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

[ChocolateReignRemix]

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.

 

Once again you make a statement that indicates you only have a very basic understanding of economics. Barriers to entry (which can be legal, technological, or market driven) are one of the key elements to the formation of monopolies.  Cable companies generally had a natural monopoly until technology (satellite, internet, high speed lines) made it possible for more competitors to enter the market.  Even so, the barriers to entry still naturally limit competition, at least for now.  There is no legal barrier to entering that market but their are numerous natural barriers.

 

Schools would have similar issues in some areas with mass privatization.  Students in very small, rural districts would have no more options that they do now as there simply would not be enough students to allow for multiple competitors in the market due to economies of scale.

[SKL]

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

 

OK but it isn't public in the way public schools are pubilc.  Private does not necessarily mean for-profit (though I realize I did use "for-profit" in my post).  The same holds true if you include not-for-profits.  There will always be a not-for-profit industry paralleling the for-profit world, whether it's education, health care, food service, recreation, whatever.  Neither for-profits nor nonprofits always do it better.

 

OK so I edited my post, because my point is that if there is a non-public school for dyslexic kids, that suggests the public school system is not serving those kids well enough and the private / non-public system is doing a better job.  With special needs kids.  Not sure how that gets twisted into public schools are the only hope for special needs kids.

Edited September 8, 2017 by SKL

[ChocolateReignRemix]

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.

 

I would also think that most people could look at a situation rationally and figure out that a school cannot fully control what a child learns.  There are significant socioeconomic factors that affect student performance.

[Bluegoat]

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.

 

It wouldn't tend to work - you'd have to think of a different way to make the principle work - perhaps by limiting bus time.

 

But this is what I mean by determining things at an appropriate level.  A district is going to have to decide, based on principles and desired outcomes, how to best instantiate that.  A city or suburb might say - kids should be able to walk to school.  A rural area - no more than 1/2 hr on the bus.  A Northern region might have to take a different approach, teaching with an online tutor, say.

 

If people keep the outcome and the reasons for them in mind, they can find solutions within the limits they have.

 

But IME who that gets thrown out the window, you get crap like consolidated schools with 1000 students all of whom are bussed.  Or kids on busses for over an hour each way in a rural area.

 

When I lived in the country when my kids were small, the closest elementary school was just under 1/2 away.  It's now been closed as too small - the kids go to the consolidated school another 1/2 hour away in town, with about 500 other kids.

 

Now interestingly, in the time of my grandparents, kids throughout that area did walk to school, as did the teachers for the most part, mostly in 2 room schools.

 

I can't say that seems better, or the grandparents seem to be more poorly educated.

 

Schools in walking distance is a common policy in many cities.

Edited September 8, 2017 by Bluegoat

[SKL]

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.

 

Low density is a problem for both public and private education.  There still needs to be a right to education access.  The government would need to fund whatever is needed to give reasonable access under the circumstances - most likely involving a lot of online services and creative physical arrangements.  And I know that some areas don't have good reception, but the government would need to provide that.  That should already be a requirement anyplace there is a public school.

 

Ultimately, though, public or private, there is a limit on how much a family can demand as a result of choosing a very remote lifestyle.

[SKL]

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?

 

I hope everyone is assuming that the laws about truancy / educational neglect would still hold.

 

I mean, who forces people to clothe their children in a country where all the clothing sources are private?  And yet I haven't seen naked kids running around the US.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

It wouldn't tend to work - you'd have to think of a different way to make the principle work - perhaps by limiting bus time.

 

But this is what I mean by determining things at an appropriate level.  A district is going to have to decide, based on principles and desired outcomes, how to best instantiate that.  A city or suburb might say - kids should be able to walk to school.  A rural area - no more than 1/2 hr on the bus.  A Northern region might have to take a different approach, teaching with an online tutor, say.

 

If people keep the outcome and the reasons for them in mind, they can find solutions within the limits they have.

 

But IME who that gets thrown out the window, you get crap like consolidated schools with 1000 students all of whom are bussed.  Or kids on busses for over an hour each way in a rural area.

 

When I lived in the country when my kids were small, the closest elementary school was just under 1/2 away.  It's now been closed as too small - the kids go to the consolidated school another 1/2 hour away in town, with about 500 other kids.

 

Now interestingly, in the time of my grandparents, kids throughout that area did walk to school, as did the teachers for the most part, mostly in 2 room schools.

 

I can't say that seems better, or the grandparents seem to be more poorly educated.

 

Schools in walking distance is a common policy in many cities.

 

Economies of scale are an issue in education, particularly when you are offering services for students with special needs.  I am not sure where you live, but in many parts of the U.S. some students will have long bus rides as there is no other reasonable option.

 

Comparing education now to one room schoolhouses also seems like a waste of time.

 

[SKL]

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

 

Where I live, charter schools are not owned or run by the public school system.  At least not the ones I've dealt with.  They get public money (and also charge tuition) and they have to follow certain public school rules.  The one my kids attended was privately owned by an individual.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I hope everyone is assuming that the laws about truancy / educational neglect would still hold.

 

I mean, who forces people to clothe their children in a country where all the clothing sources are private?  And yet I haven't seen naked kids running around the US.

 

I don't see any way they feasibly could without a public education model.

 

Although we don't have a great safety net in the United States, we do have welfare programs that do provide a way for the poorest to get food and clothing for their children.  Your comparison is faulty.

[Carol in Cal.]

Economies of scale are an issue in education, particularly when you are offering services for students with special needs.  I am not sure where you live, but in many parts of the U.S. some students will have long bus rides as there is no other reasonable option.

