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

[DawnM]

In my experience (auditing school districts) and just looking at the stats, teachers usually get paid right around the median household income for their area. Not an easy income, but not terrible. I'm more concerned about the work environment they have to put up with.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

If I had known salaries would flatline for 10 years while the cost of living went way up, I would have just become something else that pays median salary and doesn't require 6 years of college.

 

I just went to a parent night for seniors at my son's school.  The counselor got up and said, "I have been here 3 years and only counseled ONE child who said she wanted to go into education."  Everyone laughed.  They know exactly what the issues are.  

[DawnM]

Sorry, I got into salaries and, as you can tell, I am pretty passionate about it.  I don't need to be wealthy, I never went in to education to be wealthy, but if something happened to DH I would like my kids to be able to make it modestly.  

As for privatization, I have some thoughts on that too, but honestly, the truth is.....privatizing or not privatizing won't really affect my own kids....but it will be a real problem for inner city kids.  And before people start pointing me to that ONE school in NY that works with inner city youth and how great they are.....that is not what I am talking about.  I am talking about the already low achieving, lowest represented, ESL, special ed, all those kids the "no child left behind" program, well.....left behind.

[MBM]

I understand, Dawn. My mom taught elementary school for years and loved teaching. I always felt that she was born to teach. She made squat, though, and there were just so many unnecessary problems that came with the job. I would have gone into teaching as well but not after I saw what my mom dealt with. My hat is off to all the good, caring teachers who are out there trying to make a difference despite all the difficulties.

[SKL]

Wow, you got a check for what you paid into the retirement system?  

 

Too bad about the preschool stuff.  I was offered an adult ed job once, but even though it was in the same school as our high school, and sponsored by the district, it didn't allow for the same retirement credit, so I said no.  It actually would have been a less stressful job in many ways.  

 

Oh well.

 

I also got a payout.  I had taught one college class and was forced to pay into the teacher's retirement system.  I was annoyed, but thought OK, I'll get it back someday.  Then I found out they were taking fees out because it was sitting idle.  There was no option for investing it or just leaving it be without the fees wiping the whole balance out in short order.  But some loophole allowed me to cash it out.  I don't remember the details.

[DawnM]

Interesting aside after reading this thread and talking to a couple of teachers in NC.....apparently if I don't have a full 5 years in the system when I leave, I am not "vested" and at that point I have the option of a payout OR rolling it over to another state.

I will definitely be rolling it over, although I need to see if there are costs involved and what they are and if that means they equally count as if I had worked those years in CA.

 

I had planned to look into rolling them over anyway, but this makes is so they wouldn't count in NC anyway.

[EmseB]

The only reason private schools can stay in business is because they can make a profit, and there is no financial profit in serving those with disabilities and doing it well. If all schools were privatized, schools for those with learning disabilities would be few and far between and would lack the oversight that the public school IEP process provides.

Uh, what? Your assertions here are demonstrably wrong, particularly the first sentence. Many schools and institutions are run as non-profits. Even those that are LLCs are often essentially non-profit but don't want to file as such for various reasons. Many organizations that work with kids with special needs are, in fact, non-profit organizations.

 

Also, I personally know many families who opted out of the public school system precisely because there was no oversight for the IEP process and the schools weren't complying. Their choice was to sue (thousands of dollars and years while their kids were stagnating and IEPs being ignored) or find some other way to get their kids educated.

Edited September 7, 2017 by EmseB

[EmseB]

Sorry, I got into salaries and, as you can tell, I am pretty passionate about it. I don't need to be wealthy, I never went in to education to be wealthy, but if something happened to DH I would like my kids to be able to make it modestly.

As for privatization, I have some thoughts on that too, but honestly, the truth is.....privatizing or not privatizing won't really affect my own kids....but it will be a real problem for inner city kids. And before people start pointing me to that ONE school in NY that works with inner city youth and how great they are.....that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the already low achieving, lowest represented, ESL, special ed, all those kids the "no child left behind" program, well.....left behind.

More privatization would hurt the kids in inner city schools that are already getting a really raw deal from federal government programs? And don't point to any successful examples of non-public options in said areas?

[poppy]

Uh, what? Your assertions here are demonstrably wrong, particularly the first sentence. Many schools and institutions are run as non-profits. Even those that are LLCs are often essentially non-profit but don't want to file as such for various reasons. Many organizations that work with kids with special needs are, in fact, non-profit organizations.

 

Also, I personally know many families who opted out of the public school system precisely because there was no oversight for the IEP process and the schools weren't complying. Their choice was to sue (thousands of dollars and years while their kids were stagnating and IEPs being ignored) or find some other way to get their kids educated.

 

Non profits need to make money.  Every private school, just about, is a non profit.  You can't tell me private schools in general do a great job with disabled students.   The small minority that cater to disabled kids are very expensive.  

 

My local popular private elementary is about $12,000 a year.  The nearby school for dyslexic kids is $44,000 a year.   There are good reasons for that, it's not grasping for profit. But educating kids with learning disabilities is expensive. And learning disabilities are the tip of the iceburg when it comes to disabilities and associated expenses.

[DawnM]

More privatization would hurt the kids in inner city schools that are already getting a really raw deal from federal government programs? And don't point to any successful examples of non-public options in said areas?

