If you really don’t want public schools, and you’re an American voter, you might want to check out Ron Paul. He actually ran on that platform a few years ago…
When you think about it, it’s really cheaper in the long run for society to keep at-risk youths in school, where they belong. You see, if somebody let them out, they’d all go to the mall and shoplift.
I don’t see anything wrong with public school teachers being on the government payroll, as long as there’s also the option of sending your kids to private schools.
I happened to attend an excellent public school myself; just as there are bad public schools, there are also good ones. It is possible, with the will and the funds, to change the bad public schools into good ones.[/quote]
Doesn’t sound like we disagree, Chris. I also went to an excellent public school (7 foreign languages offered, more National Merit Scholars than all the other high schools in the rest of the state, public or private, combined!), so… good for us. That experience certainly engrained in me an understanding that public schools can be very good. I don’t see anything wrong with public school teachers being on the government payroll either, ‘as long as there’s also the option of sending your kids to private schools’ (your words).
So I guess the question is, for whom do you think the option should be available to send their kids to private schools?
Right now, that option is essentially limited to wealthy or middle-class people. Right now, most poor people have no option. That is the point of educational vouchers. To give poor people an option. If the options for private schools in your area are not as good, then fine – keep your kids in public schools (and the voucher money goes to that public school).
The opposition to vouchers comes from special interests who are invested in the current system. Those who genuinely support “the option to send your kids to private schools” (i.e. poor people) are generally in favor of them.
Is there any reason why a public school can’t be run the same way as a private school? The only difference being one uses private money and one uses govt money.
I assume there are entrenched positions and vested interests on both sides that say it’s not possible, but is it really impossible?
Good question, cfimages. In my opinion the difference between “one using private money, and one using government money” is how that money is allocated. The difference is between “Well, you had terrible results last year, that must mean you need more money next year to get you up to par” and “You had great results last year, here is some more money to expand your school, or maybe even open another one since you seem like you are good at what you are doing.”
Government agencies tend to allocate their budgets in such a way that will get them a larger budget (or at least the same amount) the next year. Anyone who has worked with these agencies has experienced this. Failure to achieve goals is often viewed as a sign that not enough resources are being allocated to the problem (i.e. more money needs to be given to endeavours that are failing, and less to projects that are doing well).
Note: Please don’t take this observation as an attack on public school teachers. My mother was a public school teacher, and is one of the most decent and generous and capable people I’ve ever known. But after a number of years in the system, she despaired at the institutional corruption (I’d like to use a kinder word, but cannot) that she found. Teachers’ unions objecting to the hiring of a wonderful new teacher because it would mean getting rid of some horrible old burnout who didn’t care but who happened to have more seniority, administrators spending money on ‘planning retreats’ that everyone knew were essentially paid vacation trips, rather than spending the money on what would help the kids, etc.
The problem is not with the individuals. The problem is with a system that very often creates the wrong incentives for people who, under other circumstances, would probably do the right thing. That’s why support exists for substantially increasing government funding for the education of the poor, and doing so by offering options to poor parents to send their kids to schools that operate under the right incentives, rather than the wrong ones.
Thanks Hobbes, makes sense.
I don’t know anything about the US education system, so forgive me for the following potentially dumb question.
How integrated/segregated are private schools in the US? When I went to school (Australia - finished high school in 1991), private schools were mostly white Anglo. Not many Aborigines, Asians, Europeans etc. (Intl students often go private, but the numbers are small).
i am all for closing public schools. the govt assesses property taxes to pay for schools. the assessments are arbitrary at best and are updated by “drive by” appraisals done by a guy who literally motors by and looks at your house. it is not uncomon for folks to pay as much in property tax as they do for house payments (thus completely blowing any pretense of a household budget).
let people pay for their own kids. why should i pay for somebody else’s kid who if educated enough can take my job? i have no children as a matter of choice yet i am required to pay for other people’s kids. show me the law that says so. but just try no to pay your property tax and see what happens- the gov’t sells your house house from underneath you.
PS- shoplift at malls? not here. the malls are establishing age minimums to enter. a kid under 16 (or 18) has to be accompanied by adult and there is a one to one adult to minor established ratio. no, i don’t go to malls either.
Close the public schools. And forget about those sissy voucher programs too. Pretty soon a permanent uneducated underclass will form without hope of social mobility or fulfilling lives. The upper and middle classes will still be able to send their kids to schools, so no worries. I think this works out the best for everybody.
No need to close the public schools. Rather, provide vouchers to the poor and allow them the choice of what schools, private or public, to attend… let the schools compete for students.