 

Comparing education now to one room schoolhouses also seems like a waste of time.

 

There is optimization of scale, though.  Bigger is not always better--contrary to what many administrators seem to believe.

 

Re. the one room schoolhouses, what are homeschools other than one room schoolhouses?  That model works extremely well if there is a motivated teacher and a relatively small number of students.  It's the next best thing to private tutoring.  All of us here have reason to know this.

[frogger]

I would also think that most people could look at a situation rationally and figure out that a school cannot fully control what a child learns. There are significant socioeconomic factors that affect student performance.

That is true and something I complained of early in the thread but I was responding to someone who specifically stated they don't know anyone who can't read. One of these situations was remedied by me for free. The fact that they exist.

[DawnM]

Where I live, charter schools are not owned or run by the public school system.  At least not the ones I've dealt with.  They get public money (and also charge tuition) and they have to follow certain public school rules.  The one my kids attended was privately owned by an individual.

 

They are not run by the school districts but they are public.

 

Where do you live that a charter school would charge tuition?  That would be a private school.  I am looking online and can't find any sources that have charters with tuition charged.

 

https://www.babycenter.com/0_school-types-the-difference-between-public-private-magnet-ch_67288.bc

[Bluegoat]

Economies of scale are an issue in education, particularly when you are offering services for students with special needs.  I am not sure where you live, but in many parts of the U.S. some students will have long bus rides as there is no other reasonable option.

 

Comparing education now to one room schoolhouses also seems like a waste of time.

 

 

Yeah, I don't think you'll find the US is less densely populated than Canada.  

 

My point is that we assume, in many cases, that these choices like long bus rides, or giant schools because of economy, or more class options, are better, or indifferent.  What's the trade off when you bus a six year old two hours a day?

 

Often they aren't.  And our assumptions about needing certain things aren't always accurate either.  Is it really harder to get a good elementary school education in a one or two room school?  There are still some schools like that here, and interestingly they typically test really well compared to others.

 

Of course there is not a possibility of one size fits all - every kid can walk 10 min to school.  I've said twice now that regional control at appropriate levels has to address those kinds of practicalities.  If we are going to talk about policy and have to say that every time, that is surely an utter waste of it.

 

But I think Carol is right, in principle.  Very large, and populated school districts do tend to become overly-beaurocratic and impersonal.  And also, you see the same things in very large schools, and in larger classrooms - even when there are more teachers in that class.  One way, where density is sufficient, to keep schools down to a reasonable size seems to be to have walking distance schools, which has other benefits as well.  Where there isn't sufficient density, you have to think of other ways to approach that problem - in that case, it isn't too many kids, but too few, or too much distance.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Yeah, I don't think you'll find the US is less densely populated than Canada.  

 

My point is that we assume, in many cases, that these choices like long bus rides, or giant schools because of economy, or more class options, are better, or indifferent.  What's the trade off when you bus a six year old two hours a day?

 

Often they aren't.  And our assumptions about needing certain things aren't always accurate either.  Is it really harder to get a good elementary school education in a one or two room school?  There are still some schools like that here, and interestingly they typically test really well compared to others.

 

Of course there is not a possibility of one size fits all - every kid can walk 10 min to school.  I've said twice now that regional control at appropriate levels has to address those kinds of practicalities.  If we are going to talk about policy and have to say that every time, that is surely an utter waste of it.

 

But I think Carol is right, in principle.  Very large, and populated school districts do tend to become overly-beaurocratic and impersonal.  And also, you see the same things in very large schools, and in larger classrooms - even when there are more teachers in that class.  One way, where density is sufficient, to keep schools down to a reasonable size seems to be to have walking distance schools, which has other benefits as well.  Where there isn't sufficient density, you have to think of other ways to approach that problem - in that case, it isn't too many kids, but too few, or too much distance.

 

You do know some kids have long bus rides to small schools, right?  I know of kids where I grew up who have hour+ drives to a high school that has less than 50 students. 

 

You seem to be pontificating about this as if people have thought these decisions over already.  Local school districts in the U.S. still have an immense amount of control, which is generally (not always) a good thing.

[Bluegoat]

There is optimization of scale, though.  Bigger is not always better--contrary to what many administrators seem to believe.

 

Re. the one room schoolhouses, what are homeschools other than one room schoolhouses?  That model works extremely well if there is a motivated teacher and a relatively small number of students.  It's the next best thing to private tutoring.  All of us here have reason to know this.

 

Yeah.  The best class I had as an elementary school kid was in K, I had a class with one teacher, and 10 kids.  It was 1/2 day, so she had a second class in the afternoon.  Not a one room school, but effectively so for us, since we had the one teacher.  The second was a split5/6 class, again, because it had a small number of kids.

[SKL]

I don't see any way they feasibly could without a public education model.

 

Although we don't have a great safety net in the United States, we do have welfare programs that do provide a way for the poorest to get food and clothing for their children.  Your comparison is faulty.

 

No, yours is faulty.  We (US govt) do not generally provide clothes and food directly to the children, we provide funds so their parents or other responsible persons can procure those items for them.  Likewise the US government could provide education funds that follow the child and guarantee special protections and extra funds for special needs.

 

I am sure someone has or will make an argument about economies of scale in public school, but even if there is any merit in that generally, it would not apply to severe special needs except maybe in the most high-density school districts.

[SKL]

They are not run by the school districts but they are public.

 

Where do you live that a charter school would charge tuition?  That would be a private school.  I am looking online and can't find any sources that have charters with tuition charged.

