Quote :

"Those damn private schools do a shitty job at being responsible for those same things. Such a shame. They just need a bureaucracy. It'll all be fixed over night."

Are you even reading my posts? Private schools aren't responsible for the same things. Please to get some reading comprehension.

1/18/2006 3:26:32 PM

THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT! REMOVE THE OBSTACLE TO LETTING SCHOOLS TO THEIR JOBS! THESE OBSTACLES ARE CREATED BY *GASP* THE BUREAUCRACY!

1/18/2006 3:28:47 PM

worst thread ever

1/18/2006 3:29:15 PM

^ you, sir, must've been educated at a failing public school.

1/18/2006 3:29:40 PM

Quote :

"If a kid is poor, but smart, he should have the right to go to the better schools"

Which he would, of course. If all schools are private, then they must compete for students. One such means of competing is higher average test scores. Ultimately, private schools will give free scholarships to poor students that are smart because that will bring up their scores, allowing them to bring in more rich-dumb students to pay for everything. Truely competitive private schools already do this, colleges do this when it comes to athletic ability (another way schools can compete is on the field).

Of course, if you are poor and dumb, you are going to be relegated to either pay more for your education or go to a bare-minimum school (whose cost is completely covered by the voucher). These schools will exists, of course. They will have no standards, planning to turn a profit by volume instead of quality. These schools may or may not end up better than today's public schools, it would depend on the number of remaining competitors on the bottom rung.

Another feature, of course, is in-school tiered education. My public school had a two-tier system of honors classes available only to those with high GPAs. Individual private schools could also offer such tierred systems, perhaps the voucher alone gets to in, but for $100 a month you get to take more advanced classes, etc.

1/18/2006 3:31:04 PM

Those low tier private schools basically turning the buck via volume... I don't see that as a bad thing. There are inherent differences in each person and some are smarter than others while some have better motor skills than others, etc.

Not everyone is einstein and the einstein shouldn' tbe taught in the same class as the village idiot. It's unfair to both.

1/18/2006 3:33:20 PM

Quote :

"If school's were run as businesses, they would also be very selective when it came to which students they selected."

That is not necessarily the case. Imagine, you need to feed 20 people everyday. You can accept bids from private catering companies with the requirement that all 20 people should get a decent meal. People cannot be left hungry - that is law. You can even add nutrition requirements. However, how they'll be fed will be up to an individual caterer. One who proposes to charge the least wins a one year contract.

Same can work for schools. It is ok to demand that every single kid in the district be educated, and personally I would not even oppose some type of government testing. However, the process of delivering education to students should be privatized.

1/18/2006 3:37:01 PM

Schools just need the tossed salad man.

1/18/2006 3:37:39 PM

I agree with what abonorio is saying. I personally believe there should be much more strignent standards as far as public schools. First off, you should be required to have a 2.0 GPA or you get kicked out, much like here. I also think classes like Personal Finance should be mandatory as well, unlike worthless classes like English (who gives a damn about Shakespeare anyway?), this would actually help you in life.

Quote :

"You dumb down the curriculum to make sure that you're not producing people that are too knowledgeable and intelligent. So what if many people now graduating high school can't even read? That was the goal. And you teach the children to always obey authority. This way, you will produce dumbed-down obedient little "slaves" that won't rebel or make waves in the current slave economy and due to the loss of their liberties."

While I don't agree with everything else Salisburyboy says in this thread, he does have a point here. Public schools are set up so that the student learns to be obedient and subservient. Think about it, how many classes in high school actually encouraged open discussion (which means people have to actually think)? Out of all the classes I took, I can count on one hand how many did so. Students were discouraged from discussing anything except how to get the problem done. And what about having to ask to go to the bathroom? Doesn't anyone find it odd that we have to ask to go relieve ourselves, which is a natural bodily function? I know you say its about order, but schools are centers of "learning", and order should be secondary to that. Can't learn if you thinking about how bad you need to relieve yourself, when a teacher DENIES your request to perform a NATURAL bodily function. Dissent is looked down upon and those who DARE to question superiors are looked at as trouble students. I can't count the number of times I was yelled at for questioning a teacher on a particular issue. Students are taught to lock step in goose step with what their superiors tell them, and anyone who questions the order is "disciplined". Our public schools need to be reorganized from the ground up. I read a very interesting article about the true purpose of public schools a while back on another forum. I see if I can find it.

1/18/2006 3:40:00 PM

Another means for educating a poor student with average intelligence (should not bring down test scores, but can't afford more than the voucher covers) is two words: "Coupon Day"

Businesses have a long history of finding clever ways of dividing up their customers between those that can afford to pay more (and therefore do) and those that cannot (or would refuse to do so). Ultimately, the poor and the rich will be going to the same schools, it's just that the rich bought parking tickets and school jackets, and the poor cut coupons out of a weekend flier.

