Deficit Denial?

[ReallyMeow]

The first big red flag you should be able to see in your reasoning is that you arnt able to define what needs to be improved with public education, what makes private education superior, more competitive. You only make the assertion that one product is superior to the other, that special k is better than tricks, or nikes are better than pumas. The only thing that seems to set private education ahead is that it is picky, it is able to tell the dumb kids to stay out.

 

[Underhill]

Even better educated are those kids that went to private schools. Now why should kids of more modest means not have choice in education?

Evidence of that?

The whole system is faulty because the whole system would be so much better for ALL students if they had competition and choice. You don't get that with monopolies, particularly government controlled monopolies.

And you do with privately controlled monopolies...

Right, parents don't know what's best for their kids, government does...

Most don't. And even among those who do, there are already mechanisms in place. I went to the best public school in the area and all it took was my parent's filling out some forms and an interview.

Oh my goodness that's precious. Yea, all those public teachers out there fighting every day to earn the tuition dollars of their prospective customers...

Horse hockey.

It's not about tuition. It's about teaching kids. And most teachers do a very good job.

This an absurd conversation. How does one convince a person who believes teachers will not do their jobs because they work for a monopoly? Have you been to school?

I have 3 kids in schools. Not all the teachers are wonderful but 9 out of 10 are. I meet with them once a month. From what they tell me, that is extremely rare. But the teachers are there, the parents aren't.

So explain to me again how you just know it's all the teachers fault and not the parents? Because anyone who has any involvement in education knows better.

 

[eflatminor]

The first big red flag you should be able to see in your reasoning is that you arnt able to define what needs to be improved with public education,

If you believe the state of public education is acceptable, make the case. Given the tremendous drop out rates, particularly among minority students, our ranking of high school graduates around the world, they way we 'teach to the test', and sheer number of kids that simply cannot read, write or do math at a proficient level, it's going to be quite a challenge to defend the status quo. Good luck.

what makes private education superior, more competitive.

Uh, because private schools face competition from other private schools, thereby forcing them to EARN their customer's education dollars. Not the case with public schools.

How is this not blatantly obvious?

You only make the assertion that one product is superior to the other, that special k is better than tricks, or nikes are better than pumas.

No, the CUSTOMER get's to make that assertion. That's the point. It's that CHOICE that drives private institutions to innovate, to become efficient, to not overcharge from what the market will bear, and to produce results that please their customer base. Exactly the opposite from public education where no one gets to choose what product/service is better than the other.

The only thing that seems to set private education ahead is that it is picky, it is able to tell the dumb kids to stay out.

Horse hockey. There are plenty of private schools that cater to children with learning disabilities. Unfortunately, they're expensive, which is not unexpected when you consider that a private school hoping to attract students of any intelligence level must compete with the government's monopoly on affordable education. This is why private schools tend to compete for the students of affluent families.

 

[Underhill]

If you believe the state of public education is acceptable, make the case. Given the tremendous drop out rates, particularly among minority students, our ranking of high school graduates around the world, they way we 'teach to the test', and sheer number of kids that simply cannot read, write or do math at a proficient level, it's going to be quite a challenge to defend the status quo. Good luck.

Now that is a good question. And I think you are right to ask it. There are major problems. But it isn't inherent to public schools but to the methods they have been forced to use.

No child left behind is a large part of the problem. Even the school my kids attends was better before that program started. It forces teachers to teach for the test.

But it's an easy fix.

Uh, because private schools face competition from other private schools, thereby forcing them to EARN their customer's education dollars. Not the case with public schools.

How is this not blatantly obvious?

As someone who attended a private school I would say it's a pipe dream. Sure some will do as you say. But they will do so by excluding the worst students.

Then again some will attract customers dollars through other methods. Teach religion as science as an example...

And the biggest problem is that while your competitive model means some will excel, it also means the education of others will be worse. The best schools will get the best students, and those who need the most help will be relegated to the dregs.

The goal with public education is for everyone to get the same good (albeit imperfect) education.

I would also point out that at least some of the problems you talk about are the result of the states. States regulate most of the schools operations with a mixture of federal, state and county funding.

My kids go to a NYS school, which are among the best in the country. We have some dogs, but most of our schools are generally very good.

 

[Underhill]

And what would that incentive be?

They face no competition for affordable education. They face no need to earn their customer's education dollars. Their customers have no choice in the matter.

So, tell us, with specificity please, what is the incentive for public teachers to produce excellent results and to operate efficiently and cost effectively?

The students.

The fact that they pay taxes too.