 

 

There ARE select examples people like to point to, "Hey look at this one school that services the inner city, see, it can be done!" is what I meant.  typically those schools were very choosy, there is a huge line to get in, they have parents who are committed, have put in the effort to apply, etc.....so you are dealing with a small sampling of the rest of the population......that is all I meant by that.  

 

And, yes, I believe a strong competition would also lead to everyone wanting the best and brightest kids and not servicing the kids that don't "make them look good."

[creekland]

There ARE select examples people like to point to, "Hey look at this one school that services the inner city, see, it can be done!" is what I meant.  typically those schools were very choosy, there is a huge line to get in, they have parents who are committed, have put in the effort to apply, etc.....so you are dealing with a small sampling of the rest of the population......that is all I meant by that.  

 

And, yes, I believe a strong competition would also lead to everyone wanting the best and brightest kids and not servicing the kids that don't "make them look good."

 

Not only a select population, but I can't recall seeing one of these in rural areas serving kids there - like my area for instance.  We're not even super rural compared to many areas of the country.  If it ALL goes private - who forces the companies who own them to open schools (esp for special needs) in places like mine or less dense than mine?  Who forces the parents to participate and be committed?

[EmseB]

Non profits need to make money. Every private school, just about, is a non profit. You can't tell me private schools in general do a great job with disabled students. The small minority that cater to disabled kids are very expensive.

 

My local popular private elementary is about $12,000 a year. The nearby school for dyslexic kids is $44,000 a year. There are good reasons for that, it's not grasping for profit. But educating kids with learning disabilities is expensive. And learning disabilities are the tip of the iceburg when it comes to disabilities and associated expenses.

Right. Public schools also need money to function. That doesn't mean they need to make a profit. That is the assertion I was responding to.

 

Also, the prices you give apply in a system where the government holds a monopoly on most all of the market and only a few can or do opt out. The OP's question was about what would happen if that system were changed. Everyone is making the assumption that prices would stay as they are now and that's why we need the government monopoly on services. I'm saying that the prices for private education services are what they are because of the government monopoly over most of the market, which isn't even helping the people who need it the most.

[EmseB]

And, yes, I believe a strong competition would also lead to everyone wanting the best and brightest kids and not servicing the kids that don't "make them look good."

I don't know why you think that, because the charters I know of are opening up in some of the toughest areas to serve. Your experience is not my experience. It's not one school in the inner city, it's quite a few motivated individuals, non-profits, corporations, etc that are making this happen for underserved populations. And teachers' unions and bureaucrats go ape poop and try to tell people how bad they are for the community and openly advocate against them.

 

But they are limited on how many kids they can take. Much like public schools. Funny that they have lotteries and waiting lists where the public schools are not in high demand. It's almost like people want more of one option and not the other.

[poppy]

I don't know why you think that, because the charters I know of are opening up in some of the toughest areas to serve. Your experience is not my experience. It's not one school in the inner city, it's quite a few motivated individuals, non-profits, corporations, etc that are making this happen for underserved populations. And teachers' unions and bureaucrats go ape poop and try to tell people how bad they are for the community and openly advocate against them.

 

But they are limited on how many kids they can take. Much like public schools. Funny that they have lotteries and waiting lists where the public schools are not in high demand. It's almost like people want more of one option and not the other.

 

That is a rational reaction based on  evidence like this and also this. 

 

When public schools are failing, there are democratic processes to rectify it.  Elect state officials who will fund education; elect a local school board who will advocate for children.  Going private would put those decisions behind closed doors (private boards) .  That's not in students best interest. IMO.

[kiana]

Not only that, but if a private school shuts down mid-year, the kids can always be transferred to the public school as currently stands. The PS might end up educating them in trailers or bussing them a while away, but you won't have groups of kids just sitting at home waiting for someone to open a school with room. 

[EmseB]

That is a rational reaction based on evidence like this and also this.

 

When public schools are failing, there are democratic processes to rectify it. Elect state officials who will fund education; elect a local school board who will advocate for children. Going private would put those decisions behind closed doors (private boards) . That's not in students best interest. IMO.

Or going private means that people simply get to stop sending their kids to that school and it fails and kids don't have to go there anymore.

 

I feel like I've addressed most of this in earlier posts, so I won't bore anyone by repeating myself. I'm kind of chuckling at the utopia you've outlined above for public school administration and recourse for struggling families. That's awesome if it works like that for you and your kids, and I mean that sincerely. The one private school we used was way more responsive to parental concerns and had no secret board meetings, but I don't want to sound dismissive that something like that might have happened to you.

 

I will say this, though. This thread has astounded me with the amount of people who think that school and education wouldn't happen without government monopolizing the market, their fellow human beings would let special needs kids languish, etc, etc. That, to me, is the true "success" of a government education. If we don't have a large bureaucracy administering this thing, people can't do it themselves! It would be a horrible disaster for parents to be responsible for their kids education. They can't do it. Individuals wouldn't just innovate or come up with better ways to use these resources and help these kids! We need our benevolent elites to save us from ourselves.

 

It sounds like people are saying that if education was more privatized, inner city kids wouldn't get an education. Special needs kids would be ignored and glossed over because they are too much trouble and take too many resources. Teachers and administrators would be intransigent and secretive and unwilling to help struggling kids. Bad schools would continue on in perpetuity with no way to shut them down. Underserved populations would have few or no options. Gifted kids would have few or no options. Anyone wanting a truly good, tailored education would have to pay tens of thousands of dollars. Parents would have no say in any of it.

