Privatizing Education

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
If you are told you have to volunteer it isn’t volunteering.
[/quote]

Sure.

In any case, all the parents go above and beyond the minimum hours. More than anything, our school is a community not a government mandated activity and babysitting service.

You can nitpick and play semantics all you want, but how much parental involvement do public schools require?

I would much rather schools say “Parents must do XX number of volunteer and classroom time” versus “We’re going to raise your taxes more because the teachers need more pay, and oh, by the way, the quality of education will go down, and don’t worry, you don’t have to be involved, the government will take care of your kids…”

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
We already have enough difficulty finding teachers who know how to teach. If we make teaching like any other job (no tenure, low benes) it damn well better pay like an engineering job.

Tenure is necessary in teaching because the subjects don’t change. Algebra is algebra. So, what prevents a private employer from firing older teachers to save money? Do you want your children taught by a rotating crop of newbie 24 year olds? No one will enter the field knowing that they’ll be an unemployed 50 year old.

Teaching sucks. I’ve been doing it for 29 years and it truly is a bastard. Try to get a room full of sleepy teens to do Trig at 8:00. Good fucking luck.

It therefore better pay like a motherfucker or have tenure, or no more teaching.[/quote]

If education were privatized and parents were given their choice of schooling, they would chose to go were the best teachers were. In turn, schools would keep and pay those good teachers that brought in more business.

[quote]vroom wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Expensive to who?

Society… which we all seem to be a part of whether we like it or not.[/quote]

That doesn’t make sense. Society is not responsible for the behavior of individuals. Society does not bear an expense but rather the individuals who choose to act “anti-socially” do.

Go ahead an take responsibility for other people if that’s your bag…leave me out of it.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
We already have enough difficulty finding teachers who know how to teach. If we make teaching like any other job (no tenure, low benes) it damn well better pay like an engineering job.

Tenure is necessary in teaching because the subjects don’t change. Algebra is algebra. So, what prevents a private employer from firing older teachers to save money? Do you want your children taught by a rotating crop of newbie 24 year olds? No one will enter the field knowing that they’ll be an unemployed 50 year old.

Teaching sucks. I’ve been doing it for 29 years and it truly is a bastard. Try to get a room full of sleepy teens to do Trig at 8:00. Good fucking luck.

It therefore better pay like a motherfucker or have tenure, or no more teaching.[/quote]

Let the market decide.

Our university system is much more “privatized” relative to our high schools, and it is the best on the planet.

Our high schools are run by state and federal governments and they are consistently out-performed by foreign high schools.

What few private high schools we have cost less per student and out-perform public schools in every measurable metric.

Why public-schools-vs-private-schools is even a discussion is one of the great mysteries of modern politics.

Public schools are rationalized by people who see a need for “washing the masses”.

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:

Why public-schools-vs-private-schools is even a discussion is one of the great mysteries of modern politics.[/quote]

Really?

I think public choice theory explains it quite well.

[quote]orion wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:

Why public-schools-vs-private-schools is even a discussion is one of the great mysteries of modern politics.

Really?

I think public choice theory explains it quite well.
[/quote]

Intriguing. Care to elaborate?

[quote]NealRaymond2 wrote:
orion wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:

Why public-schools-vs-private-schools is even a discussion is one of the great mysteries of modern politics.

Really?

I think public choice theory explains it quite well.

Intriguing. Care to elaborate?[/quote]

It is not really that mysterious.

In a democracy, once the idea of redistribution is accepted, well connected political groups will start to lobby to be paid from public coffers.

Basically that is feudal rent seeking and the teachers unions are as educated, politically connected and therefore powerful as corn farmers and oil companies.

Since the whole system that grants them de-facto tenure, money and privileges would be destroyed with a system of school vouchers, they will not let it happen.

[quote]malonetd wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
We already have enough difficulty finding teachers who know how to teach. If we make teaching like any other job (no tenure, low benes) it damn well better pay like an engineering job.

Tenure is necessary in teaching because the subjects don’t change. Algebra is algebra. So, what prevents a private employer from firing older teachers to save money? Do you want your children taught by a rotating crop of newbie 24 year olds? No one will enter the field knowing that they’ll be an unemployed 50 year old.

Teaching sucks. I’ve been doing it for 29 years and it truly is a bastard. Try to get a room full of sleepy teens to do Trig at 8:00. Good fucking luck.

It therefore better pay like a motherfucker or have tenure, or no more teaching.