And who is going to pay for these vouchers? How much more money is the taxpayer going to have to fork over in addition to what we already pay for public schools?
In my neck of the woods, public school teachers are all unionized, making it incredibly difficult to get rid of underperformers. In private schools, teachers are on contract. At the end of the contract, if certain teachers are not working out, their contracts are not renewed. Public school teachers also are beneficiaries of wonderful pension plans, a cost which many private schools do not have to bear.
Also, as a paying customer to a private school, your concerns regarding issues at the school are usually dealt with more efficiently than would be at a public school. There are real dollars at stake for the private school which motivates them to deal with parental concerns as quickly as possible. No such motivation exists in public schools.
Having said that, I went to a public school and am more than satisfied with the quality of education I received. However, there were a few teachers that I wished weren’t protected under the union umbrella.
It’s hard to say whether a wholesale switch to a private system will be cheaper in the long run. While private schools currently enjoy a more favourable cost structure, having a fully private system may cause that cost structure to slowly approach the public system. Private schools as they exist now, due to less favourable renumeration, tend to have teachers that are more motivated to teach because of intangibles other than money (i.e. they actually like their job, the small class environment, the access to resources, etc.). In a fully private system, if the same renumeration practices continue, some teachers will simply exit the profession while up and coming students would simply choose to enter another field. In the long run, this will create a shortage and drive up teachers’ salaries and benefits so you may very well end up with a cost structure very close to the public system.
I guess I’m thinking of redistributing the money already spent on schools/students by the government and instead giving it directly to those who qualify for vouchers… let the parents of the students decide where they want to send their kids… why force poor kids to keep attending horrible schools while wealthy families can either move to better public school districts or send their kids to private schools? Or, give the money to the schools where the parents elect to send their kids… why throw good money at bad schools? Better to encourage and support the good schools…
I went to a public school. It was okay, even good depending on what classes a student enrolled for. Almost entirely white at the time (early 1980’s for high school), with high parental involvement. Now the demographics have changed. There are metal detectors outside the door, and apparently street gangs in the area. I suppose that motivated kids with motivated parents can still get a good education, but that’s not the sort of resource that could ever be evenly distributed.
One local private school bore the telling name of “Country Day.” (It was affiliated with a “country club,” i.e. a social club for the well-to-do with golf courses, stables, etc.). They probably attracted an already-competitive student body. The Catholic school was a somewhat more likely place where students with academic problems (or social ones, such as parental disapproval of one’s dating choices) might be motivated to overcome them. My father often mentioned “military school” as an option, if I didn’t behave. These are military-style boarding schools designed to control / rehabilitate wayward youngsters.
I have no direct knowledge of this, but I am sure that home schooling is far more widespread now than before.
Now picture Lywanda, our archetypal Welfare Momma, who gets fliers from various schools (some would perhaps avoid her patronage) desiring to educate her children in return for state vouchers. No regime in the world would be capable of inspiring Lywanda to take an interest in the subject, if she wasn’t, or ensure that she made a sensible choice. Okay, Lywanda is an extreme example (at least for my area) but the bell-curve–for parental interest as well for intelligence–is very real.
In Australia, the current govt, in its wisdom, has decided to take funding away from public schools but increase funding to private schools. I thought the whole point of private education was that it didn’t receive govt money, but not in Aust.
I recall reading that funding per student is now actually higher for private schools than it is for public schools. There was a case a couple of years ago where a private school in a hot (weatherwise) part of Aust received a boost in govt funds even though the school had plenty of resources, including things like swimming pools. A public school, in the same area lost some of its funding, even though this school didn’t even have sufficient resources to fit aircon in classrooms, provide sufficient computer resources for students and even had students in temporary, removable metal buildings because there were too many students too fit into the permanent buildings. And it wasn’t an isolated case.
I’m not sure what the bureaucracy is like with public schools, but teachers don’t get paid a whole lot in the public system. A teacher with 10 years experience doesn’t earn much more than an entry-level engineer, and earns substantially less than a plumber with 10 years exp.
Different to the US, I know. Just thought I’d throw it out for comparison purposes.
I don’t imagine for a minute that what I suggest would cure all ills. Sure there would still be cases of apathetic parents and kids who could care less. But, those exist now and the problem for them isn’t school choice… its attitude adjustment. But my suggestion would, I think, help those parents/kids who are motivated but are stuck in poverty/a shitty school, but who would jump at a chance to get out.
