Talk:School choice

message: Greetings, 
Though the article's quality is lacking, the subject matter is far too major to delete it considering that decentralised systems are hegemonic in Europe, despite their lesser presence in the Americas. I happen to be a specialist on the matter as a professional government advisor in Education Reform in Canada, but lack the time to write a full article on that matter unfortunately. Interested people might want to consider the following studies as a base for a fact-based article, from official sources. What is missing is mostly union-based criticism, since these resources focus on quantifiable results from a State perspective and not a labour relations angle. Take note that whereas the issue is strongly partisan in the US, its implementation was bipartisan in most other European and Oceanian countries, and was notably instituted by the Labour (centre-of-left) Party in the UK and Sweden.
Richard B., MPA
School Choice in the UK
Google Directory - School Choice
School Choice in Sweden: Lessons for Canada
OECD Country Reviews in Education
 Private Schools in Denmark
IPA School Choice
Myth Conceptions School Choice
Criticism of Government Vouchers
School Choice Myths
School Vouchers
Benchmark Education at Democratie Liberale
Policy Options Review: School Choice
Center for Education Reform
School choice builds community
----
I agree it is heavily biased.  I suggest the following first paragraph: 
"School choice programs permit the parents of students to choose among participating private and public schools, based on a system of vouchers, tax credits, or scholarships at the county or state level. The goal of school choice is to create competition between schools for education dollars, which give schools an incentive to perform better.   This also enables parents to choose, for example, a school which provides stronger discipline, a Christian or Biblical worldview in their instruction, or many other competing and desirable foci that other schools do not. Many public school venues forbid free religious expression, although this is unconstitutional."
This article needs a complete rewrite, but it really needs an American who follows the debate closely to do so. --Robert Merkel
I follow the debate closely, but this article is so ridiculously biased that it would take hours to even come close to making remotely neutral, and I would be on unpaid volunteer time. It's such an amateur hack job that I presume the partisan who wrote it was also an unpaid volunteer, but I don't have the time that he or she does. Cgrannan 06:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I'm an american, and the article looks pretty good to me. Do you have any specific objections, or has it already been rewritten?
One obvious objection is that the article devotes endless words to describing what the clueless author imagines are "school choice" critics' objections, thinking up moronic notions and shooting them down. Obviously, a scholarly, thoughtful and/or ethical author would have taken the trouble to learn what "school choice" critics' ACTUAL objections are, rather than dreaming up some idiotic-sounding notions. Cgrannan 06:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wheres the beef? 

message: Most students have no option aside from the district they are in. Falsifying address documents in order to enroll is very common.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.121.34.140 (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: I disagree with the statement that a variety of choices exist in the United States.

message: I do not understand the second word ["Moe"] of this parenthetical remark:
"(See Moe, or ask accrediting organizations in your area)".
MikeSchwartz
:Based on the earlier mention "Moe and the CATO institute (see references, below)" it appears to be this book: John E. Chubb and Terry M. Moe,  Politics, Markets, and America's Schools (Washington: Brookings Institution, 1990), p. 183. which I found as a footnote in a Cato article on the subject.  Since the references do not appear in this wikipedia article despite being pointed to by the parenthetical remark I cite, it smells like a copyvio to me, but Googling the phrase didn't get any non-Wikipedia hits.  Autiger 9 July 2005 05:05 (UTC)
You all are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. This entry is a one-sided, ill-informed anti-public-education rant that would embarrass even intelligent SUPPORTERS of so-called "school choice." It degrades and discredits Wikipedia and needs to be removed. Cgrannan 14:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: picayune nitpick:

message: The beginning of the article that we are all commenting on starts off with a commentary about vouchers without really describing the multitude of options involved in school choice. The above information should be added to the beginning of the article to give the reader an understanding about these options. Many of these options include public schools such as charters that choose students through a lottery process. These types of schools do not discriminate against any population of students and are open to all applicants. Also, the article makes a statement that the purpose of school choice (vouchers, charters etc.) is to create competition between public schools for education dollars. The real intention of public school choice in the form of charter schools is to create an environment of research and development in the public education environment so that different curriculum models can be tried and observed by other school systems to determine their effectiveness. Many traditional public school systems are in crises when it comes to curriculum deivery and they are not using curriculum that is the most effective for achieving learning goals that are now required by the "No Child Left Behind Act". Creating an environment that allows schools to use alterntive methods of curriculum delivery allows all schools to benefit.Mklang 20:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This information needs to be added to the beginning of the article

message: ...and poorer incomes can afford Ramen noodles for the family...
This is not evolving into an encyclopedic article, but rather devolving into a collection of silly arguments.
Is there a way we can improve this entry into something more intelligent?
Probably not. It's really pathetically stupid and probably beyond repair. Cgrannan 06:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This has become ridiculous 

message: I agree that this article has a focus on vouchers. School choice encompasses all public, private and alternatives to education. The introduction of this article is not comprehensive regarding the wide range of alternatives available in the United States today. Ten years ago parents were expected to send their children to the nearest public school. Today, parents of preschoolers expect to have a choice and in America today there is a growing variety of educational programs. As a parent and educator I can appreciate this on many levels. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mklang (talk • contribs) 18:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: School Choice is for Parents

