Privatize, Privatize, Privatize

[Hobbit]

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.

 

[Mr. P]

 

[Nienna]

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.

 

[Mr. P]

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.

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?

 

[Hobbit]

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.

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.

 

[Nienna]

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.

 

[liberalogic]

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.

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.

 

[Mr. P]

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...

Now that IS a liberal response!

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).

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.

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).

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.

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.

Another disturbing liberal view…THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD PROVIDE FOR ME, in this case an education. Well, their failing if you haven’t noticed.

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.

Most want change, but not for the sake of change. Most want free from the limits government dictates on education.

4) Who's going to set up a general curriculum?

I have a novel idea; let the education professionals do it, not the inefficient bureaucratic government.

We can't have people coming from California learning about something and the someone from New Jersey learning about something completely different.

They won’t be.

The government is the overseer of the country and should have a hand in that.

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”.

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.

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

 

[Hobbit]

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.

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.

 

[Annie]

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).

My 3 kids have paid for all of their college funding, through work, scholarship, and loans. You can too.

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).

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Give some examples or at least links.

 

[liberalogic]

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.

1) You can't just take the isolated situations of your children. There are a lot of people who simply can't afford college and even with loans, scholarships, etc. it would still take them a lifetime to pay it off. It is a pressure that should not be extended to the HS level...if they or their parents are then paying for HS that would make college even more difficult to afford. I know this sounds liberal, but you gotta cut the middle class some slack.

2) My point with the students dropping out was that it should not be encouraged. Personally, I look at education as a wealth of knowledge waiting to be absorbed...I love to learn...now I know that it's a fantacy to think that everyone would adopt that idea, but we should be promoting the value of education to everyone, rather than letting them disregard it. Yes, in the long run if someone really, really, really doesn't want to be there, he's going to leave. But I'll be damned if I think the education system should give up and stop trying to retain children when someone doesn't want it.

3) I'm saying that the government should place emphasis on education...the citizens of the country should be educated. Think about it this way: without students who obtain quality education, how will we compete with other countries? Who will lead our country? It's not just about education; our future is at stake as well. The government should emphasize education for the good of the nation as a whole.

 

[Annie]

1) You can't just take the isolated situations of your children. There are a lot of people who simply can't afford college and even with loans, scholarships, etc. it would still take them a lifetime to pay it off. It is a pressure that should not be extended to the HS level...if they or their parents are then paying for HS that would make college even more difficult to afford. I know this sounds liberal, but you gotta cut the middle class some slack.

My kids are not 'isolated cases, they just knew they had to pay for college themselves. Great motivator, even when learning disabilities were an issue for one. They will be paying off loans for awhile, but salaries with degree will make it worth while. No one owes you college.

2) My point with the students dropping out was that it should not be encouraged. Personally, I look at education as a wealth of knowledge waiting to be absorbed...I love to learn...now I know that it's a fantacy to think that everyone would adopt that idea, but we should be promoting the value of education to everyone, rather than letting them disregard it. Yes, in the long run if someone really, really, really doesn't want to be there, he's going to leave. But I'll be damned if I think the education system should give up and stop trying to retain children when someone doesn't want it.

Yes, it is a fantasy. Some are naturals with their hands and will make more money than many college grads in trades. Others have the 'right insticts' to start up their own businesses at 18. Still others wish to get high all day and die early. Choices.

Schools do encourage students to succeed, however it is ultimately a cumulative experience of school, home, the student themself.

3) I'm saying that the government should place emphasis on education...the citizens of the country should be educated. Think about it this way: without students who obtain quality education, how will we compete with other countries? Who will lead our country? It's not just about education; our future is at stake as well. The government should emphasize education for the good of the nation as a whole.

If the government cared about 'our future' we would educate everyone to the point of literacy, then track the students from about 5th or 6th grade on, like most other education systems in the 'first world.' We however try to 'educated' everyone through high school, even those that can't talk, breathe without assistance, etc. Choices.

 

[liberalogic]

My kids are not 'isolated cases, they just knew they had to pay for college themselves. Great motivator, even when learning disabilities were an issue for one. They will be paying off loans for awhile, but salaries with degree will make it worth while. No one owes you college. Yes, it is a fantasy. Some are naturals with their hands and will make more money than many college grads in trades. Others have the 'right insticts' to start up their own businesses at 18. Still others wish to get high all day and die early. Choices.

