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

[unsinkable]

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

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

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

Thank you!

Out of respect for Quill's thread, and bc you are reading this as a personal attack when there is none ( it is not a personal attack to say your post is interesting in light of your other posts...I didn't hunt down Faith's salary, Faith posted it), I won't be addressing this.

[Frances]

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

 

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

I think it is far more complicated than assuming a wide swath of poor parents don't care about education. I think there are often unique challenges in serving certain populations or areas, not all of which can be solved by money. But wealth also buys power, and that power can be used to create disparities in opportunity even when financial resources are seemingly equitably distributed.

[Guest]

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

Well...I don't really know. The IRL conversation I was having wasn't making these distinctions. I guess I just want people to discuss whatever their experience or beliefs are. I think the person to whom I was speaking was thinking of vouchers, but I don't know if ALL places could have vouchers. I can't even visualize how that would work.

[Guest]

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

Then how would that meet the definition of "privatized"?

 

Also, the person to whom I was speaking IRL was generally against social services in the first place; that is how we arrived at the proverbial, "...and another thing, if schools were all privatized, then it would introduce free market competition, which would incentivize schools to get their acts together..." That argument.

[snowbeltmom]

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

 

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

 

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

I agree with what you are saying in regards to the bolded.  The current method of teacher evaluation and school funding also needs to change.  The teachers should not be held responsible if the students fail to do the work and don't pass.  Now, the way federal funding is determined, the states are better off dumbing down the standards so more students pass, resulting in more federal dollars. 

 

However, we do need to make sure that we have qualified teachers in the classroom, but I don't think student outcomes are the way to go. ( If the AP calc teacher in my local public school took the AP exam, I have no doubt she would fail the test with flying colors).  There should be content exams for teachers to ensure that the teachers are qualified to teach the subjects they are teaching.

 

The entire system is a giant mess. 

 

I don't agree that offering all public school students the opportunity to take AP classes would be that expensive.  This would require hiring more high school teachers, but the cost would be worth it.

[luuknam]

Well...I don't really know. The IRL conversation I was having wasn't making these distinctions. I guess I just want people to discuss whatever their experience or beliefs are. I think the person to whom I was speaking was thinking of vouchers, but I don't know if ALL places could have vouchers. I can't even visualize how that would work.

 

 

I don't see how it'd be complicated to give everyone vouchers. For example, you could give everyone with kids between certain ages x amount of money (federal and/or state money), that they can only spend on accredited educational institutions. Any amount not spent on that gets returned to the state/feds. You could make it more complicated by allowing people to spend it for certain homeschool expenses as well, or w/e, but I just don't think that the "giving everyone vouchers" part is hard to visualize. It's the response of the market that's more uncertain.

Edited September 2, 2017 by luuknam

[luuknam]

Then how would that meet the definition of "privatized"?

 

 

Well, for example with food stamps, the government doesn't give people packages of food - they give people x amount of money that they can then spend on any foods they want at any stores (with some minor exceptions). So, that still counts as privatized, for the most part. 

[Reefgazer]

I think some would get an excellent education and some would get a very poor education. Same as now.

[snowbeltmom]

I don't see how it'd be complicated to give everyone vouchers. For example, you could give everyone with kids between certain ages x amount of money (federal and/or state money), that they can only spend on accredited educational institutions. Any amount not spent on that gets returned to the state/feds. You could make it more complicated by allowing people to spend it for certain homeschool expenses as well, or w/e, but I just don't think that the "giving everyone vouchers" part is hard to visualize. It's the response of the market that's more uncertain.

 

I agree.  I wouldn't be surprised to see the market respond with an increase in tuition prices. For example, right now students who go to private school pay X.  If the government starts giving every student a voucher to attend the private school of his/her choice, I wouldn't be surprised to see the private school raise its tuition to be X + whatever amount the voucher is worth.  The only winners in this scenario would be the coffers of the private school.

 

 

[luuknam]

I agree.  I wouldn't be surprised to see the market respond with an increase in tuition prices. For example, right now students who go to private school pay X.  If the government starts giving every student a voucher to attend the private school of his/her choice, I wouldn't be surprised to see the private school raise its tuition to be X + whatever amount the voucher is worth.  The only winners in this scenario would be the coffers of the private school.

 

 

IIRC, in NL, publicly funded private schools can't charge more than a nominal parental contribution (think something like $100 or $200 per child per year). If they want to charge thousands, it's my understanding they can't get government funding (vouchers, w/e). Now, they can ask for money for optional field trips on top of that parental contribution, but it's not as simple as being able to just raise their tuition and get rich. 

