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

[Guest]

Yes:

 

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

That makes me happy. Which is weird, really, considering the Libertarian thing...I suppose I should be complaining how people are forced to stop polluting.

[creekland]

 Unlike some, I am not afraid of the fact that humans will not all choose the same way I would.

 

I'm not afraid for my own kids (grown now) or grandkids since our family values education and can afford it. We'd do fine.

 

However, I see too many kids who lose the birth lottery via their parent's attitude, wealth, disability, location, or whatever.  I know they don't have much of a chance in an all private system unless they happen to get very lucky.  I'm afraid for them.  I want to see the baseline of an education available to all and funded via our tax dollars much in the same way that I want to see basic universal health care available to all and funded by our tax dollars because not everyone gets lucky with that either.  Both education and health care should be a right in a first world country.

 

An ideal world doesn't exist anywhere.  There will always be some who fall through the cracks.  There will always be places that need to be improved.  That's life.  But I can't think of any all private system that covers everyone for anything.  Can you?  Food doesn't.  Housing doesn't.  There's simply not enough charity to cover everyone.  That's why most gov't systems (like welfare) got started.  Humans saw that private charities weren't able to help all and wanted something that could do better - funded by all.  Those systems weren't around since the beginning of time.  They came about because folks looked around them and cared about other people - then passed laws trying to help them.  It was the same with public schools back in the day.

 

I see no legitimate reason at all to return to the "good old days" that honestly weren't all that good unless one had money or was pretty darn lucky.

[Carol in Cal.]

That makes me happy. Which is weird, really, considering the Libertarian thing...I suppose I should be complaining how people are forced to stop polluting.

 

So, the CA law calls for charging for carry out bags.  Charges vary by area up to $.25.

However, bags for produce or to encircle packaged fresh meat are still available free of charge. 

I've been bringing my bags for a while now, but I don't think plastic ones are banned completely--just must be charged for.  But I might be downlevel since I bring my own anyway.

 

I carry a bag of bags in the trunk of each car, and have one at the office, and one at home. 

 

Usually I have the checker load everything back into the basket, and then decant into bags at the car.  This way I can sort things more easily and when I get home I can prioritize putting away the frozen stuff, knowing that it is all in the same bag, for instance.  It's actually pretty handy.

[Carol in Cal.]

I'm not afraid for my own kids (grown now) or grandkids since our family values education and can afford it. We'd do fine.

 

However, I see too many kids who lose the birth lottery via their parent's attitude, wealth, disability, location, or whatever.  I know they don't have much of a chance in an all private system unless they happen to get very lucky.  I'm afraid for them.  I want to see the baseline of an education available to all and funded via our tax dollars much in the same way that I want to see basic universal health care available to all and funded by our tax dollars because not everyone gets lucky with that either.  Both education and health care should be a right in a first world country.

 

An ideal world doesn't exist anywhere.  There will always be some who fall through the cracks.  There will always be places that need to be improved.  That's life.  But I can't think of any all private system that covers everyone for anything.  Can you?  Food doesn't.  Housing doesn't.  There's simply not enough charity to cover everyone.  That's why most gov't systems (like welfare) got started.  Humans saw that private charities weren't able to help all and wanted something that could do better - funded by all.  Those systems weren't around since the beginning of time.  They came about because folks looked around them and cared about other people - then passed laws trying to help them.  It was the same with public schools back in the day.

 

I see no legitimate reason at all to return to the "good old days" that honestly weren't all that good unless one had money or was pretty darn lucky.

 

I want a good free education available to everyone, and I share your concerns.

 

But I'm not completely sure of the historical argument for private systems not working.  I think that most government welfare systems got started because people's religious beliefs oriented them toward generosity, and this was presented as an economies of scale, no one can fall between the cracks if we do this kind of thing.  But that hasn't actually worked out.  Locally, for instance, there are fantastic public schools and absolutely horrendous ones, and the main difference is private donations and variations in local property values; although status of incoming students is also a factor.  Children are left behind all the darned time.  People fall between the cracks all of the time.  We have no real social welfare safety net, although we do have sections of it intact. 

 

So I can see why some question whether we should junk the whole thing and start over.  I don't think we should, but I don't think it is fair to tar all those who do with the same brush. 

 

[luuknam]

Btw, wrt unintended consequences... there are cities where you don't live if you have children unless you're planning to send them to private school or homeschool them, because the local school district is so bad. So, if those places were to have more real school choice (vouchers, w/e), then middle class people might be more willing to buy/rent houses in those cities, instead of living in the suburbs. Which would then have an impact on property values, and probably quite a number of other things. 

[luuknam]

To be clear, I'm not saying that middle class people with kids are going to move into high crime neighborhoods or w/e. But there are neighborhoods that are mostly fine, but are in a bad school district, and those neighborhoods are likely going to be in a downward spiral, as people with kids (or plans to have kids) won't live there (if they can afford to live elsewhere), so property values go down, so there's less money, etc. 

Edited September 9, 2017 by luuknam

[Frances]

I recommend the book: Marva Collins' Way.

