our schools mandate. Heck, it only costs my $50 to get the heat turned on. Why should a school require $200k.

"But if I'm chipping in for the education, I want a say in how the money is spent,..."

How do you propose to have that say? I'm not being sarcastic; I want to hear your ideas on this.