 

https://www.babycenter.com/0_school-types-the-difference-between-public-private-magnet-ch_67288.bc

 

I'm not going to disclose my location, but I can tell you I paid tuition for my kids to attend a charter school.  You can choose to disbelieve me.

[Bluegoat]

You do know some kids have long bus rides to small schools, right?  I know of kids where I grew up who have hour+ drives to a high school that has less than 50 students. 

 

You seem to be pontificating about this as if people have thought these decisions over already.  Local school districts in the U.S. still have an immense amount of control, which is generally (not always) a good thing.

 

I'm not sure what you want - that in every post people should take account of every individual instance?  

 

I know places where kids take three boats to school, or have to take a plane and billet with a family, so yeah, I am aware that is a possibility.

 

I'm also aware that there are a lot of rural areas that are losing schools where it essentially destroyed the town, and certainly doesn't improve education, or where perfectly good smaller high schools are consolidated so they are larger than my university was.

 

Do you really want to only make statements that could apply to every district and school in the whole country or continent?  Why not the whole world?  

Edited September 8, 2017 by Bluegoat

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I'm not sure what you want - that in every post people should take account of every individual instance?  

 

I know places where kids take three boats to school, or have to take a plane and billet with a family, so yeah, I am aware that is a possibility.

 

I'm also aware that there are a lot of rural areas that are losing schools where it essentially destroyed the town, and certainly doesn't improve education, or where perfectly good smaller high schools are consolidated so they are larger than my university was.

 

Do you really want to only make statements that could apply to every district and school in the whole country or continent?  Why not the whole world?  

 

How about not prattling on about nonsensical solutions? I know you love your soapbox but there isn't any reason to believe "walkable" elementary schools are the solution to education.

[hepatica]

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/

Where are all these free or low cost options for dyslexic students?? Do you have a dyslexic student? 1 in 5 students are dyslexic. Many if not most require intensive tutoring. Bill Gates hasn't made much of a difference for us.

 

And, frankly, I'm always a bit confused when I hear the phrase "government schools." I think the government schools here in CT and MA would not consider themselves the same as the government schools in Texas or Alabama or Idaho. What does that phrase really mean?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I'm not going to disclose my location, but I can tell you I paid tuition for my kids to attend a charter school.  You can choose to disbelieve me.

 

That does not surprise me.  Charter school is a catch-all term that can vary a lot by state.

[Carol in Cal.]

No, yours is faulty.  We (US govt) do not generally provide clothes and food directly to the children, we provide funds so their parents or other responsible persons can procure those items for them.  Likewise the US government could provide education funds that follow the child and guarantee special protections and extra funds for special needs.

 

 

This is interesting--I've never thought of it exactly this way before.  Thank you.

[Carol in Cal.]

How about not prattling on about nonsensical solutions? I know you love your soapbox but there isn't any reason to believe "walkable" elementary schools are the solution to education.

How about not resorting to contempt all the dang time?  Very counterproductive.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Where are all these free or low cost options for dyslexic students?? Do you have a dyslexic student? 1 in 5 students are dyslexic. Many if not most require intensive tutoring. Bill Gates hasn't made much of a difference for us.

 

And, frankly, I'm always a bit confused when I hear the phrase "government schools." I think the government schools here in CT and MA would not consider themselves the same as the government schools in Texas or Alabama or Idaho. What does that phrase really mean?

 

It is a phrase that is used by the libertarian crowd to cause a gnashing of teeth and tearing of hair among the diehards.

[Bluegoat]

How about not prattling on about nonsensical solutions? I know you love your soapbox but there isn't any reason to believe "walkable" elementary schools are the solution to education.

 

I said, in response to a comment about larger districts, that I thought walkable school had a relation to keeping schools of an appropriate size.  If the school gets too big, the kids can no longer walk.  Therefore, where you get policies like that, you seem to get schools that are a good size.

 

Carol seems to have understood what I meant, whether or not she agrees, and since I was responding to her comment, I'm happy with that.  If you find it too obscure, feel free to ignore it.

[Carol in Cal.]

I'm not going to disclose my location, but I can tell you I paid tuition for my kids to attend a charter school.  You can choose to disbelieve me.

 

Was this a charter or a voucher system?  

 

I've seen public charters as well as local public schools that 'requested' a 'donation' strongly enough and with enough publicity that all families felt that they were 'charged'.  Technically none of these public schools could require these funds, any more than they could require parent volunteer hours, but since they posted lists of the families and who gave how much, and who didn't give at all, it basically was almost a charge.  

 

Digression--Some of the schools were set up specifically on a parent coop model, but technically could not force the parents to participate.  That was little known.  You'd have to be pretty ballsy/nasty to send your kid to a school like that and then fail to provide parent participation.

 

Anyway, in a voucher system, which is distinct from a charter system, parents get a set amount of money toward tuition but private and parochial schools can charge tuition beyond that amount.

[SKL]

Was this a charter or a voucher system?  

 

I've seen public charters as well as local public schools that 'requested' a 'donation' strongly enough and with enough publicity that all families felt that they were 'charged'.  Technically none of these public schools could require these funds, any more than they could require parent volunteer hours, but since they posted lists of the families and who gave how much, and who didn't give at all, it basically was almost a charge.  

 

Digression--Some of the schools were set up specifically on a parent coop model, but technically could not force the parents to participate.  That was little known.  You'd have to be pretty ballsy/nasty to send your kid to a school like that and then fail to provide parent participation.

 

Anyway, in a voucher system, which is distinct from a charter system, parents get a set amount of money toward tuition but private and parochial schools can charge tuition beyond that amount.

 

Nope, it was a charter school.

 

I know this for sure because I had to look some things up relating to whether my kid could be accelerated differently from how the public schools did it.  There was a lot of back & forth with a number of people on the matter.

