Open debate: what do you think would happen if all (US) education was privatized?

[Ginevra]

I have my thoughts on the matter, but I'm interested in hearing what you think would be the positive or negative outcomes and how they would affect different demographics. This is the broadest sampling of intelligent and thoughtful people who, presumably, have given at least some thought to education systems, so I want to hear what you think. :)

 

Also happy to hear personal experience from non-US perspective on the merits or drawbacks of public/private education systems. (For debate purposes, we can be talking about college-level as well, but the specific discussion I was having IRL was about K-12 education.)

[FaithManor]

It would become a for-profit industry just like some of the prisons, and abuse would rampant, education non existent. There is more money to be made pocketing money AND not doing the job, than actually providing an education.

 

And of course the disparity from wealthy areas to poor areas would get exponentially larger.

 

The oligarchy is not inclined to watch out for the best interests of the common man.

[Seasider]

I think in ideal circumstances, it would help. But even then I believe many kids would fall through the cracks.

 

I do think it's a fallacy, though, to suggest that privatized education is all about the money, and public education is totally altruistic. There are tremendous money games in public school systems. I'd rather see better ways to monitor and streamline spending there for the most effective student outcomes.

[unsinkable]

It would become a for-profit industry just like some of the prisons, and abuse would rampant, education non existent. There is more money to be made pocketing money AND not doing the job, than actually providing an education.

 

And of course the disparity from wealthy areas to poor areas would get exponentially larger.

 

The oligarchy is not inclined to watch out for the best interests of the common man.

That's an interesting take, considering you are employed by a private educational business. You said you were getting $25 an hour in what you've said was a seriously economically depressed area that has a horrible attitude toward education.

[SKL]

It would be a mix.  There is a lot of waste in public education, and the bureaucracy prevents a lot of good things from happening.  But theoretically, there are economies of scale.

 

Regardless, we need to provide for those whose educational costs are high due to special needs.

 

I'm not sure how it would be funded in order to make sure every child gets a fair shake.

 

My kids have always gone to private school, so I don't have a problem with them per se.  But although our school does accept certain special needs, there are some that we are not equipped to handle.  There has to be a good system for those kids.  That said, would it be better for the government to focus mainly on those kids rather than be all things to all people?  But then again - would that lead to isolating those kids more than necessary?  It's a complex question.

[hepatica]

What do you get when you privatize a public good? ..... Mercenary armies, toll roads, private prisons, youth club sports, the US health care system ....  I have no reason to believe that education would be any different. 

 

Privatization of a public good requires rigorous, competent and extensive regulation to make sure that decisions are still being made in the public interest. It can be done well, but only in concert with democratic governance and oversight, not as an alternative to government.

[snowbeltmom]

It would become a for-profit industry just like some of the prisons, and abuse would rampant, education non existent. There is more money to be made pocketing money AND not doing the job, than actually providing an education.

 

And of course the disparity from wealthy areas to poor areas would get exponentially larger.

 

The oligarchy is not inclined to watch out for the best interests of the common man.

In my state, I don't see how the disparity that already exists in the public schools could possibly get any larger than it already is. 

 

Before we tried the privatization route, I would like to see major reform in public school funding and eliminate the dependence on property taxes.  The quality of an education a child is able to receive should not depend on what zip code the child lives in.  Unfortunately, in my state, the quality of education is directly related to the zip code.  It is disgusting.

 

 

[SarahW]

I live in school-choice country, and I have very much taken advantage of that for my kid. For example, when one elementary school couldn't deal with his issues (sending him out to sit in the hallway almost all day, not dealing with bullying) we switched him to a different school - and we told friends whose kids were also having issues with that school to switch their kids, too. They did as well, and know we're all happy.

 

I'm not sure how the Dutch system is set up exactly, but I'm pretty sure the schools are not "for-profit." There's also a very strong (and maybe too strict) system of federal standards, so every school teaches the same thing basically. There's also the fact that the Dutch don't think of this system as a competition. I read an article about school choice in America (Denver?) and I was surprised how much the article stressed the idea that school-choice was a game where certain schools would win and others lose. That's not really an idea the Dutch have - in fact, the elementary school my kid goes to shares it's space with another elementary school (joint common, library, and gym areas) and there's no expectation that one of the schools will "win" and take over the whole building.