 

Also, since in this scenario (the scenario in this thread, not NL) anybody could start a private school, competition would dictate that people could start cheaper private schools, so low-income people would use those. Obviously, more expensive private schools could likely offer better education (though there is a limit to how much education money buys... I think most of the gains are in being able to buy the best teachers, and the rest is just fancy gadgets that don't add much).

[AussieHelga]

Does 'privatization' mean a voucher system, where education funding goes to families, a charter-type system, where funding goes to private contractors to provide education services, or a free-for-all with the government getting out of education altogether?

 

The outcome would vary wildly in each case.

 

My experience with education has led me to believe that the link between educational outcomes, parental income and funding is a case of correlation, rather than causation.

[Rosie_0801]

Quill, because you asked for non-US comments. Probably irrelevant to the main discussion. 

 

Our system is partially privatised in a socialised kind of way. Confusing, huh? The federal government funds private schools (including Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, and secular independent schools) to the tune of $3 in every $5 they spend on education.  The states fund public schools almost exclusively.

 

What happens? The rich schools are getting richer (because they have government funding as well as their own astronomical fees) and the poor schools (Catholic schools in poor areas, public schools, particularly those in poor areas) are getting poorer. 

 

Public schools in wealthy postcodes can fundraise and donate to even up the inequality a little. Other public schools can't. In effect, you have access to a well funded education being somewhat dependent on postcode. 

 

So this happens even when the system is not privatized, but when federal funding distorts the market. 

 

I cannot see any improvement for the majority of students occurring under full privatisation. I think under that system, you would see the gap between haves and have nots widen even further. I see very little evidence currently that privatization of important services (currently, I'm thinking of electricity in my state) has lead to further meaningful choice or reduced cost of accessing a quality service - in fact, it's gone the other way. 

 

I am a private provider of educational services (tutoring) fyi. Just because declaring one's interests seemed to be required earlier :)

 

I had a friend who used to teach at a private school in a medium sized regional town. They were obliged to switch to the state curriculum for the sake of funding, and the education provided went downhill.  :glare: The parent body couldn't afford to pay enough to avoid it.

[Tap]

We have used just about all formats of schools over the years.  I don't think that private schools have it together any better than public schools do.  Every problem I have seen in public schools, I have seen in private and in homeschool. 

 

We have done:

 

Umbrella Homeschool 

Hybrid Homeschool (onsite classes-college schedule set up)

(Just) Homeschool

Hybrid Homeschool (class done at home, only went onsite for testing)

 

Secular private school ($17,000 year but dd had a scholarship)

Medium size religious private school

Small size religious private school

 

Public elementry

Public high school

Public STEM magnet within a large public school

Public school in a pull out behavior classroom

Public school/therapeutic day school.

 

Dual enrolment because ds needed more advanced classes that the high school offered.

Dual enrolment because dd needed freedom for scheduling/health issues

 

Online school to recover a credit (dd didn't get the DE class she needed, and needed to finish SR english)

 

 

 

 

 

[AussieHelga]

I had a friend who used to teach at a private school in a medium sized regional town. They were obliged to switch to the state curriculum for the sake of funding, and the education provided went downhill. :glare: The parent body couldn't afford to pay enough to avoid it.

I guess the same regulations that protect the vulnerable from complete nut-baggery and exploitation tend to stitch up innovation and progress at the other end.

[creekland]

I don't see how it'd be complicated to give everyone vouchers. For example, you could give everyone with kids between certain ages x amount of money (federal and/or state money), that they can only spend on accredited educational institutions. Any amount not spent on that gets returned to the state/feds. You could make it more complicated by allowing people to spend it for certain homeschool expenses as well, or w/e, but I just don't think that the "giving everyone vouchers" part is hard to visualize. It's the response of the market that's more uncertain.

 

The response isn't tough to figure out.  

 

The good private schools would cost more than the voucher (whether they could accept them or not).  This keeps the "riff raff" out.  There may or may not be a handful of scholarships given to academically talented (or connected) kids.

 

Average or below average schools would accept the vouchers and do whatever they could to minimize spending - cutting special needs would be the obvious first choice as many of those are super expensive.  Let those kids go elsewhere - if they can find anywhere else, that is.  If not, too bad.  Sucks to be them.

 

To attract kids and/or their parents, one would get decent sports programs, decent landscaping, perhaps hand out t-shirts, etc.  Education wouldn't get the $$ as too few parents know much or care much about the nuts and bolts of education.  They see the superficial things.  Those who do care about academics try hard to cough up the big bucks for the good private schools.  They may or may not be successful.

[bettyandbob]

There are so many issues with this.

 

-what happens to kids with disabilities. In districts that have charter schools getting vouchers for students, those charter schools do not necessarily have to provide for special needs learners.

