Privatizing Education

We're going to start discussing the arguement for privatization of education tommorow in my political science course. I jsut wanted to get some cAG opinion on it. I personally see it as a way to better the education potential (more competition for better schools) but I can also see it hurting certain economic and geographic sectors. So, what's the opinion CAG?

I don't post very often but privatizing education is one of the things the US needs to improve the quality of education. It would create competition, and also religious or descrimination problems would be avoided because the school would be private.

"But what about the poor people?"

America is one of the most charitable nations in the world. Many people, when knowing their wasn't public education, would jump at the opportunity to donate to a charity that would distribute money to the poor for education.

While it does create an unfair advantage for those who come from a better economic background, I can't say how much of an advantage there is to private schooling. I went to public school my entire life and I really don't see people who went to private schools having that much of an advantage over me in the college setting.

To expand the question; Privatizing in relation to corporate/Small Business ownership. What about a school run by Microsoft or Wal-Mart?

i hated private school, ive gotten so fed up with so much homework over the years i refuse to do any now and thats why i usually fail classes

private schools suck, dress codes restrict you and they do kinda suck but clothes dont mean much to me, and usually the teachers are asses

Reality's Fringe said:

To expand the question; Privatizing in relation to corporate/Small Business ownership. What about a school run by Microsoft or Wal-Mart?

Click to expand...

Would it be open enrollment or would you still have to pay tuition?

You would have to pay. It'd be the same thing as buying a product rom their respective stores.

privitizing education makes education less affordable and slows down societys upward mobility

I don't see why anyone would pay tuition to send their kid to a school run by a coporation. They could just as easily send their child to a catholic or other religiously affiliated school. What advantages would corporate schools over other private schools or even public schools?

The general presumption is that the tax funds now spent on public schools rigidly control by the unions would be available to parents to enroll their children in the establishment of their choice, aka vouchers.

There are strong arguments that this could dramatically reduce the cost to tax payers since privates schools are consistently found to be much more cost efficient, even when they offer good instructors better pay than the public sector.

Some good blogs that deal heavily in education are:
http://www.joannejacobs.com/

Rather than list a bunch of them, just go to her site and check out her blogroll.

Well, I was thinking competition. There would be greater incentive to do better thanks to corporate rivalry. And the points that could potentially be bad.......

This is, by the way, less about my opinion and more about a general consensus. Soi, if I seem evasive or vague, that's why.

[quote name='dcfox']While it does create an unfair advantage for those who come from a better economic background, I can't say how much of an advantage there is to private schooling. I went to public school my entire life and I really don't see people who went to private schools having that much of an advantage over me in the college setting.[/quote]

Thats because in private schools there is a greater onus to let kids slide ($$$)

[quote name='CaseyRyback']privitizing education makes education less affordable and slows down societys upward mobility[/quote]

There is ample evidence to the contrary. We spend an astonishing amount on the public schools now and the results are dismal. A business that regularly had such a high rate of defects would soon be out of business but when it's run by the government it just keeps going and demanding more money.

[quote name='starman9000'][quote name='dcfox']While it does create an unfair advantage for those who come from a better economic background, I can't say how much of an advantage there is to private schooling. I went to public school my entire life and I really don't see people who went to private schools having that much of an advantage over me in the college setting.[/quote]

Thats because in private schools there is a greater onus to let kids slide ($$$)[/quote]

Nothing could be farther from the truth. The school my neices attend has a lengthy waiting list of prospective students. They're looking to build another campus in the area but that won't come close to meeting demand. Failing students are not long tolerated when there is a paying customer eager to take that seat.

[quote name='epobirs'][quote name='CaseyRyback']privitizing education makes education less affordable and slows down societys upward mobility[/quote]

There is ample evidence to the contrary. We spend an astonishing amount on the public schools now and the results are dismal. A business that regularly had such a high rate of defects would soon be out of business but when it's run by the government it just keeps going and demanding more money.[/quote]

We spent 10 billion on education last year, around 16 billion for NASA, and over 450 billion on National Defense. The interest on our now 7.1 trillion budget is around 430 billion. We dont spend near enough on public education.

