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

[Guest]

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.

Yes, I was thinking of something along these lines. I chose a public college for my child in large part because it is affordable while still being very good.

[Guest]

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.

Keep your argument impersonal please.

 

Yes, there are states that give people money to homeschool and a fraction of those parents don't use it on more than the school of hard knocks. Same deal when the kid gets disability bc a parent is on disability...money goes to nonessentials while ed is ignored. That group is very small. The OP asked for opinion on what would happen if ALL ed was privatized. My opinion, which you don't have to agree with, is that most would take the money and do a better job at home, especially the current unwanted, unfunded subgroup at public schools - middle class nonremedial students. I also think it would turn society back into guilds, where you only apprentice out of your daddy's trade rarely...we already see this with jobs requiring union cards...because hiring qualified tutors will be as difficult as it is now, leaving the family to use its network as a resource as most are doing now with afterschooling.

[regentrude]

The OP asked for opinion on what would happen if ALL ed was privatized. My opinion, which you don't have to agree with, is that most would take the money and do a better job at home, especially the current unwanted, unfunded subgroup at public schools - middle class nonremedial students.

 

I disagree. I just yesterday talked to parents who are very unhappy with the public schooling their children receive, but they have to work and are thus not able to homeschool their children, even though they certainly would be capable of doing a better job.

 

The reality for most people is that they have to work to pay the bills. The money they would get would not make up for the loss in income if they chose to stay home to homeschool. Being able to homeschool around one's job is a luxury many families do not have. 

Edited September 3, 2017 by regentrude

[snowbeltmom]

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.

:iagree:

 

Just to go off on a tangent about how schools don't want parents involved....When my kids were in public school, a note came home in my son's backpack stating that parents were not to work with their kids at home on their math assignments because the parents would teach the math concepts the wrong way and would confuse the kids.

 

At the time, my son's class had been learning how to perform long division using the "subtraction method."  While I thought that was ok conceptually, I didn't think that should be the only way he was taught how to do division, so I was having him do long division the "wrong way" - using the algorithm. 

 

When I  ignored the first note, I received another note stating that my son would receive an F in math if he didn't solve his division problems using the subtraction method.  I responded back that I didn't care if he received an F that it was more important that he master long division than get an A in math.  (That was our last year in the public school.  I am sure the teachers were just as happy to be done with me as I was to be done with them.)

 

I am a tutor and every year I get high school students who are unable to perform division without using the subtraction method.  This was not a problem in the classroom because they can all use a calculator, but this is a huge problem on the non-calculator section of the SAT - they don't have time to use the subtraction method.  When I teach the kids long division using the algorithm, some of them are actually mad that this method was never taught to them. 

 

As another aside...homeschooling is not common in my area, and when a mom of one of my D's friends found out I was homeschooling she told me that as a mother, it is my job to make sure my kid is happy and it is the school's job to educate them.  I think a lot of parents have been conditioned to believe this and trust the experts. 

 

 

[Dmmetler]

I think a better model to look at for fully vouchered schools is child care, which is vouchered for low income families.

 

The fact is, the best programs don't take the vouchers at all-and have tuition to rival the typical private school. They are excellent, bright, sunny, well-equipped, and developmentally appropriate. These are the equivalent of the big name private schools.

 

The next tier is often also unaffordable with just a voucher, but sometimes also can offer a sliding scale based on income. They will take vouchers if the vouchers don't have too many strings attached,Almost all of these are programs run by houses of worship as a ministry, and tend to not be entirely self-supporting. They tend to be good, rely heavily on volunteers, and tend to have a mix of instructional types, with religious instruction a pretty big part of the program. They are the equivalent of a parochial school.

 

Many daycare centers (including most chains) also fit in this category-unaffordable with just the voucher, but possible with a voucher plus the parent paying a few hundred dollars a month, putting them in reach of more people, and with enough full-pay kids to help balance out the voucher ones. These are usually decent. In some states, these programs have taken heavy advantage of the VPK funding, and advertise heavily and compete for that one year.