 

-will attendance still be compulsory? How will that work for the single parent who cannot provide transportation to the one school that will accept the child?

 

I think with privatization will not affect the education of wealthy families, it will likely strain middle class families. Poor families who often do not get access to decent schools not may find that they cannot find a school that accepts their children that they can get to. I think privatization may result in some families going from poor access to education now to no accession to education. 

 

I think middle class families who now often supplement public education with tutoring, music lessons and extracurriculars, will find private schools and make sure their dc get an education, but those extras the kids get now will be dropped. 

 

Basically, privatization will 

1. have the same results in wealthy children as the current systems

2. have mixed results among middle class children

3. have poor results among most low income children (schools will compete to find the "stand out" students and make room for them, leaving the rest of the group behind

4. be devastating to children with disabililties. 

 

 

[Guest]

Well, for example with food stamps, the government doesn't give people packages of food - they give people x amount of money that they can then spend on any foods they want at any stores (with some minor exceptions). So, that still counts as privatized, for the most part.

Hmm. Well, the person I was discussing this with definitely did NOT mean that. This friend was thinking more like: say, instead of paying $1,600 through our real eastate taxes and then attending the public school of our district (which is not what I do anyway because I homeschool and private school, but anyway...), we would get our voucher for $1,600 and we could spend that at any of the now-private schools we choose. I don't know if this friend has actually though through how that would work for many different situations; even at the basic level, there is the question of transportation.

[AussieHelga]

Basically, privatization will

1. have the same results in wealthy children as the current systems

2. have mixed results among middle class children

3. have poor results among most low income children (schools will compete to find the "stand out" students and make room for them, leaving the rest of the group behind

4. be devastating to children with disabililties.

This is easy to imagine as it's mostly true of the current system, except number 4 (which is mixed, at best). Although there is currently very little incentive to seek out able students in failing schools, they get left to rot.

 

The position with extra curriculars is interesting. Currently, there is a range of subjects and enrichments offered through schools at no, or very low, cost to families. If you want something else, you pay for it.

 

If families had more direct input into schools this could change. For example, academic/arty/musical kids with no interest in sport would not tolerate funding expensive athletic programs, whilst having to pay for their own enrichment outside of school.

[luuknam]

Hmm. Well, the person I was discussing this with definitely did NOT mean that. This friend was thinking more like: say, instead of paying $1,600 through our real eastate taxes and then attending the public school of our district (which is not what I do anyway because I homeschool and private school, but anyway...), we would get our voucher for $1,600 and we could spend that at any of the now-private schools we choose. I don't know if this friend has actually though through how that would work for many different situations; even at the basic level, there is the question of transportation.

 

 

Sounds like that person hasn't really thought things through all that much, because if we're just talking about giving vouchers for the amount the person would've paid in taxes otherwise, then that's just going to benefit the rich, and be bad for the middle class and below. There's no way most kids can be educated well for, say, $1,600/year - there's a reason that everybody's property taxes go to education, whether they currently (or ever) have kids or not. It benefits society at large to have educated people, as they (as a group) will use fewer government services and pay more taxes than uneducated people (as a group).

[Guest]

IIRC, in NL, publicly funded private schools can't charge more than a nominal parental contribution (think something like $100 or $200 per child per year). If they want to charge thousands, it's my understanding they can't get government funding (vouchers, w/e). Now, they can ask for money for optional field trips on top of that parental contribution, but it's not as simple as being able to just raise their tuition and get rich.

 

Also, since in this scenario (the scenario in this thread, not NL) anybody could start a private school, competition would dictate that people could start cheaper private schools, so low-income people would use those. Obviously, more expensive private schools could likely offer better education (though there is a limit to how much education money buys... I think most of the gains are in being able to buy the best teachers, and the rest is just fancy gadgets that don't add much).

Yes, this is what I think would happen and it would basically be the same situation as we already have. For one thing, better-off families would still want to send their kids to the most elite schools, just as they already do. And the "bargain basement" schools would still be more of a catch-all for the kids whose families can't or won't spend more for the more elite schools. This is the same as what we already have right now, and even with current private schools where I live, there are some that are quite elite; very expensive schools on par with college tuition, and there are some that are inexpensive, relatively, but the less expensive ones are less likely to have many extracurriculars or extra services.

Hmm. Well, the person I was discussing this with definitely did NOT mean that. This friend was thinking more like: say, instead of paying $1,600 through our real eastate taxes and then attending the public school of our district (which is not what I do anyway because I homeschool and private school, but anyway...), we would get our voucher for $1,600 and we could spend that at any of the now-private schools we choose. I don't know if this friend has actually though through how that would work for many different situations; even at the basic level, there is the question of transportation.