The fact that they are a part of the community and do not like to see it fail.

How many teachers have you met who didn't care about any of these things?

 

[eflatminor]

Even better educated are those kids that went to private schools. Now why should kids of more modest means not have choice in education?

Evidence of that?

Private schools students have long scored better on the national assessment, but that's not really the point. It is clear that only competition and choice can produce the results demanded by consumers and only competition can spur the innovations and improvements in efficiency that keep costs down.

The whole system is faulty because the whole system would be so much better for ALL students if they had competition and choice. You don't get that with monopolies, particularly government controlled monopolies.

And you do with privately controlled monopolies...

You have some evidence of a private monopoly in education? Straw, man.

Right, parents don't know what's best for their kids, government does...

Most don't. And even among those who do, there are already mechanisms in place. I went to the best public school in the area and all it took was my parent's filling out some forms and an interview.

Whatever you may think of other parents, what is crystal clear is that you do NOT know what's best for their children...nor does any bureaucrat who faces no pressure to produce superior results

Oh my goodness that's precious. Yea, all those public teachers out there fighting every day to earn the tuition dollars of their prospective customers...

Horse hockey.

It's not about tuition. It's about teaching kids. And most teachers do a very good job.

You've overlooked that, overall, they're teaching kids poorly. Again, tell us how teachers and administrators are able to operate as though they face the competitive pressures that require innovation, keeping costs down and producing excellence when they face no such competitive pressures?

This an absurd conversation. How does one convince a person who believes teachers will not do their jobs because they work for a monopoly? Have you been to school?

Nobody who operates in a non-competitive environment will do their job like a person facing a tough competitor. Competition is REQUIRED to excel, as the consistently crappy results and drop out rates in public education prove over and over again.

Again, why would anyone strive to be innovative, efficient and to produce superior results when there is no incentive to do so and no penalty for failing to do so? It's just human nature.

I have 3 kids in schools. Not all the teachers are wonderful but 9 out of 10 are. I meet with them once a month. From what they tell me, that is extremely rare. But the teachers are there, the parents aren't.

Now wouldn't it be nice if you could choose a school where 10 out of 10 teachers were wonderful. For the money you pay for your kids education, you deserve better than 90%. You deserve CHOICE.

So explain to me again how you just know it's all the teachers fault and not the parents? Because anyone who has any involvement in education knows better.

It's not the teacher's fault. It's the central planners fault.

 

[eflatminor]

If you believe the state of public education is acceptable, make the case. Given the tremendous drop out rates, particularly among minority students, our ranking of high school graduates around the world, they way we 'teach to the test', and sheer number of kids that simply cannot read, write or do math at a proficient level, it's going to be quite a challenge to defend the status quo. Good luck.

Now that is a good question. And I think you are right to ask it. There are major problems. But it isn't inherent to public schools but to the methods they have been forced to use.

Forced to use by government. That's the problem.

No child left behind is a large part of the problem. More ill conceived central planning...Even the school my kids attends was better before that program started. It forces teachers to teach for the test.

But it's an easy fix. Apparently not, since it haunts us still.

Uh, because private schools face competition from other private schools, thereby forcing them to EARN their customer's education dollars. Not the case with public schools.

How is this not blatantly obvious?

As someone who attended a private school I would say it's a pipe dream. Sure some will do as you say. But they will do so by excluding the worst students.

What makes you think there is already a market for slower students and that that market wouldn't grow in the absence of the government's monopoly? Just because a student isn't particularly bright, doesn't mean their family doesn't have education dollars to spend. Where there's demand, there will be a supply.

Then again some will attract customers dollars through other methods. Teach religion as science as an example...

Parents choice, not yours or the government's.

And the biggest problem is that while your competitive model means some will excel, it also means the education of others will be worse.

This is not supported by logic or reason, or historical evidence. In fact, here is an excellent article about how private education for the poor is producing excellent results in other countries:

Private Education is Good for the Poor: A Study of Private Schools Serving the Poor in Low-Income Countries | Cato Institute



The best schools will get the best students, and those who need the most help will be relegated to the dregs.

Again, there is no reason to believe that schools who specialize in students with special needs would not thrive in a free market for education. They exist today, they'd exist in the absence of the government monopoly to a greater extent. As long as there is a demand, there will be someone trying to win those customers.

The goal with public education is for everyone to get the same good (albeit imperfect) education.

The goal has not been met. Not by a long shot.

I would also point out that at least some of the problems you talk about are the result of the states. States regulate most of the schools operations with a mixture of federal, state and county funding.