But, I dunno… we could just do the same thing we’ve been doing for 40 years, and or argue that no new suggestion is perfect and thus not worth trying…
Funny, not all of the public schools are so under-performing. When I look at the public schools where I grew up like New Caanan, CT; Oyster Bay NY, have excellent facilities and send a large portion of graduates to the Ivy League.
Why is this? The fact that the schools are funded by local property tax and are located in areas with a high portion of pricy real-estate. They are also governed by local PTAs with adequate resources and parents who will die if their precious brat ( 
I mean kid) don’t get into a good school.
No national solution is going to fix a local problem.
But Nassau county Long Island had a huge educational scandal recently. Millions of dollars missing and spent by administration on personal “art” collection.
Not to mention you are not taking into consideration the children of well-to-do parents will be more or less well-to-do themselves. So all along the North Shore communities one would expect relatively well prepared students. The real estate market and taxes selects against the poor from ever entering the schools.
If you check out the south shore of Long Island, then you get a vastly different picture more closely resembling a failing public school system.
In NYC there are magnet schools that select student base on test scores, whose student bodies performs as well as private schools. But taking those schools out of the equations. One sees a similar partner of more affluent school districts doing better than there poorer counterparts in the city.
Money and student body selection is usually the key indicators of a public school performance.
But Nassau county Long Island had a huge educational scandal recently. Millions of dollars missing and spent by administration on personal “art” collection.
Not to mention you are not taking into consideration the children of well-to-do parents will be more or less well-to-do themselves. So all along the North Shore communities one would expect relatively well prepared students. The real estate market and taxes selects against the poor from ever entering the schools.
If you check out the south shore of Long Island, then you get a vastly different picture more closely resembling a failing public school system.
In NYC there are magnet schools that select student base on test scores, whose student bodies performs as well as private schools. But taking those schools out of the equations. One sees a similar partner of more affluent school districts doing better than there poorer counterparts in the city.
Money and student body selection is usually the key indicators of a public school performance.[/quote]
How good is your reading comp?
I know not all families can afford a driver, no point in making fun of them.
But it helps in the sense if you subscribe to the belief the private sector will always outperform the public sector. With the voucher the poorer parents, like those who cannot afford drivers, could have an option. Whereas, they didn’t have an option in the past, and had to send their kids to whatever facility the district they could afford to live in had.
Of course there exist the selection issue. Which is very cruel. For people who believe in absolute meritocracy. Doesn’t matter how much money is provided for some individual’s education. They will always rise or fall to their natural level.
I don’t imagine for a minute that what I suggest would cure all ills. Sure there would still be cases of apathetic parents and kids who could care less. But, those exist now and the problem for them isn’t school choice… its attitude adjustment. But my suggestion would, I think, help those parents/kids who are motivated but are stuck in poverty/a shitty school, but who would jump at a chance to get out.
[/quote]
Just when you think you’re out, Fred pulls you back in :s 
There will be apathetic parents who could care less at any economic bracket. In the case of the public school system, what I’ve observed is that it’s not so much apathetic parents, rather under educated or over-worked parents that contribute to some of the problems. Parents who are not made accountable for their children’s education, or play no role in the system are allowing the system to go without a checks and balance.
Currently in Chicago, they have PAC-Parent Advisory Council meetings created under the “Leave No Child Behind”. Evidently, when these groups are not fighting about how many Latinos/African-Americans/women, etc are on the board. When they do something, like figure out how to fire result producing principals because they aren’t representative of the area demographics. The Board of Education in Chicago cannot really interfere with the PAC decisions which adds/compounds to the problem of resolving current issues. Bottom line is the power struggle isn’t over school maintained, funding or standardized lessons, but over who gets to be the boss. Time and money is being wasted there. That’s one tiny example of focus being diverted from the real problem.
Overall,I believe the problem in America lies in how much emphasis society continues to place on differencing the needs of groups. The idea that people need a specialized form of education or funding for education is actually emphasizing and encoring a new form of segregation. What was Brown vs. The Board of Education for? (Rhetorical, so pls don’t tell me)
Just my random thoughts…
I know not all families can afford a driver, no point in making fun of them.
But it helps in the sense if you subscribe to the belief the private sector will always outperform the public sector. With the voucher the poorer parents, like those who cannot afford drivers, could have an option. Whereas, they didn’t have an option in the past, and had to send to kids to whatever facility the district they could afford to live in had.
Of course there exist the selection issue. Which is very cruel. For people who believe in absolute meritocracy. Doesn’t matter how much money is provided for some individual’s education. They will always rise or fall to their natural level.[/quote]
Something to ponder while parking your yacht.