 

There's pros and cons to every system. But in the context of The Netherlands, I think the way they have school-choice set up is overall very good. Now if only the government would stop messing with teacher pay and we could be golden here, but that's another story.

 

 

Oh, and I did read an article (from the Atlantic?) a few months ago that DeVos has the idea of implementing the Dutch system in America. I don't know how much De Vos actually knows about the Dutch system, and I doubt many Christian schools in America would be happy with how the Dutch system works. So I don't see that idea actually working out, but who knows.

 

 

 

[snowbeltmom]

 

Oh, and I did read an article (from the Atlantic?) a few months ago that DeVos has the idea of implementing the Dutch system in America. I don't know how much De Vos actually knows about the Dutch system, and I doubt many Christian schools in America would be happy with how the Dutch system works. So I don't see that idea actually working out, but who knows.

Boy, I would really like to respond to the bolded, but I am afraid it would be considered too political. 

 

 

[Frances]

In my state, I don't see how the disparity that already exists in the public schools could possibly get any larger than it already is.

 

Before we tried the privatization route, I would like to see major reform in public school funding and eliminate the dependence on property taxes. The quality of an education a child is able to receive should not depend on what zip code the child lives in. Unfortunately, in my state, the quality of education is directly related to the zip code. It is disgusting.

I used to think this would make a big difference, but living in my current state where almost all k12 funding comes from the general fund and upward adjustments are made for special needs, second language learners, rural transportation, poverty, etc., has led me to believe that the problems and solutions are much more complicated. We have one of the worst high school grad rates in the country and all of the inequity in outcomes seen in states primarily funded through property taxes. Even in my city, there is great inequity, and it is definitely related to zip code.

[Farrar]

In addition to some of the things mentioned above, students in heavily religious areas would have trouble accessing secular education, which would obviously not be good for ensuring minority rights if you're Jewish or Hindu or atheist and literally cannot find a non-Christian school in your area. I think in some of those areas, it would be a massive profit boom for churches.

 

I honestly can't imagine anything good coming out of this. I can understand the arguments behind school choice, absolutely, but not complete privatization. Even if we gave everyone vouchers for private schools, it would just be the wild west overnight.

Edited September 2, 2017 by Farrar

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I would just refer anyone interested in the topic to the blog of Diane Ravitch, expert. Www.dianeravitch.net

[Farrar]

Oh, and it would hit special needs students the hardest by far. They cost the most to educate. Assuming the market adjusted and/or there were vouchers, I think most middle class families would find some way to pay for private education. (Working class and lower class families might do without or do online schooling options that were massively subpar, I think). But even upper middle class families would struggle to pay for some special needs students.

 

The way we talk about health care debt? There would be a sudden, massive wave of education debt as well - one that would dwarf the student loan issues. Predatory lending to families for education would become rampant. 

[Guest]

In my state, I don't see how the disparity that already exists in the public schools could possibly get any larger than it already is.

 

Before we tried the privatization route, I would like to see major reform in public school funding and eliminate the dependence on property taxes. The quality of an education a child is able to receive should not depend on what zip code the child lives in. Unfortunately, in my state, the quality of education is directly related to the zip code. It is disgusting.

I'm seeing that as a glaring and despicable failure in my state, too. It is one of the issues I was discussing IRL that led to this discussion.

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

 

 

The very wealthy would be the only individuals receiving a quality education.

 

We've been there before, history shows us how that works.

[Guest]

In addition to some of the things mentioned above, students in heavily religious areas would have trouble accessing secular education, which would obviously not be good for ensuring minority rights if you're Jewish or Hindu or atheist and literally cannot find a non-Christian school in your area. I think in some of those areas, it would be a massive profit boom for churches.

 

I honestly can't imagine anything good coming out of this. I can understand the arguments behind school choice, absolutely, but not complete privatization. Even if we gave everyone vouchers for private schools, it would just be the wild west overnight.

This is one possible drawback I was imagining, too. I don't think it would be a major problem where I live because there is great diversity, but some parts of the country would surely have this problem; I agree.