 

I agree, that sounds awful.

[DawnM]

I don't know why you think that, because the charters I know of are opening up in some of the toughest areas to serve. Your experience is not my experience. It's not one school in the inner city, it's quite a few motivated individuals, non-profits, corporations, etc that are making this happen for underserved populations. And teachers' unions and bureaucrats go ape poop and try to tell people how bad they are for the community and openly advocate against them.

 

But they are limited on how many kids they can take. Much like public schools. Funny that they have lotteries and waiting lists where the public schools are not in high demand. It's almost like people want more of one option and not the other.

 

 

And you do know that charters are public?  We are asking about it being PRIVATEized.

[DawnM]

Interesting article on what charters have done in Detroit.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/us/for-detroits-children-more-school-choice-but-not-better-schools.html?mcubz=0

 

However, just for the record, I am NOT anti-charter.  I think they can hold a place in public education.  That does not negate my support for public education within school districts though.  I just think without much oversight there can be real issues.  There have been in many areas.

Edited September 7, 2017 by DawnM

[creekland]

I will say this, though. This thread has astounded me with the amount of people who think that school and education wouldn't happen without government monopolizing the market, their fellow human beings would let special needs kids languish, etc, etc. That, to me, is the true "success" of a government education. If we don't have a large bureaucracy administering this thing, people can't do it themselves! It would be a horrible disaster for parents to be responsible for their kids education. They can't do it. Individuals wouldn't just innovate or come up with better ways to use these resources and help these kids! We need our benevolent elites to save us from ourselves.

 

I honestly think you need to meet a wider range of parents before you make sweeping judgments about how concerned they all will be.

 

What the US has now is a combo of public (including charter), private, and homeschooling options.  More charter and/or private schools could open NOW if they wanted to.  There are channels for it.  Parents who want to use each take advantage of them.  If there is a high demand in certain areas, why aren't more charters opening up now to fill that demand?  Charters are free to parents... (at least in my state).

 

So you want to eliminate public.  That will put thousands (millions?) more students out there.  Where do they go if there are already waiting lists for the privates that are there?  What happens if they can't afford what is there - even with vouchers?  Are you suggesting Big Brother regulate how much privates can charge?  If so, what makes that any different than a public school - although with another layer to go through with giving/getting vouchers.  Who stops the private school from closing if they can't make a go of it with the amount the voucher gives them?  Who forces another to take it's place?  Who forces them to take Special Needs kids?  Or are their vouchers high enough to cover their cost?

 

It seems to me to be akin to our private medical situation.  IF you have money, you're set.  You can do/spend what it takes to have your needs met.  If you happen to live in a decent area, you're set.  You can take advantages of programs for the less wealthy that are available to you.  But if you don't... well, too bad... perhaps you can take on massive debt.  That's what happens in the real world in the US vs other first world countries with universal health care.

 

What the majority of us are advocating is to keep the public system as "basic" that is available to all because without it there is NOTHING that is guaranteed to be available to all, and this is paid for collectively through our tax dollars because having an educated society is BETTER than not having one even if that education is subpar because we don't live in an ideal world.  Those of us who want more and can afford more can always do more.

 

And in the meantime, work together to help programs get better.  There are really awesome public schools out there.  Why should they be disbanded?

[poppy]

I honestly think you need to meet a wider range of parents before you make sweeping judgments about how concerned they all will be.

 

What the US has now is a combo of public (including charter), private, and homeschooling options. More charter and/or private schools could open NOW if they wanted to. There are channels for it. Parents who want to use each take advantage of them. If there is a high demand in certain areas, why aren't more charters opening up now to fill that demand? Charters are free to parents... (at least in my state).

 

So you want to eliminate public. That will put thousands (millions?) more students out there. Where do they go if there are already waiting lists for the privates that are there? What happens if they can't afford what is there - even with vouchers? Are you suggesting Big Brother regulate how much privates can charge? If so, what makes that any different than a public school - although with another layer to go through with giving/getting vouchers. Who stops the private school from closing if they can't make a go of it with the amount the voucher gives them? Who forces another to take it's place? Who forces them to take Special Needs kids? Or are their vouchers high enough to cover their cost?

 

It seems to me to be akin to our private medical situation. IF you have money, you're set. You can do/spend what it takes to have your needs met. If you happen to live in a decent area, you're set. You can take advantages of programs for the less wealthy that are available to you. But if you don't... well, too bad... perhaps you can take on massive debt. That's what happens in the real world in the US vs other first world countries with universal health care.

 

What the majority of us are advocating is to keep the public system as "basic" that is available to all because without it there is NOTHING that is guaranteed to be available to all, and this is paid for collectively through our tax dollars because having an educated society is BETTER than not having one even if that education is subpar because we don't live in an ideal world. Those of us who want more and can afford more can always do more.

 

And in the meantime, work together to help programs get better. There are really awesome public schools out there. Why should they be disbanded?

My state just had a referendum on expanding charters (they are uncommon here in MA) and it lost. We have very good picnic schools in general. Getting rid of public schools would be ignoring the people in favor of profit . I see that is where the wind is blowing but I won't celebrate it.

[creekland]

My state just had a referendum on expanding charters (they are uncommon here in MA) and it lost. We have very good picnic schools in general. Getting rid of public schools would be ignoring the people in favor of profit . I see that is where the wind is blowing but I won't celebrate it.