 

 

I've read and enjoyed the book. But she was an amazing woman with a very, very small school. The odds of finding a significant number of people like her willing to work so hard for so little money are very low. And she was also educating her own children.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Btw, wrt unintended consequences... there are cities where you don't live if you have children unless you're planning to send them to private school or homeschool them, because the local school district is so bad. So, if those places were to have more real school choice (vouchers, w/e), then middle class people might be more willing to buy/rent houses in those cities, instead of living in the suburbs. Which would then have an impact on property values, and probably quite a number of other things. 

 

Doubtful as "white flight" was about more than schools.

[luuknam]

Doubtful as "white flight" was about more than schools.

 

 

I'm not saying there aren't people who are living in the suburbs for other reasons. But there are definitely people out there who would not buy/rent in a bad school district, because they don't want to send their kids to a bad school. And I can't blame them for that. I'm not planning on sending my kids to a school rated 2/10 either.

[luuknam]

Also, I'm not just talking about *white* flight. There are middle class people of all colors who move to the suburbs so their kids can be in better schools. 

[creekland]

I want a good free education available to everyone, and I share your concerns.

 

But I'm not completely sure of the historical argument for private systems not working.  I think that most government welfare systems got started because people's religious beliefs oriented them toward generosity, and this was presented as an economies of scale, no one can fall between the cracks if we do this kind of thing.  But that hasn't actually worked out.  Locally, for instance, there are fantastic public schools and absolutely horrendous ones, and the main difference is private donations and variations in local property values; although status of incoming students is also a factor.  Children are left behind all the darned time.  People fall between the cracks all of the time.  We have no real social welfare safety net, although we do have sections of it intact. 

 

So I can see why some question whether we should junk the whole thing and start over.  I don't think we should, but I don't think it is fair to tar all those who do with the same brush. 

 

 

It was presented as economics of scale because private things already being done were not covering everyone.  It seemed good to folks (still does) for the same reason.

 

Where things need to be better, work to make them better (public, charter, private, donations - I don't care), but don't scrap the basics just because there are cracks.  There will always be cracks no matter what system is set up.  Cracks are better than chasms.  We see chasms now (even on the Hive) when it comes to private health insurance.  That's not better than the cracks that are around with universal public systems.

[Laura Corin]

just like in the US :)

And the UK

[EmilyGF]

Btw, wrt unintended consequences... there are cities where you don't live if you have children unless you're planning to send them to private school or homeschool them, because the local school district is so bad. So, if those places were to have more real school choice (vouchers, w/e), then middle class people might be more willing to buy/rent houses in those cities, instead of living in the suburbs. Which would then have an impact on property values, and probably quite a number of other things. 

This absolutely would happen - I know because I live in such a city.

 

The city has charters, magnets, gifted schools (2 years acceleration), and accelerated (1 year acceleration) schools. No one in my neighborhood sends their child to the neighborhood school. Most of my friends, who all send their children to public school of one sort or another, would not be able to live in my neighborhood if the neighborhood school were their only choice. OTOH, people from neighborhoods with even worse schools are happy to send their children to our neighborhood school. It is a clean, warm, well-run school with caring staff. The level of academic rigor leaves something to be desired, however. 

 

People sometimes argue that if people who lived here HAD to send their children to the neighborhood school, it would be better. But the complicated school choice system started because the schools were SO incredibly bad. 

 

What is interesting was that this system of choice has been terrible for religious schools. Parents who were sending their kids to Catholic school for an affordable and safe option now have many free options to choose from. Many Catholic schools have shut down. OTOH, private schools which have survived have done things to make them stronger and better than the public schools, for example, offering group Suzuki classes and such (neighborhood Catholic school in this example).

 

FWIW, my K-er is going to a gifted school. I turned down slots at a dual immersion magnet (too far to drive in the direction of the traffic) and a Montessori magnet (that would have been a better fit if I had known about it when he was 3 and had applied then). He is being bused to the gifted school. Magnets don't offer busing.

 

Emily

[poppy]

I want a good free education available to everyone, and I share your concerns.

 

But I'm not completely sure of the historical argument for private systems not working.  I think that most government welfare systems got started because people's religious beliefs oriented them toward generosity, and this was presented as an economies of scale, no one can fall between the cracks if we do this kind of thing.  But that hasn't actually worked out.  Locally, for instance, there are fantastic public schools and absolutely horrendous ones, and the main difference is private donations and variations in local property values; although status of incoming students is also a factor.  Children are left behind all the darned time.  People fall between the cracks all of the time.  We have no real social welfare safety net, although we do have sections of it intact. 

 

So I can see why some question whether we should junk the whole thing and start over.  I don't think we should, but I don't think it is fair to tar all those who do with the same brush. 

 

 

It's not generosity. It's not being charitable to make good public schools. It is for the public good.    People with scorn for "government schools" will snort that they were just trying to make good factory workers.... well, yeah.  It is for the public good for people to be able to earn a living. In addition to the other obvious benefits of having an educated populace.    Just saying, it wasn't religious generosity. It was good sense.    And uneducated, unemployable workforce is bad for society in about a dozen different ways.