[kiana]

It would become a for-profit industry just like some of the prisons, and abuse would rampant, education non existent. There is more money to be made pocketing money AND not doing the job, than actually providing an education.

 

I completely agree. We'd also see a lot more grade inflation (keep the customers happy) and kids being pushed through without learning what they need to learn than we have now (I know we have it now, it would increase). 

 

We see the same thing with for-profit online colleges. There is tremendous pressure on instructors not to fail students at some of them, and they need to be very pro-active about emailing students who aren't doing stuff and nagging them to get it done, which imo significantly reduces the value of a college degree. 

 

I suspect we'd see even more teaching to the test and attempts at test score falsificiation as well, because high test scores are going to attract a lot of parents who  don't have the ability to recognize that their kid isn't learning. 

[StephanieZ]

That's an interesting take, considering you are employed by a private educational business. You said you were getting $25 an hour in what you've said was a seriously economically depressed area that has a horrible attitude toward education.

 

That seems unfair. 

 

I believe in strong public education, but I choose to homeschool my kids. 

 

I believe in strong public care for the elderly, disabled, etc, although no one in my family fits those criteria. 

 

I believe in strong public transportation infrastructure, even though I rarely if ever use mass transit. 

 

I believe in a strong, well paid and well cared for military, but I have no one in my immediate family in the military, and I strongly discourage my kids from considering it. 

 

Just because we don't choose to use or be directly involved with a particular public system doesn't mean we don't, in some larger way, still depend on it. Even if a family never uses public schools, that doesn't mean the family isn't impacted via other ways by the quality of that system. Or, even if not impacted, we might just want to be decent human beings by supporting others. Or, we might simply want to be frugal with our tax monies by investing wisely and not by enriching corporations. 

[FaithManor]

In addition to some of the things mentioned above, students in heavily religious areas would have trouble accessing secular education, which would obviously not be good for ensuring minority rights if you're Jewish or Hindu or atheist and literally cannot find a non-Christian school in your area. I think in some of those areas, it would be a massive profit boom for churches.

 

I honestly can't imagine anything good coming out of this. I can understand the arguments behind school choice, absolutely, but not complete privatization. Even if we gave everyone vouchers for private schools, it would just be the wild west overnight.

Very true because in the for profit model there is no incentive to offer services to such a small number of people. I live in the kind of area where the cultural majority would definitely embrace, Abeka, ACE, Alpha Omega type schooling. Those of us that would not be willing to have our kids educated through such curricula would be plum out of luck. I also think the lobby against homeschooling would become very strong because as we've heard before that homeschoolers hurt school districts by removing "per head" funding from their midst, this would I fear get much worse since it would affect a company's bottom line something that CEO's and major investors aren't going to be happy with, but they are the ones with the money to access politicians.

 

I think we would also see teacher salaries fall as well as benefits, and attempts to staff schools with as many part-time non-benefits earning faculty as possible because that increases profit. It is what has been done in so many companies, why not schools too?

 

No thanks. Things are bad enough without putting CEO's in charge.

[Guest]

I used to think this would make a big difference, but living in my current state where almost all k12 funding comes from the general fund and upward adjustments are made for special needs, second language learners, rural transportation, poverty, etc., has led me to believe that the problems and solutions are much more complicated. We have one of the worst high school grad rates in the country and all of the inequity in outcomes seen in states primarily funded through property taxes. Even in my city, there is great inequity, and it is definitely related to zip code.

This makes me sad and it is also so baffling. 😞

[Guest]

(just a note: I am refraining from "liking" posts at the moment, because I want to really think through what people say on this subject, and I also will easily expend all my likes nefore the hour is out. 😌

[HS Mom in NC]

Well, when you think about how it is now in all forms: public, private institution and homeschooling, you'll notice you have some great performers, some good performers, some average performers, and some poor performers, and some terrible performers.  I suspect that's what you'll find if everything were privatized.  I also suspect that those who do very well would still do very well. Those who really struggle would still really struggle.  Mostly for the same reasons. It's those int he middle who are the wildcards in that scenario.