If education were privatized and parents were given their choice of schooling, they would chose to go were the best teachers were. In turn, schools would keep and pay those good teachers that brought in more business.[/quote]

Nope. Why do you think Walmart does so well? People want the cheapest possible shit, at the cheapest possible price, provided by the trapped working poor and Chinese coolies.

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Our university system is much more “privatized” relative to our high schools, and it is the best on the planet.

Our high schools are run by state and federal governments and they are consistently out-performed by foreign high schools.

What few private high schools we have cost less per student and out-perform public schools in every measurable metric.

Why public-schools-vs-private-schools is even a discussion is one of the great mysteries of modern politics.[/quote]

Pay your teachers $75000 per year and watch good people flood into the field.

Profs teach a couple of classes per day. High school teachers teach 5 (mostly).

Private schools (where I teach) can easily kick out the evil little Satanists. Guess where they go.

There are lots of reasons why the comparisons are not apt.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Some of this type of discussion misses the concept of bettering the nation as a whole. Leaving mass sections of population to flounder with a poor education isn’t going to do any good, either.

At some point there is a collective consideration for the strength of the nation and it’s economy… making is POSSIBLE for those that want to exert themselves to become educated and productive.

I know, I know, there are success stories from all segments of society, but throwing away any need for making it easier to get out crappy neighborhoods because some do is a false economy.[/quote]

I can not tell if you are arguing against privatization of education or not. If so, how do vouchers leave anyone behind?

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
vroom wrote:
Society… which we all seem to be a part of whether we like it or not.

That doesn’t make sense. Society is not responsible for the behavior of individuals. Society does not bear an expense but rather the individuals who choose to act “anti-socially” do.

Go ahead an take responsibility for other people if that’s your bag…leave me out of it.[/quote]

Like it or not we are never going to go back to anarchy. Well, not unless society collapses, which is pretty damned unlikely.

So, when the people with no money and no future get rowdy, commit crimes, riot, spend time in jail, it is the rest of society that ends up bearing the cost. It has nothing to do with accepting “responsibility” it has to do with rebuilding your business after it has been burned during a riot.

Too many people around here think they live in a vacuum and that if they could just be an island and insulate themselves from the world everything would be perfect.

Get real. The majority of people want to live in a civilized society… and unfortunately for the rest of us there are very few places in the world left unclaimed if we don’t like it.

[quote]vroom wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
vroom wrote:
Society… which we all seem to be a part of whether we like it or not.

That doesn’t make sense. Society is not responsible for the behavior of individuals. Society does not bear an expense but rather the individuals who choose to act “anti-socially” do.

Go ahead an take responsibility for other people if that’s your bag…leave me out of it.

Like it or not we are never going to go back to anarchy. Well, not unless society collapses, which is pretty damned unlikely.

So, when the people with no money and no future get rowdy, commit crimes, riot, spend time in jail, it is the rest of society that ends up bearing the cost. It has nothing to do with accepting “responsibility” it has to do with rebuilding your business after it has been burned during a riot.

Too many people around here think they live in a vacuum and that if they could just be an island and insulate themselves from the world everything would be perfect.

Get real. The majority of people want to live in a civilized society… and unfortunately for the rest of us there are very few places in the world left unclaimed if we don’t like it.[/quote]

What’d you say?

[quote]vroom wrote:
Like it or not we are never going to go back to anarchy. Well, not unless society collapses, which is pretty damned unlikely.[/quote]

Anarchy is the way it really is. The state is an illusion. It can only coerce, this coercion has consequences. It cannot disregard the laws of economics any more than it can disregard gravity.

That is why I am an anarchist. I believe in justice. The modern state does not provide it. I don’t require that all people live like me or believe like me. I just require they pay for their mistakes so I don’t have to.

You keep enabling the masses by accepting responsibility for them and you will get more of the behavior you wish to reduce. That’s parenting 101.

[quote]
Get real. The majority of people want to live in a civilized society… and unfortunately for the rest of us there are very few places in the world left unclaimed if we don’t like it.[/quote]

You get real! Civilized society was not built by government. It was built by free people doing what they do best and exchanging anarchically with each other. To deny that is to deny reality.

I am not going to pretend that all people are good but I will also not pretend that I need government to deal with the .0001% of those that are not good.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Anarchy is the way it really is. The state is an illusion. It can only coerce, this coercion has consequences. It cannot disregard the laws of economics any more than it can disregard gravity.

That is why I am an anarchist. I believe in justice. The modern state does not provide it. I don’t require that all people live like me or believe like me. I just require they pay for their mistakes so I don’t have to.[/quote]

LOL. Look, if you want to inject your own pet ideology into the mix, what’s the point.