 

[SamanthaCarter]

Chances are pretty good that this is controversial. But I think inner city schools need to be small. Like one room schoolhouse type small. I worked as bookkeeper and office manager for a small inner city charity school. The woman who ran this was a former PS teacher who was frustrated by her inability to help failing students or effect any change to the PS learning environment. While I worked at her school my eyes were opened on how much work needed to be done with PARENTS. Keeping in touch with what was happening with them. It was messy, frustrating, but incredibly rewarding. Those kids had a safe place, were expected to take care of one another through their difficulties, and learned. Grades were combined. It took two teachers, an admin staff ( for record keeping, communication with parents, social services) and several lunch, recess and library volunteers. Twenty kids. Seems like if you could have them like that, publicly funded, until high school, you'd have a whole lot more educated and hope filled inner city kiddos.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Carrie12345]

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?

 

Right?

I just Mapquested to be accurate, but my zoned elementary school is 11.7 miles away. Zoned high school is 11.2 miles away (not .5 mile from each other.)  The only proven charter school (and only for 6th grade and up, but it's open to 4 districts) is 18.8 miles away, and our only (non-preschool) private school, which is religious, is 17.4 miles away.  There does happen to be a prep school 27.9 miles away that markets to our area, but COME ON!

 

My district has about 30 enrolled students per square mile.  Who is going to want to build (or even modify) and operate another school, let alone multiple options, in our area?  

 

My district is also in the top 10 Most Diverse Districts in the state, out of almost 500 (in the 200s for the nation of 10,626 districts,) so you'd need to find someone with an actual passion for equal access or we WILL become a segregated community.  By the way, it's ranked as one of the worst districts in which to teach in the state.  THE worst in the county.  

 

But maybe someone wants to take a swing at it?  :huh:

[creekland]

Right?

I just Mapquested to be accurate, but my zoned elementary school is 11.7 miles away. Zoned high school is 11.2 miles away (not .5 mile from each other.)  The only proven charter school (and only for 6th grade and up, but it's open to 4 districts) is 18.8 miles away, and our only (non-preschool) private school, which is religious, is 17.4 miles away.  There does happen to be a prep school 27.9 miles away that markets to our area, but COME ON!

 

My district has about 30 enrolled students per square mile.  Who is going to want to build (or even modify) and operate another school, let alone multiple options, in our area?  

 

My district is also in the top 10 Most Diverse Districts in the state, out of almost 500 (in the 200s for the nation of 10,626 districts,) so you'd need to find someone with an actual passion for equal access or we WILL become a segregated community.  By the way, it's ranked as one of the worst districts in which to teach in the state.  THE worst in the county.  

 

But maybe someone wants to take a swing at it?  :huh:

 

I'm sure it would be at the top of the list...  :lol: along with so many other areas - all of them #1 on the list so no one would fall through the chasms cracks.   :glare:

[creekland]

Chances are pretty good that this is controversial. But I think inner city schools need to be small. Like one room schoolhouse type small. I worked as bookkeeper and office manager for a small inner city charity school. The woman who ran this was a former PS teacher who was frustrated by her inability to help failing students or effect any change to the PS learning environment. While I worked at her school my eyes were opened on how much work needed to be done with PARENTS. Keeping in touch with what was happening with them. It was messy, frustrating, but incredibly rewarding. Those kids had a safe place, were expected to take care of one another through their difficulties, and learned. Grades were combined. It took two teachers, an admin staff ( for record keeping, communication with parents, social services) and several lunch, recess and library volunteers. Twenty kids. Seems like if you could have them like that, publicly funded, until high school, you'd have a whole lot more educated and hope filled inner city kiddos.

 

And these parents are the same ones others think will suddenly do the research and find the best school for their offspring - ensuring they get there, participate, care, and countless other things just like parents who belong to the Hive do.  Good luck with that.  In an area that gets lucky and ends up with a charity school like you worked at, great, but what about the rest?  There will be huge chasms just as there were prior to public education.

[SamanthaCarter]

And these parents are the same ones others think will suddenly do the research and find the best school for their offspring - ensuring they get there, participate, care, and countless other things just like parents who belong to the Hive do. Good luck with that. In an area that gets lucky and ends up with a charity school like you worked at, great, but what about the rest? There will be huge chasms just as there were prior to public education.

 

What I'm saying is that public schools should look like this in some areas. It would be expensive, because it would only scale to probably thirty students. But, I suspect inner city schools are super expensive to the government anyway. Also teachers would need to be trained differently. But no buses or potentially dangerous walks to school, relatively stable classmate makeup and teacher.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest]

What I'm saying is that public schools should look like this in some areas. It would be expensive, because it would only scale to probably thirty students. But, I suspect inner city schools are super expensive to the government anyway. Also teachers would need to be trained differently. But no buses or potentially dangerous walks to school, relatively stable classmate makeup and teacher.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How could this possibly exist, though? I'm not understanding your thinking, I guess. Real estate itself is at a premium in cities, with high density per available area. And if it's no busing OR potentially dangerous walks to school, how are you imagining the students arrive at school?

