The 35 year Chilean charter school experiment that never worked

And for this reason in Sweden they are losing ground to Finland. For this reason the Swedish education is worse than the Finnish. While the Finnish education is a copy of the Swedish, but Finnish didn't change it to favour corporations.

I am anarchist, but a social anarchist, and in consequence anti-capitalist. We live in statist world, I won't defend anything that I believe that is harming for society, and charter education that is not private neither public is harming for society. So I won't defend it.

The people go to what they can. If people choose charter and private, it is because public education is being destroyed. In Spain, for example, it is being done. How? Making that public schools have more students in classroom, while charter schools will be able to have less students, this makes worse the public education.

I don't care how it is. I want that everybody have access to education, independently of their incomes. Charter education and private education prevents this. And by the way, you hate so much the government, but you defend the involvement of the government giving money to corporations. LOL.

 

Who are charter schools harming? The kids who want to get out of their school and into a charter program? How is it you know better then them? Why should they be force to pay for an education you want them to have rather then giving them the freedom to seek the education they want to have? The Finns have benefitted from competition why can't American students get that sort of freedom of choice?

Social anarchist is an oxymoron.

Class sizes in America are going down, teacher pay, and we are falling behind every single country with a voucher program or school competition.

 

This is the result of talking to walls. You are spot on, but the walls will never listen to what you are saying.

 

Have you found one country with a voucher program or competition in education that didn't get better results then before the switch yet?

- - - Updated - - -

 

If you don't know about anarchism, obviously it would be an oxymoron. But 90% of anarchists are of the social anarchist branch like Bakunin, Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, Lev Tolstoy...

The finns enjoy public education. That is the point.

I've not studied the American educative system so I don't know well. Why you are going backwards, but there are many factors that must studied. And I am not expert in that.

 

The highest ranked pre-collegiate education systems in the world aren't privatized.

Both South Korea and Finland regularly top most education rankings, and both are highly socialized.

That being said, private tutoring services can certainly help augment educational performance.

 

Ah yes. The anarchist with government control over everything they just call it something else. I am aware of those types. In practice it is the most totalitarian system devised by man.

Oh you don't send your kids to schools here? So why do you think you have the right to force these kids to go to a school they don't want to go to? Then make them pay taxes for the rest of their life because of it? Because you worry about "corporations"? What corporation took your money for something you didn't want and for your business a second time? When was the last time the government spent your taxes the way you wanted?

 

That is because you have a near government monopoly on schools here. The best schools in the world are private schools. The Ivy League nearly all private etc... You didn't like having school choice in college? Would we all be better off if we had to go to the college nearest our homes? Same lunacy behind fighting vouchers. I don't see why you have to control the educational choices of people you have never met.

 

College works a bit differently from pre-collegiate education. With college, there is an assumption that a significant portion of students will have to relocate to attend the school of their choice. Pre-collegiate education doesn't usually have that mobility, because students live with their parents rather than living in a dorm.

There is, indeed, more choice involved with college, but choice (even in a privatized system) is more limited for pre-collegiate education due to the lack of mobility.

The voucher idea is problematic in that it takes time for markets to adapt. In the beginning, a voucher system would benefit upper income students more, since more expensive private schools would develop before ones affordable enough for lower income students. Obviously, more expensive private schools are going to be more profitable.

In some areas, vouchers seem like the only good option left, but there are plenty of other areas where it wouldn't be necessary. Vermont has some of the best public education systems in the country, and so vouchers there wouldn't be needed.

In areas where the local government is less functional or just poorly managed, vouchers are more of a viable alternative.

 

The last time that I went to the doctor, and they cured my broken leg, for example.

 

Why did you go there if you didn't want treatment?

 

??? I did want treatment LOL. And I received it.

 

Again, there are programs like KIPP that produce outstanding results now, and can run solely on vouchers. There are non profits. How long should these kids wait while the public school corrects itself? You act like they are moving with deliberate speed. Even if it helps some middle class kids more then the poor kids, (I disagree, poor kids have the worst public schools they will more likely use it), what is bad with that? Why can't "it helps some kids" not be good enough?

That is fine. No one said we will force people to change, just give the options to those that want too.

I bet those are the areas that use them more often and also the areas that we need to help. I mean, without the bad areas in America do we really have any problems? Big ones?

 

Oh OK, you are in a government hospital run state. Glad to hear your leg is feeling better.

Should you ever get a serious diagnosis, like cancer, try to get over here to our corporate hospitals as quick as you can. You will have a 20% better chance at survival then in your country.