 

Picnic schools, huh?  One has to love autocorrect sometimes!   :lol:

 

The wind can't be blowing too strongly toward privatizing schools (or creating charters) or the referendum wouldn't have lost in your area.  ;)

[Storygirl]

Uh, what? Your assertions here are demonstrably wrong, particularly the first sentence. Many schools and institutions are run as non-profits. Even those that are LLCs are often essentially non-profit but don't want to file as such for various reasons. Many organizations that work with kids with special needs are, in fact, non-profit organizations.

 

Also, I personally know many families who opted out of the public school system precisely because there was no oversight for the IEP process and the schools weren't complying. Their choice was to sue (thousands of dollars and years while their kids were stagnating and IEPs being ignored) or find some other way to get their kids educated.

 

Sure, there are nonprofit private schools. My kids attend them. I thought about editing that sentence after posting but didn't end up doing so. My point is not the tax status of the school, but that schools cannot LOSE money, even nonprofits, and stay in business for long. There has to be funding, whether it is from tuition, government support, grants, etc. The money has to come from somewhere.

 

And it is much, much more expensive to educate a child with special needs than it is to educate a typical child. The expenses for my child who gets intervention at a Christian school are three times what it costs for my other son to attend the same school. And the school services do not cover all of his needs. His learning disabilities, though they require intense help, require nowhere near the amount of money that someone with more severe disabilities would be billed.

 

My daughter's dyslexia school costs five times the tuition of the Christian school that my boys attend. And they have limits on enrollment. No one with less than average IQ. No one with behavior issues. No one whose disability is outside the scope of their mission.

 

Sure, some people sue school districts, and some people get less help than they need. And parents need to advocate. And the system is far from perfect (which I referenced in my post). Having to go through the IEP process stinks. Some public schools are better at managing special needs than others. But without IDEA, services will be limited to whatever someone wants to offer in that area. IDEA is federal law, and it's statutes are the basis for those lawsuits. What laws will guarantee that people with disabilities are educated, if all schools are privatized?

Edited September 8, 2017 by Storygirl

[Twolittleboys]

It sounds like people are saying that if education was more privatized, inner city kids wouldn't get an education. Special needs kids would be ignored and glossed over because they are too much trouble and take too many resources. Teachers and administrators would be intransigent and secretive and unwilling to help struggling kids. Bad schools would continue on in perpetuity with no way to shut them down. Underserved populations would have few or no options. Gifted kids would have few or no options. Anyone wanting a truly good, tailored education would have to pay tens of thousands of dollars. Parents would have no say in any of it.

 

I agree, that sounds awful.

 

Maybe I am overly pessimistic, but yes, that is pretty much what I am thinking. My kids would be okay - they have no special needs and I feel more than competent to teach them if I had to. Kids with rich/well-to-do parents would be okay. Many middle class kids would be okay. Kids from poorer families would probably be okay if they are very intelligent/diligent and/or their families valued education. But many kids would be worse off than now.

 

And I don't think the state has a monopoly now as there are private schools. And I think that is great. But public schools are the base line. A private school will likely not be successful if it doesn't at least offer something more/better than public alternatives.

 

We live in a fairly nice area with decent schools. Still, I wasn't happy about various aspects of public education so sent my first child to a private Montessori school. It was fine, there were some things there I really liked. But it fell far short of my expectations and when it came time to sign up my second child for school I decided that the advantages were not enough to justify the cost so he went to the local public school.

 

IF public schools are truly bad in an area, private alternatives will appear. I think that if you have areas with very bad public schools and little private alternatives that means that either there are not enough students around to make it work or the families are either too poor or not that interested in education. Having only private schools wouldn't change that.

[Guest]

Right. Public schools also need money to function. That doesn't mean they need to make a profit. That is the assertion I was responding to.

 

Also, the prices you give apply in a system where the government holds a monopoly on most all of the market and only a few can or do opt out. The OP's question was about what would happen if that system were changed. Everyone is making the assumption that prices would stay as they are now and that's why we need the government monopoly on services. I'm saying that the prices for private education services are what they are because of the government monopoly over most of the market, which isn't even helping the people who need it the most.

Why make the other assumption: that more options will blossom, including in unprofitable markets, that prices will fall? There's no reason for prices to fall. If public education were totally abolished in the pen stroke of an Executive Order (say for example), the demand for a place to send kids to school would far, far outstrip supply overnight. Even if homeschooling were suddenly illegal and we all had to send our kids to a school building starting next week, there would be an immediate crisis of supply vs, demand. BUT, even if the change were gradual and phasic; "We'll close 20% of the worst-performing schools each year for the next five years," there would still be a crisis. Schools can't be hatched overnight. Even homeschool co-ops that are a little bit schooly don't start up overnight and it takes years to establish them as a viable option.

 

I disagree with your assertion that private school prices are what they are because of "the government monoploy over the market." The prices are what they are even while there is the option NOT to attend a private school. Private schools often serve markets where the public options are also quite good. My son's school is located in the middle of one of the wealthiest counties in the state with the best public school options in the state. The public schools there are ranked top in the country. Yet hundreds of families - not all of them staggeringly wealthy - pay to send them there instead. (It is a question many have asked me, first with homeschooling, then with private - "Why would you do all that when your kids could attend some of the best public schools in the country for free?")