1/18/2006 3:43:16 PM

what about rural areas? it doesn't seem this whole competition model would work too well there. and, of course, poor, rural schools are a big part of what's bringing down test averages in states like nc.

1/18/2006 3:48:48 PM

i blame cheese

1/18/2006 3:51:59 PM

And this is all I'm saying. Through a "business" perpsective, there are many ways to achieve the problem of educating the populace. But under the current paradigm, there is only one way, and unfortunately, that way is broken.

All of the clever capitalists and businessmen out there would make this work. They would have to. They rely on the money. The public relies on education. It's a cooperative system.

Although I agree with what Protostar is saying about the bathroom thing, I think the permission thing comes in primarily to prevent abuse. But point taken, I agree with you.

1/18/2006 3:52:44 PM

Quote :

"what about rural areas? it doesn't seem this whole competition model would work too well there. and, of course, poor, rural schools are a big part of what's bringing down test averages in states like nc."

That's not true. It will work there just as business works in those same areas. Making money has to be a creative business, and there are creative folks who will do it.

1/18/2006 3:55:00 PM

Quote :

"Can't learn if you thinking about how bad you need to relieve yourself, when a teacher DENIES your request to perform a NATURAL bodily function."

Clearly, having to ask to go to the bathroom is the real problem with public schools.

[/thread]

1/18/2006 3:58:36 PM

i blame cheese

1/18/2006 4:00:01 PM

Quote :

"Public schools are set up so that the student learns to be obedient and subservient. Think about it, how many classes in high school actually encouraged open discussion (which means people have to actually think)? Out of all the classes I took, I can count on one hand how many did so. Students were discouraged from discussing anything except how to get the problem done. And what about having to ask to go to the bathroom?"

I would say more than half of my classes in high school encouraged discussion. and the ones that didn't, it generally didn't make sense to have a lot of discussion in those classes to begin with (orchestra, math, pe). perhaps the classes i took were the exception, but i had a pretty good public school experience. i was able to get into a good gifted program in elementary and middle school and then did my honors/ap classes in high school. i think this all suited me pretty well. while i wasn't in the nicest facilities in the world, the teachers were well-intentioned for the most part and were usually quite competent in what they were teaching.

having worked in a few jobs myself and knowing what sort of cost-cutting goes on to make the bottom line, i don't think i'd want my children subjected to that. sure private education works well now, because people pay top-dollar for it and only the rich kids go there. an over-arching private school system seems inherently unfair to the under-priviliged who usually start out at a disadvantage (not to say they aren't disadvantaged in public schools too).

my main two criticisms of public schools are 1) not enough school autonomy (too much of the whole standardized test thing for my liking) and 2) inequity of funding between schools in rich neighborhoods and poor neighborhoods.

(speaking on rural schools):

Quote :

"That's not true. It will work there just as business works in those same areas. Making money has to be a creative business, and there are creative folks who will do it."

businesses don't open where there isn't money to be made. would this leave rural kids to commute to the closest (and not necessarily the "best") private school to them?

[Edited on January 18, 2006 at 4:04 PM. Reason : rural]

1/18/2006 4:00:52 PM

Those disadvantaged folks would have the burden of money lifted from them. Think about it, if public schools were done away with and the DOE had the same operating budget... well shit, that's a lot of money in grants. That's what the Pell grant does for higher education, it removes that disadvantaged barrier. The same would be the case for the privately funded schools in my scenario.

1/18/2006 4:03:26 PM

they are not only at a financial disadvantage, but they usually start out at an educational disadvantage. i would assume this has a lot to do with neither parent being around much in early childhood and/or their parents not having a very good education themselves.

scholarships or grants would give money to the kids who have performed well. most of these disadvantaged kids will not perform well. at least not from the beginning. it seems to me that a public school atmosphere is a more fair solution to this problem. of course the system should be improved from its current state to provide a more balanced education for both rich and poor.

1/18/2006 4:07:50 PM

Well there wouldn't be a "disadvantaged from the beginning" when talking about opportunities for education in that everyone would have the same financial backing.

However, if you're talking about intellect, yes, some are disadvantaged. It doesn't mean you bring down the einstein's with the village idiots. That solution (public school) is unfair to both parties there. I mean, it sounds harsh, but some are just simply smarter than others. It's not a disadvantage, it's a reality.

1/18/2006 4:10:52 PM

i was in a special program in a public school for the more gifted kids, so public schools CAN serve both. and i think they are more suited to do so in a fair way. private institutions have absolutely no incentive to be fair about education.