True, it's a mix of governments that control the market for affordable education. I sure would like to see a state reject federal education dollars and seek to move their education system into one that embraces competition and choice.

My kids go to a NYS school, which are among the best in the country. We have some dogs, but most of our schools are generally very good.

They'd be better if you could choose the school that best suited the needs of you and your kids. That's all I'm saying.

 

[eflatminor]

And what would that incentive be?

They face no competition for affordable education. They face no need to earn their customer's education dollars. Their customers have no choice in the matter.

So, tell us, with specificity please, what is the incentive for public teachers to produce excellent results and to operate efficiently and cost effectively?

The students.

A nice thought, but I'm afraid it takes more than a caring for students. Only fierce competition results in innovation, efficiency and the drive to keep the customer happy.

The fact that they pay taxes too.

But face no pressure afterwards. Heck, it's even near impossible to fire a bad teacher or administrator. Again, a nice thought but not what it takes to produce excellence.

The fact that they are a part of the community and do not like to see it fail.

Sorry but Carolyn Lockhead was right. The soviets hoped their farmers would work hard, innovate and produce excellent results for the good of the community. It didn't work out that way. Without competition, people are simply not going to do the job they otherwise would have been forced to do. This is why we see crappy results in education and skyrocketing costs....no competitive pressure to produce results to contrary.

How many teachers have you met who didn't care about any of these things?

I've never stated teachers don't care. Most do, and many should be paid MORE than they currently make. Others less. The point is not to pick on teachers, it's to remove the central planning from the market for education and to introduce consumer choice and competition, which is ALWAYS required to produce excellence.

 

[Underhill]

Even better educated are those kids that went to private schools. Now why should kids of more modest means not have choice in education?

Evidence of that?

Private schools students have long scored better on the national assessment, but that's not really the point. It is clear that only competition and choice can produce the results demanded by consumers and only competition can spur the innovations and improvements in efficiency that keep costs down.



And you do with privately controlled monopolies...

You have some evidence of a private monopoly in education? Straw, man.



Most don't. And even among those who do, there are already mechanisms in place. I went to the best public school in the area and all it took was my parent's filling out some forms and an interview.

Whatever you may think of other parents, what is crystal clear is that you do NOT know what's best for their children...nor does any bureaucrat who faces no pressure to produce superior results

Oh my goodness that's precious. Yea, all those public teachers out there fighting every day to earn the tuition dollars of their prospective customers...

Horse hockey.

It's not about tuition. It's about teaching kids. And most teachers do a very good job.

You've overlooked that, overall, they're teaching kids poorly. Again, tell us how teachers and administrators are able to operate as though they face the competitive pressures that require innovation, keeping costs down and producing excellence when they face no such competitive pressures?

This an absurd conversation. How does one convince a person who believes teachers will not do their jobs because they work for a monopoly? Have you been to school?

Nobody who operates in a non-competitive environment will do their job like a person facing a tough competitor. Competition is REQUIRED to excel, as the consistently crappy results and drop out rates in public education prove over and over again.

Again, why would anyone strive to be innovative, efficient and to produce superior results when there is no incentive to do so and no penalty for failing to do so? It's just human nature.

I have 3 kids in schools. Not all the teachers are wonderful but 9 out of 10 are. I meet with them once a month. From what they tell me, that is extremely rare. But the teachers are there, the parents aren't.

Now wouldn't it be nice if you could choose a school where 10 out of 10 teachers were wonderful. For the money you pay for your kids education, you deserve better than 90%. You deserve CHOICE.

So explain to me again how you just know it's all the teachers fault and not the parents? Because anyone who has any involvement in education knows better.

It's not the teacher's fault. It's the central planners fault.

Then quit bitching about how the teachers don't innovate.

As for the "central planner" who the hell is that? There are some regulations from the Federal government (desegregation rules, no child left behind, etc..) a whole pile more from the states and the rest comes from the county or the school board.

There is no central planner.

 

[eflatminor]

Evidence of that?

Private schools students have long scored better on the national assessment, but that's not really the point. It is clear that only competition and choice can produce the results demanded by consumers and only competition can spur the innovations and improvements in efficiency that keep costs down.



And you do with privately controlled monopolies...

You have some evidence of a private monopoly in education? Straw, man.



Most don't. And even among those who do, there are already mechanisms in place. I went to the best public school in the area and all it took was my parent's filling out some forms and an interview.

