Studies show Republicans privatizing of public schools a costly failure

[Ariux]

And that is exactly why private schools can never replace public schools. For private schools to replace public schools, public funds would be required to provide an education for poor children and with those funds would come all the requirements that must accompany public funds. Private schools have said no to the charter school movement because they want autonomy.

You speak like a shitbrained product of public education. Private schools need not meet any requirements of public schools to receive public funds (beyond the trivial). There are some voucher programs now that work at any private grade school, just as long as it's a school. At the college level, significant federal tax credits or deductions exist that that can be applied to any private college tuition.

Jews hate us, so they want undue conditions on funding. Jews have managed to attach strings to some voucher programs to have a religion test to block students from using vouchers at Christian schools.

Charter schools are public schools, so they have to meet all the requirements of public schools. Private schools would be against charter schools, because private schools have nothing to gain from charter schools, but may lose students to charter schools. But, those NYC charter schools are saving taxpayers over $3000 per student.

 

[Flopper]

I'm not talking about giving taxpayer money to open a school. Businesses will do that. I'm talking about the idea of giving money to poor families so they can pay for a private education, which will become much more affordable once we break the back of the government near-monopoly on education. If a state feels all its citizens are entitled to an education, they can give their money to poor families. That does NOT require the state to run the actual school, which we know produces inferior results at elevated prices...just like all monopolies. Stated differently, a free market in education does not mean we can't help the poor get educated.

Vouchers have their own set of problems aside from the constitutionality issue of providing vouchers for students going to sectarian schools. This is not a trivial issue since a large percentage of private schools are religious schools.

Vouchers would be at the state level. The feds should have no place in education.

The desire to abandon public schools is based on the assumption that most students will get a better education in a private school. But is this really so? Given that private schools can pick and choose students, and thus enroll students whose socio-economic backgrounds and parent education levels are generally higher that those of public school students, it would not be surprising if they were to outperform public schools significantly.

Here's the thing. In a free market, there are all kinds of niches that get filled. Where there's a demand, there will be a supplier. I'm suggesting that the hyper focus on performance through standardized testing would cease to dominate how we differentiate schools. Demand for schools that provide a diversity of educational opportunities would spring forth in place of our one size fits all approach. We desperately need innovation, creativity, and efficiency in the education market. Only competition can provide that.

When we dump mediocre to low performing students into private schools, test scores will not be any better than public schools.

When have such students been "dumped" into private schools...and I don't mean charters? Whether your assumption is true or not, the point is in a free market, those students would have the option of attending schools that specialize in meeting their needs. Or, maybe one of those low performing students happens to favor playing the piano. His attends the school that emphasizes the arts. Maybe another of the mediocre students decides college prep isn't for him so he attends a trade school, learns to become a killer chef...whatever! The point is, schools like that wouldn't bother comparing test scores, they'd sell their services like any other business. We need choice in education and the options that only a free market can provide.

Regardless of whether vouchers come from federal or state funds, if vouchers go to religious based schools, it will be a constitutional issue.

If public schools are abandoned in favor of private schools, then we will be dumping low achievers into private schools and tests scores in private schools will go down. Since they are only slightly better than public schools, there will be no improvement.

However, the most probably scenario, is that most low achievers which are the most expensive to educate will be left to the public school system sucked dry of funds by vouchers.

 

[eflatminor]

Vouchers have their own set of problems aside from the constitutionality issue of providing vouchers for students going to sectarian schools. This is not a trivial issue since a large percentage of private schools are religious schools.

Vouchers would be at the state level. The feds should have no place in education.



Here's the thing. In a free market, there are all kinds of niches that get filled. Where there's a demand, there will be a supplier. I'm suggesting that the hyper focus on performance through standardized testing would cease to dominate how we differentiate schools. Demand for schools that provide a diversity of educational opportunities would spring forth in place of our one size fits all approach. We desperately need innovation, creativity, and efficiency in the education market. Only competition can provide that.

When we dump mediocre to low performing students into private schools, test scores will not be any better than public schools.

