Very cool to see a grassroots educational innovation movement brewing! I can see the many benefits of school choice programs, but I'm also curious to hear what you think are the strongest arguments from the other side.
In your view, what is the most charitable, good-faith interpretation of concerns raised by those who oppose school choice? Specifically, do critics have a legitimate point when they worry that education savings accounts might redirect resources away from traditional public schools, potentially harming the most vulnerable students who remain in those systems?
How do you think Ron (and other school choice advocates) address these resource allocation and equity concerns in the Florida context?
I think the strongest argument might be around fixed costs. In that yes districts lose funding when students go elsewhere, but actually per pupil funds might go up with fewer students (a bunch of studies on this phenomenon). But that may be all well and good, but if you have a lot of fixed costs that you can't easily pivot from and a business model focused on being all things to all people/serving the average, it's quite difficult to adjust or adapt. I'm not sure that's really an excuse from the perspective of the most vulnerable students though? But it's an explanation.
What's interesting about a lot of the universal choice policies moving fwd though is that they actually mostly start with a hold-harmless for districts in that the funds come from elsewhere. So theoretically it would give districts time to adjust... And, according to Ron at least, it seems that they are adjusting.
That make sense?
I think the other push back would be from a very different corner. Which would look at NCLB era and say yes, there was lots of pushback etc etc but it's actually the only time period where student achievement actually rose. So will choice without a focus on outcomes tied to funding work?
Got it. Fewer students might mean higher per-student funding in theory, but schools still struggle financially due to fixed expenses and being designed to serve everyone broadly. I suppose one question moving forward is whether this pressure will push districts to rethink their models entirely or if they'll remain structurally locked into their legacy approach.
It'll also be interesting to see if:
1. Increased educational choice programs can boost student achievement along traditional NCLB metrics (test scores, graduation rates, college enrollment—perhaps even long-term employment outcomes?), and
2. Policymakers and families begin measuring success through more expansive metrics, like parent and student satisfaction.
Really appreciate your thoughtful response, Michael. Thanks for engaging!
Very cool to see a grassroots educational innovation movement brewing! I can see the many benefits of school choice programs, but I'm also curious to hear what you think are the strongest arguments from the other side.
In your view, what is the most charitable, good-faith interpretation of concerns raised by those who oppose school choice? Specifically, do critics have a legitimate point when they worry that education savings accounts might redirect resources away from traditional public schools, potentially harming the most vulnerable students who remain in those systems?
How do you think Ron (and other school choice advocates) address these resource allocation and equity concerns in the Florida context?
Thanks for asking all these!
I think the strongest argument might be around fixed costs. In that yes districts lose funding when students go elsewhere, but actually per pupil funds might go up with fewer students (a bunch of studies on this phenomenon). But that may be all well and good, but if you have a lot of fixed costs that you can't easily pivot from and a business model focused on being all things to all people/serving the average, it's quite difficult to adjust or adapt. I'm not sure that's really an excuse from the perspective of the most vulnerable students though? But it's an explanation.
What's interesting about a lot of the universal choice policies moving fwd though is that they actually mostly start with a hold-harmless for districts in that the funds come from elsewhere. So theoretically it would give districts time to adjust... And, according to Ron at least, it seems that they are adjusting.
That make sense?
I think the other push back would be from a very different corner. Which would look at NCLB era and say yes, there was lots of pushback etc etc but it's actually the only time period where student achievement actually rose. So will choice without a focus on outcomes tied to funding work?
Got it. Fewer students might mean higher per-student funding in theory, but schools still struggle financially due to fixed expenses and being designed to serve everyone broadly. I suppose one question moving forward is whether this pressure will push districts to rethink their models entirely or if they'll remain structurally locked into their legacy approach.
It'll also be interesting to see if:
1. Increased educational choice programs can boost student achievement along traditional NCLB metrics (test scores, graduation rates, college enrollment—perhaps even long-term employment outcomes?), and
2. Policymakers and families begin measuring success through more expansive metrics, like parent and student satisfaction.
Really appreciate your thoughtful response, Michael. Thanks for engaging!
Agreed with your big questions! I'm curious