 

I mean, I think we all know that inner city areas with atrocious schools have other severe social contributions to the problems borne by the kids. The book The Other Wes Moore probed this question quite a bit: how do two kids who started in similar poor circumstances (who coincidentally had the same name) end up in drastically different adulthood roles?

[SamanthaCarter]

How could this possibly exist, though? I'm not understanding your thinking, I guess. Real estate itself is at a premium in cities, with high density per available area. And if it's no busing OR potentially dangerous walks to school, how are you imagining the students arrive at school?

 

I mean, I think we all know that inner city areas with atrocious schools have other severe social contributions to the problems borne by the kids. The book The Other Wes Moore probed this question quite a bit: how do two kids who started in similar poor circumstances (who coincidentally had the same name) end up in drastically different adulthood roles?

I see it as a school space every block or three, given population density. Yeah, real estate is a problem. I'm thinking storefront type spaces or bottom floors of apartment buildings, libraries, community centers, etc. It's a pipe dream. Bottom line, I don't think there is such a thing as economy of scale for primary education. They are human beings with individual needs, not widgets.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[EmilyGF]

How could this possibly exist, though? I'm not understanding your thinking, I guess. Real estate itself is at a premium in cities, with high density per available area. And if it's no busing OR potentially dangerous walks to school, how are you imagining the students arrive at school?

 

I mean, I think we all know that inner city areas with atrocious schools have other severe social contributions to the problems borne by the kids. The book The Other Wes Moore probed this question quite a bit: how do two kids who started in similar poor circumstances (who coincidentally had the same name) end up in drastically different adulthood roles?

Not in the depressed areas. They are full of boarded up store fronts. For small schools, space would be one of the easiest things to get as long as there was money for initially getting the space ready. 

​Emily

[luuknam]

And these parents are the same ones others think will suddenly do the research and find the best school for their offspring - ensuring they get there, participate, care, and countless other things just like parents who belong to the Hive do.  Good luck with that.  

 

Not all parents who don't participate with public school stuff don't care. But I just can't be bothered with the zillions of random things public schools want, like send in a 100 somethings for the 100th day of school, or keeping track of library books my 6yo picked out at the school library and somehow need to not get lost in the mountains of books we have at home, or the math homework in 1st grade that my kid had mastered in pre-K but is too tired to do after a full day at school, etc, etc, etc. That doesn't mean I can't educate my kid, but it does mean I have zero patience to play nicely with the public school's busywork. And yes, if for some reason my kids had to attend school, I'd put in the effort to figure out which school would be best. But school work needs to stay at school - if they need me involved, I'm going to do it myself, not micromanaged by them. 

 

How could this possibly exist, though? I'm not understanding your thinking, I guess. Real estate itself is at a premium in cities, with high density per available area. And if it's no busing OR potentially dangerous walks to school, how are you imagining the students arrive at school?

 

 

Real estate in many inner cities is not at a premium at all. From what I hear, Detroit real estate is worth zilch, and from what I know, Buffalo real estate ain't worth more than any other random real estate, etc. Plenty of places already don't have busing if you live within x miles from school - I think our previous district had no busing within 1.5 miles for elementary school? Not sure, since we lived over 2 miles from the school, and were definitely in the busing area (plus, Celery was on the short bus for most of that time, which doesn't have a minimum distance).

 

Last time I looked into Buffalo Schools, they more or less randomly assigned you to a school somewhere in the city, with pretty much all the schools being rated 1/10, 2/10 or 3/10, and then they bussed you there (which means a lot of kids are spending a loooooong time every day on the bus just because the city decided to bus them to the other side of town just for the hell of it (not for special needs or w/e, which would be different)). So, that meant that the entire city of Buffalo was off-limits, as there was no way of knowing which school your kid would be made to attend, other than a virtual certainty that it would be a crappy school. Now, I did hear something on the radio the other day about them transforming a couple of failing schools into "community schools", meaning 80% of the spots were for kids within walkable distance or something, and afaik, you can ask to be at a specific school, but the odds of that request being granted are pretty slim. The vast majority of neighborhoods are safe to walk to/from school though, IF you happen to be lucky enough to be assigned a school within walking distance. 

 

Edited September 9, 2017 by luuknam

[Carrie12345]

I see it as a school space every block or three, given population density. Yeah, real estate is a problem. I'm thinking storefront type spaces or bottom floors of apartment buildings, libraries, community centers, etc. It's a pipe dream. Bottom line, I don't think there is such a thing as economy of scale for primary education. They are human beings with individual needs, not widgets.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Well, your concept would be 1 school per square mile in my area, but I live in a private development that's more than 6 square miles of entirely privately owned land zoned 100% residential.  

 

There's a gas station deli with two upstairs apartments 2 miles down the road, but there are no sidewalks or shoulders to the highway it's on.  But I'm pretty sure the owner lives there!

[luuknam]

Well, your concept would be 1 school per square mile in my area, but I live in a private development that's more than 6 square miles of entirely privately owned land zoned 100% residential.  

 

There's a gas station deli with two upstairs apartments 2 miles down the road, but there are no sidewalks or shoulders to the highway it's on.  But I'm pretty sure the owner lives there!