 

After that, you start getting into the programs designed to just take vouchers. And that's where the system starts to fall apart. These programs range from decent, but the staff is overworked, underpaid, and likely to turn over frequently, with limited supplies and materials (I worked in one where we were allowed one sheet of Construcfion paper per child per week, yet had to come up with fine motor activities daily. My kids did a lot of cutting and drawing on the back of math problems sets-DH was a just graduated student and they were willing to let him stop in and collect recyclables), to the ones you hear about on the news. Many really poor quality programs that provide little beyond custodial care stay in business because they run a van and pick up kids, a major boon for a working mom, but one that also removes scrutiny of the program.

 

Based on my experiences in this system, I have to say that, even as stratified and disparate as public education is, I think vouchers would make it worse-that you would see a rise in church ministry schools which offer a quality product, but at the cost of accepting that your child will be instructed in that religion, and a rise in bargain basement schools out to get money, that sell parents based on convience. I've actually seen the latter with charters-K12 tends to sell parents based on "see, you get a free computer", without making it clear that the parent is going to have to provide the oversight and structure their child's education.

 

 

I will also say-be careful what you ask for. In the free market, child care system, parents of kids with special needs, and especially behavioral needs, often find it impossible to find a program for their child (until their child qualifies for services from the public school system). Parents have little recourse in a dispute. In PS, the parent and child have far more legal protections and due process rights. What happens in a completely private system when no school will take a child? Not all parents are going to be able to homeschool a child with special needs.

[Guest]

:iagree:

 

Just to go off on a tangent about how schools don't want parents involved....When my kids were in public school, a note came home in my son's backpack stating that parents were not to work with their kids at home on their math assignments because the parents would teach the math concepts the wrong way and would confuse the kids.

 

At the time, my son's class had been learning how to perform long division using the "subtraction method." While I thought that was ok conceptually, I didn't think that should be the only way he was taught how to do division, so I was having him do long division the "wrong way" - using the algorithm.

 

When I ignored the first note, I received another note stating that my son would receive an F in math if he didn't solve his division problems using the subtraction method. I responded back that I didn't care if he received an F that it was more important that he master long division than get an A in math. (That was our last year in the public school. I am sure the teachers were just as happy to be done with me as I was to be done with them.)

 

I am a tutor and every year I get high school students who are unable to perform division without using the subtraction method. This was not a problem in the classroom because they can all use a calculator, but this is a huge problem on the non-calculator section of the SAT - they don't have time to use the subtraction method. When I teach the kids long division using the algorithm, some of them are actually mad that this method was never taught to them.

 

As another aside...homeschooling is not common in my area, and when a mom of one of my D's friends found out I was homeschooling she told me that as a mother, it is my job to make sure my kid is happy and it is the school's job to educate them. I think a lot of parents have been conditioned to believe this and trust the experts.

Right, but you have the option to choose to homeschool and teach your kids to divide however you want. This is certainly great, and is what I chose for my own kids, but it is still a luxury that not all (or even most) people can choose, however they may want to. The point is still that all of those children are learning *A* way to solve division problems, rather than not even knowing what "division" means.

 

Again, I don't think it's conditioning for parents to believe this, just as I don't believe I have been "conditioned" to not become a medical expert so I can make my child's medical care decisions entirely on my own.

 

Some homeschoolers do a spectacularly BAD job of homeschooling and not all people who believe they should head up their child's education automatically do a good job.

[unsinkable]

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.

It sounds like you should have passed this person another beer.

[Guest]

It sounds like you should have passed this person another beer.

Well, they were driving a car and I was a passenger, so...

[Carrie12345]

I disagree. I just yesterday talked to parents who are very unhappy with the public schooling their children receive, but they have to work and are thus not able to homeschool their children, even though they certainly would be capable of doing a better job.

 

The reality for most people is that they have to work to pay the bills. The money they would get would not make up for the loss in income if they chose to stay home to homeschool. Being able to homeschool around one's job is a luxury many families do not have. 

 

Well, aside from desire or lack thereof, it also depends on the hypothetical numbers.  I still haven't heard actual numbers from the people who promote this idea.

 

My school district's per pupil spending is completely outrageous and half our students are considered low-income.  Families with multiple kids could definitely be tempted, depending on the bottom line.  