Whatever you may think of other parents, what is crystal clear is that you do NOT know what's best for their children...nor does any bureaucrat who faces no pressure to produce superior results



It's not about tuition. It's about teaching kids. And most teachers do a very good job.

You've overlooked that, overall, they're teaching kids poorly. Again, tell us how teachers and administrators are able to operate as though they face the competitive pressures that require innovation, keeping costs down and producing excellence when they face no such competitive pressures?

This an absurd conversation. How does one convince a person who believes teachers will not do their jobs because they work for a monopoly? Have you been to school?

Nobody who operates in a non-competitive environment will do their job like a person facing a tough competitor. Competition is REQUIRED to excel, as the consistently crappy results and drop out rates in public education prove over and over again.

Again, why would anyone strive to be innovative, efficient and to produce superior results when there is no incentive to do so and no penalty for failing to do so? It's just human nature.

I have 3 kids in schools. Not all the teachers are wonderful but 9 out of 10 are. I meet with them once a month. From what they tell me, that is extremely rare. But the teachers are there, the parents aren't.

Now wouldn't it be nice if you could choose a school where 10 out of 10 teachers were wonderful. For the money you pay for your kids education, you deserve better than 90%. You deserve CHOICE.

So explain to me again how you just know it's all the teachers fault and not the parents? Because anyone who has any involvement in education knows better.

It's not the teacher's fault. It's the central planners fault.

Then quit bitching about how the teachers don't innovate.

But they don't. They have no incentive to because they face no competition. That's the point.

As for the "central planner" who the hell is that? There are some regulations from the Federal government (desegregation rules, no child left behind, etc..) a whole pile more from the states and the rest comes from the county or the school board.

Central planning is when government in general controls a market, not just a single person. That is exactly what we face with education, a monopoly on affordable education where government determines everything, from what's in the text books to how many tater tots are served at lunch.

No choice, no competition...that's central planning. Lousy outcome, skyrocketing costs...that's the result.

I'm not sure why you defend the status quo so vigorously. Choice is a good thing. Competition produces excellence and the results consumer's demand. It also keeps costs down.

Why would you stand in the way of more choice, lower costs and better results? Are there other markets you think the government should control? Why?

There is no central planner.

The market for affordable education is about as far from a free market as you get. Call it whatever you like, it's resulted in no choice, no competition, lousy results and costs that far outpace the overall rate of inflation. Call it was it is, a dismal failure compared to what a competitive environment brings.

 

[Underhill]

Sorry but Carolyn Lockhead was right. The soviets hoped their farmers would work hard, innovate and produce excellent results for the good of the community. It didn't work out that way. Without competition, people are simply not going to do the job they otherwise would have been forced to do. This is why we see crappy results in education and skyrocketing costs....no competitive pressure to produce results to contrary.

So one question.

How do you explain then that the best school systems in the world manage it without this competitive model you speak of?

 

[Underhill]

It's not the teacher's fault. It's the central planners fault.

Then quit bitching about how the teachers don't innovate.

But they don't. They have no incentive to because they face no competition. That's the point.

As for the "central planner" who the hell is that? There are some regulations from the Federal government (desegregation rules, no child left behind, etc..) a whole pile more from the states and the rest comes from the county or the school board.

Central planning is when government in general controls a market, not just a single person. That is exactly what we face with education, a monopoly on affordable education where government determines everything, from what's in the text books to how many tater tots are served at lunch.

No choice, no competition...that's central planning. Lousy outcome, skyrocketing costs...that's the result.

I'm not sure why you defend the status quo so vigorously. Choice is a good thing. Competition produces excellence and the results consumer's demand. It also keeps costs down.

Why would you stand in the way of more choice, lower costs and better results? Are there other markets you think the government should control? Why?

There is no central planner.

The market for affordable education is about as far from a free market as you get. Call it whatever you like, it's resulted in no choice, no competition, lousy results and costs that far outpace the overall rate of inflation. Call it was it is, a dismal failure compared to what a competitive environment brings.

Alright then, here is the next question.

Feel free to show me an example of competition working to better public schools? since you claim it doesn't exist here...

 

[eflatminor]

Sorry but Carolyn Lockhead was right. The soviets hoped their farmers would work hard, innovate and produce excellent results for the good of the community. It didn't work out that way. Without competition, people are simply not going to do the job they otherwise would have been forced to do. This is why we see crappy results in education and skyrocketing costs....no competitive pressure to produce results to contrary.

So one question.

Generally, it is considered impolite to ask a question when you have yet to answer mine. Why would you stand in the way of more choice? How is that not a good thing?

