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

[poppy]

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

 

??

 

I haven't seen anyone be against homeschooling.  

[regentrude]

That all depends upon where you live.

 

Teacher salaries vary widely according.

 

Of course. Some districts pay well. But I still stand by my statement that it is disgraceful when a teacher with a full time job is not paid enough to live on. That is just wrong.

[EmseB]

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.

Why would there be a monopoly? Why wouldn't many different people and organizations open schools? Why do you think one corporation would monopolize education? Why not individuals, non-profits, a variety of methods and models? I can see where perhaps there might be an organization that emerges that runs excellent schools and is able to expand and open more schools as time goes on, but that seems way down the line. Maybe Google does open a school, maybe Bill Gates...who knows? But I don't see a corporate monopoly happening, but maybe I'm not thinking of the corporation you have in mind.

 

Right now, an hour north of me, the poor scramble for scholarship money for Catholic and private schools and lotteries into limited charter schools and the rest are left in some of the worst performing schools in the country that spend $10,000 per pupil to "educate" them when most aren't even functionally literate IF they happen to overcome the high dropout rate. That is more than a tragedy; it is evil. And those schools are among the few and ZERO options for the poor. We have no idea how that money could be used well to educate those children because the government has a monopoly on education there with no accountability if they rip off taxpayers and defraud those kids if their education.

 

Meanwhile, the elites, including those who vote to send more money to failing schools and educrats for the public good spend $20k per year or more to keep their kids out of that system.

[unsinkable]

??

 

I haven't seen anyone be against homeschooling.

The direction of thread

[luuknam]

I would also say that there is no shortage of racism etc. in public schools.  

 

 

I didn't say there isn't. 

[Frances]

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?

I think Finland provides extra support in the classroom for students who are struggling. I believe one of the criticisms of the Finnish system is that little is done for gifted students because most of the extra resources are used to support those who need more help.

 

I do think the extreme diversity in the US makes it much more challenging to define and provide a high quality education for all.

[regentrude]

I believe one of the criticisms of the Finnish system is that little is done for gifted students

 

just like in the US :)

[Guest]

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..

Why are we compellng students to attend school, then telling the family..sorry, you are a minority now so we aren't going to teach your kid anything?

 

Why can't my kid have the opportunity to take math after Alg 2? Or FL in any language before high school? I pay plenty of school tax and my compelled dc get study hall? I had 45 kids that wanted to take AP Physics, a well qualified teacher, and requested two years ahead of time. The Board refused on the grounds that the 10k they would have to allocate for the teacher would be theft from behind grade level students. They spent that money on study hall monitors, psych, and a social worker trying to get the students not to skip their 2.5 classes before they could get attendance for their 7k per pupil allocation.

[Wheres Toto]

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.

 

I know very few people who have one of those options for childcare, and those that do only have it for before/after school care.  Most are having a very hard time finding someone to watch their kids when there is a half day or full day off of school.  I doubt they could find someone for full days the entire school year.

 

I went back to work because we needed medical benefits and paid almost my entire salary for the kids to continue homeschooling with a private teacher.   Our lives would be very different if I went back to work and sent them to school all day.  I can't really fault someone for not wanting to make the sacrifices if homeschooling isn't something they really want to do or feel is necessary.   We have some very good schools around me, most parents don't see it as 180 days of busywork.

[Carol in Cal.]

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.

 

. 

 

FWIW, here in CA charter schools do have to accept special needs learners, and in fact, there has to be a plan for how they would accommodate this requirement in their charter application.  They do get around that in sneaky ways, but that is the law.

 

[Frances]

Why are we compellng students to attend school, then telling the family..sorry, you are a minority now so we aren't going to teach your kid anything?

 

Why can't my kid have the opportunity to take math after Alg 2? Or FL in any language before high school? I pay plenty of school tax and my compelled dc get study hall? I had 45 kids that wanted to take AP Physics, a well qualified teacher, and requested two years ahead of time. The Board refused on the grounds that the 10k they would have to allocate for the teacher would be theft from behind grade level students. They spent that money on study hall monitors, psych, and a social worker trying to get the students not to skip their 2.5 classes before they could get attendance for their 7k per pupil allocation.

Here it seems to be exactly the opposite. An investigation found that the extra money schools get for educating second language learners was in many cases actually not being spent for that. Even the lowest rated high schools in my city have some AP and community college classes. And while the smaller high schools in local rural areas may not have AP, virtually all have community college classes on campus or very close by (walking distance) at a CC satellite site. The CC in my city serves over 40k students through campus, online, and satellite site courses. Of course the high schools in wealthier areas of the city have many more AP classes and/or an IB program.