When have such students been "dumped" into private schools...and I don't mean charters? Whether your assumption is true or not, the point is in a free market, those students would have the option of attending schools that specialize in meeting their needs. Or, maybe one of those low performing students happens to favor playing the piano. His attends the school that emphasizes the arts. Maybe another of the mediocre students decides college prep isn't for him so he attends a trade school, learns to become a killer chef...whatever! The point is, schools like that wouldn't bother comparing test scores, they'd sell their services like any other business. We need choice in education and the options that only a free market can provide.

Regardless of whether vouchers come from federal or state funds, if vouchers go to religious based schools, it will be a constitutional issue.

If public schools are abandoned in favor of private schools, then we will be dumping low achievers into private schools and tests scores in private schools will go down. Since they are only slightly better than public schools, there will be no improvement.

However, the most probably scenario, is that most low achievers which are the most expensive to educate will be left to the public school system sucked dry of funds by vouchers.

Regardless of whether vouchers come from federal or state funds, if vouchers go to religious based schools, it will be a constitutional issue.

Disagree. A state redistributing money to a family for the purpose of paying for education does not constitute a law "...respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". In fact, it would seem that if the feds tried to restrict which school a family could spend their money on, THAT would be unconstitutional.

If public schools are abandoned in favor of private schools, then we will be dumping low achievers into private schools and tests scores in private schools will go down. Since they are only slightly better than public schools, there will be no improvement.

That makes no sense. If we had all private schools and as you stated, they're "better", how could there be no improvement? Again, the point is that with private education, we'd get diversity, innovation, and a focus on the customer (students and their families). We get none of this with monopolies, especially government monopolies. If you want higher test scores, only a free market can provide schools that focus on such things. Clearly, we're not getting that now.

However, the most probably scenario, is that most low achievers which are the most expensive to educate will be left to the public school system sucked dry of funds by vouchers

Not logical. First, I'm suggesting government get out of the business of educating, which means there would be no public schools to get "sucked dry". Secondly, what makes you think the market wouldn't respond to the demands of low performing students? One can make profit from educating a low IQ person, can they not? Low performers are only more expensive to education in today's one size fits all monopolistic approach. That would not be true when schools began to specialize and focus on the demands of their customers.

 

[Flopper]

Vouchers would be at the state level. The feds should have no place in education.



Here's the thing. In a free market, there are all kinds of niches that get filled. Where there's a demand, there will be a supplier. I'm suggesting that the hyper focus on performance through standardized testing would cease to dominate how we differentiate schools. Demand for schools that provide a diversity of educational opportunities would spring forth in place of our one size fits all approach. We desperately need innovation, creativity, and efficiency in the education market. Only competition can provide that.



When have such students been "dumped" into private schools...and I don't mean charters? Whether your assumption is true or not, the point is in a free market, those students would have the option of attending schools that specialize in meeting their needs. Or, maybe one of those low performing students happens to favor playing the piano. His attends the school that emphasizes the arts. Maybe another of the mediocre students decides college prep isn't for him so he attends a trade school, learns to become a killer chef...whatever! The point is, schools like that wouldn't bother comparing test scores, they'd sell their services like any other business. We need choice in education and the options that only a free market can provide.

Regardless of whether vouchers come from federal or state funds, if vouchers go to religious based schools, it will be a constitutional issue.

If public schools are abandoned in favor of private schools, then we will be dumping low achievers into private schools and tests scores in private schools will go down. Since they are only slightly better than public schools, there will be no improvement.

However, the most probably scenario, is that most low achievers which are the most expensive to educate will be left to the public school system sucked dry of funds by vouchers.

Disagree. A state redistributing money to a family for the purpose of paying for education does not constitute a law "...respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". In fact, it would seem that if the feds tried to restrict which school a family could spend their money on, THAT would be unconstitutional.

If public schools are abandoned in favor of private schools, then we will be dumping low achievers into private schools and tests scores in private schools will go down. Since they are only slightly better than public schools, there will be no improvement.

That makes no sense. If we had all private schools and as you stated, they're "better", how could there be no improvement? Again, the point is that with private education, we'd get diversity, innovation, and a focus on the customer (students and their families). We get none of this with monopolies, especially government monopolies. If you want higher test scores, only a free market can provide schools that focus on such things. Clearly, we're not getting that now.

