The courts? Have a judge pick the textbook? I can't think of anything that could possibly go wrong.

School choice is the solution. Let parents hold the schools accountable, because they're the only ones (apparently) who put the kids' education ahead of political pet causes.

That's why lawmakers often want a voucher system, to give the lower income students the power of school choice.

You don't have to sell me on the idea, brother, I've been supporting vouchers since I heard of them. I think you're overly optimistic that there are "lawmakers" on our side, though. Even those from the ostensibly free-market party, when they get into power, rarely support programs that would reduce their own sphere of influence. It's hard to get re-elected by saying "Look what I didn't do for you."

School choice only works if it is enough to cover all the external costs as well as all the tuition at a private school.

No lawmaker and few citizens are willing to pay for that. ;)

The average private school costs quite a lot less than the average public school. You could spend about half as much per student and still get safer kids and happier parents.

So what "external costs" are you thinking of? Going to a private school does involve travel, but so does going to your assigned public school. Depending on how the district lines are drawn and how centralized the district is, the trip might even be shorter.

Source?

When my ex girlfriend was shopping around for a private school the private schools in the area were both:

A) More expensive (by about $3-5k/year) than what the local district spends.

B) Were generally further and didn't provide a bus to pick the kids/drop them off at that distance.

Did you consider religious schools? Catholic schools are ubiquitous and tend to dramatically pull down the average.

According to stats collected at http://www.edreform.com/2012/04/k-12-facts/ :

AVERAGE DISTRICT PUBLIC SCHOOL PER PUPIL EXPENDITURE: $13,041

AVERAGE PRIVATE SCHOOL TUITION: $8,549

AVERAGE CATHOLIC SCHOOL TUITION: $6,018

I'm uncertain why you expect anyone to send people to Catholic schools "because cheaper"?

Not everyone is Catholic.

>I'm uncertain why you expect anyone to send people to Catholic schools "because cheaper"?

Cheaper, better, and/or safer, yes. Sometimes it's the best available option.

> Not everyone is Catholic.

Sure, but not everyone who attends Catholic schools is Catholic. Lots of Jews, atheists, and agnostics attend Catholic schools. How difficult that is to do depends on the school. In general, yes, the schools will be teaching some stuff your family doesn't believe...but that'd be true for public schools too, no matter what your beliefs are. Heck, having the irrationality in the curriculum be so blatant might produce more healthy skepticism in the kids than when the irrationality takes the more subtle forms it does in public schools!

It seems your motivations are primarily religious so I'm bowing out of this conversation.

I'm an atheist, FWIW. Perhaps I did a bad job of correcting you when you kept jumping to conclusions above, but whatever my motivations are doesn't change the fact that the average private school costs less than the average public one. :-)

You ignore a bunch of things in your process and generally use misleading numbers that fit your worldview.

Why not, "because better"?

Your average Democrat who wants to sabotage school vouchers will vote for vouchers of 2 or 3 thousand dollars. Meanwhile spending fifteen grand per student on the public school system. Great way to "prove" that vouchers "don't work".

The true idea of a voucher system is that the parent gets to decide where ALL of their child's share of that spending will go.

I was more or less agreeing with you.

However, you seem to gloss over the fact that not all people in this country have a car and their children may be too young for the bus system. Etc.

It isn't "better" if people are too poor to take advantage of the option. So there are additional costs that get frequently overlooked beyond just the cost of school/tuition.

The amount of money has to be enough that even the poorest student has 2-3 options or it becomes pointless.

I don't see why, from an economics perspective. Sure, the person who lives real close to one school and very distant from the other schools may not have other options so good that they overcome the cost difference of travel, however, the people who live halfway between the two schools will still have that choice. This still ensures that there is competitive pressure on the schools. The thing about competition is that it tends to improves the quality/cost ratio of all offerings, even those that don't "win" the competition.

In capitalism, those that don't "win" the competition go bankrupt and die.

I can easily see scenarios [say inner city LA county] where the only options are "bad schools" and siphoning funds away from them while leaving the poorest that are stuck in Compton or the like, isn't going to work.

It has to provide for the poorest to get an education as good as those in richer areas.

So... when will they be taking Pepsi off the shelf? Closing down all the Burger Kings?

LA has dozens if not hundreds of schools. If there are two lousy schools near Compton and parents can choose which ones get the funds earmarked for their child, even those lousy schools will get better fast. They don't have to become the best schools in the country for the parents and children to experience a benefit.

School choice may not be a viable option for lower income families, especially in non-urban settings.

It would be under a voucher system, but the teacher's union doesn't like that idea.

It's not just the union as charter schools are (in general) just as mixed of a bag as public schools. There was a Stanford study back in 2009 that spanned 16 states and showed around 20 percent of charters outperformed and 35 percent of charters underperformed their peer public schools. Actually this reminds me they were supposed to have another round of outcomes last year or so. I'll have to go and see again how things have changed. (Offhand, it wouldn't surprise me if it's relatively close overall).

It's been awhile (high school) since I've read about voucher system; how do they work nowadays? Is there a way to cover transportation cost and time?

A voucher system that properly enabled children in poor neighborhoods (by covering the related costs) would be a good idea.

> "I think the courts are a better solution for that problem."

So who sues? The students who are under-served by a public education system that doesn't teach evolution? Let's suppose they find a jury of their peers that agrees, what does the court decision look like?

A mandate for the hiring or retention of at least one teacher who will teach evolution? (Likely with redundancies. People retire, change jobs, get sick, etc.)

And to ensure the ruling is respected one would imagine the district would have to go to further lengths to prove cause, if they ever want to remove that teacher, right?

So all we'll have done is move the tenure track to the court docket, but only for those students/concerns that can shoulder the legal costs to pursue their rights, inevitably providing poorer service to poorer students and those seeking protections for minority concerns (which are disproportionately less likely to win a court case).

School administrators, not teachers, are the elected crazies.