[quote name='epobirs'][quote name='starman9000'][quote name='dcfox']While it does create an unfair advantage for those who come from a better economic background, I can't say how much of an advantage there is to private schooling. I went to public school my entire life and I really don't see people who went to private schools having that much of an advantage over me in the college setting.[/quote]

Thats because in private schools there is a greater onus to let kids slide ($$$)[/quote]

Nothing could be farther from the truth. The school my neices attend has a lengthy waiting list of prospective students. They're looking to build another campus in the area but that won't come close to meeting demand. Failing students are not long tolerated when there is a paying customer eager to take that seat.[/quote]

That may be true in some schools. Although I think your statements of "nothing could be further from the truth" and "there is ample evidence" dont have much meaning. The truth is public schools and private schools both have the ability to be f'd up royally without the support of the community.

[quote name='epobirs'][quote name='starman9000'][quote name='dcfox']While it does create an unfair advantage for those who come from a better economic background, I can't say how much of an advantage there is to private schooling. I went to public school my entire life and I really don't see people who went to private schools having that much of an advantage over me in the college setting.[/quote]

Thats because in private schools there is a greater onus to let kids slide ($$$)[/quote]

Nothing could be farther from the truth. The school my neices attend has a lengthy waiting list of prospective students. They're looking to build another campus in the area but that won't come close to meeting demand. Failing students are not long tolerated when there is a paying customer eager to take that seat.[/quote]

So because a child is failing they would be kicked out of school? So what happens with someone with a learning disability who struggles to do well.

[quote name='HaloGuardian']
"But what about the poor people?"

America is one of the most charitable nations in the world. Many people, when knowing their wasn't public education, would jump at the opportunity to donate to a charity that would distribute money to the poor for education.[/quote]

As great as we Americans think we are, that is completly not true. How can you say that when tax hikes for education are consistantly shot down again and again by GOP

[quote name='MadChedar0'] We dont spend near enough on public education.[/quote]
Tell me about it. Back when I was in high school (4 years ago) we were watching laser discs and running chemistry programs off comodores. The computers we used in computer programming could barely run tetris. Our library was about the size of a single classroom. It was pretty pathetic.

A little anecdote from me:

My old highschool was" Underfunded" as well. The school was falling apart; old equipment, loose tiles, vermin. It was shit. Well, the state gov't stepped in one day and gave us an additional 35,000 dollar grant(I honestly don't remember what for) to help improve our schools. Do you know what happened? We bought a jukebox system for the cafeteria and spent the rest on the sports program. This while we were reading out of history books that still reffered to russia as the soviet union. Is the problem there the lack of funds, or is the problem the administration?

schools around here are finally starting to catch up, mainly due to the influx of high paying jobs into the state. Colleges are building like crazy and so are public schools.


Also people who say private schools do a better job, these students come from more privledged backgrounds. How do you think a private school would do in Compton, or even in South Raleigh?

Those kids are not the one's that are going to be raising test scores. There would be no money to be made in these markets.

Keep in mind that the government would still be issuing credits for children, so theoretically, a privatized school in compton COULD work......or could it?

Reality's Fringe said:

Keep in mind that the government would still be issuing credits for children, so theoretically, a privatized school in compton COULD work......or could it?

Click to expand...

it is not like anyone wants to teach there anyways so there would be no benefit for inner city kids IMO

Another problem with public schools besides lack of funding and poor administration, is the education board's need for standardize testing. In Mass, a few years ago they came up with the MCAS tests which you were required to pass in order to graduate. I know in NY they have the regents every year, which is sort of similar I guess. But the problem was that we were being tested on things we never learned. As a result they overhauled the entire cirriculum which in my opinion actually took time away from learning since they actually forced you take a class which taught you how to prepare for the test.

In Va. we have the Standards of Learning tests, which kids have to pass to graduate. The entire focus of schools in my area is getting kids to pass the test, which kinda sucks as it deemphasizes any type of non basic learning. Arts suffer because we're worried about everyone mastering math and science.

[quote name='CaseyRyback']schools around here are finally starting to catch up, mainly due to the influx of high paying jobs into the state. Colleges are building like crazy and so are public schools.


Also people who say private schools do a better job, these students come from more privledged backgrounds. How do you think a private school would do in Compton, or even in South Raleigh?