Economic factors like booms and busts would kick in like never before if money really does determine things. The Beautiful Tree by Tooleyhttps://www.amazon.com/Beautiful-Tree-personal-educating-themselves-ebook/dp/B00ELPRLC0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1504378578&sr=8-1&keywords=the+beautiful+tree+Tooley makes a compelling argument against money in education being the determining factor for success in many poor parts of the world, but he's dealing with different cultural issues than the US is.  It would be interesting to see which cross over and which don't.

I suspect it would be extremely difficult to get private for profit education companies to seek out poor rural and poor inner city clients, just like it's hard to bet other businesses into poor neighborhoods.  We know those are the schools that currently have a hard time getting applicants and keeping those they did get. Maybe this would prompt an increase in private non-profits getting involved in those areas.



 

Edited September 2, 2017 by Homeschool Mom in AZ

[luuknam]

I haven't read the thread, but unless you're talking vouchers or something, then I think that a lot of low income kids are going to end up with worse educations than they currently do. Obviously, not all of them currently get good educations, but there are quite a number of kids on free or reduced lunch in decent schools, and a substantial number of those would probably end up with worse educations if they'd have to pay for school (their parents would basically need to leave them home alone all day... there's a reason that daycare is subsidized for low-income people in all the places I'm familiar with).

 

Other options include free or low-cost 'educations' being offered by certain groups who aren't interested in actually educating kids but only in indoctrinating them... but I'm not convinced that would happen everywhere, or for everyone... they might have certain entrance requirements. Like, maybe certain employers would offer free 'schools' for their employees' kids. 

 

Some low-income people would likely find a way to stay home with their kids and collect benefits instead... like apply for disability or w/e. Obviously, not everyone could pull that off, but I'm sure there would be some people who would figure out how to make that happen. 

 

Of course, with the increase of uneducated people and people trying to collect benefits in order to be able to stay home with their kids, the government would cut down on benefits, so that those people would be forced to get jobs seen as undesirable in order to survive. 

[Farrar]

Right now, part of what makes the vast majority of private schools decent is that there's no money in starting a school. It's extremely hard to do and there's no profit. Most schools have missions that drive them (either religious or educational or both) that lead them to do a decent job. Flooding the market with so many students all having to pay would change the dynamic on that dramatically. Whether you like the idea or not, I think we should all start from the premise that the schools that would emerge from a complete privatization would not look much like the current private schools in your area. It would be very different. 

[luuknam]

If we are talking about vouchers, then I'll just agree with SarahW upthread. 

[RootAnn]

I live in school-choice country, and I have very much taken advantage of that for my kid. For example, when one elementary school couldn't deal with his issues (sending him out to sit in the hallway almost all day, not dealing with bullying) we switched him to a different school - and we told friends whose kids were also having issues with that school to switch their kids, too. They did as well, and know we're all happy.

 

I don't want to derail this thread, but I'd love an update on Crazypants' school (math) situation back on the accelerated learning board.  :coolgleamA:

 

On the topic of this thread, weren't the first schools & school districts "on the prairie" based on how much money the local landowners had to hire a teacher & build a school? How we started is how we are doing it now? (Not saying that is good or bad, just making an observation of inertia in policy, perhaps.)

 

I look at some non-profit groups who vow to do away with such-and-such (disease, law, whatever). It always seems from the outside that they are looking more at perpetuating their existence & not necessarily trying to put themselves out of a job. Would a private educational system work to make kids successful or try to maximize profit by holding kids back (not accelerating those who need it, retaining older teens who would be better off learning vocational skills vs. being in a traditional classroom)? I don't know.

[SarahW]

Boy, I would really like to respond to the bolded, but I am afraid it would be considered too political. 

 

 

 

LOL, I really just meant that I don't know if she understands just how standardized the National Curriculum is. I mean, there's a couple different school textbook publishers, but they all follow the same sequence. Seriously, I'm on a FB group for expats dealing with Dutch education, and it's hilarious when the veterans answer a question about multiplication tables with "oh, that gets covered group 5, quarter 2, week 5-8 or so."

 

Pros and cons, pros and cons.

 

 

But, riffing off another pp, ACE wouldn't stand a chance at being a school in The Netherlands. For example. 

