Contradictions in education reform debates

This is just one of many

Many education reform arguments are contradictory, not well-thought-out, or do not follow logic. Case in point:

I recently attended an education conference (which is why it has been a while since I've posted). One evening, during our walk back to the hotel, I overheard a fellow conference-goer make his case for why public schools in depressed urban environments should receive more funding. He used public housing as his example. “Joe” claimed that public housing complexes were not well-maintained by residents because the residents don't own the property. Because they don't own the property, they have no incentive to upkeep it. In other words, because it is not theirs, they are not invested in it. But when these public housing residents go on to purchase their own homes, Joe claimed, they upkeep the property that they purchase because they own it, it is theirs.

Joe related this example to urban public schools. He claimed that students and their families do not feel invested in their local school because it is dilapidated and not well kept. He stated that schools would be more appealing to students in depressed areas if they looked nicer and were more visibly appealing to students. In order to look nicer, these schools need more funding.

Joe’s logic does not follow. In the public housing example, the housing was not taken care of because the residents do not own the property, therefore are not invested in maintaining the property. Following this argument and applying it to schools, for parents and students to feel more invested in school, they would need to pay for it—directly. Just like public schools, public housing is paid for through tax-payer dollars, or they at least receive government subsidies (i.e., tax-payer subsidies). If both public housing and public schools are paid for by tax-payers, then, following Joe’s logic, it makes sense that they are both dilapidated. In neither scenario do individuals “owe,” or directly pay for, the property.

It seems that public schools wouldn't need more money from tax-payers, they would need to change how they receive funding. Parents would need to make direct payments to schools. They would need to pull money out of their own pocket and hand it to the administrator of the school. Certainly, in the case of public schools, the parents would never own the property, but this solution to the issue of unkept buildings seems closer to accurate than Joe’s line of thinking.

So then, was Joe making the case for private schools? Or education savings accounts (ESA) in which the parent receives the government-appropriated funding so that they can "spend" it on which school they choose? I doubt Joe would agree that he was making either case, but it seems to me that he was.