[unsinkable]

Well, they were driving a car and I was a passenger, so...

Hahaha!

 

I might have rapidly started looking for my favorite song on the radio. On all the stations. And hopefully they had about 100 satellite stations.

[73349]

The problem with private businesses is that they can quit any time, or decline to do business in an area they don't see as attractive.

We've already seen this issue a bit with charter schools: they can spend all the money and close before the school year is over, and there is no recourse for taxpayers. It's disruptive to the kids and parents. Where do you find a seat for a fifth-grader in April?

 

In an all-private system, I can see a large number of students having no schools available, or schools that are not stable. In areas with few schools, there would be no motivation to accept community input or provide a good value.

Edited September 3, 2017 by whitehawk

[Guest]

I disagree. I just yesterday talked to parents who are very unhappy with the public schooling their children receive, but they have to work and are thus not able to homeschool their children, even though they certainly would be capable of doing a better job.

 

The reality for most people is that they have to work to pay the bills. The money they would get would not make up for the loss in income if they chose to stay home to homeschool. Being able to homeschool around one's job is a luxury many families do not have.

I disagree. Being a sahp is a luxury most don't have in my hcol state. People already make arrangements for tutors and music lessons as well as independent study- often that is with a senior citizen, a person who is moonlighting, or a college student. Not having to live around a timetable that doesn't work for their situation will free the parents up to school around their schedule. And they will have experts - the teachers and other state workers who were forced to retire after 25 years, the laid off professional women who cant get back in and aren't into elder care yet, the small business owners, etc. who live in the neighborhood and can easily teach small group.

 

Some ed at home part time still beats full time sitting in classroom waiting for remediation to end.

Edited September 3, 2017 by Heigh Ho

[kiana]

We always have this idea that somehow the free market is going to do a better job.

 

But the free market picks the low-hanging fruit. It's going to grab the kids who are easy to educate. And they might very well get a somewhat superior education, although my cynicism says that they'll get a brilliant sports/band experience and enough education to not irritate the parents in most cases. And for other kids (especially poor/special needs/otherwise challenging), we'll see a return to the dame school, or children in what's really daycare calling itself a school. 

 

We used to have people who'd dropped out of 3rd grade or never gone because their parents couldn't afford the fees. We used to have people signing legal documents with an X and someone literate writing "John, his mark". We used to have people taking letters to the local preacher or schoolteacher to read them to them because they were incapable of reading on their own. As many issues as the schools have now, we don't have this happen much anymore. 

 

I'm not okay with a system that somewhat improves things for the kids who already have okay outcomes while shoving the kids who are already doing badly further down. 

 

We think that somehow the parents "ought" to be responsible. Well, some are. Some would like to be but lack the knowledge to understand that even though there are classes on the transcript, that doesn't mean the kid is learning what the transcripts say. And the idea that these would somehow be more empowered in a private school is simply laughable. Instead of trusting the government, they would be trusting the school that they're paying to provide the service that they're paying for -- if anything, I feel they'd be more prone to trust their educational provider. And some are just not responsible at all. The types of parents who don't feed their kids properly are certainly not going to somehow be educating their kids properly.

 

Letting ideology trump what actually happens is a mistake. We see this with all kinds of misguided programs (I won't get into details) where they seem like they should work, but they do not. 

[goldberry]

Keep your argument impersonal please.

 

 

You must be really lucky if you don't know any homeschoolers who are not, in fact, "learning at home".

 

Pointing out that there are so many homeschoolers that don't school very well that most of us know at least one and you are lucky if you don't....? 

 

Okay.

[goldberry]

My school district's per pupil spending is completely outrageous and half our students are considered low-income.  Families with multiple kids could definitely be tempted, depending on the bottom line.  

 

I agree. And I think people that neither want to homeschool nor are capable of homeschooing might be tempted as well.  I don't think that's a good thing.  

 

I hear *all the time* from wonderful parents that they don't have the slightest desire or "have what it takes" to homeschool.  They are still good parents.  I honestly don't think there would be a flood of homeschooling, but you would definitely see some "switching for the money" from a group that is already not putting their children's needs first.