 

 

You knowing zoning regulations can change, right? And sidewalks can be built? But either way, I thought that Samantha was talking about inner cities, and I'm not under the impression that that's what you're talking about. 

[Carrie12345]

You knowing zoning regulations can change, right? And sidewalks can be built? But either way, I thought that Samantha was talking about inner cities, and I'm not under the impression that that's what you're talking about. 

 

We're not a town, we're a private community.  Unless the association disbands all together, the covenants stand.

 

My understanding was that Samantha suggests it be scaled by density, to about 30 kids per building, as a way to address all levels of density.

[Carol in Cal.]

It's not generosity. It's not being charitable to make good public schools. It is for the public good.    

But the whole concept of having a public good is based on generalized religious charity in this country.  That's where it comes from in the first place.

[poppy]

But the whole concept of having a public good is based on generalized religious charity in this country. That's where it comes from in the first place.

No. Doing things for the public good is not inherently religious. Atheistic counties do things for the public good often (think universal healthcare). It fundamentally an economic decision, which was sometimes framed as religious .

[Carol in Cal.]

No. Doing things for the public good is not inherently religious. Atheistic counties do things for the public good often (think universal healthcare). It fundamentally an economic decision, which was sometimes framed as religious .

No, and I didn't say it WAS inherently religious.

But in this country it's residual religious teaching that drove it.

Kind of like Unitarians holding to a set of moral tenets but not to specific religious teachings.

[creekland]

Not all parents who don't participate with public school stuff don't care. But I just can't be bothered with the zillions of random things public schools want, like send in a 100 somethings for the 100th day of school, or keeping track of library books my 6yo picked out at the school library and somehow need to not get lost in the mountains of books we have at home, or the math homework in 1st grade that my kid had mastered in pre-K but is too tired to do after a full day at school, etc, etc, etc. That doesn't mean I can't educate my kid, but it does mean I have zero patience to play nicely with the public school's busywork. And yes, if for some reason my kids had to attend school, I'd put in the effort to figure out which school would be best. But school work needs to stay at school - if they need me involved, I'm going to do it myself, not micromanaged by them.  

 

You are a Hive parent.  By being on here you've already demonstrated that you care about educating your offspring.  The parents I'm referring to are not the same demographic - not even close.  (Demographic as it relates to education - nothing else.)

[Bluegoat]

Well, your concept would be 1 school per square mile in my area, but I live in a private development that's more than 6 square miles of entirely privately owned land zoned 100% residential.  

 

There's a gas station deli with two upstairs apartments 2 miles down the road, but there are no sidewalks or shoulders to the highway it's on.  But I'm pretty sure the owner lives there!

 

Government does have the power to make developers do certain things.  Build roads to certain specifications, guidelines for sewers, and so on.  Zoning.

 

There is really no reason they can't say, you need to leave a place for a small school, have sidewalks to make it walkable for the kids.  They could, and often really should, disallow 100% residential zoning.

 

ETA - and they can disallow certain covenant provisions as well - like some have over clothes lines and requirements for certain kinds of landscaping.

Edited September 9, 2017 by Bluegoat

[Bluegoat]

Not in the depressed areas. They are full of boarded up store fronts. For small schools, space would be one of the easiest things to get as long as there was money for initially getting the space ready. 

​Emily

 

Yeah, it kind of goes together.  Depressed areas have cheap real estate.  Non-depressed areas cost more, but people have more money.

 

And there are ways bodies like school boards can sometimes access space, too, besides the regular real estate market.

[regentrude]

But the whole concept of having a public good is based on generalized religious charity in this country.  That's where it comes from in the first place.

 

If this is indeed the case, then it is very ironic that many countries where religion plays much less of a role manage to have a more robust social safety net for the public good. 

Some rather secular societies have made the public good a priority and spend on free public education through college, universal health care, generous maternity benefits etc.

Seeing how much Bible thumping goes on in the US, the state of the "public good" is pathetic.

The statement that caring for the public good comes from religious motives in the first place is rather offensive to non religious people. 

Edited September 9, 2017 by regentrude

[Carrie12345]

Government does have the power to make developers do certain things.  Build roads to certain specifications, guidelines for sewers, and so on.  Zoning.

 

There is really no reason they can't say, you need to leave a place for a small school, have sidewalks to make it walkable for the kids.  They could, and often really should, disallow 100% residential zoning.

 

ETA - and they can disallow certain covenant provisions as well - like some have over clothes lines and requirements for certain kinds of landscaping.

 

We don't have a developer.  We don't have spec roads. We don't have police patrols, mail delivery, township road maintenance/snow removal or normal school bus stops because we don't have spec roads.  We don't even have government speed limits.  And definitely not sewers.  No public water, either.  We are a giant, private entity and ineligible for most public services because some guy back in the '30s had the foresight to protect the area from emulating a suburb.

[Bluegoat]

We don't have a developer.  We don't have spec roads. We don't have police patrols, mail delivery, township road maintenance/snow removal or normal school bus stops because we don't have spec roads.  We don't even have government speed limits.  And definitely not sewers.  No public water, either.  We are a giant, private entity and ineligible for most public services because some guy back in the '30s had the foresight to protect the area from emulating a suburb.