 

 

 

Oh, and just to follow up the pp about Special Education - in NL there's Special Education schools, and you can choose to send your child to one if you want (if the school accepts your request, they obviously have an interest in accepting the students who need to be there). They get extra funding. All regular schools get a block grant each year for accessibility accommodations. But my kid with his new ASD diagnosis didn't personally bump his school up in funding. 

[regentrude]

Privatization means that the disparities that exist currently would be amplified.

Those who can afford it would get a fantastic education - as is currently already the case.

Those who cannot afford it would get an education even worse than what the public schools in poor districts provide.

Horrible idea. If anything should be funded by society as a whole, it should be education.

 

ETA: If a family wants to buy extra services on the private market, that should be available. Being pro public education does not mean being against the existence of private providers. But there needs to be a free, public education that is offered to all students, irrespective of socioeconomic background. 

Edited September 2, 2017 by regentrude

[unsinkable]

That seems unfair.

 

I believe in strong public education, but I choose to homeschool my kids.

 

I believe in strong public care for the elderly, disabled, etc, although no one in my family fits those criteria.

 

I believe in strong public transportation infrastructure, even though I rarely if ever use mass transit.

 

I believe in a strong, well paid and well cared for military, but I have no one in my immediate family in the military, and I strongly discourage my kids from considering it.

 

Just because we don't choose to use or be directly involved with a particular public system doesn't mean we don't, in some larger way, still depend on it. Even if a family never uses public schools, that doesn't mean the family isn't impacted via other ways by the quality of that system. Or, even if not impacted, we might just want to be decent human beings by supporting others. Or, we might simply want to be frugal with our tax monies by investing wisely and not by enriching corporations.

But Faith's situation seems to be the opposite of what you are saying...

 

She works for a private company that provides educational services to a public school but her post seems pretty negative about privatizing education.

 

As to the bolded, I agree, whether it is schools, driveways or backyard dog parks.

[kewb]

It would become a for-profit industry just like some of the prisons, and abuse would rampant, education non existent. There is more money to be made pocketing money AND not doing the job, than actually providing an education.

 

And of course the disparity from wealthy areas to poor areas would get exponentially larger.

 

The oligarchy is not inclined to watch out for the best interests of the common man.

This is exactly what I was going to say.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

If education is completely privatized, what makes any of the schools accept the unprofitable students? What happens to them?

[regentrude]

But Faith's situation seems to be the opposite of what you are saying...

 

She works for a private company that provides educational services to a public school but her post seems pretty negative about privatizing education.

 

So what? It seems uncalled for to attack Faith. I am also not sure why you feel the need to specifically mention her hourly wage - for a STEM coordinator, that's not unreasonable.

One can work for a private company and still believe education as a whole should not be privatized.

 

I strongly believe in public education. That does not mean there should not also be private providers that offer services beyond what the public schools deliver. Nor does it mean the education providers, public and private, should not pay their employees according to their qualifications. 

[bettyandbob]

I have a child with intellectual disabilities. There would be no school.i could afford that would take him.

 

As our family finances have changed in the last few years, I work now. The money I earn is necessary, not extra. If my ds had no school to attend I would only work weekends and that would not replace lost family income.

 

My ds would be home. I would try to teach him. I would not be able to find a peer group for him.so he would just be home. We would not be able to do activities. And we'd probably have some serious financial issues.

 

So that's the way things look through my eyes.

 

More broadly, I believe that disparity in education would get worse, as bad as it is now, it can always get worse.

[Lanny]

It would become a for-profit industry just like some of the prisons, and abuse would rampant, education non existent. There is more money to be made pocketing money AND not doing the job, than actually providing an education.<sni[>

 

Isn't a lot of that going on in the USA, today, especially in very large public school districts where the emphasis, frequently, is on the Staff and the Administrators, and the education of the students, sadly, is frequently a much lower priority?   If the Public Schools placed an emphasis on the education of the students, probably there would be fewer people Home Schooling their DC?

For purposes of this debate, I think you need to point a finer point on what is meant by privatizing education, as that can mean different things to different people.  Would the public still pay for schooling, but just not operate them (vouchers?)  Would they neither pay for nor operate them? Would these be for-profit schools?