 

It costs money to run a school. One reason many private schools are religiously affiliated is because churches already have a building suited to running a school. It costs money to attract quality staff. It costs money to offer AP classes and Computer Science labs and sports teams, complete with buses. Why would a school like my son's ever say, "Well, now that there are no public options anymore, we can cut our prices in half"?

 

For Special Needs: my son's school does have a program to assist students with (mild-moderate) LDs. It is a wonderful program that brings the student into his or her own special class daily to take tests and do other assignments with special assistance in place. The LD teacher advocates for the student with SAT tests and college applications. However, this additional service is over $4,000 additional a year. On top of the already pricey tution. I opted not to use the service for my son who has some processing struggles. It was too much money. I decided I can work with his teachers myself and advocate for him myself and make it workable myself because it's just too expensive. It is just lucky his LDs are not severe. Putting this here to say the schools don't have any reason to say, "Awww, look. This awesome, otherwise-bright kid really struggles with classroom time constraints. Let's just let him go into the MAG program for free. His mom already is a valuable nice person to the school." No. They said, "Okay. Well, the teachers will still work with you to get him the extra time he needs. It will just be up to you to make it happen." The program isn't failing because *I* opted to increase my involvement; it remains available for students whose parents either have more money to pay for it (plenty such parents there) or who simply do not have the time or ability to be that involved so they will find a way to scrape up the extra money. Or they will opt not to do the program but the kid just won't get extra help from any corner.

[Bluegoat]

I take a somewhat empirical view.

 

If I could see a country with an entirely private education system where students from all walks of life were getting a good education, I'd be all for it.

 

I don't think that actually exists anywhere.

 

On the contrary - as someone who tends to want low level control of institutions as much as possible, my inclination is to resist too much state control of schools or control of curriculum.  Yet I find it hard to argue with the fact that those things, along with not much emphasis on private options,  empirically seem to correlate with better educated people through the whole population.

[EmseB]

I take a somewhat empirical view.

 

If I could see a country with an entirely private education system where students from all walks of life were getting a good education, I'd be all for it.

 

I don't think that actually exists anywhere.

 

On the contrary - as someone who tends to want low level control of institutions as much as possible, my inclination is to resist too much state control of schools or control of curriculum. Yet I find it hard to argue with the fact that those things, along with not much emphasis on private options, empirically seem to correlate with better educated people through the whole population.

I guess that depends on what you consider educated, though. I mean, people on this thread are telling me that it would be a disaster for parents to be responsible for their kids' educations and so many would be incapable of such responsibility. And, more likely than not, those parents who cannot or would not do this were educated in the public schools. I can't go into many more examples without getting political, but there's a lot going on that suggests to me that public schools are doing something, but it's not sufficient to maintain an educated populace. I actually think we're at an interesting time where everyone is supposed to be getting this public education for an educated populace and we're getting closer and closer to idiocracy. I would guess that the rejection of a lot of the western canon is part of it, but that's way beyond the scope of this post.

 

I don't see education being totally privatized at any time. I just don't see it happening. My vote I guess would be more options of more schools for more people, less control by the federal government, etc. But progressive public educationists would be against that as well because they don't just believe that the government should pay for the education, they think that the money being used should not be used by the parent to choose what kind of school, etc, but they think that money must be spent in a government school. Thus the battle over vouchers, etc. (I'm not a huge proponent of vouchers, it was just an example). And many schools of progressive thought on education believe in actual equal outcomes, not just equal opportunity. They equate education add more of a "good citizen factory" than a place where individual, tailored education should be provided. Again, beyond the scope of the post. I just take issue with empiracal evidence showing educated populace when the basic philosophy seems to be going very wrong about what that actually means.

 

I also don't make any assumptions about what would happen if education were privatized beyond basic economics of things. I really think a lot of things would come about that no one could predict. I don't think the market would remain as it is, though, because anytime a monopoly is broken up industries change drastically.

[EmseB]

And I would grant that if the public education system were abolished overnight that it would be a disaster. That seems like kind of a strawman, though, because as unlikely as it would be to happen at all, I sincerely doubt it would happen in that particular way. So, if the question in the OP implied the word "instantly", then yes, I'd agree that would create a huge amount of problems.

Edited September 8, 2017 by EmseB

[creekland]

I guess that depends on what you consider educated, though. I mean, people on this thread are telling me that it would be a disaster for parents to be responsible for their kids' educations and so many would be incapable of such responsibility. And, more likely than not, those parents who cannot or would not do this were educated in the public schools. 

 

Are you assuming it would be better if they were uneducated?  I rarely come across anyone (neurotypical) who can't read at all.  In my grandparent's day, it was common.  Even my grandma had to quit school after 4th grade because her dad made her get a job washing dishes.  Her mom had died when she was 4 and her dad decided they needed the money she could make.  She didn't even get to keep the money.  It went to her dad.  SHE wanted to go to college and forever regretted that she couldn't, but her dad got to decide.

 

And somehow this is better, huh?  Parents in control of who get to go to school and where...

[poppy]

I guess that depends on what you consider educated, though. I mean, people on this thread are telling me that it would be a disaster for parents to be responsible for their kids' educations and so many would be incapable of such responsibility. And, more likely than not, those parents who cannot or would not do this were educated in the public schools. I can't go into many more examples without getting political, but there's a lot going on that suggests to me that public schools are doing something, but it's not sufficient to maintain an educated populace. I actually think we're at an interesting time where everyone is supposed to be getting this public education for an educated populace and we're getting closer and closer to idiocracy. I would guess that the rejection of a lot of the western canon is part of it, but that's way beyond the scope of this post.