How do you explain then that the best school systems in the world manage it without this competitive model you speak of?

The best schools in the world are private institutions. Sure, among school "systems" (meaning government controlled), there are some that are better than others. That's true when comparing countries or one community to another. So what? The point is that the entire market for education could only improve with competition and choice.

Again, why would you stand in the way of consumer choice?

 

[eflatminor]

Then quit bitching about how the teachers don't innovate.

But they don't. They have no incentive to because they face no competition. That's the point.



Central planning is when government in general controls a market, not just a single person. That is exactly what we face with education, a monopoly on affordable education where government determines everything, from what's in the text books to how many tater tots are served at lunch.

No choice, no competition...that's central planning. Lousy outcome, skyrocketing costs...that's the result.

I'm not sure why you defend the status quo so vigorously. Choice is a good thing. Competition produces excellence and the results consumer's demand. It also keeps costs down.

Why would you stand in the way of more choice, lower costs and better results? Are there other markets you think the government should control? Why?

There is no central planner.

The market for affordable education is about as far from a free market as you get. Call it whatever you like, it's resulted in no choice, no competition, lousy results and costs that far outpace the overall rate of inflation. Call it was it is, a dismal failure compared to what a competitive environment brings.

Alright then, here is the next question.

Feel free to show me an example of competition working to better public schools? since you claim it doesn't exist here...

Uh...there is no competition in public schools. There is therefore no example to cite. That's the point.

I'm arguing for the removal of government control of the education market, to give consumers choice and to experience the improvements in results, innovation and efficiency that only competition can bring.

 

[Underhill]

Sorry but Carolyn Lockhead was right. The soviets hoped their farmers would work hard, innovate and produce excellent results for the good of the community. It didn't work out that way. Without competition, people are simply not going to do the job they otherwise would have been forced to do. This is why we see crappy results in education and skyrocketing costs....no competitive pressure to produce results to contrary.

So one question.

Generally, it is considered impolite to ask a question when you have yet to answer mine. Why would you stand in the way of more choice? How is that not a good thing?

How do you explain then that the best school systems in the world manage it without this competitive model you speak of?

The best schools in the world are private institutions. Sure, among school "systems" (meaning government controlled), there are some that are better than others. That's true when comparing countries or one community to another. So what? The point is that the entire market for education could only improve with competition and choice.

Again, why would you stand in the way of consumer choice?

I already answered that question.

But here is a more detailed answer.

When I make a decision like this, I try to look for examples where we have privatized. I then get an idea how that may work in another sector.

The obvious choice for comparison is in the military where they made the decision to privatize much of their transportation and services. So food prep, transportation, even security for many government people is now handled by private companies.

What has been the result. The initial cost was low. But as soon as the Pentagon became dependent on these services the cost went up incrimentally until now, contractors are making tens of millions of dollars profit doing what the military used to do at half the cost.

Is the service better? I don't know. I don't really care. Twice the cost and now we are completely dependent on them as we have gotten rid of all our equipment and no longer have the capability.

This is why I am against privatization. There are problems now in the system. But we control it, so we can fix it. It just takes the will of the people.

If we relinquish control, that decision is permanent. We won't be able to go back and build all new schools 20 years from now when we realize they are gouging us on the cost.

On top of this, nothing will change. When you talk about central planners, they will still exist. They will still want their test. They will still want their numbers so they can stand up and claim they did something.

So I am not willing to take the risk of handing control of one of our largest and most important institutions to private interest. It's too important.

And since you failed to answer my question I will answer it for you.

The best schools in the world are in Finland and South Korea.

The Finish have a public system similar to ours with one major difference. The teachers have control. The national education model is "whatever it takes". And it works. The parents work with teachers to design programs for individual students who are struggling. They have a 97% graduation rate.

The South Koreans also have a public school system. They offer no sports as they see them as non educational. But the entire culture is geared towards education. Even middle income parents spend large sums of their income on tutors and are very involved in education.

This is why I was so focused on teacher dedication and parental involvement. They are key. Teachers know how to reach our kids. They know what needs to be done. Parents have to be involved.

So in one small way you are correct. I think the federal and state governments (along with the counties and school board) need to stop micro managing and start allowing teachers to do their job.

But privatizing the system is a mistake. And it's one that we won't easily be able to take back once we realize it.

 

[eflatminor]

So one question.

Generally, it is considered impolite to ask a question when you have yet to answer mine. Why would you stand in the way of more choice? How is that not a good thing?

How do you explain then that the best school systems in the world manage it without this competitive model you speak of?