[goldberry]

dp

 

Edited September 3, 2017 by goldberry

[Lady Florida.]

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

 

 

The Finland model sounds wonderful but isn't something we could easily follow here. There's more to it than just shorter school days/years and no homework. Finland also has free child care to cover those times when the kids aren't in school. They have free high quality preschool programs for everyone. They have a national curriculum (something that gets Americans riled up any time it's even mentioned). 

 

Do I think Finland has a good system? Yes. Can we emulate it? Not the way our society currently works, and I don't think enough people want the kind of change that will lead to what truly works.

[unsinkable]

So we should not do something because unscrupulous people would take advantage of it?

 

Is that the argument?

 

I've seen people use the reverse argument all the time: We shouldn't not help people just bc a small amount of people are unscrupulous.

[heartlikealion]

I may have shared the wrong video link earlier. I don't think the last one included this part. Fast forward to around 5 min. and they talk about how all the schools are equal. To paraphrase... the rich families go to the local schools and so their parents will want to make sure the school is great. And by having the rich and poor going to school together they are friends.

 

[heartlikealion]

The Finland model sounds wonderful but isn't something we could easily follow here. There's more to it than just shorter school days/years and no homework. Finland also has free child care to cover those times when the kids aren't in school. They have free high quality preschool programs for everyone. They have a national curriculum (something that gets Americans riled up any time it's even mentioned). 

 

Do I think Finland has a good system? Yes. Can we emulate it? Not the way our society currently works, and I don't think enough people want the kind of change that will lead to what truly works.

 

I'm sorry, I think I shared the wrong version fo the video the first time. I was trying to point out that their schools are all equal because there are very few private schools (and those are publicly funded).

 

My focus wasn't so much on the length of their days or how they feel about standardized tests. More so that no matter where you live you have the same quality education. :)

 

Of course your points make sense for why it would be hard to copy their system if we were to try to do everything the same.

Edited September 3, 2017 by heartlikealion

[Arcadia]

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

My home country's private schools are mainly for expats. Very few citizens are in private schools.

 

However the afterschooling industry still maintains the income disparity. When people were jokingly proposing closing down all tuition centers, there is still the issue of private tutors as well as parents who can help their kids in their work. My cousins helped me when I was stuck and too impatient to wait for the next day to ask my teacher (before the internet era and we aren't suppose to call our teachers except for emergencies).

 

In the US, a student is theoretically judged holistically and so national exams are going to be difficult to implement. Even the common core exams have been tweaked by each state that implemented common core.

 

Finland has its issues too including educational outcomes disparities by social economic status and gender

 

"Differences between schools are still minimal in Finland relative to the participating countries and economies, but regional differences in Finland are greater than ever before. The outcomes of students in metropolitan Helsinki were substantially higher than in the rest of the country, especially relative to western and eastern Finland

 

"The PISA 2015 scores send an ambivalent message. On one hand, Finland is still a top-ranking country in education. The decrease in learning outcomes, observed already for the past ten years, has levelled off in reading literacy and slowed down in mathematical literacy. The differences between the Finnish schools are still minimal. On the other hand, the scores raise concern for equality in education, especially for the situation with boys. The influence of the socio-economic background on the learning outcomes has grown"

http://minedu.fi/en/article/-/asset_publisher/pisa-2015-suomalaisnuoret-edelleen-huipulla-pudotuksesta-huolimatta

[Frances]

Keep your argument impersonal please.

 

Yes, there are states that give people money to homeschool and a fraction of those parents don't use it on more than the school of hard knocks. Same deal when the kid gets disability bc a parent is on disability...money goes to nonessentials while ed is ignored. That group is very small. The OP asked for opinion on what would happen if ALL ed was privatized. My opinion, which you don't have to agree with, is that most would take the money and do a better job at home, especially the current unwanted, unfunded subgroup at public schools - middle class nonremedial students. I also think it would turn society back into guilds, where you only apprentice out of your daddy's trade rarely...we already see this with jobs requiring union cards...because hiring qualified tutors will be as difficult as it is now, leaving the family to use its network as a resource as most are doing now with afterschooling.