 

I don't see education being totally privatized at any time. I just don't see it happening. My vote I guess would be more options of more schools for more people, less control by the federal government, etc. But progressive public educationists would be against that as well because they don't just believe that the government should pay for the education, they think that the money being used should not be used by the parent to choose what kind of school, etc, but they think that money must be spent in a government school. Thus the battle over vouchers, etc. (I'm not a huge proponent of vouchers, it was just an example). And many schools of progressive thought on education believe in actual equal outcomes, not just equal opportunity. They equate education add more of a "good citizen factory" than a place where individual, tailored education should be provided. Again, beyond the scope of the post. I just take issue with empiracal evidence showing educated populace when the basic philosophy seems to be going very wrong about what that actually means.

 

I also don't make any assumptions about what would happen if education were privatized beyond basic economics of things. I really think a lot of things would come about that no one could predict. I don't think the market would remain as it is, though, because anytime a monopoly is broken up industries change drastically.

 

Let's go back to the good old days when we only measured the education of people whose parents had means to tutor them on the Western canon.  The population was much more educated back then! If you only care about outcomes for that sliver, of course.... but I do agree with you that FDR and JFK were both more thoroughly educated than the typical public school student today.

Edited September 8, 2017 by poppy

[SKL]

Non profits need to make money.  Every private school, just about, is a non profit.  You can't tell me private schools in general do a great job with disabled students.   The small minority that cater to disabled kids are very expensive.  

 

My local popular private elementary is about $12,000 a year.  The nearby school for dyslexic kids is $44,000 a year.   There are good reasons for that, it's not grasping for profit. But educating kids with learning disabilities is expensive. And learning disabilities are the tip of the iceburg when it comes to disabilities and associated expenses.

 

There is nothing stopping the government from spending the money on private school tuition / supports instead of putting it directly into public schools. 

 

The community / government does have a role in making sure kids get IEPs and that the things they need are funded.  The appropriate amount of money could follow the child, giving parents more options in general.

 

The fact that there is a private school for dyslexic kids (just one example of many) kind of proves that the public schools are not meeting their needs.

Edited September 8, 2017 by SKL

[SKL]

Not only that, but if a private school shuts down mid-year, the kids can always be transferred to the public school as currently stands. The PS might end up educating them in trailers or bussing them a while away, but you won't have groups of kids just sitting at home waiting for someone to open a school with room. 

 

The government can have contracts requiring schools to complete the school year or else.  I mean this sounds like a desperate argument.  There are so many services we use that "could" randomly close their doors without warning, and that would suck, but yet we don't see that kind of chaos all around us, even in private industry.  But if you really think that is a likelihood, safeguards could be built in.

 

On the other hand, look what happens when the public school teachers strike - I have seen that happen multiple times, and kids did have to sit at home and wait for the public school system to figure it out.

[EmseB]

Are you assuming it would be better if they were uneducated?

No.

 

That's an interesting question given all that I've written on this thread. While I appreciate the dialogue, I feel like I'm not being clear enough to avoid uncharitable assumptions about how I want people to go without education, so I'm probably wasting time that I should be using to plan my classes for our upcoming school year.

 

If what you got out of my posts is that I want less people to be educated then I'm also sincerely apologetic for wasting your time as well.

[Carol in Cal.]

Are you assuming it would be better if they were uneducated?  I rarely come across anyone (neurotypical) who can't read at all.  In my grandparent's day, it was common.  Even my grandma had to quit school after 4th grade because her dad made her get a job washing dishes.  Her mom had died when she was 4 and her dad decided they needed the money she could make.  She didn't even get to keep the money.  It went to her dad.  SHE wanted to go to college and forever regretted that she couldn't, but her dad got to decide.

 

And somehow this is better, huh?  Parents in control of who get to go to school and where...

My grandfather, who seemed like a quietly distinguished and very well-educated man, had to drop out of high school at 16 to work to get by and support his widowed mother.  He never complained about it but he read voraciously for the rest of his life.  Both were ideals at the time.  Ideals now are different.

[Twolittleboys]

 

I also don't make any assumptions about what would happen if education were privatized beyond basic economics of things. I really think a lot of things would come about that no one could predict. I don't think the market would remain as it is, though, because anytime a monopoly is broken up industries change drastically.

 

I don't really agree with you post in general, but this is where you really lose me. Schools in the US are not a monopoly. A monopoly is the "the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service". But that doesn't hold at all. People are allowed to homeschool, there are private schools, charter schools, online schools, parochial schools etc. This is not a monopoly!

 

​Where I live in Europe education is much closer to a monopoly - no homeschooling, few private/parochial/charter schools, no online schools (at least not once that replace elementary/high school). There are advantages and disadvantages to this, but I don't think the overall educational outcome is worse than in the US. 

[poppy]

There is nothing stopping the government from spending the money on private school tuition / supports instead of putting it directly into public schools. 

 

The community / government does have a role in making sure kids get IEPs and that the things they need are funded.  The appropriate amount of money could follow the child, giving parents more options in general.

