Private school for all...

[judasmachine]

After hearing many calling for an end to the public education system, I have been wondering how privatly controlled schools would work. Would there still be some government accredidation program to make sure that the three Rs are still being taught? What about those who cannot afford to send their children to school, but work all day?

Now I must say I'm not bashing the idea at all, as I think it could work if set up correctly, I just have these few questions.

Oh and would we see the final death knell of the classical education and just have corporate indoctination facilities?

 

[HombrePequeno]

I would imagine there would be government standards for all of the shcools. The only problem with fully privitizing education is the poor. Unless you give them money for tuition, they'll be SOL.

I'd prefer a voucher system that gives each student a set amount of tuition money that can go to any school the parent wants. That way government run schools would have to compete instead of what's happening now. Obviously the private schools would have to comply to government standards of education.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
After hearing many calling for an end to the public education system, I have been wondering how privatly controlled schools would work. Would there still be some government accredidation program to make sure that the three Rs are still being taught?

Is "still" the right word?

What about those who cannot afford to send their children to school, but work all day?

Vouchers would be given, at least in any politically feasible scheme.

 

[Dissipate]

If the government is funding it, it is not private.

 

[Aisengard]

It means those who aren't well-off enough won't get an education.

Keeps the lower-class masses in their place, you see. That's why so many Republicans support it.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
It means those who aren't well-off enough won't get an education.

Keeps the lower-class masses in their place, you see. That's why so many Republicans support it.

Translation: They don't want their kids going to school with the black kids.

 

[spunkz]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Aisengard
It means those who aren't well-off enough won't get an education.

Keeps the lower-class masses in their place, you see. That's why so many Republicans support it.

Translation: They don't want their kids going to school with the black kids.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Aisengard
It means those who aren't well-off enough won't get an education.

Keeps the lower-class masses in their place, you see. That's why so many Republicans support it.

Translation: They don't want their kids going to school with the black kids.

You do realize that not all black families are impoverished right?

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Aisengard
It means those who aren't well-off enough won't get an education.

Keeps the lower-class masses in their place, you see. That's why so many Republicans support it.

Translation: They don't want their kids going to school with the black kids.

You do realize that not all black families are impoverished right?

Yes I realize that, but I believe that is one of the biggest underlying reasonings behind privatizing schools.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
If the government is funding it, it is not private.

If the government funds the parents (or even some of the parents) they still get to make choices, I thought choice and resource allocation was the reason you liked markets so much.

Or is your definition of a good school system exclusively limited to a private one in which some children aren't educated at all?

 

[JacobJ]

It would mean that rich kids could go to their private schools for cheaper.

 

[conjur]

Who are these "many" proposing privatizing school systems? Members of the Bush family like Neil? Norquist's protege in San Diego?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Aisengard
It means those who aren't well-off enough won't get an education.

Keeps the lower-class masses in their place, you see. That's why so many Republicans support it.

Translation: They don't want their kids going to school with the black kids.

You do realize that not all black families are impoverished right?

Yes I realize that, but I believe that is one of the biggest underlying reasonings behind privatizing schools.

I guess you fail to realize that providng voucher for school would help minorities the most,. But i Gues you would rather keep poor people in underperforming schools, rather than give them the option to go to any school.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: JacobJ
It would mean that rich kids could go to their private schools for cheaper.

It would also mean poor family would not have their kids stuck in a bad schools. either.

 

[EatSpam]

Bascially, you'd be taught how to be a good consumer.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Aisengard
It means those who aren't well-off enough won't get an education.

Keeps the lower-class masses in their place, you see. That's why so many Republicans support it.

Translation: They don't want their kids going to school with the black kids.

You do realize that not all black families are impoverished right?

Yes I realize that, but I believe that is one of the biggest underlying reasonings behind privatizing schools.

I guess you fail to realize that providng voucher for school would help minorities the most,. But i Gues you would rather keep poor people in underperforming schools, rather than give them the option to go to any school.

Sorry, but your assumptions about the effectiveness about private schools is just that... ASSumptions.

You see, I'd rather build UP the schools and neighborhoods where these minorities reside rather than shuffle them about like cattle. But I'm sure your motivations are just oh so noble.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Bascially, you'd be taught how to be a good consumer.

Poor parents would love that option, but most poor familys only have the "choice" of consuming poor public education. But I guess you like it that way.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Bascially, you'd be taught how to be a good consumer.

Poor parents would love that option, but most poor familys only have the "choice" of consuming poor public education. But I guess you like it that way.

See, that's why I used to support a voucher system. I bought into the propaganda that it would help poor families by getting their kids out of crummy innercity public schools. But that's all it is, propaganda, because as I really started looking at it, I realized that argument made no sense.