I think it must depend on where you live, but everywhere I've lived I would say the middle class nonremedial students are generally the best served by public schools. And I can't imagine most of those families suddenly having the time, desire, or expertise to homeschool their children. I think they would take the money and find the best private school they could afford, since likely there would be a huge explosion in private options.

[Frances]

The Finland model sounds wonderful but isn't something we could easily follow here. There's more to it than just shorter school days/years and no homework. Finland also has free child care to cover those times when the kids aren't in school. They have free high quality preschool programs for everyone. They have a national curriculum (something that gets Americans riled up any time it's even mentioned).

 

Do I think Finland has a good system? Yes. Can we emulate it? Not the way our society currently works, and I don't think enough people want the kind of change that will lead to what truly works.

They also have a much smaller, more homogenous population than the US, and their teachers are some of the very top students in college. Teaching is a highly respected profession and they are treated like professionals with a great deal of autonomy and lots of time for prep and professional development.

[SKL]

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.

 

I really don't know what "privatization" of public education would look like, as I said.  Would it be like how they used to talk about privatizing social security, i.e. where the government contracts a private for-profit company to provide services paid for by the government?  We already do that to some extent, e.g. with the contracted building of school buildings, the publishing of textbooks used by the public schools etc.  Just because there are private companies making money on it does not mean poor kids don't get the benefit of it.  Who gets paid is a different question from where the money comes from.

[SKL]

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.

 

I think that depends on the size of the district / the number of kids wanting to take the AP classes.  It would be hard to justify hiring a teacher to teach a small handful of students.  In an urban setting, you could probably bus the kids to a better option or borrow a teacher for 1 class period, but that wouldn't work for rural schools.

 

I think there should be more online options for kids who are eager and able to advance beyond what their school offers.

 

My kid is one who would fail if the standards were arbitrarily high.  Agreeing that it's wrong to hold teachers accountable for that, but it's also wrong to hold students accountable for being unprepared or just plain low-average in ability.  It makes sense to teach at the level the kids are at and try to raise standards gradually and offer as many supports and alternatives as the district can reasonably afford.  It's not possible to please everyone, but maybe less bureaucracy would allow for more creative solutions.

Edited September 3, 2017 by SKL

[SKL]

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.

 

Right, it's not so much a matter of "choose our curriculum" as "choose our battles."

 

There is no point getting all opinionated and upset about every thing that you can't change.  I think that would lead to shorter lifespans.

[SKL]

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

 

 

Including home schools?

 

[luuknam]

Including home schools?

 

 

I suspect that that's the idea, yes, and realistically, that would probably mean that people who could afford to would move to good school districts (they obviously often already do, though there are ones who live in bad school districts and send their kids to private school or homeschool them). So, on the one hand, sure, it would encourage people to make sure their local school is good, since they wouldn't have a choice (other than where to live)... but I'm not sure it would really make a difference for most kids. 

 

As someone who was bullied in quite a number of different schools, I also have a serious problem with banning homeschooling. BTDT, wanted to kill myself.

[Guest]

I think it must depend on where you live, but everywhere I've lived I would say the middle class nonremedial students are generally the best served by public schools. And I can't imagine most of those families suddenly having the time, desire, or expertise to homeschool their children. I think they would take the money and find the best private school they could afford, since likely there would be a huge explosion in private options.

Here mc students in nonwealthy and nonTitle1 districts get a lot of study hall. The school district tells them to grad early, or spend senior year at the CC if they don't want five study halls. What we see is people giving their dc vehicles to drive the 45 min in to the CC and pay for the classes at their own expense, no discount or if the dc is too young to drive solo, they purchase online classes or study with a local mentor. If they had the annual 7k per pupil, it would go to purchase more appropriate classes - basically what used to be called honors level. I believe the existing teachers who moonlight but do not coach would be available and would make more money than with being adjuncts at a few different places. I also think that counties would keep their students if they would stop zip coding in low expectations and barring certain demographics from honors/AP level. I want equal opportunity.

Edited September 3, 2017 by Heigh Ho

[heartlikealion]

Including home schools?