 

The fact that there is a for-profit school for dyslexic kids (just one example of many) kind of proves that the public schools are not meeting their needs.

 

No, the $44,000 dyslexic school is a nonprofit.

[Guest]

Not only a select population, but I can't recall seeing one of these in rural areas serving kids there - like my area for instance.  We're not even super rural compared to many areas of the country.  If it ALL goes private - who forces the companies who own them to open schools (esp for special needs) in places like mine or less dense than mine?  Who forces the parents to participate and be committed?

 

Exactly.  Not to beat a dead horse about how rurally I live, but this area didn't even get a PUBLIC high school until the 1990's.  There's no way a private school would ever consider opening doors here if it's even so difficult to get public education here.

[DawnM]

No, the $44,000 dyslexic school is a nonprofit.

 

 

Our dyslexic school is a bargain at $28K  :laugh:

 

The truth is, the class sizes are SIX students per teacher at the school here, but even around the country, I would imagine these schools have VERY small class sizes, which is a huge appeal if you have the resources to pay for it.

 

In the PS system, the dyslexic student might be pulled out 30 min. 3xs per week for specialized instruction, or maybe not.   :crying:   

 

What privatization would want to even deal with providing what these kids need?  The cost is not an efficient use of "corporate" type funds.  Not worth it.  Just like a business, they would be going for the highest profit margin and NOT go in the hole over a few kids.  e.i: those "left behind."

[Bootsie]

Does anyone know what the federal mandate (legislation, guarantee) for free public education for all children (and at what ages) is in the U.S.?  It is my understanding that at one time the federal law was that if the state provided it for one child it had to be provided for all children in that state, but that there was no federal guarantee that a state provide this.  I have been looking for the current  federal legislation regarding this and haven't been able to come across specifics, especially regarding the US government's duty and responsibility to provide every child in the US with an education.   

[poppy]

Does anyone know what the federal mandate (legislation, guarantee) for free public education for all children (and at what ages) is in the U.S.? It is my understanding that at one time the federal law was that if the state provided it for one child it had to be provided for all children in that state, but that there was no federal guarantee that a state provide this. I have been looking for the current federal legislation regarding this and haven't been able to come across specifics, especially regarding the US government's duty and responsibility to provide every child in the US with an education.

Every student is protected under the DREAM act. The issue is that funding doesn't always keep up with the requirement at state level (and what Feds give to states ).

[Bootsie]

Every student is protected under the DREAM act. The issue is that funding doesn't always keep up with the requirement at state level (and what Feds give to states )

I thought the DREAM act was about immigration status.  Does it also contain education legislation?

[EmseB]

I don't really agree with you post in general, but this is where you really lose me. Schools in the US are not a monopoly. A monopoly is the "the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service". But that doesn't hold at all. People are allowed to homeschool, there are private schools, charter schools, online schools, parochial schools etc. This is not a monopoly!

 

​Where I live in Europe education is much closer to a monopoly - no homeschooling, few private/parochial/charter schools, no online schools (at least not once that replace elementary/high school). There are advantages and disadvantages to this, but I don't think the overall educational outcome is worse than in the US.

In my town I'm legally allowed to use whichever cable service I want to. However, Cox is the only company that services my house. A monopoly isn't about what one is allowed to do in theory. In theory I could start my own cable internet service tomorrow, so by your logic Cox doesn't have a monopoly in my area.

 

In theory I'm allowed to start my own school or send my kid to the $15k/year private school down the street. In theory, there's no monopoly because everyone is allowed to quit their job and homeschool tomorrow.

 

There may be less options in Europe, but that doesn't mean that there's mostly one option for most kids in the US when it comes to education.

[Guest]

Its interpreted as every compelled student is entitled to a minimum education if not special needs. No unclassified child is legally required to be placed by instructional need. Its legal to assess unclassified students and determine if they know the years minimum material, then not offer them anything but core basic classes. That is why you see the stanford study results showing+/- 2 grade levels in achievement for public schools similar demographics.

[poppy]

I thought the DREAM act was about immigration status. Does it also contain education legislation?

Sorry wrong acronym! I should have said IDEA: https://sites.ed.gov/idea/

[EmseB]

Our dyslexic school is a bargain at $28K :laugh:

 

The truth is, the class sizes are SIX students per teacher at the school here, but even around the country, I would imagine these schools have VERY small class sizes, which is a huge appeal if you have the resources to pay for it.

 

In the PS system, the dyslexic student might be pulled out 30 min. 3xs per week for specialized instruction, or maybe not. :crying:

 

What privatization would want to even deal with providing what these kids need? The cost is not an efficient use of "corporate" type funds. Not worth it. Just like a business, they would be going for the highest profit margin and NOT go in the hole over a few kids.

I'm pretty sure there are entire foundations set up to help people with dyslexia and other LDs that receive corporate donations and funding precisely because there aren't enough resources in public schools. Where are you getting the idea that successful business people don't help finance these things? Most large corporations donate huge amounts of money to various charitable causes, some even donate to the public school system. Because, like you, a lot of people running successful businesses see a vested interest in education.