 

Then again, we have one of the worst high school grad rates in the country, so it's not like it's some perfect system. There is a new push to bring back votech education and that is showing some promise to help with engagement and graduation rates, but unfortunately due to equipment and facility needs, it's much costlier to do that than provide CC, AP, or regular high school classes.

[snowbeltmom]

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.

 

This.  With the internet, there is no excuse for not offering high level classes to every student who wants them.

 

[Carol in Cal.]

Here it seems to be exactly the opposite. An investigation found that the extra money schools get for educating second language learners was in many cases actually not being spent for that.

It is ironic that we actually kind of incentivize the schools not to teach ESL well, because as soon as the students are proficient in English the funding to the school goes down.

[SKL]

Why are we compellng students to attend school, then telling the family..sorry, you are a minority now so we aren't going to teach your kid anything?

 

Why can't my kid have the opportunity to take math after Alg 2? Or FL in any language before high school? I pay plenty of school tax and my compelled dc get study hall? I had 45 kids that wanted to take AP Physics, a well qualified teacher, and requested two years ahead of time. The Board refused on the grounds that the 10k they would have to allocate for the teacher would be theft from behind grade level students. They spent that money on study hall monitors, psych, and a social worker trying to get the students not to skip their 2.5 classes before they could get attendance for their 7k per pupil allocation.

 

To your first paragraph:  35 years ago, my brother wanted to study higher levels of math and science than were available at school.  He got a hold of some used college textbooks and read them in his free time.

 

Today, with the internet providing online courses and many other options that did not exist 35 years ago, it seems to me that a kid who really wants to learn (and does not have disabilities) can learn.  Study hall - there are options, maybe get a library pass or an excuse for an online course, take art or shop, volunteer in the office or just read a book.  I don't see study hall as a bad thing.

 

To your 2nd paragraph, I can understand the frustration, but I don't think your experience is typical.  While 45 kids taking 1 course would not justify a full-time salary, usually you would be able to get a shared or part-time resource of some sort.

 

I also don't think your experience of average kids being left to vegetate most of the day is typical.  On this board (or anywhere else), I've never heard anyone else describe such a bad situation in their public school.

 

As a gifted kid in a gifted family who graduated from a rural high school, I understand what it's like to be in that minority, but my family didn't experience it as a big problem.  Though, some of us decided to graduate early rather than deal with it for 4 years.

[regentrude]

This.  With the internet, there is no excuse for not offering high level classes to every student who wants them.

 

yes and no.

In many rural areas, broadband internet is problematic, so the online class would consist of reading things, because streaming video would not be possible.

Also, many students do not learn well from online classes. I teach an online section at college level, and I do not consider this a good way for schools to divest themselves of the responsibility to teach the strong students.

It is good if schools can offer the option, but it is not a replacement for being educated by a live teacher.

[snowbeltmom]

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. 

I agree, and that is part of the problem. Unlike Finland, where many of the top students go into the teaching profession, this is not the case in the US.  In fact, I have read studies that those who go into teaching, on a whole, have the lowest SAT scores of any profession. 

 

Public schools should not have to restrict their hiring to those with a teaching degree.  They should be able to hire retired engineers, writers, etc. to teach in the classrooms. One of the reasons why many private schools are superior to public schools is because they don't have to hire certified teachers.  The vast majority of the teachers in the highly regarded private schools in my area (with tuition upward of $25K a year) do not have teaching degrees.  Instead, they have degrees in their areas of expertise. 

 

 

[regentrude]

35 years ago, my brother wanted to study higher levels of math and science than were available at school.  He got a hold of some used college textbooks and read them in his free time.

 

Today, with the internet providing online courses and many other options that did not exist 35 years ago, it seems to me that a kid who really wants to learn (and does not have disabilities) can learn. 

 

As a college professor, I see every week that it is not as simple as getting a textbook and working through it. Even for students who want to learn. Students get stuck, have questions, develop misconceptions, do not master certain skills. 

It does not work at the college level, and so I have to conclude it would not work for middle and high school students, with few exceptions. I was able to learn many things from books, but there were topics in math and science where I was unable to progress without an instructor or tutor.

 

Handing students a book and giving them study hall is NOT public education.

[snowbeltmom]

yes and no.

In many rural areas, broadband internet is problematic, so the online class would consist of reading things, because streaming video would not be possible.