1/18/2006 4:12:47 PM

Ok, so you went to a special classroom twice a week for a few hours. That's still not fair.

And how is the current paradigm fair? You have faililng schools all over the place, the US is losing ground to other industrialized nations (and even subpar to some of them).

That's not fair. It's not the kids that are failing, but the system that is failing.

1/18/2006 4:14:22 PM

no child nutcase left behind.

1/18/2006 4:15:10 PM

^^wrong. i went to a special class room 8-3, every day, for five years.

also, i didn't say that public schools are being run well (see my problems with the current system a few posts up). i just don't think a privatized solution would be fair to the disadvantaged.

[Edited on January 18, 2006 at 4:17 PM. Reason : aef]

1/18/2006 4:17:00 PM

half the problem is the word disadvantaged. It's going to happen. There are some that are simply smarter than others. If you refer to them as "disadvantaged" then you insinuate that some wrong has been done to them and they are, therefore, a victim. That's not the case.

I don't think a privatized system would disadvantage anyone. In fact, I think you would be giving opportunity to a lot of the "disadvantaged" in the failing sector.

1/18/2006 4:21:47 PM

why would a private company bother to put forth the extra effort to help out poor or disabled students?

1/18/2006 4:22:57 PM

because there's choices in the business world. Hate mcdonald's? Go to burger king. It is not to the best advantage for a business/school to give a less than good education to their students because there would be choices for those students to choose.

1/18/2006 4:28:20 PM

how many poor kids do you know that got scholarships to private schools?

1/18/2006 4:30:15 PM

under the current situation, none. That's the point. Get rid of public schools, maintain the DOE's budget, and there's a lot of money to give to a lot of people.

[Edited on January 18, 2006 at 4:34 PM. Reason : .]

1/18/2006 4:34:34 PM

Quote :

"half the problem is the word disadvantaged. It's going to happen. There are some that are simply smarter than others. If you refer to them as "disadvantaged" then you insinuate that some wrong has been done to them and they are, therefore, a victim. That's not the case."

But consider your critics. If everyone went to private schools then it is likely that a select gifted few would get a much better education than currently available. Concurrently everyone else would also get a better education on the average. But, then we would then be left would the problem of the smart getting smarted and the dumb getting dumber, nevermind that everyone is better off.

1/18/2006 5:39:04 PM

I just simply don't buy that argument. If all the schools were privatized, then yes, EVERYONE would be getting a better education than they're getting right now. Yes, will some advantaged folks get a better education? Yes. It happens now too. I took an AP course or two.

But overall, the school systems will be in better shape, less bureuacracy, better paid teachers (which will attract people to the job instead of dissuading).

1/18/2006 5:42:35 PM

sure, but look what lower taxes has done. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, never mind that everyone has more. The fact that some have much more is what makes economic freedom so horrible, it's not fair.

1/18/2006 8:53:07 PM

Some really excellent points.

I'm willing to tone down my raging libertarianism and accept that gov't should collect the money for education, thus guaranteeing that every child gets a chance. But the private sector should create and run the schools.

Imagaine now...the gov't school system is eliminated. Taxes would provide each child with, let's say, $10,000 that his/her family would use for school placement (perhaps even less, since private schools tend to be more efficient). Now parents would get mailings, and phone-calls. School representatives would want to meet with them to proudly show off their school's education results. Companies would be falling over each other to get that chunk of money.

Just as with magazines and television, there would be specialization. You might see a chain of franchised rural schools established in the hinter-lands. Perhaps You could send one child to a specialized music school while the other kid goes to an engineering-oriented institution. Parents would demand and get a wide variety of school choices. The explosion of new education opportunities would be fantastic.

And now good teachers could really excel and get the compensation they deserve. A standardized ratings scale might be created by another enterprising Education Consumer Watchdog business. Specialized teacher unions might form-only accepting membership from the best and thus commanding higher wages.

With private American ingenuity unleashed into the education field, how could we not once again have the best-educated population?

1/18/2006 9:44:08 PM

Quote :

"The rich get richer and the poor get poorer"

I'm sorry, what year did the poor get poorer? Sure, their total compensation did not rise as fast as the rich, but it was still possitive growth. If you include health-care coverage, in some states the poor actually got richer faster.

If the voucher system is done right, then the truely poor might be able to save their children in every-way possible. For example, there used to be high-schools to which the children would actually go and stay in dorms. If your voucher was for "education", then what is to stop you from sending your kid to school in upstate New York? He can visit on weekends.

1/18/2006 10:36:49 PM

for the record I was being sarcastic.

1/18/2006 11:06:25 PM

need money? just ask this guy:

1/18/2006 11:16:29 PM

I hate that commercial.