 

The big unanswered question isn't whether parents can choose the schools, but can the schools choose (or reject) potential students.

[Guest]

Sounds like that person hasn't really thought things through all that much, because if we're just talking about giving vouchers for the amount the person would've paid in taxes otherwise, then that's just going to benefit the rich, and be bad for the middle class and below. There's no way most kids can be educated well for, say, $1,600/year - there's a reason that everybody's property taxes go to education, whether they currently (or ever) have kids or not. It benefits society at large to have educated people, as they (as a group) will use fewer government services and pay more taxes than uneducated people (as a group).

Precisely what I said. I said, love them or not, public schools are the reason why our functional literacy rate nationwide is over 90%. Despite great room for improvement, and much more glaringly in some districts than others, compulsory public education is the reason the vast majority of US citizens are at least functionally literate and can use basic math.

[Guest]

We have used just about all formats of schools over the years. I don't think that private schools have it together any better than public schools do. Every problem I have seen in public schools, I have seen in private and in homeschool.

 

We have done:

 

Umbrella Homeschool

Hybrid Homeschool (onsite classes-college schedule set up)

(Just) Homeschool

Hybrid Homeschool (class done at home, only went onsite for testing)

 

Secular private school ($17,000 year but dd had a scholarship)

Medium size religious private school

Small size religious private school

 

Public elementry

Public high school

Public STEM magnet within a large public school

Public school in a pull out behavior classroom

Public school/therapeutic day school.

 

Dual enrolment because ds needed more advanced classes that the high school offered.

Dual enrolment because dd needed freedom for scheduling/health issues

 

Online school to recover a credit (dd didn't get the DE class she needed, and needed to finish SR english)

You're truly the experiential expert. :)

[foxbridgeacademy]

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

 

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

 

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

:iagree: X1000

[Guest]

The response isn't tough to figure out.

 

The good private schools would cost more than the voucher (whether they could accept them or not). This keeps the "riff raff" out. There may or may not be a handful of scholarships given to academically talented (or connected) kids.

 

Average or below average schools would accept the vouchers and do whatever they could to minimize spending - cutting special needs would be the obvious first choice as many of those are super expensive. Let those kids go elsewhere - if they can find anywhere else, that is. If not, too bad. Sucks to be them.

 

To attract kids and/or their parents, one would get decent sports programs, decent landscaping, perhaps hand out t-shirts, etc. Education wouldn't get the $$ as too few parents know much or care much about the nuts and bolts of education. They see the superficial things. Those who do care about academics try hard to cough up the big bucks for the good private schools. They may or may not be successful.

I said something like this to my friend. I said honestly, many parents neither know about nor care what the actual curriculum is at their kid's school; they want and expect their kids to go to school and learn how to do the regular things (read, add, write a sentence) and be in a "normal" setting for several hours and make friends and be occupied while the parent works or does what they do. I don't mean it as an indictment; it's just true: many parents don't care what the curriculum is or how the academic program is run. They don't see it as something they need to worry about.

[EmseB]

I think a lot more schools and options would be available. The crappy ones would not survive (as they do now, often given more money because they are the worst!), and the ones that would thrive would be the ones which provided the best education at the most reasonable cost that the most people could afford. Right now we have a government monopoly on the education market which leaves most people with very little (if any) choice even if the local school is horrible, but the wealthy can and do opt out for a far superior education. So we've essentially created a huge class separation with the system we have now and virtually no incentive for any public school to be better than mediocre or and no mechanism for public schools to offer differening educational methods.

 

 

I think a more interesting (related) question would be: what if parents were made primarily responsible for their kids' education instead of putting the onus on the government? Because that's the real beef with privatization. We (societal we) think the notion of parents being responsible for that is simply beyond the pale, to the point that we don't even expect parents to have to get their kids to school themselves. We'd certainly have a society of ignoramuses if individuals were required to be responsible to provide an education for their own kids.

 

It's also interesting to me how much great curricula we see coming out based off of the homeschool market alone, which is relatively small and entirely privatized. Some expensive and (IMO) kinda meh, some really economical and amazing and everything in between. And us regular parents have to sit and sift through and make decisions on where our money goes, and some curriculum companies fail and some thrive and some are in the middle. I think a privatized education market would look something like our curriculum market does currently.

 

To answer the OP's question more generally, I don't think anyone has a real good idea of how the education market would look if the billions and billions of dollars involved in said market were spent by millions of individuals instead of bureaucratic monopolistic institutions. But I doubt we'll ever find out, so no one has to get too irate about my opinions.

[wonderchica]

I think under privatization children with disabilities and special needs will be left far, far behind. Much more than they are now.