Also, many students do not learn well from online classes. I teach an online section at college level, and I do not consider this a good way for schools to divest themselves of the responsibility to teach the strong students.

It is good if schools can offer the option, but it is not a replacement for being educated by a live teacher.

 

Yes, but if the option is between no advanced course offerings due to lack of a live teacher and a less than optimal online option, I would want my kids to have access to the online advanced course offering even if it wasn't ideal.

 

[regentrude]

I agree, and that is part of the problem. Unlike Finland, where many of the top students go into the teaching profession, this is not the case in the US.  In fact, I have read studies that those who go into teaching, on a whole, have the lowest SAT scores of any profession. 

 

Public schools should not have to restrict their hiring to those with a teaching degree.  They should be able to hire retired engineers, writers, etc. to teach in the classrooms. One of the reasons why many private schools are superior to public schools is because they don't have to hire certified teachers.  The vast majority of the teachers in the highly regarded private schools in my area (with tuition upward of $25K a year) do not have teaching degrees.  Instead, they have degrees in their areas of expertise. 

 

We should require teachers to get a degree in their area of expertise. Teaching certification and education classes are useless if the math teacher has not actually mastered math beyond what she has to teach, or if the Spanish teacher is not actually fluent in Spanish.

So, instead of the students who flunk out of their major going into teaching, we should have the students who can hack their major become teachers.

Edited September 3, 2017 by regentrude

[SKL]

Well it goes back to my statement that our model of public education is not personalized.  It's not Amazon.com where you can find the exact thing to suit each person's abilities and interests.

[Frances]

To your first paragraph: 35 years ago, my brother wanted to study higher levels of math and science than were available at school. He got a hold of some used college textbooks and read them in his free time.

 

Today, with the internet providing online courses and many other options that did not exist 35 years ago, it seems to me that a kid who really wants to learn (and does not have disabilities) can learn. Study hall - there are options, maybe get a library pass or an excuse for an online course, take art or shop, volunteer in the office or just read a book. I don't see study hall as a bad thing.

 

To your 2nd paragraph, I can understand the frustration, but I don't think your experience is typical. While 45 kids taking 1 course would not justify a full-time salary, usually you would be able to get a shared or part-time resource of some sort.

 

I also don't think your experience of average kids being left to vegetate most of the day is typical. On this board (or anywhere else), I've never heard anyone else describe such a bad situation in their public school.

 

As a gifted kid in a gifted family who graduated from a rural high school, I understand what it's like to be in that minority, but my family didn't experience it as a big problem. Though, some of us decided to graduate early rather than deal with it for 4 years.

I agree. I also went to a small rural high school and never even heard of AP or IB until I got to college. My high school had physics, but not calculus. I got a basic, decent high school education and like most of my classmates, actively participated in extracurriculars. Three of us in my graduating class of 60 eventually went on to top PhD programs in math/science. My husband went to a very similar, though slightly larger school, and he has both a chemistry PhD and a PharmD. The owner of the company I used to work for had a PhD in physics and an MD. His dad was killed in a logging accident and when his mom moved the family to town, he went to a large public votech high school with just regular academic classes.

 

While it would be ideal if schools could meet the needs of all students, it does seem that today the internet makes accessing resources for the unmet needs of gifted students much more possible.

Edited September 3, 2017 by Frances

[SKL]

I agree that we might be on the wrong track regarding what we require teachers to know.

 

My kids tell me that their Spanish teacher pronounces words wrong.  My kids can tell because they have heard Spanish speakers; the other students have no idea and will go to high school / college all confused.  Just one example of course.

[Guest]

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.

You don't live in an area that has had a massive population influx. Every barn, every garage, whatever has been converted into housing here. People are living one family to a bedroom, or its multigeneration. Many adults are in the household - single mom cannot afford her own place unless she is section 8 - and workshifts can be 12 hr shifts here with a 45 min to 2 hr commute if they aren't farmhands or school district employees. Everyone helps with the dc, especially the oldest dc ( I used to babysit for free so my neighbor teen could have an hour to finish her hw rather than wait for the house to cool off and little ones to fall asleep) and grandma. The schools adjust individual high school schedules so older kids can pick up or drop off youngers, whatever works for the fam. School is only 180 days over ten months...roughly 18 of 30 days each month, 60% of the days. Its in session for 7 hrs, and offers before care 2 hrs before and after care till 6 pm. Unworkable for most as their 12 hr shift, or their dawn to dusk job doesn't allow them to utilize it daycare on the days it is in session. Grandma and the older teens do daycare. School is for academics and stretching the food budget, especially if grandma does not have an education. Our teachers homeschool their own children, or use a religious private. Edited September 3, 2017 by Heigh Ho

[Carol in Cal.]