message: I would like to see the following point made in this article. Different forms of school choice such as vouchers, charter schools, private schools and home schooling should be defined at the beginning of this article. Also, school choice does not just benefit parents, it allows charter schools to try different approaches to designing and implementing curriculums in an atmosphere of research and development. Other schools can observe the impact that "non-traditional" curriculum delivery has on students and consider adopting things that seem to work. Evaluating the success of schools is a very different issue, however.Mklang 18:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Charter Schools offer opportunities for research and development of effective curriculum practices

message: It has been a long time since I have made any additions to this Wiki, but I got curious and attempted to read some of the referenced articles in the Criticism section.  Well, 3 of the 4 links went to a login page and the 4th referenced an article on the Milwaukee Voucher system that is 13 years old.
So, reference #12: Opponents argue that many parents in impoverished areas might be unable to make informed decisions, and that certain types of parents are more likely to flee neighborhood schools, reinforcing social-class inequality. [12] ...goes to a login page.
And, #13: School choice in the form of vouchers could result in nothing more than a cash-handout for many middle-class and wealthy families already sending their kids to private schools, with poorer families either unable to secure enrollment or unable to cover costs in addition to the vouchers. [13] ...goes to a login page.
14: Students who are unable, because of their parents' educational level or the lack of reliable transportation, to leave their local schools will be hurt as additional funding is cut from their schools. [14] ... references a very old article.
And, finally, #15: Studies by the Indiana Center for Evaluation have shown that the use of vouchers does not improve student test scores. [15] ...goes to a login page.
Now, I have no problem with people criticizing School Choice, but considering how many articles have been written about it, I see no reason to have outdated and unreachable sources.
Ian Lewis 18:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to nowhere 

message: The Economist has an article on the academic research about school choice here. The article cites research by Harry Patrinos of the World Bank and Caroline Hoxby of Harvard University. In addition, the Brookings Institution has research on school choice here. Also, Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman explained his views of the benefits of school choice in the book Capitalism and Freedom. --JHP 22:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, the Economist article is no longer free to read online. The link you provided for Harry Patrinos links to a work by another author, but still looks useful. The Brookings report also looks like a substantive piece, unlike the mere posturing I'm seeing right now. I'm currently reviewing Larry Willmore's Basic Education as a Human Right Redux, which also may be useful. Dancter (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Economist article

message: This was absurdly counter to Wikipedia.  Who is this a response from?  What is it a response to?  The article? That's not how Wikipedia works. There is already a section listing arguments for and arguments against. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed response section. 

message: I was thinking that there's a lot of overlap between this article and Opposition to public education in the United States. The reason is that vouchers/school choice are often viewed (by people on both sides of the debate) as a steppingstone to abolishing public schools. How shall we deal with this? Should the other article simply be a redirect to this? Or vice versa? Are there really a significant number of school choice advocates who think that in the end, we should stop short of complete abolition of public schools? Sarsaparilla (talk) 04:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Overlap

message: Please stop inserting material that violates a range of Wiki policies and has no consensus support, having been reverted by several different editors. There's no problem in stating that supporters of publicly-funded school choice see it as guaranteed by UN conventions, but this statement shouldn't be written to make it appear that Wikipedia endorses this argument. JQ (talk) 07:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: William Forrestall is propagandizing the issue, and violating Wikipedia policies on original research and neutral point of view. As reflected in the lead paragraph, despite the name, "school choice" is not shorthand for "the freedom for parents to choose a school for their children without discrimination" (something already encompassed in the term ":freedom of education"), but a reference to programs. Although the argument that freedom of education necessitates school choice is an arguably valid one, Mr. Forrestall is trying to conflate the two concepts as the same thing.
*He's padding the article with large, uncontextualized, cherry-picked block excerpts from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (see WP:PSTS, WP:DUE), and has editorialized that because UDHR and other international agreements also don't mention things like funding "election expenses" (which he suggests are also fundamental rights), the documents therefore affirm school choice as a right. The documents focus on genuine human rights, and don't mention election expenses or "funded school choice" because they don't assume a capitalist paradigm, or a necessary role for money. Again, the specific phrase "school choice" refers to programs.
*He also removed the term "implicitly," despite the fact since school choice is not actually mentioned in the documents, any claimed support would have to be implicit. Even OIDEL, which he has liberally referenced, specifically used the word, "implies". Dancter (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Human rights etc

message: --203.82.80.216 (talk) 11:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  matemtik  