 

How did they get zoned in any sense then?  Just the group did the zoning?  Presumably they have to follow things like environmental laws, and such?  

 

They can't just operate like they are outside the jurisdiction of the governing bodies they are located in, can they?  I mean, if I own a bit of land, I'm still subject to all kinds of laws when I'm on it.

[Bluegoat]

We don't have a developer.  We don't have spec roads. We don't have police patrols, mail delivery, township road maintenance/snow removal or normal school bus stops because we don't have spec roads.  We don't even have government speed limits.  And definitely not sewers.  No public water, either.  We are a giant, private entity and ineligible for most public services because some guy back in the '30s had the foresight to protect the area from emulating a suburb.

 

Anyway - more to the point with the thread I guess, I suppose if people want to live there, and don't want a school built, that's kind of their own problem.  It's not really a typical situation, whether in a city, suburb, or rural area.

[creekland]

How did they get zoned in any sense then?  Just the group did the zoning?  Presumably they have to follow things like environmental laws, and such?  

 

They can't just operate like they are outside the jurisdiction of the governing bodies they are located in, can they?  I mean, if I own a bit of land, I'm still subject to all kinds of laws when I'm on it.

 

It's rare that anything already existing has to conform to what's newly adopted.  It can happen - esp if public water or sewer go on, or it's something like needing smoke detectors for rentals - but it's rare.  Most places are grandfathered - meaning they can stay as is, but anything "new" that's built has to conform to new laws.

 

It's common for hubby (who works with new development among other things) to hear earfuls from his clients about how they didn't "used to have to do all this garbage," and they didn't even as recently as a decade or two ago.  Most environmental regulations (or similar) are pretty darn recent in our country (and in danger of being rolled back according to some).

 

ps  I don't consider being considerate of one's neighbors or our planet to be "garbage," but that's a word folks looking to build often use.

[Bluegoat]

It's rare that anything already existing has to conform to what's newly adopted.  It can happen - esp if public water or sewer go on, or it's something like needing smoke detectors for rentals - but it's rare.  Most places are grandfathered - meaning they can stay as is, but anything "new" that's built has to conform to new laws.

 

It's common for hubby (who works with new development among other things) to hear earfuls from his clients about how they didn't "used to have to do all this garbage," and they didn't even as recently as a decade or two ago.  Most environmental regulations (or similar) are pretty darn recent in our country (and in danger of being rolled back according to some).

 

ps  I don't consider being considerate of one's neighbors or our planet to be "garbage," but that's a word folks looking to build often use.

 

So - say a group like this has some land, somewhere, that essentially they've bought and built roads and houses and such, and are responsible for sanitation and water  - are they then also responsible for building some kind of school?

[Carrie12345]

How did they get zoned in any sense then?  Just the group did the zoning?  Presumably they have to follow things like environmental laws, and such?  

 

They can't just operate like they are outside the jurisdiction of the governing bodies they are located in, can they?  I mean, if I own a bit of land, I'm still subject to all kinds of laws when I'm on it.

 

A guy once owned a lot of land.

Actually, many families once owned lots of land all over the area.  Zoning wasn't a thing when they did.  Mining, farming, and speaking German was.

More than half of our township is designated open space (some on purpose, some due to wetlands). Maybe just under 40% R-1.  The remaining 10-ish percent is split between minor commercial stores/businesses (like the corner bars and one gas station), one major event facility, and a handful of farms.  My local elected officials don't want to change that. Why would they?

 

Yes, we're subject to most laws, just like when I lived in a more standard town. I couldn't murder someone in my backyard then, and I can't murder someone in my backyard now.  I can be fined (by inside and outside entities) if I don't manage my waste water, and our association can be find if they (we) don't properly maintain the waterway that passes through us.  But building a school on our property would be like seizing your (general your) large backyard to build a school on it. Or to use your driveway as a parking lot.  My community has a 63 mile driveway, in a sense.

 

Letter of the law, I suppose the government could do a whole eminent domain type deal. But then our township (actually, we cross multiple townships, so that's complicated) would have to install 63 miles of proper road, hire more regular maintenance crews, take over the cost of dam maintenance and watershed management, increase police patrol hours, yadda yadda.  I guarantee they'd fight against those millions of dollars in costs, initial and continuous, just to service a rather small number of students.

[Carrie12345]

So - say a group like this has some land, somewhere, that essentially they've bought and built roads and houses and such, and are responsible for sanitation and water  - are they then also responsible for building some kind of school?

 

We pay school taxes to a public school system to manage public schools on public property.  

There are no schools in my township, unless you count daycare/preschools.

[SKL]

That makes me happy. Which is weird, really, considering the Libertarian thing...I suppose I should be complaining how people are forced to stop polluting.

 

Well this is way off topic, but it's one thing to use the bags and a completely different thing to let them fly up into a tree etc.

 

Personally I don't always remember the cloth bags or I didn't know I was going to be shopping at that moment.  But FTR I reuse and recycle the plastic bags I do buy.  I think it's over-thinking and unhelpful to make assumptions about the people you see carrying those plastic bags.  I don't think it makes the world a better place.