 

 

That was not my thought, though, I suspect a lot of homeschoolers would choose to use the public schools if they were all equal. I homeschool because of the poor quality of education around me. But I wouldn't want to eliminate the option to homeschool. I think the benefits of homeschooling will vary from family to family and that it's the better option for some families regardless of local schools. It could simply be preference to spend more time together as a family. I don't care the reason, I wouldn't want to make it illegal.

[unsinkable]

I suspect that that's the idea, yes, and realistically, that would probably mean that people who could afford to would move to good school districts (they obviously often already do, though there are ones who live in bad school districts and send their kids to private school or homeschool them). So, on the one hand, sure, it would encourage people to make sure their local school is good, since they wouldn't have a choice (other than where to live)... but I'm not sure it would really make a difference for most kids.

 

As someone who was bullied in quite a number of different schools, I also have a serious problem with banning homeschooling. BTDT, wanted to kill myself.

It will be so much easier to control the populace once all the students only hear the same message.

[luuknam]

I suspect a lot of homeschoolers would choose to use the public schools if they were all equal. I homeschool because of the poor quality of education around me. 

 

 

OTOH, a lot of people who currently send their kids to religious (or other) private schools would probably rather homeschool their kids than send them to public school with heathens or other "undesirables" (however parents might define those).

[SKL]

I'm sorry, I think I shared the wrong version fo the video the first time. I was trying to point out that their schools are all equal because there are very few private schools (and those are publicly funded).

 

My focus wasn't so much on the length of their days or how they feel about standardized tests. More so that no matter where you live you have the same quality education. :)

 

Of course your points make sense for why it would be hard to copy their system if we were to try to do everything the same.

 

But if 80% of one kid's classmates are graduated professionals and 80% of another kid's classmates are borderline unemployable, the kids are not going to get the same education regardless of whether the curriculum, materials, and teacher education are identical.  And I don't believe that happens in Finland either.

 

[Guest]

OTOH, a lot of people who currently send their kids to religious (or other) private schools would probably rather homeschool their kids than send them to public school with heathens or other "undesirables" (however parents might define those).

I have only heard private school parents say they value the religious ed, the level and pacing of the public is not appropriate, the public has no classes beyond regents level, and/or they will not send their dc to a violent situation. Why should parents send their child to a school that has nothing academic for them to learn? The parents I know spend a lot of money to get appropriate academic classes in a violence free setting.

Edited September 3, 2017 by Heigh Ho

[SKL]

OTOH, a lot of people who currently send their kids to religious (or other) private schools would probably rather homeschool their kids than send them to public school with heathens or other "undesirables" (however parents might define those).

 

I have what I consider good personal reasons to choose a Lutheran school for my kids.  And yes, I would be pretty unhappy if my choice was taken from me.  I do pay for it, and I do also pay my family's share for the public school we do not attend.  I am happy to do that to support the decent education of the kids next door.  My choice of school has nothing to do with anyone else's kids being "undesirable."

 

I think we have too many stereotypes and that prevents a good intellectual discussion.

[regentrude]

I disagree. Being a sahp is a luxury most don't have in my hcol state. People already make arrangements for tutors and music lessons as well as independent study- often that is with a senior citizen, a person who is moonlighting, or a college student. Not having to live around a timetable that doesn't work for their situation will free the parents up to school around their schedule.

 

 

Afterschooling and supplementing a child's education is different than having the child at home full time.

How do you think parents are going to pay for child care while they work? 

Paying a tutor for a few hours is very different from paying for full day child care while the parent works. 

[regentrude]

, and their teachers are some of the very top students in college. Teaching is a highly respected profession and they are treated like professionals with a great deal of autonomy and lots of time for prep and professional development.

 

It's high time that we as a society started to value teachers.

I listened to a report  on NPR this morning, and one of the people interviewed was a teacher who has to work retail after school to make ends meet. That is disgraceful. 

[heartlikealion]

OTOH, a lot of people who currently send their kids to religious (or other) private schools would probably rather homeschool their kids than send them to public school with heathens or other "undesirables" (however parents might define those).