 

https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Media-Center/Press-Releases/2003/09/New-York-City-Department-of-Education-Receives-Grant

 

http://www.jkcf.org/foundation-rolls-out-15-million-grant-initiative-supporting-twice-eceptional-students/

[Bluegoat]

I guess that depends on what you consider educated, though. I mean, people on this thread are telling me that it would be a disaster for parents to be responsible for their kids' educations and so many would be incapable of such responsibility. And, more likely than not, those parents who cannot or would not do this were educated in the public schools. I can't go into many more examples without getting political, but there's a lot going on that suggests to me that public schools are doing something, but it's not sufficient to maintain an educated populace. I actually think we're at an interesting time where everyone is supposed to be getting this public education for an educated populace and we're getting closer and closer to idiocracy. I would guess that the rejection of a lot of the western canon is part of it, but that's way beyond the scope of this post.

 

I don't see education being totally privatized at any time. I just don't see it happening. My vote I guess would be more options of more schools for more people, less control by the federal government, etc. But progressive public educationists would be against that as well because they don't just believe that the government should pay for the education, they think that the money being used should not be used by the parent to choose what kind of school, etc, but they think that money must be spent in a government school. Thus the battle over vouchers, etc. (I'm not a huge proponent of vouchers, it was just an example). And many schools of progressive thought on education believe in actual equal outcomes, not just equal opportunity. They equate education add more of a "good citizen factory" than a place where individual, tailored education should be provided. Again, beyond the scope of the post. I just take issue with empiracal evidence showing educated populace when the basic philosophy seems to be going very wrong about what that actually means.

 

I also don't make any assumptions about what would happen if education were privatized beyond basic economics of things. I really think a lot of things would come about that no one could predict. I don't think the market would remain as it is, though, because anytime a monopoly is broken up industries change drastically.

 

I don't think it's reasonable to expect that private and public are the only factors that make a difference though.  There are other confounding factors that could make either public, or private, education bad.  A country that was very poor, for example, or where it was dangerous for kids to actually go to school - the quality of instruction would have nothing to do with whether it was private or not.

 

If a school has a stupid educational philosophy, the results are likely to be middling, private or not.  There are plenty of stupid private schools.

 

Some of the best education systems in the world are public, not private.  The kids are well educated when they graduate.

 

And I can't see any reason to think that commitment to meeting the individual needs of students is necessarily connected to the schools being private institutions.

[Carol in Cal.]

 

 

And I can't see any reason to think that commitment to meeting the individual needs of students is necessarily connected to the schools being private institutions.

It IS, however, connected with the size and degree of personalness of the school district, in public settings.  Big school districts tend to become self-perpetuating burocracies.  They don't have the same 'to the death' commitment to each student that small districts can.  Small districts don't necessarily have this, but big ones don't have it at all--at least that is my observation over the years.

[frogger]

No.

 

That's an interesting question given all that I've written on this thread. While I appreciate the dialogue, I feel like I'm not being clear enough to avoid uncharitable assumptions about how I want people to go without education, so I'm probably wasting time that I should be using to plan my classes for our upcoming school year.

 

If what you got out of my posts is that I want less people to be educated then I'm also sincerely apologetic for wasting your time as well.

It's easier to argue with straw men then your actual opponent.

 

Sorry, I don't have time to keep up wih this thread.

 

 

It's interesting that in any other business "the customer is always right" magically turns into secret deals behind closed doors when it's education.

[Bluegoat]

It IS, however, connected with the size and degree of personalness of the school district, in public settings.  Big school districts tend to become self-perpetuating burocracies.  They don't have the same 'to the death' commitment to each student that small districts can.  Small districts don't necessarily have this, but big ones don't have it at all--at least that is my observation over the years.

 

Yes, I do think that's a factor.

 

And school and class size, particularly for younger kids.

 

I think to some degree this is why a commitment to walkable elementary schools makes a different - they can't be too big, or the kids have to walk too far.

 

But most places do not actually have control of all elements of the school at the highest levels.  Some things will be controlled there, some at various middle levels, and some in the classroom itself.

 

In general, the effort to put in more control of these things higher up, to improve quality, seems to fail.  But, you might not want the people at the top levels to wash their hands of the whole thing!  The individual teacher or school might not be the best place to develop curriculum, for example, especially a little neighbourhood school where all the teachers are teaching.

[Bluegoat]

It IS, however, connected with the size and degree of personalness of the school district, in public settings.  Big school districts tend to become self-perpetuating burocracies.  They don't have the same 'to the death' commitment to each student that small districts can.  Small districts don't necessarily have this, but big ones don't have it at all--at least that is my observation over the years.

 

Though - I think this would also hold true in a private setting - a corporate school model, for example.

[DawnM]

Yes, I do think that's a factor.

 

And school and class size, particularly for younger kids.

 

I think to some degree this is why a commitment to walkable elementary schools makes a different - they can't be too big, or the kids have to walk too far.

 

But most places do not actually have control of all elements of the school at the highest levels.  Some things will be controlled there, some at various middle levels, and some in the classroom itself.

 

In general, the effort to put in more control of these things higher up, to improve quality, seems to fail.  But, you might not want the people at the top levels to wash their hands of the whole thing!  The individual teacher or school might not be the best place to develop curriculum, for example, especially a little neighbourhood school where all the teachers are teaching.

 

huh.  How would that work in rural areas?  

 

If there were an elem. school every 10 blocks in the city, the cost would be far higher to run schools.

I am just trying to figure out how it would work.

[frogger]

I also know kids and young adults that can't read. My guess is that someone who lives in a more privalaged area wouldn't see that and therefore think public schools are great. Right now, they do seem great for the wealthy districts.