However, the most probably scenario, is that most low achievers which are the most expensive to educate will be left to the public school system sucked dry of funds by vouchers

Not logical. First, I'm suggesting government get out of the business of educating, which means there would be no public schools to get "sucked dry". Secondly, what makes you think the market wouldn't respond to the demands of low performing students? One can make profit from educating a low IQ person, can they not? Low performers are only more expensive to education in today's one size fits all monopolistic approach. That would not be true when schools began to specialize and focus on the demands of their customers.

Don't really have the time to respond to all your post but I'll hit a few points.

Vouchers, since they involve direct government funding of private school tuition, violate the Constitution whenever the private school involved uses this money to pay for religious instruction. You can't us public funds to fund religion regardless of whether it's state or federal funds, regardless of whether those funds go to the school directly from the government are go there via the parents.

For students that no private schools want, kids with serve learning disabilities, emotion problems, troublemakers, and other special needs kids, where do they go and who pays? The cost of educating these kids can easily exceed 5 times the cost of "normal kids".

Most parents expect to send their kids to neighborhood schools, usually within a mile of the home. That's no problem with public schools because they are open to all students however private schools are selective. The elementary school down the street may becomes a school for gifted students, specialize in music education, or has a tuition much higher than your voucher. So you search for a school miles from home. That's fine for parents who have the means to send their kids across town to school, but what about those that can't.

The idea that free market forces will make our schools much better rests on the idea that parents will seek out the best schools and avoid the poorer schools. But is that really true? In public schools that allow parent to do just that, it has made little if any difference. We know one of the primary criteria for parents is school location and school hours, not quality education. We also know that going to same school your friends attend is by far the primary criteria for most kids. And for those parents that would try to choose the best quality schools, how do they do that? Private schools are not required like public schools to publish test scores, qualifications of their teachers and other information. They operate just like other businesses. They publish what's good and hide the problems.

 

[dblack]

The idea that free market forces will make our schools much better rests on the idea that parents will seek out the best schools and avoid the poorer schools. But is that really true?

This is why I rarely make arguments supporting freedom on the basis that it will make us better (smarter, stronger, richer, etc...). It's usually possible to make a compelling, if not convincing, argument that, on the whole, an authoritarian state can make better decisions for people than they can make for themselves.

Many of us, particularly in the US, argue as though freedom is an assumed goal that we all share. But I think we have to come to terms with the fact that it's not. Many people fear freedom (if not their own, the freedom of their neighbor), and will eagerly support a government that squelches it.

 

[eflatminor]

The idea that free market forces will make our schools much better rests on the idea that parents will seek out the best schools and avoid the poorer schools. But is that really true?

That is absolutely true. Do you seek out the best supermarket and avoid the one that doesn't provide the products you want or does so at an unacceptably high price? Of course you do. It would be no different for education. A free market would bring about many, many choices for all kinds of students at a significantly lower cost than any monopoly run by central planners could ever provide.

What is beyond the pale is how anyone can support the status quo of shit results, skyrocketing costs, and an employee force that is paid not on their performance, but depending on how long they've shown up to the job...employees that for all practical purposes, cannot be fired. There is NO WAY a free market approach could do any worse.

If government control of a market is the answer for those areas we most value as a society (education would qualify I assume), why not other areas? Stated differently, why are you okay with a free market for grocery stores (we value food I assume) but not education? Come to think of it, let's just consider what it would like with government-run supermarkets. Hmm...lines for government issued toilet paper come to mind. I'll pass on the state run monopolies, all of them.

 

[dblack]

The idea that free market forces will make our schools much better rests on the idea that parents will seek out the best schools and avoid the poorer schools. But is that really true?

That is absolutely true. Do you seek out the best supermarket and avoid the one that doesn't provide the products you want or does so at an unacceptably high price? Of course you do. It would be no different for education. A free market would bring about many, many choices for all kinds of students at a significantly lower cost than any monopoly run by central planners could ever provide.

Probably, but maybe not. Maybe in a free market, people wouldn't demand better schools. Maybe people don't really care as much about education as they say they do (or, as much as they say they do when they think someone else is going to pay for it). The question is, do we value freedom enough to "allow" people to make choices we don't like?