I think that there is no simple answer to the spotty education quality in the US.

Everything that has been tried has caused problems, often more serious ones than what was trying to be corrected.

The law of unintended consequences is brutal in public education.

 

There are some things that would help across the board, and I think they should be done:

 

1.  Get rid of the Windfall Elimination Tax.  That would eliminate the permanent financial penalty for second career or late entry folks going into teaching, which means that we would have more seasoned, mature folks doing that late in life when they might have more to offer than they did in their twenties.

 

2.  Increase the deduction of income taxation on individuals to a meaningful level that includes some tax credits as well.  This would increase the disposable income of people with large families and small, and help make it reasonable to put more time and energy into kids' education at home, homeschooling or not.

 

3.  Reduce the kneejerk commitment to mainstreaming of special needs kids, which has swung too far to the detriment of everyone.  Federally fund special needs support of all kinds, including research, education, and medical/ADL support.  We should take care of our most vulnerable in a way that is appropriate to their capabilities, neither abusive nor overly hands off.  Stop the dang pendulum swings to extremes, none of which are truly workable.

 

4.  From a policy standpoint, encourage free and appropriate education availability through the community college level, and discourage elaborate and top heavy public school burocracies.  I don't know how to accomplish this, but they should be the goals and they should be stated and restated.  When we state our ideals, good ideas do bubble up.  Additionally, teach parental authority and responsibility for their kids.  Too many educators think that they are the experts and should be able to deny the kids' parents access to their schools, their teaching materials, and their kids' results.  This is wrong and unacceptable.  Furthermore, from a policy standpoint, teaching parents that they are responsible might be news to some of them, and can be a factor in them stepping up.

 

5.  Similarly, from a public adult education perspective, teach folks how to help their kids.  This is something that good people sometimes want to do but don't know how to do, and also that others who are done with child raising will be inspired to step in and help with as well. 

 

6.  Additionally, from a public education perspective, teach respect for the teaching profession to the public.  We have never recovered from the Pink Collar Ghetto opening up and letting the best and brightest women, who used to be channeled into teaching, having broader and more lucrative opportunities opened up to them.  That was a good move for many but raising the pay and respect afforded to teaching needs to happen in order to attract more excellent, well-informed people into that profession.

 

I realize that none of these things address the original question directly, but IMV they establish a framework in which successful education reform of various stripes could proceed, and in which kids would not get lost in the transition in the meantime.

Edited September 3, 2017 by Carol in Cal.

[kiwik]

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.

The vast majority of NZ schools have become 'integrated' with the state system. Salaries and general expenses are paid by the state and the buildings are owned privately. A fee is charged to the building owners by the students ($420 a year in our case) but apart from that legally they can only ask for a donation like public schools. Some cheat though ($8000 for compulsory lunches, $5000 book fee etc) but they usually get caught. We have two private schools in my city - both just the 2 year intermediate period, one boys and one girls. A voucher system would probably work for me but there are so many people struggling to negotiate society with no English or minimal literacy and it would just be another burden.

 

Eta. We have a system where schools in poorer areas are given more money than those in richer areas to try and balance things. It doesn't really work and is about to be changed but it was a genuine attempt and I think our schools are more consistent than most western countries.

[HS Mom in NC]

I agree that we might be on the wrong track regarding what we require teachers to know.

 

My kids tell me that their Spanish teacher pronounces words wrong.  My kids can tell because they have heard Spanish speakers; the other students have no idea and will go to high school / college all confused.  Just one example of course.

 

Maybe.  Maybe not.  I would question the authority of a kid in a Spanish class over a Spanish teacher.

 

I live in the PHX area.  Many people around here speak what is sometimes called "Border Spanish."  Like English, languages spoken over vast expanses of the world develop their own pronunciations other distinctives. They all have formal academic "textbook" versions and less formal every day, real life on the streets versions. If textbook English you'll learn going to.  On the streets you'll hear native speakers of American English say gonna.  My Spanish teacher in Jr. High here in AZ learned Spanish from textbooks in classrooms in Alabama.  Kids teased her about her accent all the time because we had about a 40% Hispanic population mostly from Mexico and a few from Guatemala.  The farther south they were from, the more their Spanish changed.  Even people who aren't fluent can pick up on it after a while.  I used to be able to distinguish between real Mexican Spanish and textbook Spanish within a sentence or two.

