A Thought Experiment

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Yugoslavia's socialist economy was a success.

So whats that 1 in 40? Not good odds to gamble my children and grandchildren's futures on.

Nice to know though that there's actually a successful model to emulate when the time comes for it to be instituted.

ah that is a good point sir.

 

[xsited1]

Not necessarily. You have to ask why we spend so much and why we are worse in many categories. We pay more for many reasons: more tests, higher drug costs and administration fees come to mind. More tests mean more profits for the doctor, but also the doctor doesn't want to get sued for missing something. Higher drug costs mean Americans finance advertising and cutting edge drug research. Higher administration fees mean there is more paperwork to keep up with. And yet most Americans are very unhealthy, so obviously on average we would be worse than other 'controlled' countries.

Apply this same logic to your comment about our "public" schools failing. It is not necessarily the fact that they're public that is the reason they are failing. That was my point. It's disingenous to look a public school failure and say it's because they are public, but look at private healthcare's failures and suddenly have a nuanced view.

Uh... The fact is that there are a multitude of government regulations that make private health care expensive. And public schools are failing because the government doesn't allow competition between teachers and schools. That's why private and homeschooling beats public education every time.

Exactly right. And I have to pay for public schools even though my kids go to private schools. How ridiculous is that?"

You still benefit from having an educated populace, whether it is directly through your kids, or indirectly through the extended benefits of having an educated population. It is certainly less expensive to collectively educate than have all private education. Economy of scale. Whatever private schools currently charge, the result of privatization of schools would result in either lower qualtity private schools or much higher tuition or some combination of both. Private school teachers tend to make less money than public school teachers in the same region. Since teacher salaries are already so low that is causes shortages in certain fields, then you can imagine the logistical problems if all schools were private. The increase in tuition would probably dwarf current taxes taken for education purposes, plus there would be no guarantee of an educated public.

It's cheaper to publicly educate if done properly. Where do you get the idea that privatization of schools would result in lower quality or higher tuition?

In the absence of laws, you are correct. That's why capitalism cannot work without an honest and fair legal system.

But many social programs are in-effect humane behavior with the force of law- exactly what you are suggesting. You can't depend on parents to support their child's education. It wouldn't be fair for a child to grow up disadvantaged because his parents did not educate him. But if you compel education, then you must make sure that education is available. Since there is no guarantee that the parents are capable of schooling their child, then homeschooling cannot be the only option. What if the parents, being poor, cannot afford private school? Subsidize from the government or compel the school to take the student? You're basically getting back to public schooling with subsidies.

Social programs take money from the populace and redirect it. Yes, some of it is required, like police for example, but most of it is just stealing, Robin Hood style. And if you compel education, you do not need to make sure it's available. If the parents are too poor to have their children 'schooled', I'm sure most would contribute a small portion of their salary towards educating the poor. Our American educational system is currently doing a fine job providing a poor education compared to systems in other industrialized nations.

 

[N4mddissent]

Uh... The fact is that there are a multitude of government regulations that make private health care expensive. And public schools are failing because the government doesn't allow competition between teachers and schools. That's why private and homeschooling beats public education every time.

It's not just government regulations that make healthcare expensive, but that is another debate. I know you're a thoughtful person xisted, but I think you're a bit too caught up in the theoretical model of free-marketism. Adam Smith was no fool. The market as an economic tool seems good on paper, but it is not practical. Think about the above example. It would only work if there is competition. Competition implies that there will be a variety of choices. While that may be true in some places, it will not be true in others. There are small rural communities who do not even have fast-food restaurants. The town I grew up in has only one fast-food restaurant and I was 13 years old before it came. If there are towns who have limited or no choice on something as ubiquitous as fast-food chains, do you really think they would have multiple schools from which to choose? It is not exactly a huge profit-bearing operation, so what investor would bother? And it still doesn't explain why public shools aren't failing in other countries if the core problem is that they're public.

You say that private school and homeschooling has better results than public schooling. First, that is not always the case. I went to public school, while my parents decided to send my sister to private school. I went to college and got a degree. She dropped out and got a GED. A close friend of mine had an almost identical situation. So it's not 100% true that it is the case.

More importantly, I believe that private school performance is mistaking correllation for causation. Yes, private school students do better. But they also demographically skew in favor of those conditions that predict success in school- educated parents, successful parents, financial security, etc... Furthermore, private schools have greater controls on student population. If a student is disruptive or failing, they have every right to deny that student admission into the school. They can kick out anyone who doesn't meet whatever standard they set. This control over the classroom is the primary reason people are willing to teach in private schools, when salaries are considerable lower on average than public school teachers. Of course in these conditions, private school students are going to apparently score better. I couldn't find any, but it would be interesting to see data comparing public schools in affluent neighborhoods to private schools in general, to see if the performance gap narrows.

Where do you get the idea that privatization of schools would result in lower quality or higher tuition?

First of all, teachers at private schools are much more likely to be uncertified, and much less likely to have advanced degrees than public school teachers. There is a high turnover at private schools, probably due to much lower pay. Teachers often work at private schools because of their exclusivity. I think you would have a severe teacher shortage with privatization of schools. According to a report from the 1990's, public school teachers make 60% more on average than private school teachers. Yet, we still have shortages in some subjects. Do you think those shortages would evaporate if salaries were comparable to private school teachers? So, either private schools would be forced to get teachers of poorer and poorer quality that are willing to work for a pittance, or they will have to provide adequate compensation to attract quality educators and thus be forced to increase tuition. Furthermore, those schools in more affluent regions would be able to raise tuition and pay more, thus luring quality educators away from rural or poor areas, where running a private school could already be a risky venture.

Social programs take money from the populace and redirect it. Yes, some of it is required, like police for example, but most of it is just stealing, Robin Hood style.

So it is just a subjective judgement? The line between what is required or not, it seems to me, would depend heavily upon the person considering the situation.

And if you compel education, you do not need to make sure it's available. If the parents are too poor to have their children 'schooled', I'm sure most would contribute a small portion of their salary towards educating the poor.

Of course you have to make sure it's available. Otherwise you would punish citizens for things beyond their control. If you introduce a law with penalities for parents who do not educate their children, then it would be a obscenity to justice to then enact that penalty if the family does not have the means to comply. And I respectfully disagree with your assurance that most people would contribute a small portion of their salary to educate the poor. I believe that those who would be willing to do so would not be adamantly opposed to taxes for education. First, those who feel generous would have to give even more to make a difference, since they must compensate for those who do not want to give. Additionally, I believe that many would say, "I already pay for my children's school, why should I give money for somebody else's child?". I do not believe there is enough generosity among Americans to support a voluntary system. Those who are generous would have to give enormous amounts to compensate for the less generous- and of course, those who do not give would be encouraging their own economic advantage at the expense of those who are generous, or those already poor. It makes sense from a strictly capitalistic view.

No, I think it's better to compel a little money from everyone, than to hope for a lot of generosity from those who value compassion over their own self-interests. Compassion has no place in absolute capitalistic philosophy. After all, if non-public education had been effective, there would never have been the demand for free public schools that led to their existance in America.