Think about it. The reason innercity public schools are so bad is mostly an issue of funding. If the vouchers we give to those parents going to allow them to send their kids to better schools, the voucher system will have to be better funded than the innercity schools they are trying to escape. And for a fair system, the vouchers will have to be given equally. Which means the government would be paying for school for EVERYONE at some level determined to be adequate to fund a "good" education. Far from saving any money, the education system would be far more expensive.

Of course I'm not against more education funding, I just see no reason we shouldn't just pump it into the schools that need it. Innercity public schools aren't bad because they are in the innercity (well, at least not for the most part), they are bad because they are underfunded. I went to one of the best public high schools in the country, but it was the best because I lived in a city that could afford to fund a good school system. A voucher system would require almost the same amount of money as funding that sort of school in every city, so why not just do that?

Ah, but I forgot the OTHER part of the argument...the free market. The public school system seem to inspire rage in conservatives, but whether it's because it doesn't involve the free market, or whether it's because conservatives see public education as a bastion of liberal ideas, it's hard to say. However, the "solution" is kind of a red herring. Vouchers, as I pointed out, would be VERY expensive to fund correctly. Sending everyone to the private school of their choice is a fine idea, but the reality is that this would probably be an underfunded mandate (sort of like "No Child Left Behind", actually), where the people who only need a little boost to afford private school can do so, but people who rely on the public school system will be left in the cold. And of course people will balk at paying for a voucher system AND paying local taxes for schools, so I'm guessing currently underfunded schools will be even worse off.

It's not a bad idea, but it's fairly difficult to do correctly...at least assuming helping poor people is a goal of the project. In an ideal world, this might be how things would work. But as conservatives love to point out to liberals, this isn't the land of puppy dogs and lollypops, this is reality, and wishing will not make it any different.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
If the government funds the parents (or even some of the parents) they still get to make choices, I thought choice and resource allocation was the reason you liked markets so much.

Taxes don't create many choices. They only create two choices: pay taxes or go to prison and/or have your wages garnished and your assets seized.

Or is your definition of a good school system exclusively limited to a private one in which some children aren't educated at all?

Why do you need a 'school system' to be able to produce an education? That's the problem with your mentality. You think there has to be a system, otherwise no 'education' is taking place.

I've been in the system. It was a system alright, but it was more like a system that entailed endless worksheets, books that no one was interested in and math classes that put my classmates and I to sleep.

In any event, I don't see many educated people coming out of these 'school systems.' All the standardized tests show horrible scores. I am definately not a fan of standardized testing, but it just goes to show that these kids are bombing out on the only tests the 'system' is supposed to get them to pass. The 'system' seems to be more like a 'system' for career bureaucrats.

Once you get away from the idea that we need a 'system' to shove kids into then perhaps we can start off again closer to being on the same page.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
If the government funds the parents (or even some of the parents) they still get to make choices, I thought choice and resource allocation was the reason you liked markets so much.

Taxes don't create many choices. They only create two choices: pay taxes or go to prison and/or have your wages garnished and your assets seized.

Or is your definition of a good school system exclusively limited to a private one in which some children aren't educated at all?

Why do you need a 'school system' to be able to produce an education? That's the problem with your mentality. You think there has to be a system, otherwise no 'education' is taking place.

I've been in the system. It was a system alright, but it was more like a system that entailed endless worksheets, books that no one was interested in and math classes that put my classmates and I to sleep.

In any event, I don't see many educated people coming out of these 'school systems' anyways. All the standardized tests show horrible scores. The 'system' seems to be more like a 'system' for career bureaucrats.

Once you get away from the idea that we need a 'system' to shove kids into then perhaps we can start off again closer to being on the same page.

Indeed, and what is your solution angry anarchist guy?

Seriously, if we don't have an education "system", what do we have?

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Indeed, and what is your solution angry anarchist guy?

Patronize someone who sees the world differently than you do. That's great, reall mature. :thumbsup:

Seriously, if we don't have an education "system", what do we have?

Well, we would have these things called choices. But perhaps these things called choices are too scary for an authoritarian guy like you.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Indeed, and what is your solution angry anarchist guy?

Patronize someone who sees the world differently than you do. That's great, reall mature. :thumbsup:

Seriously, if we don't have an education "system", what do we have?

Well, we would have these things called choices. But perhaps these things called choices are too scary for an authoritarian guy like you.

I'm not patronizing you at all, I just have this "thing" where I can't resist taking a jab at people getting their panties in a twist. Call it what you will, but I have no problem with different world views, but if somebody's world view involves them getting all up on their high horse, I just feel this urge to mock them. My appologies, it's really not personal.