 

I have a friend whose family are immigrants from Spain.  Her brother-in-law is married to an immigrant from Mexico.  Different pronunciations in their forms of Spanish are instantly recognizable and are loaded with prejudice.  When he's around her circles of friends and family, he speaks Spanish with Mexican pronunciations.  When he's around his circles of friends and family he speaks Spanish with Spanish pronunciations. 

 

[Bootsie]

DH and I both received good public school educations.  Neither one of us had any AP or dual enrollment classes.  I did have an "honors biology" class in 10th grade-the only honors class offered at the high school.  We had an advanced math class, but no class devoted to calculus.  We received a much better education than many students I see who have a high school transcript full of AP and DE courses.  We learned the basics very well, and we learned how to learn.

 

Although I was once a big proponent of public education, my views have been changing.  One of the major issues that I have seen in the places where I have lived is that the school boards and districts have grown such that the role that they are playing in society is far beyond that of education.  They have become food programs, security officers, athletic organizations, health care providers, social workers, cyber communication monitors, etc.  I think those added responsibilities distract from the responsibility of education, and I think that it is dangerous to concentrate so much power in one organization.      

 

Leading up to the US Presidential election, one of my local school districts, helped those students who were 18 register to vote and then on election day, they got on a bus with their teachers and went to vote (during the school day).  I think that this is an inappropriate role for public employees and an inappropriate use of taxpayer dollars.  

 

I also have problems with the logic that having more school choice or a voucher system would result in a large number of kids receiving a poor education because their parents do not have the ability to distinguish between a poor and a quality education.   Many of those parents were educated in the US public school system.  If they are truly unable to determine the quality of the education, then they are unable to hold the school districts accountable for good schools.   

[hepatica]

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

 

It is so much easier to control the populace when the populace is ignorant and uneducated.

[unsinkable]

Well it goes back to my statement that our model of public education is not personalized. It's not Amazon.com where you can find the exact thing to suit each person's abilities and interests.

It's not, and it won't be. It is completely going in the other direction. Look at this thread! Anything outside the "norm" is figuratively urinated upon.

[hepatica]

We should require teachers to get a degree in their area of expertise. Teaching certification and education classes are useless if the math teacher has not actually mastered math beyond what she has to teach, or if the Spanish teacher is not actually fluent in Spanish.

So, instead of the students who flunk out of their major going into teaching, we should have the students who can hack their major become teachers.

 

This is pretty much the model for elite private schools. They hire history majors, math majors, english majors and science majors to teach history, math, english and science. Now, new teachers do need some mentoring since they have not thought at all about the art of teaching. But, most elite private schools have some sort of system for bringing in novice teachers and breaking them in gently (of course they are not dealing with the same sort of classroom management issues that many public school teachers face). They also sometimes drop the ball on dealing with learning differences, but they are getting better at that. 

 

Countries with really successful teachers do both. Teachers are skilled in their field and then attend teacher college type programs to learn to teach. This is not rocket science. I often feel this debate in the US is similar to the heath care debate. We act like doing these things is not possible, or that no one has any idea how to do it, when all we have to do is look around and be willing to learn from the countries who are already doing it well.

[Carol in Cal.]

It's not, and it won't be. It is completely going in the other direction. Look at this thread! Anything outside the "norm" is figuratively urinated upon.

 

But there are models that could be individualized.

 

SRA was an early attempt to individualize reading speed and comprehension education.  (I hated it but that's another story.)

 

My paternal grandmother taught in a one room K or 1-8 school house until she got married.  Each kid learned at their own level. 

 

Remember the old spellers, that you worked through at your own pace?

 

There are ways to individualize education, but I think they pretty much work with only non-special needs kids, where most or all of the kids speak English well, and where all of the kids are reasonably well behaved.  Reasonable class sizes are important as well.

 

I don't agree with just sitting a child in front of a computer, or I'd mention K12.  I don't think that is a good option for this though.  Kids need to learn in relationship contexts.

 

[Guest]

Why would there be a monopoly? Why wouldn't many different people and organizations open schools? Why do you think one corporation would monopolize education? Why not individuals, non-profits, a variety of methods and models? I can see where perhaps there might be an organization that emerges that runs excellent schools and is able to expand and open more schools as time goes on, but that seems way down the line. Maybe Google does open a school, maybe Bill Gates...who knows? But I don't see a corporate monopoly happening, but maybe I'm not thinking of the corporation you have in mind.