 

And yes, the invoice said tuition.

Edited September 8, 2017 by SKL

[lauraw4321]

Then they need to get compensated accordingly.  (Please note, I am not arguing with you, just adding to the comment.)

 

What the problem is, is that there are more and more regulations put on teachers, it changes almost yearly, and the evaluations end up being more about personality than actual instruction.  Add to that the fact that across the nation there is a 35% DROP in teacher education program admissions, and we are in for a real problem in this country.  Couple that with the HUGE percentage of teachers who leave the profession within the first 5 years of teaching, and we have a huge problem on our hands.  People no longer want to go into education.  It used to be a valued profession where teachers were compensated fairly (notice I did NOT say well compensated), and they were respected.  

 

I have been in public education for the past 28 years, with a 10 year hiatus to stay home with my kids and homeschool, I have seen the changes first hand and when I speak to young people I dissuade them from going into teaching.  I am brutally honest and tell them if their heart is in it, go for it, but have a back up plan (which I could get into here but wont' as it isn't the purpose of this thread.)

 

And there ARE already unannounced observations.....but what are you going to do with a poorly performing teacher when there is literally NO ONE to take the place of that teacher?

 

In fact, I switched school districts this year.  When I went to the "new to the district" teacher training, the Superintendent got up and announced, "12 years ago, our district could be highly selective and I would have gotten up here and told you that you congratulations for being one of the select few we hired, but now, we can't find enough people for some positions, so we are saying thank you for coming instead!!!!!"

 

It was VERY telling.

 

So, YES, changes need to happen, but until teaching becomes a profession that is valued, compensated fairly in ALL of the country and not just NY and select areas, AND there are a multitude of other changes, evaluations and keeping teachers in the profession is a HUGE issue.  And it is getting worse by the year.

 

One school district here has dramatically higher wages than its neighboring school districts because the situation at those schools is so bad. Yet, the lower-paid school district is mobbed with applicants. The higher paid district is often desperate to recruit.

[EmseB]

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.

 

I agree that because a school is private doesn't necessarily make it better.  That is not what I was saying in my posts.

 

I think it's largely the post-war industrialized model of education that makes the commitment to meeting the individual needs of students so impossible.

[Bluegoat]

I agree that because a school is private doesn't necessarily make it better.  That is not what I was saying in my posts.

 

I think it's largely the post-war industrialized model of education that makes the commitment to meeting the individual needs of students so impossible.

 

Yeah, I don't know about post war - but the whole idea that a class or school looks a certain way - yeas, I think that is a big part of the problem.  I don't really think that elementary schools should look anything like that.

[EmseB]

Where are all these free or low cost options for dyslexic students?? Do you have a dyslexic student? 1 in 5 students are dyslexic. Many if not most require intensive tutoring. Bill Gates hasn't made much of a difference for us.

 

The free and low cost options are the IEP and 504 programs at the local public schools. A lot of people on this thread are telling me that if the public school option didn't exist, those kids would get left behind if not for the public schools, so I guess I am to assume they aren't getting left behind now or marginalized because they require more resources to educate. 

 

My post was a response to another poster who asserted that corporations don't care about education for dyslexic kids or kids with other LDs. I just looked up a couple of different corporate programs which seem to donate millions of dollars to programs for dyslexia, because Dawn asserted that they don't do this because they aren't interested in helping such kids because it isn't efficient.

 

And, frankly, I'm always a bit confused when I hear the phrase "government schools." I think the government schools here in CT and MA would not consider themselves the same as the government schools in Texas or Alabama or Idaho. What does that phrase really mean?

 

 

 

What is term that is not confusing that encompasses schools in all 50 states that use government/taxpayer funding to operate and are the predominant means of educating children in the US? I prefer to use a term that everyone understands and is more precise wherever possible for discussions like these.

 

I'm not sure that the schools in CT and MA would look all that different from the ones in TX or ID, to be honest, unless we're talking about low income vs wealthy areas, but in that case, schools in Palo Alto and Oakland schools look vastly different despite being less than an hour away from each other and operating in the same state.

[Carol in Cal.]

 

 

I'm not sure that the schools in CT and MA would look all that different from the ones in TX or ID, to be honest, unless we're talking about low income vs wealthy areas, but in that case, schools in Palo Alto and Oakland schools look vastly different despite being less than an hour away from each other and operating in the same state.

Shoot, you don't have to look that far.

Palo Alto and East Palo Alto have just about the same contrast.

[Twolittleboys]

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.

 

Not sure I agree with the comparison. The difficulties for market entry for internet service providers are just much higher than for schools. If you live in an area where there is only one internet service, then that is kind of a monopoly because you have no other option. However, if homeschooling is legal you have at least one other option with schools. 

 

I do agree though that there probably are areas in which there are no alternative schools and so the public school has basically a monopoly (if we disregard homeschooling which may not be possible for many). However, there could be more schools and the reason there isn't is because it isn't worth having more (maybe because of low income or too few students).  That wouldn't change if schools were privatized. There probably would still only be one school (at least after a short while) and as there is no alternative it might well be worse than the current option. 

 

Most areas in the US where I have lived had various options (private schools, parochial etc.). However, the situation may be different in many rural areas.

[Twolittleboys]

As far as the comparison between schools and clothing:

 

Of course all children wear clothes (there are lots of reasons including health in colder climates, religious/personal beliefs, social mores, and the fact that you'd get in trouble if you didn't clothe your kids). But I think we can all agree that not all kids wear the same quality of clothes - some are expensive designer clothes, some good quality, some bad, some brands, some not, some fit, some don't, some are torn/dirty etc.