As for your answer, I don't see what one has to do with the other. Having an educational system does not mean we can't have choices. I personally love the idea of choices in education, I just think many of the current proposals aren't the right way to go about it. In my opinion, in the perfect education system, all students would be provided the funds and means to attend ANY school they want...public or private. A voucher system, in fact. The problem with current proposals is that they won't look like this, not even close, and will probably make things worse.

But I'm curious, what have I ever posted to make you think I'm an authoritarian. Certainly not any of my posts in defense of free market policies (threads on outsourcing and the like), nor my posts against government intervention into our personal lives (discussions on gay marriage), and it can't be my dim views of police state activities (topics like torture, illegal spying, detention without trial, etc, etc, etc).

So what makes me an authoritarian? I know, it's that I think sometimes the government is a useful tool to solve some problems. I don't share your view that anything the government does is bad, I think that the government has a positive role to play in some situations. Now who's having trouble with different worldviews?

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

I'm not patronizing you at all, I just have this "thing" where I can't resist taking a jab at people getting their panties in a twist.

I love it how you say you aren't patronizing me in the first half of the sentence and then use a patronizing phrase in the next half of the sentence. :roll:

Why shouldn't I be angry/upset? I spent about 13 years in the public school system. I can honestly say that 99% of my time there was a complete waste. That's 13 years of my life that I won't ever get back, isn't it?

Call it what you will, but I have no problem with different world views, but if somebody's world view involves them getting all up on their high horse, I just feel this urge to mock them. My appologies, it's really not personal.

How am I getting up on my high horse? I stated my analysis of 3chord's view and that's it. If anyone is getting up on their high horse it is you.

As for your answer, I don't see what one has to do with the other. Having an educational system does not mean we can't have choices.

A system by definition reduces choices. A system means you plug in A and you get out B.

I personally love the idea of choices in education, I just think many of the current proposals aren't the right way to go about it. In my opinion, in the perfect education system, all students would be provided the funds and means to attend ANY school they want...public or private.

Any school they want on the taxpayer's dime? That's ludicrous.

A voucher system, in fact. The problem with current proposals is that they won't look like this, not even close, and will probably make things worse.

A voucher system is bullsh!t. Hardly even a token towards reform. The voucher system would continue to be regulated and overseen by the same career bureaucrats that are currently running the government school 'system.'

But I'm curious, what have I ever posted to make you think I'm an authoritarian. Certainly not any of my posts in defense of free market policies (threads on outsourcing and the like), nor my posts against government intervention into our personal lives (discussions on gay marriage), and it can't be my dim views of police state activities (topics like torture, illegal spying, detention without trial, etc, etc, etc).

Funny, I have seen a number of your posts coming out as anti-free market.

So what makes me an authoritarian? I know, it's that I think sometimes the government is a useful tool to solve some problems.

Take a look at the last 10,000 years right up until today. I agree that government has been a tool, but who has always been wielding this tool? And what purposes have they wielded it for?

I don't share your view that anything the government does is bad, I think that the government has a positive role to play in some situations.

Then you believe in authority and that is what makes you an authoritarian.

Now who's having trouble with different worldviews?

Not me. I've lived/grown up with authoritarians all my life not to mention the fact that not more than a few years ago I was one myself. Heck, my entire family is authoritarian of the right wing brand. If I wasn't able to get along with authoritarians I would have gone completely insane awhile ago.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Bascially, you'd be taught how to be a good consumer.

Poor parents would love that option, but most poor familys only have the "choice" of consuming poor public education. But I guess you like it that way.

See, that's why I used to support a voucher system. I bought into the propaganda that it would help poor families by getting their kids out of crummy innercity public schools. But that's all it is, propaganda, because as I really started looking at it, I realized that argument made no sense.

Not oly does the argument make sense, voucher do infact acheive their desired goal. In the few places that vouchers do exists(most exist for low income), both the affected private schools and public schools have done better because of the competition. This is not even up for dispute. Every place vouchers have been allowed, this has happened.

They do help those in bad schools.

Think about it. The reason innercity public schools are so bad is mostly an issue of funding. If the vouchers we give to those parents going to allow them to send their kids to better schools, the voucher system will have to be better funded than the innercity schools they are trying to escape. And for a fair system, the vouchers will have to be given equally. Which means the government would be paying for school for EVERYONE at some level determined to be adequate to fund a "good" education. Far from saving any money, the education system would be far more expensive.

This is a false argument as well. Private school costs are lower than what is spent on public school. There are even good private schools where bad public schools exists. There was even a couple places that are trying to institute rules that 65% of school funding must reach the classroom, right now many places are luckly if only 1/2 of the school funding makes it to the classroom.

Of course I'm not against more education funding, I just see no reason we shouldn't just pump it into the schools that need it. Innercity public schools aren't bad because they are in the innercity (well, at least not for the most part), they are bad because they are underfunded. I went to one of the best public high schools in the country, but it was the best because I lived in a city that could afford to fund a good school system. A voucher system would require almost the same amount of money as funding that sort of school in every city, so why not just do that?