[unsinkable]

So what? It seems uncalled for to attack Faith. I am also not sure why you feel the need to specifically mention her hourly wage - for a STEM coordinator, that's not unreasonable.

One can work for a private company and still believe education as a whole should not be privatized.

 

I strongly believe in public education. That does not mean there should not also be private providers that offer services beyond what the public schools deliver. Nor does it mean the education providers, public and private, should not pay their employees according to their qualifications.

Calling someone's post an "interesting take" is not an attack.

 

I mentioned her wage bc she has said over and over how poor her part of the country is, and there are no jobs, and if there are jobs, they are minimum wage jobs.

 

So this is a relatively high paying job, from a poor part of the country, from a private firm. And she posted a strongly negative post about privatizing education.

 

Also, we aren't going to wake up one day and suddenly educatiob will suddenly be private. It will happen slowly...a program here and there, a school here and there..It will and has started with private firms coming into schools.

[creekland]

If it were all privatized? 

 

The wealthy would get a great education (as they do now).

 

Those academically talented who got noticed and who could get to a good school would get a great education.  One way they could get noticed would be by having active parents (active in their educational pursuit).

 

Those stuck in poverty or with uncaring parents would get the bottom of the barrel - if they were even in the barrel.  They'd go for the cheapest money could buy and/or the least possible work involved.

 

Those with expensive or disruptive Special Needs had better have extremely special parents.

 

Most would get whatever was available around them - and I see no reason that would be any better than what they have now, except it would be more of a hassle getting vouchers and giving them to the school.

 

If not much is available... sucks to be them!

[Lady Florida.]

I mentioned her wage bc she has said over and over how poor her part of the country is, and there are no jobs, and if there are jobs, they are minimum wage jobs.

 

So this is a relatively high paying job, from a poor part of the country, from a private firm. And she posted a strongly negative post about privatizing education.

 

 

 

 

And that very possibly means -

 

-She's on the inside and sees how it works, which has given her a negative view.

 

-If it's a low wage area with few possibilities she's lucky to have that job and she doesn't have the option to quit over a different belief. 

 

-She's not under any obligation to either agree with the system or keep her mouth shut.

 

I was a teacher in the public school system. Does that mean I was never allowed to criticize the system or that I'd have to quit teaching ps if I did? Of course not. Does it mean I shouldn't have homeschooled my child? Again, no. 

 

It's not really an interesting take for someone who is familiar with a particular system to criticize that system. It's actually quite common.

Edited September 2, 2017 by Lady Florida.

[FaithManor]

I have inadvertently become aware that a poster whose posts I have blocked is calling me out in this thread. I will not respond to her directly. Because someone quoted her, I did see that there is confusion about where I work. I am not working in my own tri-county area and have a significant commute. One of my main functions is mentoring robotics and rocketry, specific technical skills that most teachers do not possess and are too busy to acquire.

[regentrude]

I have inadvertently become aware that a poster whose posts I have blocked is calling me out in this thread. I will not respond to her directly. Because someone quoted her, I did see that there is confusion about where I work. I am not working in my own tri-county area and have a significant commute. One of my main functions is mentoring robotics and rocketry, specific technical skills that most teachers do not possess and are too busy to acquire.

 

FaithManor, you do not need to justify yourself for your job. You are providing your special expertise (which you acquired through hundreds of hours of uncompensated volunteer work) and are being paid for your services. I am not apologizing for being paid to teach physics either.

And I think all teachers should be paid adeqately for their time and expertise.

Edited September 2, 2017 by regentrude

[heartlikealion]

I cannot imagine how it would affect our area. Currently the public schools are getting ready to consolidate. I don't even know how that's going to work.

[Guest]

Privatization means that the disparities that exist currently would be amplified.

Those who can afford it would get a fantastic education - as is currently already the case.

Those who cannot afford it would get an education even worse than what the public schools in poor districts provide.

Horrible idea. If anything should be funded by society as a whole, it should be education.

 

ETA: If a family wants to buy extra services on the private market, that should be available. Being pro public education does not mean being against the existence of private providers. But there needs to be a free, public education that is offered to all students, irrespective of socioeconomic background.

