> The public school no longer bears the costs of educating that student, so it's a neutral move.
It's not neutral because the "alternative" schools never take the expensive students. You are seeing selection bias.
This was the general confounder when you look at all the "alternative schooling" outcomes. When "alternative" schools participate in a lottery which causes them to have the same demographics as the public school, they almost always turn out worse than the public school.
(I say almost always because there was one notable exception--Louisiana. There the suburban schools were so terrible that even alternative schooling beat them--but not by much).
Market rates for whom? Programmers? It was never my impression that private-school teachers were paid as well as public school benefits or had comparable benefits.
The reason you pay for private schools is the same reason that you buy a house in a good school district: to select your child's classmates and their parents.
The reason private school teachers get paid equal or less often has more to do with the level of education of the private school. The barrier to every for public school teaching in my state is very high. They get paid a pittance considering how much education they need to have to get the job and unpaid hours worked
No, the reason (in my case) was because the public schools prioritize social agendas over academic quality. My kids can do advanced math. My neighbor's kids estimate or guess. I hope the public schools in my area get de-funded. They are a waste of tax payer money. My choice had nothing to do with who is poor or rich.
I believe that "Success Academy" does a lottery after you apply. This is selection bias again as they disqualify some applicants (almost always by a proxy for socioeconomic cohort).
The "lottery" I am referencing is when students get assigned to any available school which takes public money solely based upon the lottery. A school cannot refuse a student that has been placed into their school by the lottery.
What this does is that it removes selection bias. A school can no longer decline a student simply because they belong to a lower socioeconomic cohort (or use any of the proxy measures that indicate lower socioeconomic cohort--religion, race, ADHD, etc.).
Once you remove this bias, the alternative schools almost always come in looking worse than the public schools. This is unsurpising as the alternative schools are almost always smaller and cannot amortize the fixed costs as effectively.
We know how to "fix" education. You make teacher to student ratios somewhere around 1 teacher (2 teachers if elementary age) to 5-10 students and then place students of roughly equivalent levels together.
It's not neutral because the "alternative" schools never take the expensive students. You are seeing selection bias.
This was the general confounder when you look at all the "alternative schooling" outcomes. When "alternative" schools participate in a lottery which causes them to have the same demographics as the public school, they almost always turn out worse than the public school.
(I say almost always because there was one notable exception--Louisiana. There the suburban schools were so terrible that even alternative schooling beat them--but not by much).