 

[eflatminor]

The idea that free market forces will make our schools much better rests on the idea that parents will seek out the best schools and avoid the poorer schools. But is that really true?

That is absolutely true. Do you seek out the best supermarket and avoid the one that doesn't provide the products you want or does so at an unacceptably high price? Of course you do. It would be no different for education. A free market would bring about many, many choices for all kinds of students at a significantly lower cost than any monopoly run by central planners could ever provide.

Probably, but maybe not. Maybe in a free market, people wouldn't demand better schools. Maybe people don't really care as much about education as they say they do (or, as much as they say they do when they think someone else is going to pay for it). The question is, do we value freedom enough to "allow" people to make choices we don't like?

I do.

You may be correct that some families when faced with free market education would choose differently and I argue that is not necessarily a bad thing.

Today many that graduate from a public school with only a cursory knowledge of language, a limited vocabulary, poor reading skills and no comprehension of anything but the most basic mathematics. With a free market in education, some may choose to avoid the we today think of as education and instead learn a skill directly. Not a damn thing wrong with forgoing "college prep" education for learning a trade and getting to work sooner. My father did just that. He never got out of the 6th grade but managed to learn a trade and by the time I came along, he had a great professional career. Public school failed him so he got his own education. I love it.

 

[ShackledNation]

The idea that free market forces will make our schools much better rests on the idea that parents will seek out the best schools and avoid the poorer schools. But is that really true?

That is absolutely true. Do you seek out the best supermarket and avoid the one that doesn't provide the products you want or does so at an unacceptably high price? Of course you do. It would be no different for education. A free market would bring about many, many choices for all kinds of students at a significantly lower cost than any monopoly run by central planners could ever provide.

Probably, but maybe not. Maybe in a free market, people wouldn't demand better schools. Maybe people don't really care as much about education as they say they do (or, as much as they say they do when they think someone else is going to pay for it). The question is, do we value freedom enough to "allow" people to make choices we don't like?

If people do not demand better schools, government will not be able to provide better schools any more than free markets. To answer your question...OF COURSE! There are millions of choices that we don't like. That does not mean we can prohibit them. For every single choice you make, there is a choice you like less that someone may like more. That is no grounds for banning the subjective choice of someone else. I do not think people should smoke weed. Does that mean it should be banned? No. I do not like parents who allow their young kids to have phones. Does that mean it should be banned? Of course not. What if I do not like it if people eat meat, should that be banned?

These questions should not even have to be asked. People have the right to choose their path in life and accept the consequences, good or bad.

 

[Flopper]

The idea that free market forces will make our schools much better rests on the idea that parents will seek out the best schools and avoid the poorer schools. But is that really true?

That is absolutely true. Do you seek out the best supermarket and avoid the one that doesn't provide the products you want or does so at an unacceptably high price? Of course you do. It would be no different for education. A free market would bring about many, many choices for all kinds of students at a significantly lower cost than any monopoly run by central planners could ever provide.

What is beyond the pale is how anyone can support the status quo of shit results, skyrocketing costs, and an employee force that is paid not on their performance, but depending on how long they've shown up to the job...employees that for all practical purposes, cannot be fired. There is NO WAY a free market approach could do any worse.

If government control of a market is the answer for those areas we most value as a society (education would qualify I assume), why not other areas? Stated differently, why are you okay with a free market for grocery stores (we value food I assume) but not education? Come to think of it, let's just consider what it would like with government-run supermarkets. Hmm...lines for government issued toilet paper come to mind. I'll pass on the state run monopolies, all of them.

If getting the best education was the prime motivator of parents, I might agree with you but it's not. When school districts have opened enrollment so parents could pull their kids out of nearby poor performing schools in favor of better performing schools in other location, few parents did this. They preferred to keep their kids in schools where their friends are and in schools that are closer to their home. They wanted to keep all the kids going to same school where possible. In other words quality was not the main consideration of the parents.

The other thing that's wrong with your argument, is that in a voucher system, parents are not spending their own money. Just as it is in public education, parent would not be concerned with the cost because it's tax payer dollars that's being spent, not their own.

Lastly, a voucher system creates a huge problem. What do we do with kids that private schools don't want because the cost of their education is much higher than the value of the voucher?