message: I’ve removed the following image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Charter_School_Performance_Study.svg due to problems with its factual accuracy.  I’d fully support its return if the image can be corrected to not overstate the claims of the source material to the point of it being POV or original research.
First off, charter schools are ‘’’public schools’’’, so the labels used are nonsensically contrasting the identical.  The actuate term used in the CREDO source material is traditional public school (TPS).
Secondly, and more importantly, it misrepresents the source data from page 44, table 9, labeled: “Table 9: Market Fixed Effects – Percentage of Charter Schools by Significance”.  The CREDO study repeatedly states that it is not comparing charter schools to any actual traditional publics schools, but rather it’s comparing charter schools to heuristically adjusted virtual TPS.  In other words, it’s comparing charter schools to purely theoretical schools, these are not public schools that actually exist, however, the bar graph labels give this impression.  The source material does not make the claims made in this bar graph.  Understanding this distinction is vital, as that portion of the study’s validly is unpinned by the assumption that educational performance gains scale equally and linearly at all levels and demographics.  As this is a controversial assumption, if this is incorrect then the demographic virtual modeling adjustment would also be inaccurate.
Source Material:
http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/MULTIPLE_CHOICE_CREDO.pdf
“The analysis employs a statistical technique, fixed effects, which is applied to each pair of charter
and virtual schools to remove all the effects that are shared and constant over time. The average
growth of students in each charter school is then computed relative to the average results of
their virtual twins.” –page 43
“This finding says nothing about how well the local traditional schools are doing; it merely assesses the expectation that whatever the level, charters serving the same population should produce results at the same level.” –page 44
Jadon (talk) 14:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  CREDO Bar Graph on Charter Schools 

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: The section on Canada begins with the statement "Ontario is the only large province in Canada with limited school choice funding...". This is incorrect (also, "large province" isn't defined).
In British Columbia (the third largest province by population) Private schools receive per-student government funding at about half the rate of private schools in the same disrict. Distributed learning schools receive somewhat over $6000 per student, per year in lower grades, with funding being possible on a per course basis in higher grades (10-12 I believe).
I don't have the proper sources for this, which is why I haven't written it into the article, but I work at an online school in British Columbia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.20.32 (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on Canada is incorrect 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on School choice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080821180747/http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/04/education.debate/ to http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/04/education.debate/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080821125957/http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/Centers/education/policynote/04_milewski_publiceducation.html to http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/Centers/education/policynote/04_milewski_publiceducation.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080821180747/http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/04/education.debate/ to http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/04/education.debate/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Dr. Guillen has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
We believe Dr. Guillen has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:
*Reference : Guillen, Pablo & Hakimov, Rustamdjan, 2014. "Monkey see, monkey do: Truth-telling in matching algorithms and the manipulation of others," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Market Behavior SP II 2014-202, Social Science Research Center Berlin (WZB).
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Guillen's comment on this article 

message: While the topic seems interesting, the wording is a bit off in my opinion.
Sentences such as: "The next question we must answer is why school choice systems and charter schools are more racially segregated."
As far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia is not going to answer that question. Wikipedia is supposed to give a series of POV that either support or oppose the subject, therefore providing the users with the most balanced information.
To me, the wording seems like a mere copy and paste of what was said in the document/article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.72.49.96 (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Segregation in School Choice Models wording 

message: School Choice is an issue and a movement in the United States. 
It is not a statement about the various options available throughout all school systems in the world.
If statement 2 is the thrust of the page, then we need two pages:  "The School Choice Movement in the U.S.A" and then "School choices world wide".
Just my thoughts to clear this up for everyone. If you look at the comments they're more like not understanding the thrust of the page than like a debate (pros versus cons).
In the U.S.A. we just (2/7/2017) confirmed a person (Mrs. DeVos) as Secretary of Education, who will be attempting to implement the tenets of the School Choice Movement.
Hope this helps.
-T-  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:9CC4:E000:7C08:8E65:6DDF:9990 (talk) 01:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is it wrong that it is specific to the U.S.A.? 

message: Saporito, S. (2003). Private choices, public consequences: magnet school choice and segregation by race and poverty. Social Problems, 50, 181-203.
Archbald, A. D., (2004). School choice, magnet schools, and the liberation model: an empirical study. Sociology of Education, 77, 283-310.
Saporito, S., & Sohoni, D. (2006). Coloring outside the lines: racial segregation in public schools and their attendance boundaries. Sociology of Education, 79, 81-105.
Goldring, E., & Smrekar, C. (2000). Magnet schools and the pursuit of racial balance. Education and Urban Society, 33, 17-35.
Saporito, S., &Lareau, T. (1999). School selection as a process: the multiple dimensions of race in framing educational choice. Social Problems, 46, 418-439. 
Roda, A., & Wells, S., W. (2013). School choice policies and racial segregation: where white parents’, good intentions, anxiety and privilege collide. American Journal of Education, 119, 261-293. 
doi: 10.1086/668753
Davis, M., T. (2012). School choice and segregation: “tracking racial equity in magnet schools.” Education and Urban Society, 46, 399-433.
Jacobs, N. (2011). Understanding school choice: location as a determinant of charter school racial, economic, and linguistic segregation. Education and Urban Society, 45, 459-482. 
doi: 10.1177/0013124511413388  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcorrea0112 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  APA Citations  

message: Are any distinctions made between school choice and teacher choice?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.158.156.125 (talk) 17:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  School choice vs Teacher choice