 

You'd see the same difference with education. The difference is that education is a public good (as it leads to informed citizens, productive workers, innovations and inventions etc.). Clothing isn't really the same (a society can function just fine if people wear cheap clothes). Also, clothing can easily be changed. Someone wearing cheap, second hand clothes through their childhood/adolescence can "move up" to designer clothes in the blink of an eye just with some money and a short shopping trip. On the other hand, someone with an inferior education will have a lot of work to do to catch up later on even if there was plenty of money/opportunities. 

 

 

[SKL]

As far as the comparison between schools and clothing:

 

Of course all children wear clothes (there are lots of reasons including health in colder climates, religious/personal beliefs, social mores, and the fact that you'd get in trouble if you didn't clothe your kids). But I think we can all agree that not all kids wear the same quality of clothes - some are expensive designer clothes, some good quality, some bad, some brands, some not, some fit, some don't, some are torn/dirty etc.

 

You'd see the same difference with education. The difference is that education is a public good (as it leads to informed citizens, productive workers, innovations and inventions etc.). Clothing isn't really the same (a society can function just fine if people wear cheap clothes). Also, clothing can easily be changed. Someone wearing cheap, second hand clothes through their childhood/adolescence can "move up" to designer clothes in the blink of an eye just with some money and a short shopping trip. On the other hand, someone with an inferior education will have a lot of work to do to catch up later on even if there was plenty of money/opportunities. 

 

In some places, you couldn't get much more "inferior."

 

There isn't much incentive for bad public schools to provide a good education.

 

I'm not advocating abolishing public schools, but I do think the availability of private schools (and good charter schools) is a net benefit when they are allowed to do what they do.  I think that when groups fight against non-public school options, it makes things worse.

 

People have given many examples of private schools that fill all sorts of gaps that the public schools leave.  Private and charter schools also show what is possible, test and share innovations, encourage more mental investment by parents in their kids' education, and take some of the financial and logistical burden off public schools. 

 

Public schools have not shown that more money or more power would result in better public education.  If there are things regular public schools (on average) do better than private or charter schools, the converse is also true.  I see no reason why the one needs to be favored over the other.

[Twolittleboys]

In some places, you couldn't get much more "inferior."

 

There isn't much incentive for bad public schools to provide a good education.

 

I'm not advocating abolishing public schools, but I do think the availability of private schools (and good charter schools) is a net benefit when they are allowed to do what they do.  I think that when groups fight against non-public school options, it makes things worse.

 

People have given many examples of private schools that fill all sorts of gaps that the public schools leave.  Private and charter schools also show what is possible, test and share innovations, encourage more mental investment by parents in their kids' education, and take some of the financial and logistical burden off public schools. 

 

Public schools have not shown that more money or more power would result in better public education.  If there are things regular public schools (on average) do better than private or charter schools, the converse is also true.  I see no reason why the one needs to be favored over the other.

 

I think you misunderstood where I am coming from. I am all for various forms of private schools. All I am saying is that a) I don't think comparing clothes to schools is a good idea and b) I think it is unlikely that privatizing all schools would be of benefit.

 

I do think that having both options (private and public) is an advantage. Private schools won't thrive unless they offer something better (or at least something that appears better to some) than the public schools. So public schools serve as a base line. 

 

And if you look at bad public schools there probably is a reason why they are bad. Be it because the area is too poor or because the student body is less able/willing/interested or whatever. Not sure how private schools would change this? What incentive would they have? And how would it be different to now? I mean someone could start a great private school in an area with a horrible school right now, couldn't they? So why does that normally not happen?

[SKL]

I mean someone could start a great private school in an area with a horrible school right now, couldn't they? So why does that normally not happen?

 

Well it does happen, but it would probably happen more if some groups didn't fight so hard against any alternative to regular [non-charter] public schools.

 

[brehon]

Yeah, I don't know that anyone is getting rich coaching football. I'd need to see some hard statistics to back that up.

You would be mistaken. There are high scholl football coaches in TX that make close to $100,000/yr.

[creekland]

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.

 

There are a fair number of parents now who feel daughters don't need to be educated beyond SAHM level.  There are a fair number of parents now who would want their kids out working as soon as they could rather than sending them to school.  There are a fair number of parents now who just see no value in school/education - period.  (Not talking about homeschooling parents who educate their kids.)

 

For some people, ideals haven't changed.  The law has.

 

The too, there were several people back then who saw to it their kids went to school and got an education - including college for some.

 

OK but it isn't public in the way public schools are pubilc.  Private does not necessarily mean for-profit (though I realize I did use "for-profit" in my post).  The same holds true if you include not-for-profits.  There will always be a not-for-profit industry paralleling the for-profit world, whether it's education, health care, food service, recreation, whatever.  Neither for-profits nor nonprofits always do it better.

 

OK so I edited my post, because my point is that if there is a non-public school for dyslexic kids, that suggests the public school system is not serving those kids well enough and the private / non-public system is doing a better job.  With special needs kids.  Not sure how that gets twisted into public schools are the only hope for special needs kids.

 

I definitely don't mind if there are private schools that work well for various kids, but there are none around us for dyslexic kids.  If public schools were eliminated (what the thread is supposed to be about), I doubt any would pop up.

 

I hope everyone is assuming that the laws about truancy / educational neglect would still hold.

 

I mean, who forces people to clothe their children in a country where all the clothing sources are private?  And yet I haven't seen naked kids running around the US.

 

Who would enforce truancy/educational neglect?  Right now this is done in the public schools.  If there are several schools around, wouldn't each just assume "Joey" is at a different one?