This is pretty much what I said to my companion.

 

I have been thinking a lot about the PAARC scores that were published for our whole state, by county and by individual school. It is absolutely shocking the disparity between the high-wealth counties and individual schools vs. the low-wealth counties/cities and individual school.

 

I cannot see how this would be even slightly different if it were privatized. High-income people would still have a smorgasbord of great school options. Low-income would probably have fewer choices than they have now (i.e. No choices.)

[SKL]

Just want to comment on the state funding inequity discussion.  I live in a state that has had a lot of bad press over funding, which largely comes from property taxes.  I expected to find that the amount of spending per student was greater in rich districts and less in poor districts.  Turns out the opposite is true.  Apparently there has been some adjustment to channel more funds to the schools in the poor areas.

 

Still, there is a huge gap in actual learning.  The so-called quality of education depends on a lot more than funding.  It is largely affected by who is sitting next to your child in school.  If my kids went to the public school 20 miles east of us, where there is a concentration of highly-educated people, the standards of their school would probably be excellent - but not because of funding.  If they went to the inner city school where I used to tutor, the standards would be much lower because so many of those kids come from homes where education is not even an afterthought.

[FaithManor]

FaithManor, you do not need to justify yourself for your job. You are providing your special expertise (which you acquired through hundreds of hours of uncompensated volunteer work) and are being paid for your services. I am not apologizing for being paid to teach physics either.

And I think all teachers should be paid adeqately for their time and expertise.

Thank you! Edited September 2, 2017 by FaithManor

[SKL]

Also, privatization of school does not mean there is no money for low-income people to educate their kids.  Just like every other basic need, it would have to be funded in some way by the government when personal resources are not available.  The same families that receive food stamps, Medicaid, and subsidized housing would still go to school.  I'm not sure exactly what that would look like.

[StephanieZ]

But Faith's situation seems to be the opposite of what you are saying...

 

She works for a private company that provides educational services to a public school but her post seems pretty negative about privatizing education.

 

As to the bolded, I agree, whether it is schools, driveways or backyard dog parks.

 

OK, cool, but still, we're all limited by the opportunities provided by our current economy & political system, not to mention local opportunities or lack thereof. 

 

I think health care should be publicly provided and that health insurance companies should be mostly extinct, with an exception for providing supplemental, optional policies. I don't like the way our current system works. Nonetheless, I have private health insurance via our employer (a company we own) and all but one of our family doctors (and one PT) works directly through insurance. The options I have to get health care require me to use the insurance system and private for-profit medical providers for the vast majority of my family's health care needs. I won't choose to die for my principle of having universal government provided health care. 

 

Would living in accordance with my principles require me to opt out of our current system? No, I don't think that's reasonable.

 

Instead, I advocate for the changes I believe in while still making the best out of the system I have for my own family given the options we have (which don't include government provided universal coverage).

 

I wouldn't expect anyone in the health care field, no matter their beliefs about the justness of lack thereof in our current for-profit and exclusionary system, to opt out of working for a for-profit medical provider or even working for a health insurer, even if they would rather our system be non-profit / government run.

 

Similarly, Faith works for wherever she can find the best job for her and her family. 

 

Personally, I would NOT work for an industry I thought was inherently evil or just plain bad. I say that . . . but I've never faced the choice of feeding my kids VS working for a gun manufacturer. I am pretty confident that I'd work for Satan himself before I let my kid starve. While hopefully not many of us face that dire a choice, there is always an element of this balancing of goods/harms in our job choices as well as all our life choices . . .  

 

(I like to believe I'd never put my personal luxury over another person's very survival, but then again, I spend $$ on vacations and smart phones while, every day, people die for lack of a few hundred bucks. Don't we all make these choices every day?)

 

I've coached my kids to pick fields of study that can more easily lead to doing work they'd feel good about. We've discussed the fact that we would never want to put our talents and life's work into helping gun companies, tobacco companies, private prisons, etc. For instance, my son considered Chem E, but when we explored the job opportunities in that field, we both realized that (unless he went into medicine), most jobs would be for chemical/plastics/drug companies that we generally don't feel all that good about (being pretty environmentally inclined and generally disgusted with the drug companies at large). He switched his major to Mech E (or computer science) as those fields have many more jobs in a wide range of industries that he could feel good about.