[EmseB]

I don't mean it as an indictment; it's just true: many parents don't care what the curriculum is or how the academic program is run. They don't see it as something they need to worry about.

But isn't this begging the question? They don't care because the schools and government tell them that those decisions need to be made by professionals and they shouldn't worry their pretty little heads about it. I mean, any parent I've known to go to a local school board about a curriculum issue (which, admittedly is only a handful of people), they've been told to pipe down. They can't have any input even if they wanted to. And this has been going on for a few generations now, and the idea of thinking about how or what their kids are taught is so foreign to people because they think it's not their business.

[heartlikealion]

Maybe the ques. to be asking is what would happen if we got rid of all the private schools?

 

[Audrey]

At the extreme end -- where education at all levels was privatized completely and without any financial input from governments -- the probability of large numbers of people going entirely without education is very high.  Some families who cannot afford to pay for education might be able to provide some education at home. Many, however, would not be able to do that, though, and then there are the children without family supports at all who would be entirely without education as well.  Likely, education would return to a state somewhat similar to what is was prior to compulsory public funded education. I.e. the largest proportion of society would be barely literate or illiterate, and only the elite/wealthy and those who are able to find a way to pay for it will access education.  

 

The residual effect of something like this would be that society, as a whole, would lack the intellect and capacity to generate innovation and progress, and an inability to maintain current infrastructures, let alone create or advance them.  Infrastructure would begin to decay and eventually the illiteracy, poverty and crumbling infrastructure would push the country into a 3rd world state.  

 

At the milder end -- where vouchers are used to access schools of choice -- the probability of continuing the advance of the already fractious practices of institutionalized racism and classism is somewhere around 100%. 

[Guest]

I think most peope would open their own school and keep the money, just as when they are allowed to transport their child in return for cash they choose to do so. Middle class is already ignored so much it would be good for those children, instead of study hall and reading under the desk while remediation goes on, they could learn at home.

[goldberry]

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

 

The same thing that is happening to "unprofitable" health insurance customers right now. A game of hot potato where everyone says they should be covered but no one wants to cover them.

[goldberry]

But isn't this begging the question? They don't care because the schools and government tell them that those decisions need to be made by professionals and they shouldn't worry their pretty little heads about it. I mean, any parent I've known to go to a local school board about a curriculum issue (which, admittedly is only a handful of people), they've been told to pipe down. They can't have any input even if they wanted to. And this has been going on for a few generations now, and the idea of thinking about how or what their kids are taught is so foreign to people because they think it's not their business.

 

That's true, I've experienced it myself.  But... there are ALWAYS going to be parents out there who don't care about their children's education, regardless of any societal change. What would happen is that for those families, poverty and lack of education would become even more institutionalized than it already is.  

 

There are plenty of families who don't give a crap about education who homeschool right now, think their daughters don't *need* an education, or think it's okay to shelter their kid from every single concept in the "horrible outside world" that they don't agree with, instead of teaching them how to defend their own ideas and/or faith.  Parents "taking charge" of their children's education will not solve everything.  Some parents are just crappy parents.  Always has been that way, always will be that way.  Society has an interest in giving kids with crappy parents a minimal chance at a decent education.

[goldberry]

I think most peope would open their own school and keep the money, just as when they are allowed to transport their child in return for cash they choose to do so. Middle class is already ignored so much it would be good for those children, instead of study hall and reading under the desk while remediation goes on, they could learn at home.

 

You must be really lucky if you don't know any homeschoolers who are not, in fact, "learning at home".  This happens now.  Money might be an incentive to keep kids home, but it's not an incentive to provide a decent education if you don't already believe in it.  

[luuknam]

One thing to keep in mind though is that privatization does not mean a lack of regulation. For example, the meat industry is private, but the government regulates that. Of course, at some point in the past, it did not, and back then there were people who made sausages out of rotting meat with added lye and arsenic to make them seem edible. So, the question is, can we privatize education while at the same time putting in the necessary regulations to not have a period of "rotten arsenic and lye sausage"-education alongside with "filet mignon"-education?

[AussieHelga]

At the extreme end -- where education at all levels was privatized completely and without any financial input from governments -- the probability of large numbers of people going entirely without education is very high.

There's a lot of corporate philanthropy in education now, currently being pushed into fringe project as the bread and butter is taken care of by the government. In the event education was totally privatised I could see a rush to fill the void by the corporate sector....Google Schools for all!

 

There is just too much future power in education for it to be left alone. Highly developed countries also have huge knowledge capital (near universal adult literacy). Passing this on would be very different to trying to introduce literacy in developing countries.