Those kids are not the one's that are going to be raising test scores. There would be no money to be made in these markets.[/quote]

The image of private schools as a bastion of privilige is entirely false. They cover the range of economic strata. Jennifer Lopez like to claim she's 'Jenny from the Block' but in reality here parents spents the money to put her through a reputable private school. They weren't affluent, they just made it a priority to do well by their daughter. The same can be said for large numbers of lower-middle class families and even some who fall below the poverty line. My own parents were only starting to achieve some level of financial stability when my father died. (I didn't appreciate until many years later how dire things were much of the time when I was a child.) From there we got by on my mother's factory job and Social Security survivor's benefits for me and those of my older siblings who were still minors.

Despite this I spent three years at a private school that were the most productive of my entire academic life. There was a law on the books in California that dictated every child was entitled to an education and if that could not be provided by the public schools then the money that would have been allocated to that child could be channeled into a private educational establishment. At this point I was attending school only in a technical sense. There were many interesting places to hide in Redwood Jr. High (Thousand Oaks, CA) and I could pass the time just fine with a good supply of books. I was the most well-read kid in the school but had an effective GPA of nil. The atmosphere in the private school I went to starting in Fall of 1977 made all the difference. It was the first time in years I actually look forward to going to school in the morning.

Schools that don't play by the rules have produced some impressive successes. The NEA has been the biggest detriment to effective teaching in my lifetime. Every time the union says they're going to make things better they mean better for the union. Things only go downhill for schools ruled by the union. One example is Jaime Escalante, who was the subject of the movie 'Stand and Deliver.' He pushed for high achievement in an environment that made failure a way of life. Escalante made his students believe they could meet his challenges and they did great things. So whatever became of Jaime Escalante? He ran afoul of the union for saying negative things about their failed policies, such as the wretched bilingual education programs. Everyone knew he was right but the deadweight teachers in the school saw him as a threat and got the union to force him out of his job.

Nowadays, Escalante works primarily in the private sector where success matters more than politics.

Nowadays, Escalante works primarily in the private sector where success matters more than politics.

Click to expand...

Money matters more than success in the private sector. Privatization is not a panacea. It has a different set of problems than publicly funded and controlled schools. I don't know if the argument is for using private schools with tax money, or to privatize the entire public school system, so I'll try and address both.

Vouchers fail on several levels. They often do not pay the full tuition for a private school, which still leaves low-income kids with no option but public school. The rich kids that go to private school anyway get a discount on their education and syphon away tax dollars from the poor kids at the public school. The rich get richer, the poor get a worse education than before. It does however help the middle class, a lot, since they could probably cover the difference but not the entire tuition.

As far as totally privatizing all public schools, I think its a bad idea. I've been to two private schools, one that truly cared about education and the students, and one that truly cared about profit and inflating their statistics in order to maximize government funds. Special needs and bilingual students cost a lot of money and privatized public schools would avoid them like the plague, and along with troublemakers and underachievers, they'd be bounced around from school to school.

Also, you're not telling the whole story about Jaime Escalante. He pissed the union off because his class sizes exceeded the limit of 35 in their contract, some of his classes had 50 people. I happen to agree with limits on class sizes, and the union had to keep the limit in place to protect the other teachers, a classroom of 50 can be a dangerous, let alone unproductive, environment. His local school district refused to give him more teachers to teach all the students he wanted to, because of lack of funds, so instead of taking less students, he left. I think the real reason for him going to a private school is because they have the money to do what he wanted to do to teach kids, and probably to capitalize on his fame. Don't blame unions for all of the world's problems, he worked in a poor school, tried to teach too many people, and they, surprisingly enough, didn't have the money to do it.

Don't get me wrong, there are problems with public schools which are entirely their fault. There needs to be much more public and government oversight, otherwise they'll continue to do silly things like spend a million dollars on a football field (happened in Texas I think). I've been to an awful public school (in a poor town) and an excellent public high school (in a rich town). They both cry poor, the school in the rich town gets an order of magnitude more money than the poor town, but its not the sole problem. The administration in the poor school were frivilous with what they had, and cared more about sports. When I left, the parents that paid attention were pissed off and some people got fired, but I don't think anythings changed there. It could be a function of the rich town having more active parents in the PTA, more oversight over what the school spends money on. But look at how much more money a rich town can spend per person, theres a huge, huge gap. The rich town gets more money from local taxes and the same amount of state money as the poor town. Should the rich town be punished for having more revenue? No, but the poor town should get something more to even things out.