 

Cancer? Yes. My father had cirurgy to change the hip for a prothesic hip of last technology in a public hospital.

I am Spanish. There is a lot of prevention in cancer and all this. And all the important things are done in public hospitals. The best hospitals in Spain are government hospitals.

Also we received help for dependency of my grandparents, and thanks to that we could afford a nurse to take care of them...

Our healthcare is one of the best of the world. And only I could survive in USA if I could pay one of your hospitals if I was rich, and I am not rich. I cannot afford one of your elite hospitals, so my healthcare is the best for me.

In USA healthcare is really expensive.

 

No one said you weren't dependent. I said our healthcare system delivers better results then your and that if you are diagnosed with cancer your odds of living go up 20% if you come to America. Where we have the best treatment results in the world. You go be dependent if you want, me, I prefer to live even of medical care in America costs more - because I am getting more. Now if the government could get out of the way prices could come down.

 

You don't get more. Get more just a few that can pay.

But we are not so far, and the expectance of life in Spain is a bit higher than USA. In Spain we normally don't go to USA to receive treatment of cancer because here we have the same level, even the wealthy people who can afford a treatment in USA. And yes maybe USA in cancer is the best, but in heart care the Spanish healthcare is one of the best. The point, is that public healthcare can be at the level of the best and elitist healthcare of the world, because what you are saying only is affordable for that ones that have money, a lot. In Spain a comparable service is possible for everybody. Do you get the difference?

In healthcare Spain is in the level of USA. And it is the public healthcare.

In Finland the education is superior to the one of USA and it is public.

 

Cuba has 100% government run hospitals and lots of government-trained doctors. Some of those doctors are better than voodoo witch doctors.

 

93% of Americans had insurance before this Obamacare fiasco. The rest are covered by Medicaid. this goes by by cure rates, it doesnt matter if the person was poor or not, they are in the stats. If we did that bad among the poor, we wouldnt be so far ahead of you.

Finland has more competition in education then we do. They dont teach students as long either.

Lifespan is not an indicator of quality of hospitals. Hospitals can't control if you smoke, they can save you from lung cancer. In Spain, they rely on drugs made for the profitable US market, since Pharma cant make a buck selling to Euros. That is why nearly all the medical innovations in Spanish hospitals were developed outside of Spain. If we go public healthcare, and kill big pharma if the leftists have their way, who will be inventing the life saving drugs you need?

 

D.C. is an area where vouchers worked, and I believe that they need to go back to that. Certain other major cities (like St. Louis) would probably benefit from a voucher system as well.

All I'm saying is that they don't work everywhere. Vouchers are a very application specific policy. Under the right conditions, it can be an upgrade to the status quo, but there are other cases where the push for vouchers can deplete the funding of a good public education system.

 

The unions killed them.

People only leave if the education system is good for them. Would you have individual students sacrifice their education for "the good of the whole"?

 

A lot of things killed St. Louis's system, but it was mostly the inability to properly annex outlying areas.

People attempt to act in their best interests, but there are plenty of times when they make decisions that seem best in the short run but end up rather bad in the long run.

Sacrifice is something that can go in a lot of directions.

 

The problem is not the teacher's union (although they do protect some bad teachers which does hurt somewhat), the problem is the cascading mandates from the different levels of government and the attempt to take the easy way out. Teachers in most public schools are teaching to the test. It's not because they want to. It is because their school boards and administrators know that teaching to the test is the easiest (and quickest and cheapest) way to increase standardized test scores. The problem is that if you change the test without changing your teaching fast, your school is screwed. that is what happened in a local district. They were primarily teaching to the test. They got good at it. When the test changed, they didn't change teaching fast enough, so a system with primarily A schools--5 As, 3 Cs and a D (FL has a school grading system) ended up with 1 A, 4 Cs, 2 Ds and a F. The one A school is a magnet school that never taught to the test. They just taught well. If you are teaching well, the type of test doesn't matter much, you will do well. Ironically, that A school was reduced in population by the school board over the last few years, despite having about a 2:1 ratio of qualified applicants to chosen applicants.

 

Not in the state of Florida. There is no tuition at charter schools here.

From the Florida charter school website FAQ:

http://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/information/charter_schools/faqs.asp

Not in Florida. Our charter schools are tuition/fee free.

Why? Why not have a choice of a free alternative to the public schools? As I've pointed out, in Florida, charter schools are free.