 

You'd still have a large minority who'd not touch a google school in a thousand pink fits, and who couldn't afford high end private schools. Schools run by this group would be a mixed bag quality-wise, possibly arranged on highly ideological grounds. In this group you're probably hard left, or religous right, with not much to say to each other, and nothing to say to the Google Schoolers.

 

I doubt it would kill innovation. It might even boost it. It would sure kill any illusion of social cohesion.

[nixpix5]

I have read through all of these posts and love how deeply and critically everyone can think about this. I have a challenging time thinking about schooling without thinking with emotion. I grew up in a poor neighborhood and went to school in the height of gang issues in my hometown. I know what it is like to try and learn with a classroom full of kids with behavior issues that teachers cannot do anything about. It was frustrating. They had to set low standards and continually repeat basic info because nobody did their homework or came to class. My experience resulted in my DH and I sending our first two boys to an incredibly expensive private school. We were college students at the time so we qualified for scholarships for them. I don't regret it for a minute. They wanted to try public school in mid highschool so we let them. They couldn't learn. They came home complaining about the behaviors, rampant drug use, teachers checking out due to a room full of kids that didn't want to learn. We always think more money will equal better education. I have been in India where kids sit on dirt with a pencil stub eager to learn and these kids, due to their desire and appreciation for learning, learn well. One reason I decided to homeschool was because the public school in our area is full of kids with behavior issues and now we make too much to qualify for private school grants but not enough to send 3 to private school. If I had another option I might take it but it will never be our area school because it is atrocious. I feel sorry for the teachers who work there who seem like they do the best they can. I guess what I am saying is it is complicated. I do think those that value education with do anything possible to help their kids and that often looks like better funded schools and more choosing private education. It has more than funding though that needs to be looked at. You cannot make kids learn who don't have a home value system that holds it up as a standard. Teachers can do next to nothing to hold kids and parents accountable. Our system is so incredibly broken that something really does need to change. I am not sure privitization is the answer but I don't really know what is. Here is a great example of a broken system...

My son had two friends in high school. One had a high GPA but didn't get any college scholarships and his parents made too much to qualify for any financial aid but not enough to pay because his mom had been poor until 2 years prior when she got a good paying job. She hadn't saved for his college because she couldn't. He graduated.

 

His other friend was pushed through high school. Never went to class, never turned in homework. Was a nice kid but didn't care. He didn't graduate. The school tracked him down and got him into a high school completion/AA degree transfer program for free. Paid for all of his class books. He lasted a few weeks, turned in his books, got back the cash and dropped out. They once again tracked him down and gave him a second chance. Meanwhile other highly qualified friend who wants to be there is working 40 hours per week landscaping trying to scrape together a quarters tuition. Second friend dropped out again.

 

First friend told me at Thanksgiving he should have failed high school because then he could have gone to college :( He decided to wait until he turned 24 to start school so he could be considered independent. He didn't want to take out loans. I love both of these boys but this system seems broken.

 

Ok, that was a tangent. Sorry. I have learned it is a topic I cannot think about without emotion because I had more educational choices for my first boys because we were broke college students and they got need based grants. Hence the homeschooling choice now. I would love, as I said, another choice than our area school but I cannot fathom a system that would work well in the US until we start looking at all factors that play in to why our system precipitates out the way it does.

[Arcadia]

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

We have the smart balanced state exams and for my local school the correlation of state testing scores with ethnicity and social economic status is very strong both pre and post common core. My local school expects my kids to do very well in math and do average in English for state testing due to their ethnicity and gender. Stereotypes still run deep.

 

My school district is not high wealth as a whole but the money from property tax is high so they are well funded. The other day a neighbor who is a friend posted a fundraising letter and donation pledge form on Facebook for the local K-8 public school. They have a goal to raise $400,000 this year and were asking for an optional donation of $400 per child as there are more than a thousand kids in that school. $15k last year went to an outside PE program where the private instructors come in during recess to teach kids some skills.

 

In my home country, school choices mean that I could go to a convent school as a public school student because the convent school follows the national curriculum and exams and is considered semi-automous. I had catechism as a subject and attended first Friday mass when I was studying there. The bad part was that every parent wants their kids to get into the "better" school so it was very stressful for parents when applying for a seat in a primary school (1st-6th grade). It's a pressure cooker world there.

[Arcadia]

I agree. I wouldn't be surprised to see the market respond with an increase in tuition prices. For example, right now students who go to private school pay X. If the government starts giving every student a voucher to attend the private school of his/her choice, I wouldn't be surprised to see the private school raise its tuition to be X + whatever amount the voucher is worth. The only winners in this scenario would be the coffers of the private school.