 

And your clothing analogy is a cute one.  You'd have only needed to come here a few years back in the summer to see a naked youngster running around (our neighbor never cared if their son got dressed or not).  

 

My guess is most folks clothe their children because the weather requires it... that and social norms.

 

That is true and something I complained of early in the thread but I was responding to someone who specifically stated they don't know anyone who can't read. One of these situations was remedied by me for free. The fact that they exist.

 

You took my words in an interesting - and not correct - way.  I said I don't personally know any adult who can't read (neurotypical raised in the US adult).  I don't.  My grandparents knew several - as did most others in their generation.  I'm sure there are some out there, but I'm willing to bet there are far fewer both in numbers and percentages than there were back in the early 1900s.

 

No, yours is faulty.  We (US govt) do not generally provide clothes and food directly to the children, we provide funds so their parents or other responsible persons can procure those items for them.  Likewise the US government could provide education funds that follow the child and guarantee special protections and extra funds for special needs.

 

Our public school gives some clothing directly to kids in need - food too - that latter one from the free breakfast/lunch program.  They don't give the clothes or the food to the parents to distribute.

 

I think you misunderstood where I am coming from. I am all for various forms of private schools. All I am saying is that a) I don't think comparing clothes to schools is a good idea and b) I think it is unlikely that privatizing all schools would be of benefit.

 

I do think that having both options (private and public) is an advantage. Private schools won't thrive unless they offer something better (or at least something that appears better to some) than the public schools. So public schools serve as a base line. 

 

And if you look at bad public schools there probably is a reason why they are bad. Be it because the area is too poor or because the student body is less able/willing/interested or whatever. Not sure how private schools would change this? What incentive would they have? And how would it be different to now? I mean someone could start a great private school in an area with a horrible school right now, couldn't they? So why does that normally not happen?

 

You and I have very similar thoughts - not just in this post - but overall.  If private schools are so much better, what's stopping them now - especially since there are supposedly so many grants from wealthy people out there to fund them?

 

I'm glad they are there when they are, but if we were to eliminate public schools I think folks are dreaming to think all of a sudden there's an Ideal World out there where everything will be so much better for everyone.  I suspect far, far more less wealthy and less caring families will have access to education for their kids.

 

I certainly don't think all public schools are ideal now, but I know there are several very good ones and all kids having access to something (whether their folks choose it or not) beats several having access to nothing.

[Twolittleboys]

Well it does happen, but it would probably happen more if some groups didn't fight so hard against any alternative to regular [non-charter] public schools.

 

 

 

It may well happen and maybe you are right that it would happen more if there was no/little resistance but I don't quite see it. Not trying to argue so much but trying to understand your reasoning (i.e. you may be able to convince me).

 

Let's say you have a poor neighborhood with lots of crime, poverty, little education etc. (I am assuming that is one of the most common scenarios for bad public schools). The only reasons I can think of for opening a school there are a) to make money (rather unlikely) b) as a charity project e.g. of someone millionaire (more likely but probably not often enough to make a difference overall) or c) something community based. With the exception of it being a millionaire's pet project funding would be a problem. Let's assume there is some sort of voucher system that would fund this new private school with an average amount needed to run a school. You would still have several problems:

 

- If you select the student body (e.g. take only the brightest, most motivated students) you could achieve a better outcome. However, other schools in the area would likely get worse.

- If you do not select the student body you would need to provide much more than can be afforded with an "average" school fee in order to achieve similar results as a school in a better area. You'd likely need smaller classes, better teachers, other services than in an average school.

 

I do think you could significantly improve the outcome, but it would be expensive. This is something that at least theoretically could be achieved by public schools. The government could decide to fund schools in problematic areas better. But I just can't see any incentive for a private school to do the same. The exception again being altruistic reasons/private benefactors which seems unlikely to be a solution for most places.

 

But maybe I am missing something?

[hepatica]

The free and low cost options are the IEP and 504 programs at the local public schools. A lot of people on this thread are telling me that if the public school option didn't exist, those kids would get left behind if not for the public schools, so I guess I am to assume they aren't getting left behind now or marginalized because they require more resources to educate. 

 

My post was a response to another poster who asserted that corporations don't care about education for dyslexic kids or kids with other LDs. I just looked up a couple of different corporate programs which seem to donate millions of dollars to programs for dyslexia, because Dawn asserted that they don't do this because they aren't interested in helping such kids because it isn't efficient.

 

 

What is term that is not confusing that encompasses schools in all 50 states that use government/taxpayer funding to operate and are the predominant means of educating children in the US? I prefer to use a term that everyone understands and is more precise wherever possible for discussions like these.

 

 

 

I think there is a significant difference between having an interest in dyslexic kids and having a legal commitment to trying to provide an equitable education. IDEA requires that schools provide an education to kids with disabilities and learning differences. If you are really wondering if the altruistic impulses of the corporate sector would step in and provide an appropriate education for these kids, all you need to do is look at history. I don't remember lots of corporations or corporate foundations advocating for the passage of IDEA or stepping in to fill the void when these students were excluded from public education. Some states even had laws that allowed schools to specifically exclude these students.

 

Is accepting government funding of any sort the only thing that defines a "government school." If so, that does not seem to me to be a term of precision. I suspect that the term "government schools" actually has a much meatier subtext. In other words, for the people who use the term, it is a pejorative. 

[HS Mom in NC]

 

 

Who would enforce truancy/educational neglect?  Right now this is done in the public schools.  If there are several schools around, wouldn't each just assume "Joey" is at a different one?