Schools do encourage students to succeed, however it is ultimately a cumulative experience of school, home, the student themself.
If the government cared about 'our future' we would educate everyone to the point of literacy, then track the students from about 5th or 6th grade on, like most other education systems in the 'first world.' We however try to 'educated' everyone through high school, even those that can't talk, breathe without assistance, etc. Choices.

The fundamental difference between our opinions is that we see the role of the government differently. I see it as more expansive, as a venue that SHOULD be a reliable source for education. You see it as more up to the individual to pursue education and work things out for themselves. I think this is just an ideological difference on which we have to agree to disagree.

 

[Hobbit]

The fundamental difference between our opinions is that we see the role of the government differently. I see it as more expansive, as a venue that SHOULD be a reliable source for education. You see it as more up to the individual to pursue education and work things out for themselves. I think this is just an ideological difference on which we have to agree to disagree.

I, personally, believe that a government is a group of people that is, itself, ungoverned, and, as such, should be trusted with only a minimal amount of responsibility. In my opinion, the less the government does, the better (to a certain extent). Education is no exception. Just as federalizing airport security has caused it to become inefficient, institutionalizing education has brought about little good.

 

[Abbey Normal]

I guess you can add me to the list of not-really-isolated cases.
I paid or all of college and law school through a combination of working and loans. No $$ from Daddy, since he didn't have it to give.

And yes, I was repaying those loans for many years, but as Kathianne said, a steady salary helps pay them back. State college tuition rates are pretty reasonable. It is very do-able if you are willing to work for it.

And in my experience, the kids who pay their own way generally tend to work harder in college. It's easy to party someone else's money away.

 

[liberalogic]

I guess you can add me to the list of not-really-isolated cases.
I paid or all of college and law school through a combination of working and loans. No $$ from Daddy, since he didn't have it to give.

And yes, I was repaying those loans for many years, but as Kathianne said, a steady salary helps pay them back. State college tuition rates are pretty reasonable. It is very do-able if you are willing to work for it.

And in my experience, the kids who pay their own way generally tend to work harder in college. It's easy to party someone else's money away.

If we privatize HS, though, that's going to compound the college tuition expenses....would you have been able to pay your college expenses if you had to pay for HS before that?

I don't think it's about "working harder" and having the right work ethic. I see what you mean and I agree that people do need to work and that it's a valuable lesson, but at the same time I think education should be a right and not a privilege. I just think it's too important to have people compromise their best options for school simply because they can't afford it.

 

[Mr. P]

If we privatize HS, though, that's going to compound the college tuition expenses....would you have been able to pay your college expenses if you had to pay for HS before that?

I don't think it's about "working harder" and having the right work ethic. I see what you mean and I agree that people do need to work and that it's a valuable lesson, but at the same time I think education should be a right and not a privilege. I just think it's too important to have people compromise their best options for school simply because they can't afford it.

I don't think you understand who pays for HS now. If you do, do you think that will change just because things get privatized?

I'll give ya the short answer...NO. It's called vouchers and they will be funded by taxes, just like now. The only difference would be you would be free to use them at the school of you choice, provided they accept you, based on test scores and grades of course. Performance, what a concept, huh?

 

[Annie]

If we privatize HS, though, that's going to compound the college tuition expenses....would you have been able to pay your college expenses if you had to pay for HS before that?

I don't think it's about "working harder" and having the right work ethic. I see what you mean and I agree that people do need to work and that it's a valuable lesson, but at the same time I think education should be a right and not a privilege. I just think it's too important to have people compromise their best options for school simply because they can't afford it.

No, I do NOT think children should pay for high school. I think those that want to be there, should be able to be there and graduate. Mom and Dad are paying for that through taxes or tuition. If a family is in such financial shape that they can't afford the fees, books, etc., those should be paid. Question is, does that poor kid or middle class kid, that is willing and able to work hard and produce, get to choose or rather his parents, whether to go to one school or another, when one of them make that child more likely to gain scholarship or necessary skills to reach for the next level?

 

[Mariner]

I have mixed feelings about. I teach at a medical school, and often consult to public schools, so I get some idea of what goes on. I also can compare our system to that in England, India, and Germany (we have had a series of German au pairs, and have therefore learned much about the German educational system).