I have seen that happened with charter school vendors that we like. Their main clients are parents of kids in the public charters that would pay the approved vendor out of the child's allocated funds. So their course fees went up substantially every year but people are still able to afford using allocated funds. We stop going after two years because the fee hikes aren't worth it for us paying out of our own pocket. We don't see that high a fee hike from our kids tutors that aren't on the charter school vendors list, just mild or zero fee hike yearly.

[DawnM]

I agree.  I wouldn't be surprised to see the market respond with an increase in tuition prices. For example, right now students who go to private school pay X.  If the government starts giving every student a voucher to attend the private school of his/her choice, I wouldn't be surprised to see the private school raise its tuition to be X + whatever amount the voucher is worth.  The only winners in this scenario would be the coffers of the private school.

 

 

I also think that if the government is giving out money, there would be stipulations......making possible more expenses necessary for private schools.  Many private schools don't want any government money because they don't want to be told how to run their school, which is why they started their private schools to begin with.

[DawnM]

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

 

 

You are announcing who you are blocking?  

[Carrie12345]

Hmm. Well, the person I was discussing this with definitely did NOT mean that. This friend was thinking more like: say, instead of paying $1,600 through our real eastate taxes and then attending the public school of our district (which is not what I do anyway because I homeschool and private school, but anyway...), we would get our voucher for $1,600 and we could spend that at any of the now-private schools we choose. I don't know if this friend has actually though through how that would work for many different situations; even at the basic level, there is the question of transportation.

 

Oh, yeah, that would be disastrous.

I pay almost $3,000 in school taxes, about $700 in property tax. My mom pays only around $700 in school taxes and nearly $3,000 in property tax.  I have 4 school aged kids.  She has 1 living in her house.  If we were to trade homes... talk about unequal access!  

And then how do things like apartment complexes work out?  Maybe one year they're only housing 30 kids in 40 units, but the next year a few bigger families move in.

 

I do see some idealistic positives to privatization as a concept in and of itself.  But when I play the movie out in my head, it gets ugly in so many different ways. And that's even assuming the privatization doesn't get monopolized which, let's face it, is highly likely in the United States.

 

One of the least evil negatives is empty school buildings.  I live in an area with many of those.  Our district's budget still has to pay on their loans for those buildings. They're for sale, but they're best suited for A. academic institutions and B. group housing.  Residents don't want group housing, and there are clauses to prevent academic institutions because of the increased competition they create. And so we continue to pay.  But that's trivial compared to the probable affects on low-income students and students with disabilities.

 

If there's going to be any shake up in publicly funded education, why in the world can't it be trying evidence-based practices?!?!?

[Guest]

But isn't this begging the question? They don't care because the schools and government tell them that those decisions need to be made by professionals and they shouldn't worry their pretty little heads about it. I mean, any parent I've known to go to a local school board about a curriculum issue (which, admittedly is only a handful of people), they've been told to pipe down. They can't have any input even if they wanted to. And this has been going on for a few generations now, and the idea of thinking about how or what their kids are taught is so foreign to people because they think it's not their business.

But this is what I meant by making no indictment. Not everybody is capable of, or knowledgeable of curriculum methods and educational theories to even begin to think this is for them to figure out. It's like my children's health. I am not a medical person and do not have a great deal of knowledge to know everything my kids may need medically. So I take them to medical professionals and, for the most part, I don't worry my pretty little head about it. I do care in one sense, because of course I want them to have optimal medical care, but I can't "mastermind" it; I have to depend largely on what medical professional say.

 

Debate about vaccines is like this. Parents with a *small* amount of information about vaccines want (understandably) to be able to make decisions about what vaccines to give their children and when. But this has lead to many parents choosing no vaccines, which is worse for society as a whole. The large majority of parents refusing vaccines in the last two decades have been parents with a little information and little-to-no understanding of the science behind vaccines.* The are just listening to Jenny McCarthy, while they refuse vaccines they only have the "luxury" of refusing because of the decades of parents before who vaccinated their children.

 

*I was also one of these parents for a while.

[Ottakee]

The idea of Finland is very interesting. No private schools or very little and kids all go to their neighborhood schools.

 

I have lots of concerns with privatization. Special needs is one but what about very poor areas and very rural areas.

 

Think of the areas where Kinsa lives. What private school is going to want to build out in the middle of no where for a very small group of students. It isn't like they can become a magnet for more students as the population is so low and spread out. Same in other very remote and low population areas, for profits aren't going to build a great highschool for 100 kids when they can build one for 500 or 1000.

 

What about transportation? Many rural, 2 working parents, single parents, and lower income can't transport the kids due to work schedules and/or finances.

 

What schools are going to want to build in these areas?