 

And back to the topic, I see a similar mental inflexibility.  I notice that we still can't seem to mentally separate the sources from the uses when it comes to school funding. 

 

Poor people have access to whatever we transfer to them, be it health care, food, housing, or education.  If we set up the finances so that appropriate funding follows the child to whatever school provides the services that child needs, public or private, then the argument that poor people or SN kids will lose because of access does not work.

 

I don't think we can even discuss an all-private system in this country without including a guarantee that every child has access to the education he/she needs, at least to the extent children have access under a public school system.

 

The argument that there is no motivation for people to address special needs also does not work for reasons already discussed above.  When there is funding connected to a need, the market will meet it.  Our economy is full of businesses that do difficult and often unglamorous work, without any mandates from the government.  At least working with special needs kids is often intrinsically rewarding.

 

Since we can't seem to ever see this aspect of the discussion the same way, maybe it would be more helpful to assume the government directly educates children in those categories alleged to be too undesirable for private schools to accept.  Then could a private school arrangement for the remaining kids work?  What about letting individual states or counties or districts decide the matter, or select some moderate-income districts to test the idea before rolling it out to larger populations?

[Carol in Cal.]

We don't have a developer.  We don't have spec roads. We don't have police patrols, mail delivery, township road maintenance/snow removal or normal school bus stops because we don't have spec roads.  We don't even have government speed limits.  And definitely not sewers.  No public water, either.  We are a giant, private entity and ineligible for most public services because some guy back in the '30s had the foresight to protect the area from emulating a suburb.

This is fascinating.

 

It kind of reminds of this remote Shangri La kind of pocket about 30 miles from here.

 

It is a wooded little valley with a stream running through it, very bad soil for building (mucky, sandy, no bedrock to speak of), and a bunch of uninsulated old single wall cabins for summer use only.

 

Some guy bought up all those old cabins for a song, and started renovating them into stunning homes.  The catch?  He did it entirely without permits.  And there is nothing to force those permits on him except the need for them to get conventional mortgages.  So he finishes a house, sells it, carries back the mortgage structured as a 5 year balloon payment, and tells people who buy these that all they have to do is get the permits and refinance into a conventional loan in that 5 year period.

 

Only they can't.  Because everything was done so illegally that they can't demonstrate code compliance, and also the soils are really not all that suitable for these large structures.  (I'm not sure whether the structures themselves are code compliant in general, but I have the impression that they are.  The guy is skirting the edge of the law, but not at the risk of health/safety/his license unless there is a big earthquake.)  So he generously rolls over the mortgages into new 5 year balloon ones, or he forecloses, whichever suits him and the situation, and then he does it again.

 

I don't think the houses are listed on MLS.

 

When he drive through that little valley, people practically bow down and kiss his feet, he has so much power.  It is really, really weird.

 

#dodgedabullet

Edited September 9, 2017 by Carol in Cal.

[SKL]

I've read and enjoyed the book. But she was an amazing woman with a very, very small school. The odds of finding a significant number of people like her willing to work so hard for so little money are very low. And she was also educating her own children.

 

She was a public (urban) school teacher who opened a school, and she was not just educating her own kids, but many others.

 

The system makes it so hard or sometimes impossible for people to do what she did, so I really think that is the reason we don't see more examples.  Not because she is so unique.  After all, she wrote her book to encourage others.

 

[Carol in Cal.]

 

 

Poor people have access to whatever we transfer to them, be it health care, food, housing, or education.  If we set up the finances so that appropriate funding follows the child to whatever school provides the services that child needs, public or private, then the argument that poor people or SN kids will lose because of access does not work.

 

I don't think we can even discuss an all-private system in this country without including a guarantee that every child has access to the education he/she needs, at least to the extent children have access under a public school system.

 

This is interesting, lots of food for thought.

 

So, what makes the services be available?  I mean, I get that you're saying that the money follows the child, but that is different from saying the child must have an education available.  Doesn't there need to be some kind of public option with mandates to accept everyone, for this to work?

 

To clarify, say there are two profoundly autistic children in a small metropolitan area with a population of 5000 people or so.  In order for them to get an education based on your model, the amount of money that follows them has to be enough to pay for a teacher and materials even though there are just two children in the 'class'.  And if one of them moved out of the area, suddenly there would be only half that much.  What would make someone want to be that teacher and take that risk?

 

I see that you're saying that every child should have access, and I think that it should be taken further and there should be some fallback public entity that provides that access under mandate as the place of last resort/fallback/backstop.

[Carol in Cal.]

Yes, and additionally this fits in beautifully with the small school model talked about above.

 

The fact is, most of us could dig in and do a great job just like she did.  Oh wait, most of us *already have*.  

 

All the best teaching is small and personal, I think.  

 

What we can't do anymore is make a subset of our best and brightest want to do this.  That's where we had benefitted societally for many years for making teaching the highest possible aspiration for our smartest women, which is unacceptable to me, but which did up the average intelligence and caliber of teachers quite a bit.

 

 

She was a public (urban) school teacher who opened a school, and she was not just educating her own kids, but many others.