I'm a great believer in the power of the free market system but I also believe that the free market is not a solution for all problems. If our goal in education was to provide the best education for just the kids of parents seeking the best, then a free market solution would probably work well. However, that is not our goal. We strive to provide the best education we can to all kids, regardless of the motivation of the kids or the parents and regardless of the challenges. To change to a free market system in education, we must change our goals from mass education of the many to a better education for the few and I doubt America is ready for that.

 

[Flopper]

The idea that free market forces will make our schools much better rests on the idea that parents will seek out the best schools and avoid the poorer schools. But is that really true?

That is absolutely true. Do you seek out the best supermarket and avoid the one that doesn't provide the products you want or does so at an unacceptably high price? Of course you do. It would be no different for education. A free market would bring about many, many choices for all kinds of students at a significantly lower cost than any monopoly run by central planners could ever provide.

Probably, but maybe not. Maybe in a free market, people wouldn't demand better schools. Maybe people don't really care as much about education as they say they do (or, as much as they say they do when they think someone else is going to pay for it). The question is, do we value freedom enough to "allow" people to make choices we don't like?

If you think parents care as much about their kids education as they say they say they do, visit your local school and see how many parents show up for parent teacher nights, PTA meetings, and volunteer to help in the classroom. A lot of parents neither supervisor their kids in doing their homework nor participate in anyway in their kids education. Their primary contribution is bitching about how bad the schools are when the real problem is at home.

I have sent my kids to some pretty crappy schools, some public and some private but we always worked with our kids, seeing that they did their homework. We talked to their teachers about problems and spent a lot of time just encouraging our kids to work hard at school. They have all graduated from college and have good jobs. Had the schools been better, it would have been easier on us but even so, I think our involvement was essential.

 

[dblack]

If you think parents care as much about their kids education as they say they say they do, visit your local school and see how many parents show up for parent teacher nights, PTA meetings, and volunteer to help in the classroom.

I wasn't saying anything to the contrary. I was essentially agreeing with your assessment - many parents don't place as much value on education as you might. In a free society, that's the way it works. People have the right to disagree, to value different things than what you might.

I have sent my kids to some pretty crappy schools, some public and some private but we always worked with our kids, seeing that they did their homework. We talked to their teachers about problems and spent a lot of time just encouraging our kids to work hard at school. They have all graduated from college and have good jobs. Had the schools been better, it would have been easier on us but even so, I think our involvement was essential.

And I took a different approach. My sons hated school. They both dropped out and I was happy to help them take control of their own education. They're doing fine as well. Some people thought we shouldn't have had the freedom to do that.

 

[enemigh]

Eliminate the entire department of education.
Parents only send their kids to school to keep them out of the house for
the day. School is a daycare for older children.
One side effect of this "daycare" is that the children turn into little
communists.

 

[Ariux]

Eliminate the entire department of education.
Parents only send their kids to school to keep them out of the house for
the day. School is a daycare for older children.
One side effect of this "daycare" is that the children turn into little
communists.

Government schools frequently go to voters for more money. I wonder why so many non-Communists, Christians, conservatives, etc. are ever willing to vote and give the public schools more money. Actually, I know why. People are stupid.

 

[Flopper]

If you think parents care as much about their kids education as they say they say they do, visit your local school and see how many parents show up for parent teacher nights, PTA meetings, and volunteer to help in the classroom.

I wasn't saying anything to the contrary. I was essentially agreeing with your assessment - many parents don't place as much value on education as you might. In a free society, that's the way it works. People have the right to disagree, to value different things than what you might.

I have sent my kids to some pretty crappy schools, some public and some private but we always worked with our kids, seeing that they did their homework. We talked to their teachers about problems and spent a lot of time just encouraging our kids to work hard at school. They have all graduated from college and have good jobs. Had the schools been better, it would have been easier on us but even so, I think our involvement was essential.

And I took a different approach. My sons hated school. They both dropped out and I was happy to help them take control of their own education. They're doing fine as well. Some people thought we shouldn't have had the freedom to do that.

You may feel that free choice without government intrusion is best for your kids, but when extended to all parents it may not be the best for others.