 

So, I understand where you're coming from, but I think it's unfair to apply that strict a standard to *anyone* else. Someone's job choice is very personal and very critical to their family, and choices are sometimes very limited. We can each make our own Sophie's Choices every day, but I'd just be very wary of trying to get inside anyone else's life choices on this sort of thing. It's just too personal and too complex, IMHO.

[SKL]

It's interesting that folks are saying look to the health care industry to see how bad privatized education would be.

 

Used to hear that we should look to the public schools to see how bad government-managed health care would be.  Public schools in many places are so bad that it's hard to imagine them being any worse.

Edited September 2, 2017 by SKL

[snowbeltmom]

Just want to comment on the state funding inequity discussion.  I live in a state that has had a lot of bad press over funding, which largely comes from property taxes.  I expected to find that the amount of spending per student was greater in rich districts and less in poor districts.  Turns out the opposite is true.  Apparently there has been some adjustment to channel more funds to the schools in the poor areas.

 

Still, there is a huge gap in actual learning.  The so-called quality of education depends on a lot more than funding.  It is largely affected by who is sitting next to your child in school.  If my kids went to the public school 20 miles east of us, where there is a concentration of highly-educated people, the standards of their school would probably be excellent - but not because of funding.  If they went to the inner city school where I used to tutor, the standards would be much lower because so many of those kids come from homes where education is not even an afterthought.

 

There are many families in these inner city schools where education is not an afterthought.  I  can speak from my personal experience of growing up in a poor area with failing public schools (although no one knew enough to know that they were failing).  I was the first one on either side of my extended family to ever go to college. My parents did value education, but they trusted the system and were clueless about how bad the education was.   

 

My school district didn't offer any AP classes (I didn't know they even existed), and I had never heard of the PSAT or SAT until my own kids were school-age.  Why should the educational standards at this public school be lower just because it is a poor district?  Why weren't AP classes and college guidance available in my district?  There needs to be national educational standards in public schools.  I know some will say that Common Core are the national standards, but this initiative has not remotely come close to standardizing public education.

 

I graduated from college and moved 90 minutes away from my hometown.  I was shocked to see the amenities and class offerings at the public schools when compared to the public school I attended.  Even in poor districts, students should be offered the ability to take AP classes and they should have access to guidance counselors who can help these students who care about their educations move on to college.  Sadly, this is not the case.

 

[SKL]

There are many families in these inner city schools where education is not an afterthought.  I  can speak from my personal experience of growing up in a poor area with failing public schools (although no one knew enough to know that they were failing).  I was the first one on either side of my extended family to ever go to college. My parents did value education, but they trusted the system and were clueless about how bad the education was.   

 

My school district didn't offer any AP classes (I didn't know they even existed), and I had never heard of the PSAT or SAT until my own kids were school-age.  Why should the educational standards at this public school be lower just because it is a poor district?  Why weren't AP classes and college guidance available in my district?  There needs to be national educational standards in public schools.  I know some will say that Common Core are the national standards, but this initiative has not remotely come close to standardizing public education.

 

I graduated from college and moved 90 minutes away from my hometown.  I was shocked to see the amenities and class offerings at the public schools when compared to the public school I attended.  Even in poor districts, students should be offered the ability to take AP classes and they should have access to guidance counselors who can help these students who care about their educations move on to college.  Sadly, this is not the case.

 

 

Because the current model does not personalize education.  The average of the neighborhood dictates the majority of what happens in school.  Raising the standards puts a huge burden on the teachers / administrators who are then held to answer for why the majority of their students couldn't pass.

 

If you think the public schools can and should personalize education, that would be quite the innovation.  Sounds pretty expensive.

 

The same is probably true of private schools as well, except for those with a lot more money than average.

[Pen]

I also would like to understand more of the question you intend. Would education to a certain age remain compulsory, but everyone has to pay personally? And, as asked above by GGardner, how privatized?  I see 13 replies have been added since I started to type, so maybe it's been answered.