Privatize, Privatize, Privatize

Discussion in 'Education' started by Hobbit, Jan 16, 2006.

  1. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    I've said it before and I'll say it again, this time with a new thread. The entire education system needs to be privatized and subsidized. As it stands, most parents have absolutely no choice when it comes to schools. Either you have to go to the public school that the district chooses for you or you pay tuition, even if it's just a public school outside of your district. They can't all homeschool, and not all of them can afford tuition. Not only that, but even if lots of people leave the school, they still get the same amount of tax money.

    Now, imagine if schools actually had to compete with each other like current private schools do. You could use the current public school tax funding to pay tuition for the poor. Now, if schools had to compete, we'd see a whole new era of fixes. First off, it forces the parents to be involved, since they're paying for it. Second, if you don't like ths school, you switch. If the school likes the current Pledge of Allegiance or public prayer, and you're an atheist, switch schools. If the school bans red and green for the month of December, take your business elsewhere. If the teachers refuse to go any faster than the slowest child, you can take the kid somewhere that will.

    Despite what liberals and communists think, a free market always creates better products. The fewer things the government has total control over, the better, as the goods and services are much higher quality when they have to be better and/or cheaper than the other guy. If schools had to compete for your business, I guarantee that most of the problems will go away.
     
  2. Mr. P
    Offline

    Mr. P Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    11,329
    Thanks Received:
    618
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South of the Mason Dixon
    Ratings:
    +620
    :thup:
     
  3. Nienna
    Offline

    Nienna Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    4,515
    Thanks Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +333
    Sounds great to me, with the exception of... I would like SOME of that tax money to help pay for my kids' education. The poorer kids already have extra help, since many do not pay property taxes, anyway. I have no problem giving poorer kids a hand up, ESPECIALLY in the area of education. But I would like to reap SOME of the benefits that my taxes pay for, too.
     
  4. Mr. P
    Offline

    Mr. P Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    11,329
    Thanks Received:
    618
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South of the Mason Dixon
    Ratings:
    +620
    Vouchers solve that.

    As far as poor not paying property tax, everyone does. If you rent, the property tax is in your rent payment. You don't think the owner comes out of pocket with tax, do you?
     
  5. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    Thus why I said education should be subsidized. The dirt poor would get full scholarships up to high school equivilancy, given that th kid's grades stay up. From there on up, a 'helping hand' would be given based primarily on the income level of the parents.

    We might also make a true leap and keep school from being mandatory. Incentives would ensure that most parents do send their kids to school, but the disruptive ones who truly don't want to be there don't have to.
     
  6. Nienna
    Offline

    Nienna Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    4,515
    Thanks Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +333
    I have often thought that one of the big problems with schools these days, as with many things in our country, is the mentality that it is a "right," not a "privelege."

    This would also help the cause of homeschoolers. I think it's kind of a crock that you can't keep your kids out of school if you want to. They are YOUR kids, not the government's.
     
  7. liberalogic
    Offline

    liberalogic Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    539
    Thanks Received:
    48
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    NJ
    Ratings:
    +49

    I think you have truly good intentions with this plan, but I cannot disagree more with you.

    1) While "the dirt poor" will get full scholarships the middle class needs A LOT more help too...Look at the costs of college tuition-- it's insane...the last thing that we need is that kind of pressure (or anything remotely close to it) on two levels (HS and then college).

    2) To encourage ANYONE (even those who don't want to go to school) not to go even if they really don't want to is insane. People should not be encouraged to give up on school (even if they are disruptive-- and trust me I didn't like the disruptive kids in school).

    3) I'm not a communist, but I SHOULD be able to have faith in my government that it will give me a solid education. And it's not impossible-- look at what Mike Bloomberg has done in NYC. The answer is not to privatize, but modify the current institutions from what they are now.

    4) Who's going to set up a general curriculum? We can't have people coming from California learning about something and the someone from New Jersey learning about something completely different. The government is the overseer of the country and should have a hand in that.

    I also think that while government is absolutely corrupt, when you begin to privatize things, corruption gets even worse...we don't need that for the youth of America.
     
  8. Mr. P
    Offline

    Mr. P Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    11,329
    Thanks Received:
    618
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South of the Mason Dixon
    Ratings:
    +620
    Now that IS a liberal response!

    The free market will adjust. You don’t think millions will be dumped and all schools will close do you? They will adjust as and when they need to.

    Okay, but what about the kids that are being harmed by the disruptive ones, what do you do about that? I say remove the disruptive ones.

    Another disturbing liberal view…THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD PROVIDE FOR ME, in this case an education. Well, their failing if you haven’t noticed.
    Most want change, but not for the sake of change. Most want free from the limits government dictates on education.

    I have a novel idea; let the education professionals do it, not the inefficient bureaucratic government.
    They won’t be.
    More Liberalism, "take care of me government, you’re my master". Repeat after me..”WE ARE THE OVERSEER OF THE COUNTRY, AND THE GOVERNMENT WORKS FOR US”.

    Private school performance does not prove this assumption to be true.
     
  9. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    There's not much more that I can add, except to say that I've seen both sides. I have attended both public and private schools. In public schools, discipline was practicaly non-existant, half the teachers gave busy work and never attempted to teach. The parents also never cared about anything except that it was the school's fault if anything bad happened. This was because the school had no competition. Even if half the student body left and went to private schools, the school would still have the same amount of funding, period, because the property tax from the region would continue to pay for it. When I went to private school, the children were much better behaved because the faculty disciplined them. The teachers actually taught classes and attempted to make the kids learn things, and spent zero time on idealogical crap (except some of the environmental crap, but they actually believed it, so I forgive them). The parents also cared deeply for the school, since they were paying for it, and the PTA actually accomplished something meaningful at their meetings.

    Private schools with the exact same funding per student as a public school will almost always be better because they have to compete for their business. Why do you think stuff made in China and formerly the USSR were so crappy? It's because there was no competition.
     
  10. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    My 3 kids have paid for all of their college funding, through work, scholarship, and loans. You can too.
    Disagree, those that do not want to be in school, after 9th grade, should be allowed to leave. Then it's up to the parents to insist the young adult work-they'll learn fast enough the cost of not being educated and do what they need to return to school or get trade skills.
    Why, if you don't want an education, why should you challenge anyone or any institution to GIVE you one? Ah, NYC public schools are not a great example, perhaps you are referring to Manhattan or Long Island?
    Since when? All our public schools have been locally controlled, which they still are in spite of the Department of Education. The feds contribute very little to the cost of education. The whole rationale originally for public schooling was civics based, since that is no longer taught, seems the underlying reason is gone.
    Give some examples or at least links.
     

Share This Page