[Guest]

I think a lot more schools and options would be available. The crappy ones would not survive (as they do now, often given more money because they are the worst!), and the ones that would thrive would be the ones which provided the best education at the most reasonable cost that the most people could afford. Right now we have a government monopoly on the education market which leaves most people with very little (if any) choice even if the local school is horrible, but the wealthy can and do opt out for a far superior education. So we've essentially created a huge class separation with the system we have now and virtually no incentive for any public school to be better than mediocre or and no mechanism for public schools to offer differening educational methods.

 

 

I think a more interesting (related) question would be: what if parents were made primarily responsible for their kids' education instead of putting the onus on the government? Because that's the real beef with privatization. We (societal we) think the notion of parents being responsible for that is simply beyond the pale, to the point that we don't even expect parents to have to get their kids to school themselves. We'd certainly have a society of ignoramuses if individuals were required to be responsible to provide an education for their own kids.

 

It's also interesting to me how much great curricula we see coming out based off of the homeschool market alone, which is relatively small and entirely privatized. Some expensive and (IMO) kinda meh, some really economical and amazing and everything in between. And us regular parents have to sit and sift through and make decisions on where our money goes, and some curriculum companies fail and some thrive and some are in the middle. I think a privatized education market would look something like our curriculum market does currently.

 

To answer the OP's question more generally, I don't think anyone has a real good idea of how the education market would look if the billions and billions of dollars involved in said market were spent by millions of individuals instead of bureaucratic monopolistic institutions. But I doubt we'll ever find out, so no one has to get too irate about my opinions.

But why would a corporate monopoly be any better? The wealthy would still be those with options while the poor would have few or ZERO options. At least if the government is required to provide AN educational option for all, there is something. A private school has no incentive to provide education at a lower or "reasonable" price as long as there is a demographic that CAN afford to pay. That's why there already are elite schools. And there would still be crappy ones because some people would not be able to afford anything else.

 

There will always be people who cannot choose because they can't provide transportation or the single parent has to go to work.

[regentrude]

Hmm. Well, the person I was discussing this with definitely did NOT mean that. This friend was thinking more like: say, instead of paying $1,600 through our real eastate taxes and then attending the public school of our district (which is not what I do anyway because I homeschool and private school, but anyway...), we would get our voucher for $1,600 and we could spend that at any of the now-private schools we choose. I don't know if this friend has actually though through how that would work for many different situations; even at the basic level, there is the question of transportation.

 

That makes no sense, because the school system is funded also by all the people who do not have children in school.

My own real estate tax does not go very far in paying for private school. Will the childless people also get their money back? Why should they pay for the public school, but the parent of school age children be exempt?

[regentrude]

I think a more interesting (related) question would be: what if parents were made primarily responsible for their kids' education instead of putting the onus on the government?

 

Then children from parents who are mentally ill, have substance abuse issues, or simply don't care about their kids will get no education whatsoever.

I personally do not find this desirable.

 

Other parents who are loving and  functional and try to do their best but have no educational background may end up giving their children an education that is severely lacking and does not prepare them for their adult lives.

I am currently mentoring two homeschooled young adults from functional, caring families whose home education leaves them unable to pursue their goals, and it makes me sad and angry to see how parents (who tried the best they could) failed to facilitate education for those kids.

Edited September 3, 2017 by regentrude

[Guest]

Then children from parents who are mentally ill, have substance abuse issues, or simply don't care about their kids will get no education whatsoever.

I personally do not find this desirable.

 

Other parents who are loving and functional and try to do their best but have no educational background may end up giving their children an education that is severely lacking and does not prepare them for their adult lives.

I am currently mentoring with two homeschooled young adults from functional, caring families whose home education leaves them unable to pursue their goals, and it makes me sad and angry to see how parents (who tried the best they could) failed to facilitate education for those kids.

Yes. My parents were very concerned with my education but would have had no idea what's how to evaluate paradigms or modalities and without a decent (really subpar but better than reachable alternatives) public school, I would have been up the creek regardless.

[JumpyTheFrog]

We already have vouchers at the college level. They are called Pell Grants and other financial aid. College tuition is still above their level, generally, and rising. Colleges have gotten into an amenity arms race. There are also still plenty of horrible colleges that are basically drop-out factories.

 

I don't buy that it would magically work better at the K-12 level. Tuition would probably just go up steadily.

[Guest]

That makes no sense, because the school system is funded also by all the people who do not have children in school.

My own real estate tax does not go very far in paying for private school. Will the childless people also get their money back? Why should they pay for the public school, but the parent of school age children be exempt?

Yes. I wish you could have been there. This conversation jumped around from welfare to poverty to public schools to supplemental nutrition programs and all over the place.