 

The system makes it so hard or sometimes impossible for people to do what she did, so I really think that is the reason we don't see more examples.  Not because she is so unique.  After all, she wrote her book to encourage others.
 

 

[SKL]

We don't have a developer.  We don't have spec roads. We don't have police patrols, mail delivery, township road maintenance/snow removal or normal school bus stops because we don't have spec roads.  We don't even have government speed limits.  And definitely not sewers.  No public water, either.  We are a giant, private entity and ineligible for most public services because some guy back in the '30s had the foresight to protect the area from emulating a suburb.

 

 I thought the poster was only talking about inner city school districts when she suggested the small size school though.

 

[Bluegoat]

We pay school taxes to a public school system to manage public schools on public property.  

There are no schools in my township, unless you count daycare/preschools.

 

So it's a lot like a wee little municipality.

 

I guess if the state or school district wanted to set up a system where there were more schools, either, like you ay, they could set one up just for your area and perhaps pay some costs associated, or you could decide to agree, or you could not agree, and perhaps that might change transport arrangements somehow, or not.

 

But it's probably not a very typical situation where they set up a general idea about how to distribute schools.

 

In my province, the principle they work on now is the opposite - its consolidation, on a basis determined by costs.  But even then, sometimes they have to navigate special situations where the usual practice doesn't make sense - there's a school with about 20 kids, because even the school board bean-counters could see that sending elementary school kids on a boat trip every day, where they sometimes get stuck on the mainland, was a bad idea.

 

For the most part though they've been closing places like that and building big consolidated schools.

[Carrie12345]

 I thought the poster was only talking about inner city school districts when she suggested the small size school though.

 

That wasn't my impression, but I could have been wrong.

Or maybe I just love talking about where I live, lol.

[Bluegoat]

Well this is way off topic, but it's one thing to use the bags and a completely different thing to let them fly up into a tree etc.

 

Personally I don't always remember the cloth bags or I didn't know I was going to be shopping at that moment.  But FTR I reuse and recycle the plastic bags I do buy.  I think it's over-thinking and unhelpful to make assumptions about the people you see carrying those plastic bags.  I don't think it makes the world a better place.

 

And back to the topic, I see a similar mental inflexibility.  I notice that we still can't seem to mentally separate the sources from the uses when it comes to school funding. 

 

Poor people have access to whatever we transfer to them, be it health care, food, housing, or education.  If we set up the finances so that appropriate funding follows the child to whatever school provides the services that child needs, public or private, then the argument that poor people or SN kids will lose because of access does not work.

 

I don't think we can even discuss an all-private system in this country without including a guarantee that every child has access to the education he/she needs, at least to the extent children have access under a public school system.

 

The argument that there is no motivation for people to address special needs also does not work for reasons already discussed above.  When there is funding connected to a need, the market will meet it.  Our economy is full of businesses that do difficult and often unglamorous work, without any mandates from the government.  At least working with special needs kids is often intrinsically rewarding.

 

Since we can't seem to ever see this aspect of the discussion the same way, maybe it would be more helpful to assume the government directly educates children in those categories alleged to be too undesirable for private schools to accept.  Then could a private school arrangement for the remaining kids work?  What about letting individual states or counties or districts decide the matter, or select some moderate-income districts to test the idea before rolling it out to larger populations?

 

 

I think you are right that there would never be a switch to a private system that didn't involve a set up where all kids were still guaranteed access to schools and education.  There really isn't anyone who would want that scenario, or fail to see what problems i would cause for all.

 

I do think though that if every school was to be run privately, coverage would be an issue.  You can't force a private group to bid or offer to do something.  You can't even force a non-profit to do it.  I guess you could keep putting up the prince you are offering until someone agrees, but I think it would be astronomical and insupportable, and possibly prone to abuses too.

 

So, I think it's inevitable there would be gaps and that some kind of government run group or agency would have to step in for some situations.  Once that happens, I think the advantages that a private system might have become smaller - you are already needing to have certain capacities in the public sphere.

[SKL]

You are a Hive parent.  By being on here you've already demonstrated that you care about educating your offspring.  The parents I'm referring to are not the same demographic - not even close.  (Demographic as it relates to education - nothing else.)

 

This is gonna shock some people, but my high school dropout poor young urban parents made school choice decisions.  When I went to KG, their 3 then-elementary-age kids went to 3 different schools - one private, two public - based on what they felt we needed.  Eventually we were all moved to the private school.  The kids on my short low-income city street went to at least 7 different schools based on our different needs.

 

Many of my parents' friends put their kids in public school (of course, since funding did not follow the child), but I have no doubt they would have sent their kids to some school if public was not an option, even if they started out with the closest neighborhood school and went from there.

 

I think it's kind of elitist to assume that people who are capable of acquiring /accessing a home, job, vehicle and/or spouse, and daily food, clothes, and medical care to keep their kids alive until school age, are helpless when it comes to making educational decisions.  If they are indeed helpless, it is learned helplessness.

 

For those really incapable of doing right by their children, i.e. neglectors, they should be receiving services anyway, and thus they should have help understanding school choice and making attendance happen.

Edited September 9, 2017 by SKL