I went to a public school for most of my life, and went to a private school for just 9th grade. It sucked so much that I went back to public for 10th grade. Most of the teachers I had were absolutely horrible. The public school had teachers that were a lot better at actually teaching you stuff. I can safely say I did not learn ANYTHING in 9th grade English solely thanks to a completely incompetent teacher.

I appreciate your input. Now I'll have a wider range of opinions on this subject to look at in my Pol sci course!

A) This is bull, show me your source.
B) Education is funded largely at the state and local level, not federally.

Here's some real facts for the TC:

-25% of Public School teachers in low income areas of Los Angeles send their kids to private school. That is not an anomally either, many teachers in poor public schools refuse to send their own kids there.

-In California we spent over $9.700 PER STUDENT in the Public Schools last year compared to an average of $4,500 for private school tuition.

-In California, 47% of the state budget last year went to education.

-Most shocking fact: I am a public school teacher in a low income area and absolutely love my job. Over 50% of my students are English learners and I absolutely love my job. The problem is that nothing ever changes. The bureacracy of my union (which I am required by a ridiculous CA law to be in) refuses to allow any changes in the way education works if it means ANY extra work for teachers. The bureacracy of my administration is over-run by pet-projects (a key symbol of any government entity) and slow responses to any concerns.

A private school would avoid both problems.

I still don't see why a parent shouldn't be able to say to the government, "you give me the $4,500 in taxes I've paid back so I can cover tuition, and you can keep the other $4,000 to waste however you please" It doesn't cost the govt a penny, it justs costs the union and the administration.

I hate my union.

The other factor to consider in comparing public and private schools is how the parents figure into it. Parents who are concerned about their children's education, (either enough to find a way to pay for private school, or even just to be involved in their child's public school) IME, tend to have children who perform better academically. Parents who look at school as a free day care for their kids, or as substitute parents, tend to have children who perform poorly. So privatization may not necessarily be the answer. Economic factors aren't necessarily the reason either. The ppublic elementary school that serves my neighborhood has the largest population of children on FARMS (Free And Reduced MealS, for children whose families cannot even afford to pay for school lunch, and believe me, these families cannot afford to pay even that little amount), yet the school has one of the highest academic performance ratings in the county. The school is severely overcrowded, less than 50% of the students speak English as a first language, yet they're outperforming some of the most affluent schools in the area. The administration at the school is wonderful, the faculty regularly performs as a team to get these kids the support and services they need. Does the school defy averages? Yes. Would a private school do as well? Maybe, but could these families, who can't even afford a few dolars a week so their kids can get lunch, be able to pay for a private school?

There is a place for private schools, but there also is a fundamental responsibility, IMO, for the government to provide a quality education for all as well. For an interesting view of education spending, check out http://www.truemajority.org

improving public education is the best solution.

The Bush program of no child left behind only hurts public schools. I don't care if people choose to go to private schools but their tax dollars should continue to go to the public schools.

One of the biggest problems with private schools and school voucher system is that these private schools don't have to have the "highly qualified teachers" like the public schools HAVE to have. They don't have to hire teachers that are mandated by state and federal law to take countless tests, pay for multiple certifications, take a certain number of "continuing education" classes" every five years, etc that is forced on teachers in the public school system.

As a result, more people are "qualified" for these private schools, thus forcing higher-paid, more qualified teachers out of the private schools. Why would a teacher who makes $40k in a public school work in a private school where Joe Schmoe takes the same job for only $22k? And as another result, children are getting a worse education whether they (and the parents) know it or not.

So under Bush's school voucher system, the result will be less-educated children in our society.

[quote name='kev']I still don't see why a parent shouldn't be able to say to the government, "you give me the $4,500 in taxes I've paid back so I can cover tuition, and you can keep the other $4,000 to waste however you please" It doesn't cost the govt a penny, it justs costs the union and the administration.[/quote]

You can't do that because that $4,500 doesn't just pay one student's way. Part of it goes to administration, faculty, maintenance, etc. Letting people opt out of the system makes the system much more costly for those who have to use it.

I pay taxes for schools and I don't have any children. We all pay because as corny as it sounds, children are the future. And the better educated they are, the better off all of society will be.