The best schools in the world are private institutions. Sure, among school "systems" (meaning government controlled), there are some that are better than others. That's true when comparing countries or one community to another. So what? The point is that the entire market for education could only improve with competition and choice.

Again, why would you stand in the way of consumer choice?

I already answered that question.

But here is a more detailed answer.

When I make a decision like this, I try to look for examples where we have privatized. I then get an idea how that may work in another sector.

The obvious choice for comparison is in the military where they made the decision to privatize much of their transportation and services. So food prep, transportation, even security for many government people is now handled by private companies.

What has been the result. The initial cost was low. But as soon as the Pentagon became dependent on these services the cost went up incrimentally until now, contractors are making tens of millions of dollars profit doing what the military used to do at half the cost.

Is the service better? I don't know. I don't really care. Twice the cost and now we are completely dependent on them as we have gotten rid of all our equipment and no longer have the capability.

This is why I am against privatization. There are problems now in the system. But we control it, so we can fix it. It just takes the will of the people.

Major flaw in your argument. You're comparing the market for education with another government monopoly, the military. Regardless of where and when private companies are used in the military, it's still the government that controls everything. And when it comes to the military, the Constitution REQUIRES federal government oversight. There is no such requirement in education.

Further, school systems use private contractors all the time. I'm not arguing for more privatization with the government still in control, I'm arguing to get the government top-down control out of the market for education. I standing for a free market of education, just like we have free markets for so many other products and services.

If we relinquish control, that decision is permanent. We won't be able to go back and build all new schools 20 years from now when we realize they are gouging us on the cost.

You're still thinking in terms of government control. If private businesses competed in the market for education, no school could 'gouge' anyone for very long before those customers choose another competitor.

Works beautifully when the consumer has choice.

On top of this, nothing will change. When you talk about central planners, they will still exist. They will still want their test. They will still want their numbers so they can stand up and claim they did something.

Not all of them. Here's one that spoke the notion of choice and competition in schools just this week:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Zv4Wufggik]Rand Paul Responds To The State of the Union 2013 [In Full] - YouTube[/ame]

So I am not willing to take the risk of handing control of one of our largest and most important institutions to private interest. It's too important.

It's too important not to. Again, no competition, no choice brings lousy results and skyrocketing costs. Only consumer choice can change that.

And since you failed to answer my question I will answer it for you.

The best schools in the world are in Finland and South Korea.

You mean the best government-controlled schools. A thriving free market for education would trounce any attempt at a centrally planned market.

This is why I was so focused on teacher dedication and parental involvement. They are key. Teachers know how to reach our kids. They know what needs to be done. Parents have to be involved.

Agreed. And in a competitive market for education, teachers would still know how to teach and would be motivated to produce better results, less they loose their customers. Similarly, parents would be more involved because it would be their dollars directly on the line. With no choice of schools and no choice how to pay for them, it's no wonder parents are not engaged. What can they change when government controls all affordable education and it's near impossible to fire a bad teacher or administrator?

So in one small way you are correct. I think the federal and state governments (along with the counties and school board) need to stop micro managing and start allowing teachers to do their job.

A start, but it won't change a thing without real competition.

But privatizing the system is a mistake. And it's one that we won't easily be able to take back once we realize it.

Again, it's not privatization I'm talking about (the idea of government employing private businesses), it's about getting the top-down control out of the market and letting competition and consumer choice drive superior results and more cost effective options.

 

[Underhill]

Generally, it is considered impolite to ask a question when you have yet to answer mine. Why would you stand in the way of more choice? How is that not a good thing?



The best schools in the world are private institutions. Sure, among school "systems" (meaning government controlled), there are some that are better than others. That's true when comparing countries or one community to another. So what? The point is that the entire market for education could only improve with competition and choice.

Again, why would you stand in the way of consumer choice?

I already answered that question.

But here is a more detailed answer.

When I make a decision like this, I try to look for examples where we have privatized. I then get an idea how that may work in another sector.

The obvious choice for comparison is in the military where they made the decision to privatize much of their transportation and services. So food prep, transportation, even security for many government people is now handled by private companies.

What has been the result. The initial cost was low. But as soon as the Pentagon became dependent on these services the cost went up incrimentally until now, contractors are making tens of millions of dollars profit doing what the military used to do at half the cost.

Is the service better? I don't know. I don't really care. Twice the cost and now we are completely dependent on them as we have gotten rid of all our equipment and no longer have the capability.

This is why I am against privatization. There are problems now in the system. But we control it, so we can fix it. It just takes the will of the people.