 

 

That's problem that public schools have not solved.  There are people who withdraw or never register their kids for public school, move to a new location, never register for ps at their new location, and live under the radar neglecting their child's education.  Then, when confronted, they lie and claim they were homeschooling even though they never legally registered as homeschoolers and never did any homeschooling. That's a nasty reality that will likely always be with us.

 

 

[poppy]

I think there is a significant difference between having an interest in dyslexic kids and having a legal commitment to trying to provide an equitable education. IDEA requires that schools provide an education to kids with disabilities and learning differences. If you are really wondering if the altruistic impulses of the corporate sector would step in and provide an appropriate education for these kids, all you need to do is look at history. I don't remember lots of corporations or corporate foundations advocating for the passage of IDEA or stepping in to fill the void when these students were excluded from public education. Some states even had laws that allowed schools to specifically exclude these students.

 

Is accepting government funding of any sort the only thing that defines a "government school." If so, that does not seem to me to be a term of precision. I suspect that the term "government schools" actually has a much meatier subtext. In other words, for the people who use the term, it is a pejorative. 

 

Background, according to wikipedia:

 

Before the Education for All Handicapped Children Act was enacted in 1975, U.S. public schools accommodated only 1 out of 5 children with disabilities.^[3] Until that time, many states had laws that explicitly excluded children with certain types of disabilities from attending public school, including children who were blind, deaf, and children labeled "emotionally disturbed" or "mentally retarded."^[4] At the time the EHA was enacted, more than 1 million children in the U.S. had no access to the public school system.^[4] Many of these children lived at state institutions where they received limited or no educational or rehabilitation services.^[5] Another 3.5 million children attended school but were “warehoused†in segregated facilities and received little or no effective instruction.^[4] As of 2006, more than 6 million children in the U.S. receive special education services through IDEA.^[6]

 

 

Without government strong arming, a lot of kids got left behind.    Would the fully privatized system be obligated to educate all?  How would it be funded? How do we ensure more money goes to children who need a lot more care? Or, do we not?

[Carol in Cal.]

Well it does happen, but it would probably happen more if some groups didn't fight so hard against any alternative to regular [non-charter] public schools.

 

Here is CA the teachers' unions fight tooth and nail against the charter schools  as well.  It's very ironic.

[SKL]

Excerpt, numbering mine:

 

1. Who would enforce truancy/educational neglect?  Right now this is done in the public schools.  If there are several schools around, wouldn't each just assume "Joey" is at a different one?

 

2. My guess is most folks clothe their children because the weather requires it... that and social norms.

 

3. Our public school gives some clothing directly to kids in need - food too - that latter one from the free breakfast/lunch program.  They don't give the clothes or the food to the parents to distribute.

 

You and I have very similar thoughts - not just in this post - but overall.  If private schools are so much better, what's stopping them now - especially since there are supposedly so many grants from wealthy people out there to fund them?

 

I'm glad they are there when they are, but if we were to eliminate public schools I think folks are dreaming to think all of a sudden there's an Ideal World out there where everything will be so much better for everyone.  I suspect far, far more less wealthy and less caring families will have access to education for their kids.

 

I certainly don't think all public schools are ideal now, but I know there are several very good ones and all kids having access to something (whether their folks choose it or not) beats several having access to nothing.

 

1.  Truancy laws apply to all children - public, private, homeschooled.  Since they currently manage to police kids not in public school, that would not need to change.  I am certain people could figure it out if they needed to.

 

2. And most people would educate their kids (assuming educational funding followed the child) because it is a need, a social norm, and a legal requirement.

 

3. Yeah, that's why I said generally.  Of course there are always exceptions, but the point is valid.  Parents have the ability and the motivation to meet basic needs (assuming there is budget for it) and our social programs recognize that.  In fact there is huge uproar when someone suggests anything that impedes the parents' right to do this.

 

General comments:  right now there are many many kinds of private schools that serve many kinds of needs, but the way they are funded complicates things.  Also, while there is a demand for these services from anyone who will do them well, there is also a lot of backlash against those who do them well.  So what we are seeing now cannot be compared to how things might be if the system were set up for all private schools.

 

I said that I felt the result of an all-private system would be mixed.  I don't believe everyone would be either harmed or neutral.  I believe there would be winners and losers, as there always are in every social change.  Who would win and who would lose are of course very theoretical at this point, and probably always will be.

 

My mom told me about how, when she was a kid, they didn't have food stamps.  They had "commodities" which were food staples given out to families - flour, etc. along with recipes.  This was changed because it was considered dehumanizing.  Treating people like they were too stupid or irresponsible to buy things in the open market, just because they were poor.    We know that some people have been irresponsible with the food stamps and children have suffered.  We also know some of the food choices out there are not so great, and for-profit companies are making money off of people's bad choices.  But most people don't want to go back to the days when the government made the choices for the families, for "their own good."  The cons are considered to outweigh the pros.  Human dignity and all that.

 

I wonder what our society would look like if we never changed that system, and we gave people commodities as well as public education because they can't be trusted with the responsibility to choose - or because the risk of some making a bad choice is considered intolerable.

 

I don't think this will change in my lifetime, but I think it would be interesting to see the effects if it did.  Unlike some, I am not afraid of the fact that humans will not all choose the same way I would.

[SKL]

It may well happen and maybe you are right that it would happen more if there was no/little resistance but I don't quite see it. Not trying to argue so much but trying to understand your reasoning (i.e. you may be able to convince me).