This 'privatisation of everything' that Bush is proposing is not good.

It's called anarchy, and corporations LOVE it, but the people HATE it.

[quote name='kev']

-25% of Public School teachers in low income areas of Los Angeles send their kids to private school. That is not an anomally either, many teachers in poor public schools refuse to send their own kids there.[/quote]

So 75% send them to those schools. Seems like a pretty big majority that do send their kids to the same schools they teach at.


[quote name='kev']A private school would avoid both problems.[/quote]

Private schools do not mean the end of unions. There are a lot of private businesses that have unions.

[quote name='spyhunterk19'][quote name='HaloGuardian']
"But what about the poor people?"

America is one of the most charitable nations in the world. Many people, when knowing their wasn't public education, would jump at the opportunity to donate to a charity that would distribute money to the poor for education.[/quote]

As great as we Americans think we are, that is completly not true. How can you say that when tax hikes for education are consistantly shot down again and again by GOP[/quote]

How can you compare charitable giving and not wanting tax hikes? They are vastly different ways of getting money from people.

I can't believe people want children to have to beg for their education, and only get the opportunity to learn if their school gets enough donations.

"Well, children, I have a special announcement to make: we're not going to be having class today. Instead, we're all going on a field trip!

"As you probably all already know, the school's furnace broke down. Unfortunately, the school system doesn't have enough money to fix it. So, everyone get out your tin cans because we're going door-to-door to beg for change! Make sure you use your loudest, whiniest voices - if you're annoying enough, some people may give money just to get rid of us!"

[quote name='Quackzilla']I can't believe people want children to have to beg for their education, and only get the opportunity to learn if their school gets enough donations.[/quote]

Are you responding to me? Please quote next time if you are (or if you aren't quote who you're responding to). If you are responding to me you're putting words in my mouth and you should read what I wrote again: tax increases and charitable giving are not the same thing.

[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='kev']I still don't see why a parent shouldn't be able to say to the government, "you give me the $4,500 in taxes I've paid back so I can cover tuition, and you can keep the other $4,000 to waste however you please" It doesn't cost the govt a penny, it justs costs the union and the administration.[/quote]

You can't do that because that $4,500 doesn't just pay one student's way. Part of it goes to administration, faculty, maintenance, etc. Letting people opt out of the system makes the system much more costly for those who have to use it.

I pay taxes for schools and I don't have any children. We all pay because as corny as it sounds, children are the future. And the better educated they are, the better off all of society will be.[/quote]

You read me wrong. I didn't say people should get the full $9.700 per student paid in vouchers, I said merely the $4,500 for the average private tuition. The other $4,000 left would still go to the "public good" of public education.

I am not advocating that people opt out of paying entirely just like I'd never let people opt out of police, fire, military, etc. spending. I'm not just randomly pulling this stuff out Conservative Privatization Monthly. I live this every day and my degree in economics doesn't hurt either.

[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='Quackzilla']I can't believe people want children to have to beg for their education, and only get the opportunity to learn if their school gets enough donations.[/quote]

Are you responding to me? Please quote next time if you are (or if you aren't quote who you're responding to). If you are responding to me you're putting words in my mouth and you should read what I wrote again: tax increases and charitable giving are not the same thing.[/quote]

Do you know how much it costs to run a school and teach children?

Charitable donations can not maintain the nations schools.

Poor people would not be able to afford to send their kids to school.

Do you not understand this?

We would become a third world country within a hundred years.

[quote name='Quackzilla'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='Quackzilla']I can't believe people want children to have to beg for their education, and only get the opportunity to learn if their school gets enough donations.[/quote]

Are you responding to me? Please quote next time if you are (or if you aren't quote who you're responding to). If you are responding to me you're putting words in my mouth and you should read what I wrote again: tax increases and charitable giving are not the same thing.[/quote]

Do you know how much it costs to run a school and teach children?

Charitable donations can not maintain the nations schools.

Poor people would not be able to afford to send their kids to school.

Do you not understand this?

We would become a third world country within a hundred years.[/quote]

Do you even bother to read my responses? I stated ONE THING and ONE THING ONLY: tax hikes are not the same as charitable contributions. It isn't even an opinion; it's a fact. Learn to read before you hit the "quote" button and fire off some lame response that has nothing to do with what I wrote.