You have been overruled by the majority. Like it or not, you and I are coerced into living within the rules of society, or paying the price of attempting not to. That is the reality.

Call it an illusion if you like.

People put a government in place to govern. Look up the fucking word govern…

Free people routinely choose a democratic government, but they invariable have chosen to be governed… while hopefully leaving as many freedoms as possible.

Sorry that goes against your personal ideology.

[quote]vroom wrote:
You have been overruled by the majority. [/quote]

Yes, that is democracy and that is why I am against it.

Mob rule does not work.

I agree with adding, where possible, additional market mechanisms (e.g. privatization) in school systems. That being said, IF we insist that all in society should receive an education (and I think we should) then public schools are necessary. Although this sounds harsh, it is to essentially this is to subsidize some students.

Yes, private schools will be able to educate kids at a lower cost, there is almost no doubt of this. This is most-often because these schools can be exclusive. I went to a private, prep, high school. I had to take a test to get in. Did my parents (and the school since I received quite the scholarship) pay significantly less than $8,000 to educate me? Of course. I was motivated and had parents who knew the value of an education.

Public schools don’t get to be exclusive. They have to educate everyone. Educating a student who does not possess certain capacities or certain parental types are going to cost MORE than students more similar to myself would. Kids with disabilities will cost more. Etc, etc.

This is not to say money is not HORRIBLY spent in may public schools. Admin, especially in my experience, is egregious.

But 1) I don’t think fully privitized schools could or would provide for certain students, unless highly subsidized by the government. Perhaps a system of “ranking” for the amount of $ of a voucher could be developed…but it’d be extremely difficult.

  1. As currently designed, a federal voucher system would be an abject failure. I used to argue for federal vouchers, however, after looking into it a bit more, I learned it could not work in practice. Federal funds account for approximately 9% of a students funding… ONLY 9%. If federal monies were simply “vouchered” and given to students, they would not have an effect on the poorest students…Poor parents would still be unable to choose private schools. It would help upper-middle class individuals who are “just” missing the money needed to send their kids to private schools and rich parents who would send their children to private institutions regardless.

There is, perhaps, a case to be made for a concentrated, targeted federal voucher program…perhaps targeted to particular districts or particular students. This would allow that 9% to be increased to a level that would allow for certain students to choose.

In sum, Yes, market mechanisms are good. But because of the cross subsidization of students along with funding coming from the district, country, state, and federal levels, designing a true school-choice system is nearly impossible. And the systems that HAVE done so have shown marginal results (See Milwaukee public schools of DC public schools). I love the idea of school choice, but it is no panacea to the problems of education in this country.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Mob rule does not work.[/quote]

You are welcome to live in the jails of my civilization if you like… :wink:

You theoretically have the protections of your constitution, which should help protect you from the mob, but that’s it.

Neither you nor I have the power to opt out… other than being willing to bear the consequences of doing so.

[quote]shookers wrote:
debraD wrote:
The quality of education has a lot less to do with the institution itself than the resources demanded by a student body in poor socio-economic condition relative to the amount available. The classroom does have to deal with the children that have the greatest amount of need at the expense of those who are in the least. Unless the underlying causes of that are addressed–which is an enormous task, for sure–moving from public to private will not solve these problems. Individuals could put their kids in schools that are more exclusive and they will benefit but it won’t bring an improvement on the whole.

Approaching the issue from this angle is overly simplistic IMO. Unless of course your goal is to improve just child’s education only.

While I agree that private institutions are often more efficient than public ones, I wouldn’t agree that it is done without either exclusivity or a compromise of quality.

If every student now has identical resources, and equal profits can be made by private schools regardless of location, there is now and incentive to improve schools in shit areas.

That is, since schools have a motivation to attract students, they will create services to assist those with difficulties and various special needs
[/quote]

Every student does not have identical needs and there will a larger burden of some areas and smaller in others. What is the motivation for a school to operate in an area populated by students who have more expensive needs? (ie. kids whose parents do not/cannot play an active role in their education) What is the motivation for the school to even open under such conditions when it can open somewhere else cheaper?

Where is the competition in this scenario to drive a better product? You could argue that people will chose to send their kids to a better quality school but people who don’t or can’t take the time to show up of parent/teacher conferences or have kids that pretty much raise themselves are not going to be selective when it comes to quality of education–they are going to do the least amount of work possible. You will not find them going to the cost and effort to bus their kids to the next area where the school is better if there is a school nearby.