Major flaw in your argument. You're comparing the market for education with another government monopoly, the military. Regardless of where and when private companies are used in the military, it's still the government that controls everything. And when it comes to the military, the Constitution REQUIRES federal government oversight. There is no such requirement in education.

Further, school systems use private contractors all the time. I'm not arguing for more privatization with the government still in control, I'm arguing to get the government top-down control out of the market for education. I standing for a free market of education, just like we have free markets for so many other products and services.



You're still thinking in terms of government control. If private businesses competed in the market for education, no school could 'gouge' anyone for very long before those customers choose another competitor.

Works beautifully when the consumer has choice.



Not all of them. Here's one that spoke the notion of choice and competition in schools just this week:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Zv4Wufggik]Rand Paul Responds To The State of the Union 2013 [In Full] - YouTube[/ame]



It's too important not to. Again, no competition, no choice brings lousy results and skyrocketing costs. Only consumer choice can change that.



You mean the best government-controlled schools. A thriving free market for education would trounce any attempt at a centrally planned market.



Agreed. And in a competitive market for education, teachers would still know how to teach and would be motivated to produce better results, less they loose their customers. Similarly, parents would be more involved because it would be their dollars directly on the line. With no choice of schools and no choice how to pay for them, it's no wonder parents are not engaged. What can they change when government controls all affordable education and it's near impossible to fire a bad teacher or administrator?

So in one small way you are correct. I think the federal and state governments (along with the counties and school board) need to stop micro managing and start allowing teachers to do their job.

A start, but it won't change a thing without real competition.

But privatizing the system is a mistake. And it's one that we won't easily be able to take back once we realize it.

Again, it's not privatization I'm talking about (the idea of government employing private businesses), it's about getting the top-down control out of the market and letting competition and consumer choice drive superior results and more cost effective options.

So, here's the thing. I gave you examples of schools that are thriving under a public system. But you have yet to show me examples of what you claim will work.

We know public education can work. So the onus is on you to show me the evidence, not just idle speculation that you think it will work better...

 

[eflatminor]

I already answered that question.

But here is a more detailed answer.

When I make a decision like this, I try to look for examples where we have privatized. I then get an idea how that may work in another sector.

The obvious choice for comparison is in the military where they made the decision to privatize much of their transportation and services. So food prep, transportation, even security for many government people is now handled by private companies.

What has been the result. The initial cost was low. But as soon as the Pentagon became dependent on these services the cost went up incrimentally until now, contractors are making tens of millions of dollars profit doing what the military used to do at half the cost.

Is the service better? I don't know. I don't really care. Twice the cost and now we are completely dependent on them as we have gotten rid of all our equipment and no longer have the capability.

This is why I am against privatization. There are problems now in the system. But we control it, so we can fix it. It just takes the will of the people.

Major flaw in your argument. You're comparing the market for education with another government monopoly, the military. Regardless of where and when private companies are used in the military, it's still the government that controls everything. And when it comes to the military, the Constitution REQUIRES federal government oversight. There is no such requirement in education.

Further, school systems use private contractors all the time. I'm not arguing for more privatization with the government still in control, I'm arguing to get the government top-down control out of the market for education. I standing for a free market of education, just like we have free markets for so many other products and services.



You're still thinking in terms of government control. If private businesses competed in the market for education, no school could 'gouge' anyone for very long before those customers choose another competitor.

Works beautifully when the consumer has choice.



Not all of them. Here's one that spoke the notion of choice and competition in schools just this week:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Zv4Wufggik]Rand Paul Responds To The State of the Union 2013 [In Full] - YouTube[/ame]



It's too important not to. Again, no competition, no choice brings lousy results and skyrocketing costs. Only consumer choice can change that.



You mean the best government-controlled schools. A thriving free market for education would trounce any attempt at a centrally planned market.



Agreed. And in a competitive market for education, teachers would still know how to teach and would be motivated to produce better results, less they loose their customers. Similarly, parents would be more involved because it would be their dollars directly on the line. With no choice of schools and no choice how to pay for them, it's no wonder parents are not engaged. What can they change when government controls all affordable education and it's near impossible to fire a bad teacher or administrator?



A start, but it won't change a thing without real competition.

But privatizing the system is a mistake. And it's one that we won't easily be able to take back once we realize it.

Again, it's not privatization I'm talking about (the idea of government employing private businesses), it's about getting the top-down control out of the market and letting competition and consumer choice drive superior results and more cost effective options.