 

I don't know what percentage falls into that category, but I hesitate to say "a lot." I do think there are racists here that don't want to send their child to public schools that are primarily made up of black students, if not 100%. I have had white people bring their voice to a hush and say things along those lines.

 

I know one family that sends their children to a Catholic school. I guess to some degree that's convenient because there is not English Sunday school at their parish (just Spanish. Very few English speaking children of Sunday school age, but a larger population of Spanish speaking children I guess). Their children get religious ed during school. I used to do it at home, but have started taking ds to a further parish for classes since the ones closest to me I attend do not offer it.

 

I can't imagine the average working parent dropping their job to homeschool. I'm an accidental homeschooler. I know a local family where the mom works PT and sends two kids to the private school. I cannot fathom paying tuition for a 3 yr old. I'm thinking to myself, wouldn't it be cheaper to just stay home with the 3yr old? I just don't know that homeschooling is a desirable solution to that many people (not including those reading this of course).

[regentrude]

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.

 

Small rural high schools do not even have teachers who are qualified to teach all high school subjects at high school level.

They don't have the money. 

 

40% of US high schools do not offer physics. 

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2016/08/24/2-in-5-high-schools-dont-offer.html

 

Forget about AP - schools don't have math teachers who understand math at high school level or foreign language teachers who are proficient in a foreign language. 

[heartlikealion]

But if 80% of one kid's classmates are graduated professionals and 80% of another kid's classmates are borderline unemployable, the kids are not going to get the same education regardless of whether the curriculum, materials, and teacher education are identical.  And I don't believe that happens in Finland either.

 

 

I'm not following. Are we talking about a random child? And we're foreseeing their classmates' future? Like 8 year old Johnny is going to graduate with the best and 8 year old Susan is going to graduate with people that can't get a job? I thought the point was that they would all get the same education so that it would help shape their chances of employment, etc. I find it hard to believe 80% are that bad.

[luuknam]

I don't know what percentage falls into that category, but I hesitate to say "a lot." 

 

 

In a country with 324 million people, it's easy to end up with "a lot". I don't care to come up with a specific percentage. Undesirable can mean a LOT of different things, and was certainly not intended to just mean that some people are racist, though some people are. My point was that it's not as simple as that private school parents will be happy to send their kids to public school if all private schools are banned but homeschooling is still allowed. Some private school parents would choose to send their kids to public school, some would choose to homeschool. I don't know what the breakdown on that is. 

[SKL]

I'm not following. Are we talking about a random child? And we're foreseeing their classmates' future? Like 8 year old Johnny is going to graduate with the best and 8 year old Susan is going to graduate with people that can't get a job? I thought the point was that they would all get the same education so that it would help shape their chances of employment, etc. I find it hard to believe 80% are that bad.

 

Think about it.  If you were the teacher in a class where 80% of the kids had minimal language skills due to not being spoken to or read to and never hear adults talking about the future as if education had any part in it, some of whom are unable to sleep properly due to abuse in the home, are you really going to teach at the same level of the class across the county where most of the kids' parents are doctors / lawyers / engineers, whose folks help them with their homework and take them to tutors if that isn't enough, who listen in to intellectual conversations and have read/heard a thousand books and already have some idea what they plan to study in college?

[Guest]

Afterschooling and supplementing a child's education is different than having the child at home full time.

How do you think parents are going to pay for child care while they work?

Paying a tutor for a few hours is very different from paying for full day child care while the parent works.

Child care will be same as now - grandma,neighbor, oldest cousin, or parent. I live in a hcol state..people can't afford to pay a childcare provider. Professional couples who had dc late hire a nanny, others swap dc in the parking lot as they work different shifts if grandma isn't available. Sports is the day care in middle school.

Most people are paying for sports and tutors/appropriate academics year round. Dropping the public school for 180 days means dropping busywork, no great loss in common core only land.

Edited September 3, 2017 by Heigh Ho

[SKL]

In a country with 324 million people, it's easy to end up with "a lot". I don't care to come up with a specific percentage. Undesirable can mean a LOT of different things, and was certainly not intended to just mean that some people are racist, though some people are. My point was that it's not as simple as that private school parents will be happy to send their kids to public school if all private schools are banned but homeschooling is still allowed. Some private school parents would choose to send their kids to public school, some would choose to homeschool. I don't know what the breakdown on that is. 