I do agree with many conservatives that the NEA's (teacher's union's) lock on the Democratic Party has been harmful to education. I've seen many incompetent teachers in public schools. Teaching in medical school, there is competition--if students' reviews are negative, I'll lose my privilege to teach. We're regularly updated on how our teaching hospital compares with others within the Harvard system (and I'm proud to say we do well). By contrast, K-12 teachers have minimal supervision, feedback, and training. Even worse, the average education major is an average college student, not a bright one. It's quite possible that a private system would succeed in recruiting and retaining more talented teachers, and might deploy them differently--more creatively.

I wish there were a range of classes for different types of students, but with the continued opportunity for people to mix. Even though I was a "nerd"--or perhaps because I was a nerd--my best friends in high school were my fellow students in shop. I learned how to be an American from these kids, who weren't going to college, but who embodied the values of independence and confidence that I admire in America. My public high school had a level of classes beyond AP, as well as college-level classes available--but I am very glad that I mixed with some of the "disruptive" kids.

I'm personally not against experiments with privatization of education. I'm not absolutely convinced that the private sector always does everything better than the private, however. I see a strong role for a public sphere--courts, legislatures, public services like roads, military, a social safety net--where people are treated equally and there is no corporate sponsorship. Take the example of health insurance, where the overhead of private companies such as Blue Cross/Blue shield is TRIPLE that of public insurance (Medicare and Medicaid). Our hospital has to contend with 1500 different insurance plans--that is private competition, but it's not efficient.

Or, take a look at public education in India, England, or Germany. All outperform us academically K-12 (I'm ignoring the impoverished regions of India, and focusing on the middle class system). To me, this is not only because of lazy and incompetent teachers here, or sclerotic school administrations, or overly centralized curriculum planning. To me, it has something to do with the culture. Get in a taxi cab in India, and might find yourself answering questions about physics or math. There's a deep respect for science and teaching in many cultures elsewhere in the world that is absent here. I'm not sure that's entirely bad, either, since we've been able to rely on imported talent to fill our best-in-the-world graduate schools, and the freedom from regimented education probably contributes to (and mirrors) the freedom to "express yourself," as Madonna puts it, in America.

Sorry to ramble on at such length,

Mariner.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Having attended a rural Alabama public school, a "hippie" school, a military school, an excellent private school, a conservative religious school, and finally a prestigous New England boarding school during my school years, I have seen the contrast between the varying types of schools. Of all the schools I attended, by far the worst was the public one. The only had one "good" teacher. I don't think it was that they didn't want to be good its just that I don't think they were trained enough. The school policies were way too strict as well, along the lines described by Hobbit in an earlier post. The most important thing I noticed though was that the students didn't care about their work. Few seemed to want to better themselves or their situation. The military school was better, but suffocated the student body with rules and regulations. The teachers were good, but again, everyone either wanted to join the military or stick do what their parents did. The religious school was better but still didn't I felt like they were pushing an agenda on me. The hippie school was weird, I feel that, to this day, I was hurt by my two years there and the two at the public schools because it forever destroyed my work ethic, at these schools I could not do homework and still be an honors student. The private day was my first exposure of what could be called a "real" education. People at this school were motivated and wanted to succed in life, rather than take what they were given, they wanted to better themselves. OF course the 500-pound gorrila of schools is the New England boarding school. If you want a real education than thats were to go. The resources and courses offered went to the level of third year college courses. I relize that the main reason the New England boarding schools are the best is the massive financial resources they command, but the one thing that most struck we was the motivation and dedication of the student body. Everyone tried their best, presuded their passions, and achieved success. Comparing the students there to all the other places I went has shown me that its more than just connections that sends 1/3 of the student body to the Ivy League annually.

Rant over. What I'm trying to say is that one of the key factors affecting the success of a school is the student body. Students that are more motivated always do well no matter where they are, the better schools simply obtain higher concentrations of these students. One of the most important things that needs to happen is to show students the benefits of education and motivate them to acheive. I am of the opinion that the only people who can really do this are the parents. I think that by the time the 4th grade teacher, the year education really begins, gets her students, the path of the student is pretty well decided. What we need to do to improve our schools is make students realize the opportunity they have been given and use it.