 

Let's say you have a poor neighborhood with lots of crime, poverty, little education etc. (I am assuming that is one of the most common scenarios for bad public schools). The only reasons I can think of for opening a school there are a) to make money (rather unlikely) b) as a charity project e.g. of someone millionaire (more likely but probably not often enough to make a difference overall) or c) something community based. With the exception of it being a millionaire's pet project funding would be a problem. Let's assume there is some sort of voucher system that would fund this new private school with an average amount needed to run a school. You would still have several problems:

 

- If you select the student body (e.g. take only the brightest, most motivated students) you could achieve a better outcome. However, other schools in the area would likely get worse.

- If you do not select the student body you would need to provide much more than can be afforded with an "average" school fee in order to achieve similar results as a school in a better area. You'd likely need smaller classes, better teachers, other services than in an average school.

 

I do think you could significantly improve the outcome, but it would be expensive. This is something that at least theoretically could be achieved by public schools. The government could decide to fund schools in problematic areas better. But I just can't see any incentive for a private school to do the same. The exception again being altruistic reasons/private benefactors which seems unlikely to be a solution for most places.

 

But maybe I am missing something?

 

I recommend the book:  Marva Collins' Way.

 

 

[Guest]

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.

Yes, there is. It's separation of church and state. Although lots of people in general would not mind if the feds distributed education subsidies to schools with a religious focus, lots of other people would mind. And religious schools generally want to keep it separate, because they do not want to be beholden to the government. They want to be free to make chapel or prayer vigils or singing religious songs part of their school environment.

[Guest]

OK but it isn't public in the way public schools are pubilc. Private does not necessarily mean for-profit (though I realize I did use "for-profit" in my post). The same holds true if you include not-for-profits. There will always be a not-for-profit industry paralleling the for-profit world, whether it's education, health care, food service, recreation, whatever. Neither for-profits nor nonprofits always do it better.

 

OK so I edited my post, because my point is that if there is a non-public school for dyslexic kids, that suggests the public school system is not serving those kids well enough and the private / non-public system is doing a better job. With special needs kids. Not sure how that gets twisted into public schools are the only hope for special needs kids.

I don't think that's the argument. I think all parents whose child(ren) has special needs would prefer they go wherever they can have their needs best met, but the argument is: some people cannot afford that option, however awesome it may be. (Or they don't live near one or whatever.) They can't access the very expensive school that specializes in their student's needs. The argument is that, with public schools available, at least there is *something* available to those kids. If it is public, it might not be awesome, but if you can't afford or can't access the wonderful private school for special needs, at least all is not lost.

[Guest]

Background, according to wikipedia:

 

Before the Education for All Handicapped Children Act was enacted in 1975, U.S. public schools accommodated only 1 out of 5 children with disabilities.^[3] Until that time, many states had laws that explicitly excluded children with certain types of disabilities from attending public school, including children who were blind, deaf, and children labeled "emotionally disturbed" or "mentally retarded."^[4] At the time the EHA was enacted, more than 1 million children in the U.S. had no access to the public school system.^[4] Many of these children lived at state institutions where they received limited or no educational or rehabilitation services.^[5] Another 3.5 million children attended school but were “warehoused†in segregated facilities and received little or no effective instruction.^[4] As of 2006, more than 6 million children in the U.S. receive special education services through IDEA.^[6]

 

 

Without government strong arming, a lot of kids got left behind. Would the fully privatized system be obligated to educate all? How would it be funded? How do we ensure more money goes to children who need a lot more care? Or, do we not?

To the bolded: yes. This was the fact that became apparent to me which ruined all my libertarian dreams. Just substitute "...lots of kids get left behind" with...well, practically any good-for-society benefit. I wanted it to be true that people choose well for the good of all, that money isn't the final, bottom line over and over and over again.

 

One small (tiny, really) example of one instance in which I noticed this truth: plastic bags vs. customer-owned bags. Several years ago, the grocery stores began selling reusable grocery bags. I love reducing waste and was all over it. "What a great idea! We can all just bring our own grocery bags and there will be far less trashy bags caught in the trees, rolling along the waterways, poluting everything." I adopted reusable shopping bags early on and started using them for practically all shopping for mostly altruistic reasons - no "carrot," no "stick."

 

Some stores around here eventually put in place a positive reinforcement perk for bringing reusable bags - a "carrot." They give a .05 discount for every reusable bag filled in a shopping trip. Well, now this was just awesome! Surely everyone who has dragged his or her feet on shopping bags will now adjust and start bepringing them, right? I mean, not that .05 is a lot of money, but it's such a simple thing to do and besides, the geocery bags function much better than those crappy plastic trash bags. However, years laters, I still regularly, routinely see people leaving those stores with plastic bags.

 

So, some stores and counties went with negative reinforcement - a "stick." They charge you .05 for every plastic bag you use. Doesn't it seem like even the die-hard unadaptable people would grudgingly bring their own damn bags rather than get charged for every piece of trash plastic bag they use? It seems like it, but that's not what happens, either. People get mad, they complain, they grumble and moan that they now get charged for something that was once free because of the "liberal wackos" who want trees not to have plastic baggies flapping in them. They still refuse to bring their own sturdy bags.

 

Now - I don't know if the plastic bags have been fully banned yet anywhere - I know it has been proposed many places, even some counties in my state. But I'm not sure if it has happened yet, but my point is, it makes me realize that some thing simply do not happen until the authority/law forces compliance. Which is not to say everyone will always be compliant once it is law, just that it is harder to ignore it or get around it if it is law.

 

Lol, I didn't really mean to talk for three paragraphs about bags! It's a point I meant to make earlier though.

[luuknam]

Now - I don't know if the plastic bags have been fully banned yet anywhere 

 

 

Yes:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_lightweight_plastic_bags