1/18/2006 11:22:39 PM

Quote :

"With private American ingenuity unleashed into the education field, how could we not once again have the best-educated population?"

Perhaps the single greatest quote in soap box history. I'm right there with you bud. For everyone who says this won't work, I can point to a billion examples of where American ingenuity has made life better and more prosperous for everyone. I have total faith that we could do it only if we had the willpower to do it.

I'm also with you on the libertarian front (I, myself, am one). I'll let the government collect the money and dish out, but that's it. This method of private schools is perhaps the only way to get inner city kids into a situation where they could actually live up to their potential instead of wasting away their lives because of a horrible public school system that failed.

1/18/2006 11:27:40 PM

But taxing is stealing

1/19/2006 12:37:55 PM

that your best shot?

1/19/2006 1:07:16 PM

Quote :

"With private American ingenuity unleashed into the education field, how could we not once again have the best-educated population?"

Well, we have pretty fucking private health care, most of us, and we also have among the shittiest health statistics of the industrialized world.

There's also the fact that a switch to "free market education" would require an indeterminate period of market adjustment, leaving perhaps an entire generation of American schoolkids completely screwed over. Any change would have to be very gradual and very carefully considered at each step.

Still, though, I tend to believe that the death of public schools will cause a lot of kids to simply not get an education for various reasons, and that the consequences will hurt all of us in the end.

1/19/2006 3:32:48 PM

How would people just simply not attend school? The standards for attendance wouldn't go down.

1/19/2006 3:34:53 PM

But your ability to enforce those standards would.

Forcing people to pay taxes to the government is easy enough. Forcing them to pay a private entity is a little bit trickier. The only way to get around it, especially for poorer families, would be to tax the hell out of rich people and then hand out subsidies -- and that doesn't sound terribly libertarian, now does it?

1/19/2006 3:38:33 PM

You must've missed the earlier part of the conversation. We use the current budget of the DOE at all levels to issue grants (a lot like Pell grants). The system would have to work to where money isn't an issue. Everyone would essentially given a grant to go to school on. The only difference here is that money will go a lot further because of the forces of the market would create competition and increase efficiency.

That is libertarian. I'm not advocating increasing any taxes. As a matter of a fact, you could probably lower them because efficiency in the free market is 10 fold what it is under a government monopoly (see: the soviet union).

I do agree about the gradual transition though.

1/19/2006 4:01:19 PM

Quote :

"And what about having to ask to go to the bathroom? Doesn't anyone find it odd that we have to ask to go relieve ourselves, which is a natural bodily function?"

no

1/19/2006 4:06:53 PM

Grumpy, what is wrong with you? You've heard about the voucher system before, right? Or are you just pretending? I guarantee you that someone will be willing to put a kid through school for $10,000 a year, as layed out in the first post. Hell, for less than that amount we can send them to NCState University for a semester of out-of-state tuition, and I assure you our professors are paid far more than a high-school teacher.

This is not "private education," it is privately managed publicly funded education. Both Rich and Poor alike would get the $10,000 voucher. If some schools wish to charge more than that it is between them and their customers.

Hell, we might even restrict the vouchers to avoid paying for the rich, always an option.

[Edited on January 19, 2006 at 4:32 PM. Reason : NCSU]

1/19/2006 4:26:36 PM

i don't believe in restricting the rich from the base voucher. Education is a right and we're supposed to have an equality of opportunity. But, yes, the educaiton system should be privately managed. That's the key. Because a private entity will control its money so much better than the government ever could (again, the soviet union is the prime example of how a managed economy will inevitably fall).

Putting the money in private hands would make our failing education system better.

1/19/2006 4:29:29 PM

Quote :

"Both Rich and Poor alike would get the $10,000 voucher."

Well that in and of itself is straight up wasteful.

Quote :

"I guarantee you that someone will be willing to put a kid through school for $10,000 a year, as layed out in the first post. "

Yeah

But as laid out in the second post, "you are a goddamned idiot if you think the math works out like that." I mean, I would have been more polite about it, but I'd hate to be redundant.

1/19/2006 4:30:49 PM

I think we're using that $10000 as an example.

And how would giving people money we're already spending wasteful? You would put that money that we're already spending into more efficient hand thus giving us more output for the same price.

1/19/2006 4:34:51 PM

Oh, is that what you were upset about? Fine, then we'll use the real figures. I grew up in Cumberland County, one of the cheapest county-run public school systems in the state, they spent $4,841 per pupil per year. If paying in-state tuition, that would get you two full-time semesters at NCState University.

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/100_largest/Table10_2.asp

1/19/2006 4:36:08 PM