So, here's the thing. I gave you examples of schools that are thriving under a public system. But you have yet to show me examples of what you claim will work.

Not thriving, only doing better than other public systems. Big difference.

And I have showed you examples of what works, which is private education. Private schools produce superior results in a far more efficient manner...and that's with government controlling the lion's share of the market. Imagine what a free market for the entire education system could do!

We know public education can work.

All evidence to the contrary? Doesn't work well at all in this country. May work marginally better in other, culturally homogenized countries, but nothing beats private education where consumers have choice.

So the onus is on you to show me the evidence, not just idle speculation that you think it will work better...

Private school results are evidence as is the common sense notion that without competition, there is NO WAY to foster innovation and superior results.

Again, I don't understand why you would stand against consumer choice. Any other markets in which you think a government monopoly would be preferred? Just imagine if government produced everything we need in life, from toilet paper to televisions. How's that worked out throughout history?

If you value education, the LAST place it should be entrusted is the hands of bureaucrats with no incentive to thrive and no impetus to keep costs competitive.

 

[ReallyMeow]

It's not the teacher's fault. It's the central planners fault.

Its clear republicans are bad at planning, central or otherwise, the way that red states are objectively ranked worse than blue states for a myriad of issues (income, poverty, literacy, teen pregnancy etc, except texas). Are you familiar with the line "fail to plan, plan to fail"?

Education doesnt respond to normal market forces, you dont know what end result you're going to get until you've sunk a decade into it and then the other kids are still half way through it anyway, and even then theres the whole "maybe the parents are shitty, maybe kids are just stupid anyway" dynamic. Education is under assault, republicans talk out of one side of their mouths about how private schools are better because they have small class sizes and pay a competitive salary for teachers, while at the same time gutting education funding resulting in huge class sizes and unattractive salaries. You believe in competition? Start by paying a competitive salary.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I already answered that question.

But here is a more detailed answer.

When I make a decision like this, I try to look for examples where we have privatized. I then get an idea how that may work in another sector.

The obvious choice for comparison is in the military where they made the decision to privatize much of their transportation and services. So food prep, transportation, even security for many government people is now handled by private companies.

What has been the result. The initial cost was low. But as soon as the Pentagon became dependent on these services the cost went up incrimentally until now, contractors are making tens of millions of dollars profit doing what the military used to do at half the cost.

Is the service better? I don't know. I don't really care. Twice the cost and now we are completely dependent on them as we have gotten rid of all our equipment and no longer have the capability.

This is why I am against privatization. There are problems now in the system. But we control it, so we can fix it. It just takes the will of the people.

Major flaw in your argument. You're comparing the market for education with another government monopoly, the military. Regardless of where and when private companies are used in the military, it's still the government that controls everything. And when it comes to the military, the Constitution REQUIRES federal government oversight. There is no such requirement in education.

Further, school systems use private contractors all the time. I'm not arguing for more privatization with the government still in control, I'm arguing to get the government top-down control out of the market for education. I standing for a free market of education, just like we have free markets for so many other products and services.



You're still thinking in terms of government control. If private businesses competed in the market for education, no school could 'gouge' anyone for very long before those customers choose another competitor.

Works beautifully when the consumer has choice.



Not all of them. Here's one that spoke the notion of choice and competition in schools just this week:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Zv4Wufggik]Rand Paul Responds To The State of the Union 2013 [In Full] - YouTube[/ame]



It's too important not to. Again, no competition, no choice brings lousy results and skyrocketing costs. Only consumer choice can change that.



You mean the best government-controlled schools. A thriving free market for education would trounce any attempt at a centrally planned market.



Agreed. And in a competitive market for education, teachers would still know how to teach and would be motivated to produce better results, less they loose their customers. Similarly, parents would be more involved because it would be their dollars directly on the line. With no choice of schools and no choice how to pay for them, it's no wonder parents are not engaged. What can they change when government controls all affordable education and it's near impossible to fire a bad teacher or administrator?



A start, but it won't change a thing without real competition.

But privatizing the system is a mistake. And it's one that we won't easily be able to take back once we realize it.

Again, it's not privatization I'm talking about (the idea of government employing private businesses), it's about getting the top-down control out of the market and letting competition and consumer choice drive superior results and more cost effective options.

So, here's the thing. I gave you examples of schools that are thriving under a public system. But you have yet to show me examples of what you claim will work.

We know public education can work. So the onus is on you to show me the evidence, not just idle speculation that you think it will work better...

We know public education can work.

It's working great here in Chicago, not.