 

[dblack]

You may feel that free choice without government intrusion is best for your kids, but when extended to all parents it may not be the best for others.

What I feel is that you and I have no business deciding what's best for others.

 

[Flopper]

You may feel that free choice without government intrusion is best for your kids, but when extended to all parents it may not be the best for others.

What I feel is that you and I have no business deciding what's best for others.

Since the wife is calling me to attend to a disaster in the living room, I'll have to delay solving the nations problems to another day.

 

[dblack]

You may feel that free choice without government intrusion is best for your kids, but when extended to all parents it may not be the best for others.

What I feel is that you and I have no business deciding what's best for others.

Since the wife is calling me to attend to a disaster in the living room, I'll have to delay solving the nations problems to another day.

Heh... good luck.

I suspect the nation's problems will still be here when you get back.

 

[USMCSergeant]

I didn't read the entire thread, and this opinion might have already came up, but I'll share it anyway.

The States should handle their own education. It would be a competitive market, all 50 states doing education the way they see fit, and education that fits their own needs. What you could have is 50 testing centers trying new things, getting out of this stagnant memorization education our children receive now. Memorize these facts this week, then forget those and memorize a new set for the test next week. No one is taught critical thinking skills, even undergraduates are not taught this in overpriced universities.

For example" After 2 years Ohio has shown much improvement, has the highest test scores. Other states can model after - and build upon their example.

States should have more power, the Fed should have less. Simple really.

 

[eflatminor]

The idea that free market forces will make our schools much better rests on the idea that parents will seek out the best schools and avoid the poorer schools. But is that really true?

That is absolutely true. Do you seek out the best supermarket and avoid the one that doesn't provide the products you want or does so at an unacceptably high price? Of course you do. It would be no different for education. A free market would bring about many, many choices for all kinds of students at a significantly lower cost than any monopoly run by central planners could ever provide.

What is beyond the pale is how anyone can support the status quo of shit results, skyrocketing costs, and an employee force that is paid not on their performance, but depending on how long they've shown up to the job...employees that for all practical purposes, cannot be fired. There is NO WAY a free market approach could do any worse.

If government control of a market is the answer for those areas we most value as a society (education would qualify I assume), why not other areas? Stated differently, why are you okay with a free market for grocery stores (we value food I assume) but not education? Come to think of it, let's just consider what it would like with government-run supermarkets. Hmm...lines for government issued toilet paper come to mind. I'll pass on the state run monopolies, all of them.

If getting the best education was the prime motivator of parents, I might agree with you but it's not. When school districts have opened enrollment so parents could pull their kids out of nearby poor performing schools in favor of better performing schools in other location, few parents did this. They preferred to keep their kids in schools where their friends are and in schools that are closer to their home. They wanted to keep all the kids going to same school where possible. In other words quality was not the main consideration of the parents.

The other thing that's wrong with your argument, is that in a voucher system, parents are not spending their own money. Just as it is in public education, parent would not be concerned with the cost because it's tax payer dollars that's being spent, not their own.

Lastly, a voucher system creates a huge problem. What do we do with kids that private schools don't want because the cost of their education is much higher than the value of the voucher?

I'm a great believer in the power of the free market system but I also believe that the free market is not a solution for all problems. If our goal in education was to provide the best education for just the kids of parents seeking the best, then a free market solution would probably work well. However, that is not our goal. We strive to provide the best education we can to all kids, regardless of the motivation of the kids or the parents and regardless of the challenges. To change to a free market system in education, we must change our goals from mass education of the many to a better education for the few and I doubt America is ready for that.

Well, thanks for the debate. I don't think there's much more I can say to support my position. I've made my case and I understand you disagree. What strikes me about your position over any specifics you've suggested is that in order to accept your premise or agree with any of your specific arguments, one must accept the idea that you, or those in government you support, must know what's best for others. Stated differently, you believe it's your business to decide what's best another man's family. While I'm sure you believe you're doing the right thing, I find that incredibly arrogant, but not uncommon. Bottom line, I guess I have more faith in my fellow man to do what's in his own best interest and I'm perfectly fine with that approach. Thanks again, it really was insightful debating our perspectives. All the best.