 

I would send my kids to the public school if private schools were banned.  I think most private school parents would.

 

But I think the idea of banning non-public schools is pretty unAmerican.

 

I would also say that there is no shortage of racism etc. in public schools.  Public school racism (and similar) might be a factor in some parents' choice to send their kids to private schools.  Actually one of my kids' AA classmates left the school temporarily and then came back, saying the racism in the interim school was too much to bear.   Among other things, public schools statistically assume that AA children (and probably Hispanic kids too) are unintelligent and unworthy of higher-level academic programs.

Edited September 3, 2017 by SKL

[heartlikealion]

In a country with 324 million people, it's easy to end up with "a lot". I don't care to come up with a specific percentage. Undesirable can mean a LOT of different things, and was certainly not intended to just mean that some people are racist, though some people are. My point was that it's not as simple as that private school parents will be happy to send their kids to public school if all private schools are banned but homeschooling is still allowed. Some private school parents would choose to send their kids to public school, some would choose to homeschool. I don't know what the breakdown on that is. 

 

Sorry if I was unclear. I didn't mean to imply racism was the only reason. I was just giving that as an example of a way I could see your point. "A lot" is subjective I guess. I feel that the majority of parents, reservations or not, would simply use the public schools.

 

[HS Mom in NC]

If Finland truly provides the same quality education to all students, that doesn't mean all students do equally well in their schools.  I think there's an important distinction there. Isn't that the first step the US needs to address? If we don't have the same quality education in all classrooms then even children who would do better can't because they don't have quality content and instruction to work with. That's a separate issue from some children in the same quality classroom performing differently due to socioeconomic, cognitive, health, and personal issues. So we have to frame this discussion of improving education keeping in mind different categories of problems:

A.Quality school, quality content and instruction:  Some kids do well, some do OK, while others do poorly.  Who do we help those doing poorly?

B. Mediocre school, mediocre content and instruction: All kids do poorly.  How do we improve those things so it's an A type school?

Remember in this discussion that A and B are completely different scenarios with completely different issues.

Once that's sorted out (which group of problems we're addressing) we have to deal with education in a multi-cultural nation of 300 million people who value individualism is incredibly complex so we have to be careful to avoid simplistic generalizations.  Just defining "quality education" is a tall order because different people define that differently.  And that's just the beginning. All the different ideas and approaches to implementing and measuring "quality education" are staggering on such a large scale. How cohesive a society is Finland compared to the US?  Are there other countries with a large spectrum of diversity that are doing well providing a kind of education that various sub-cultures want and respect?

[unsinkable]

It's high time that we as a society started to value teachers.

I listened to a report on NPR this morning, and one of the people interviewed was a teacher who has to work retail after school to make ends meet. That is disgraceful.

That all depends upon where you live.

 

Teacher salaries vary widely according.

[regentrude]

Child care will be same as now - grandma,neighbor, oldest cousin, or parent. 

 

Let them eat cake.

 

Aside from a few SAHM families, I don't know many people who have these resources available  for 10 hours every day.

 

For many working parents, and most definitely for single parents, public school is what enables them to work a paying job. 

[MBM]

I'm not following. Are we talking about a random child? And we're foreseeing their classmates' future? Like 8 year old Johnny is going to graduate with the best and 8 year old Susan is going to graduate with people that can't get a job? I thought the point was that they would all get the same education so that it would help shape their chances of employment, etc. I find it hard to believe 80% are that bad.

 

Yes, it's possible to predict fairly accurately who will do well in life and who won't. Some of the indicators are whether a child exhibits secure attachment, the number of early traumatic events and whether they come from a home that values education. Paul Tough has written about this in his book How Children Succeed. Ideally, vulnerable children need intervention well before they enter school. Thankfully, there are some good programs out there, and in the long run, they are proving to be far less expensive than the consequences that not intervening yields.

[unsinkable]

It is interesting how many people seem to think a one-size-fits-all education system will be The Answer.