Schools are not underfunded, I will grant you that inner city school get less funding, but funding is not the problem. The few places that have voucher show that vouchers are costing less per head than public schools. This is a fact.

Ah, but I forgot the OTHER part of the argument...the free market. The public school system seem to inspire rage in conservatives,

Our underperforming public schools should inspire rage for everyone. But I guess if you are happy with the status quo...

but whether it's because it doesn't involve the free market, or whether it's because conservatives see public education as a bastion of liberal ideas,

It is about poor performance.

it's hard to say. However, the "solution" is kind of a red herring.

The solution has been shown to work. This is not even disputable.

Vouchers, as I pointed out, would be VERY expensive to fund correctly.

Once again completely false.

Sending everyone to the private school of their choice is a fine idea, but the reality is that this would probably be an underfunded mandate (sort of like "No Child Left Behind", actually),

Actually NCLB is not an unfunded mandate. IF the schools want federal funding, they have to adhear to NCLB rules, but they are not forced to adopt NCLB.

where the people who only need a little boost to afford private school can do so, but people who rely on the public school system will be left in the cold. And of course people will balk at paying for a voucher system AND paying local taxes for schools, so I'm guessing currently underfunded schools will be even worse off.

Only voucher cost less and in end the save taxpayers money. This is a fact.

It's not a bad idea, but it's fairly difficult to do correctly...at least assuming helping poor people is a goal of the project. In an ideal world, this might be how things would work. But as conservatives love to point out to liberals, this isn't the land of puppy dogs and lollypops, this is reality, and wishing will not make it any different.

I suggest you read the real effects of vouchers on the public school system. You seem to have been misinformed somewhere along the way. As in reality, voucher programs are effective both financially and educational.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
The reason innercity public schools are so bad is mostly an issue of funding.
See, that's why I used to support a voucher system. I bought into the propaganda that it would help poor families by getting their kids out of crummy innercity public schools. But that's all it is, propaganda, because as I really started looking at it, I realized that argument made no sense.

Of course I'm not against more education funding, I just see no reason we shouldn't just pump it into the schools that need it. Innercity public schools aren't bad because they are in the innercity (well, at least not for the most part), they are bad because they are underfunded.

Vouchers, as I pointed out, would be VERY expensive to fund correctly. Sending everyone to the private school of their choice is a fine idea, but the reality is that this would probably be an underfunded mandate (sort of like "No Child Left Behind", actually), where the people who only need a little boost to afford private school can do so, but people who rely on the public school system will be left in the cold. And of course people will balk at paying for a voucher system AND paying local taxes for schools, so I'm guessing currently underfunded schools will be even worse off.

It's not a bad idea, but it's fairly difficult to do correctly...at least assuming helping poor people is a goal of the project. In an ideal world, this might be how things would work. But as conservatives love to point out to liberals, this isn't the land of puppy dogs and lollypops, this is reality, and wishing will not make it any different.

The funding issue would be unchanged with a voucher system. At least, the system itself would not harm poor children's education. All you have to do is set the voucher value to at least the level that poor schools get per child. So if you think the single problem faced by schools is funding you should not be opposed to vouchers, since at least on a per capita basis schools should not be worse funded. Schools which attract the poorest people will be equally well funded, and schools which attract richer people will be better funded.

The point of this scheme is private control rather than state control in the aim of replacing the public system which is heavy handed and constrained by notions of equal (low) progress for all, and constrained by the courts in some ways, with something which is less constrained, more competitive, and more responsive to parental wishes.

I went to one of the best public high schools in the country, but it was the best because I lived in a city that could afford to fund a good school system. A voucher system would require almost the same amount of money as funding that sort of school in every city, so why not just do that?

You are saying that a voucher system that makes all schools as rich as yours would be expensive: well of course. But of course the value of the voucher does not need to be as high.

Think about it. The reason innercity public schools are so bad is mostly an issue of funding. If the vouchers we give to those parents going to allow them to send their kids to better schools, the voucher system will have to be better funded than the innercity schools they are trying to escape. And for a fair system, the vouchers will have to be given equally. Which means the government would be paying for school for EVERYONE at some level determined to be adequate to fund a "good" education. Far from saving any money, the education system would be far more expensive.

You are saying to inject more funding into schools ("will have to be better funded than the innercity schools") will be "far more expensive". It depends on the quantities involved, but the general thrust of the argument is quite trivial. Any way of getting funding to the poorest schools is going to be expensive. (Getting funding to average schools need not be expensive. The voucher scheme can do this effectively by allowing parents to spend money to supplement the voucher.) The voucher scheme isn't better or worse than other "fair" systems at getting money to poor schools.