 

Right now, an hour north of me, the poor scramble for scholarship money for Catholic and private schools and lotteries into limited charter schools and the rest are left in some of the worst performing schools in the country that spend $10,000 per pupil to "educate" them when most aren't even functionally literate IF they happen to overcome the high dropout rate. That is more than a tragedy; it is evil. And those schools are among the few and ZERO options for the poor. We have no idea how that money could be used well to educate those children because the government has a monopoly on education there with no accountability if they rip off taxpayers and defraud those kids if their education.

 

Meanwhile, the elites, including those who vote to send more money to failing schools and educrats for the public good spend $20k per year or more to keep their kids out of that system.

Why would you think only people with altruistic motives would open schools? Why would you think schools that can charge $10,000 a student would be motivated to accept difficult students, students who can't pay that, students who don't fit the ideology of the school? Even the private school I have been using for my kids through high school has both increased the tuition every year AND is turning down more students than they used to (I think 20% of applicants last year). They do this because they can. It is a good school and is desirable, so they frankly have no impetus to accept students that will not help their image.

 

By corporate monopoly, I do not mean one corporation, although something like that would be possible; i.e., Google school. I meant when you provide a service which is desirable for every child and there is no way for the student to obtain it except to pay, you have a monopoly. The price can be practically whatever the business people desire it to be. We already know this does happen; we see it at the college level.

 

I want my daughter to complete college. There were different choices we could make regarding expense, everything from using community college as much as we could, to using an in-state public (and within THAT category, there is a range from a $6,000/year tuition to a $14,000/year tuition), or on to private colleges, some of which could be $60,000/year. We can afford to do this, although we chose a less-expensive option (in-state public). But no matter what route we chose, we have to somehow pay for that. This is sort of okay, I guess; it's four years and, while I consider it really inportant, it's not strictly necessary. But what if this were true for every child's PRIMARY education?

 

I have already seen the drawbacks of the non-public models used at homeschool co-ops. The teachers get paid pennies. They are not bound to carry out the class and it is possible they will bail; I have seen it happen and it is sometimes unavoidable. If there is no available teacher within the co-op system who can teach Chemistry then there simply will not be chemistry at co-op that year. The drawbacks of the co-op model was a factor in my decision not to homeschool high school. I wanted amenities that are only available at B&M school.

 

I am one of those lucky people who really does have educational choice, because we can functionally live on one earner's income. Our public school district is quite excellent. Homeschooling options are widely available and are quite good. And there are three private schools all within reasonable driving distance that are affordable to me. (Also several other private schools I won't consider because of price.) But I am well aware that many people (most?) don't have the options I have. I do believe society is better off the better educated the whole population.

[unsinkable]

But there are models that could be individualized.

 

SRA was an early attempt to individualize reading speed and comprehension education. (I hated it but that's another story.)

 

My paternal grandmother taught in a one room K or 1-8 school house until she got married. Each kid learned at their own level.

 

Remember the old spellers, that you worked through at your own pace?

 

There are ways to individualize education, but I think they pretty much work with only non-special needs kids, where most or all of the kids speak English well, and where all of the kids are reasonably well behaved. Reasonable class sizes are important as well.

 

I don't agree with just sitting a child in front of a computer, or I'd mention K12. I don't think that is a good option for this though. Kids need to learn in relationship contexts.

I agree...We should be moving toward that not away!

 

Stop hammering down the poor litt!e gophers who are stickig their heads out.

[kiana]

Having been one of those asynchronous kids who got homeschooled because the school was utterly unwilling to do a single thing to work with my family:

 

1) I am very firmly and strongly in favor of encouraging more self-paced learning (I do have ways that I think this could even work for math), more diversity in electives, more advanced classes, more vo-tech learning, and far less of the box-ticking approach to high school than is common now. 

 

2) I am also very firmly and strongly in favor of the public schools remaining public and available to everyone as a default.

 

I do not think that these goals are mutually exclusive. Just because I do not want to eliminate the system completely does not mean that I do not see the glaring flaws it has now. 

[Bootsie]

I have already seen the drawbacks of the non-public models used at homeschool co-ops. The teachers get paid pennies. They are not bound to carry out the class and it is possible they will bail; I have seen it happen and it is sometimes unavoidable. If there is no available teacher within the co-op system who can teach Chemistry then there simply will not be chemistry at co-op that year. The drawbacks of the co-op model was a factor in my decision not to homeschool high school. I wanted amenities that are only available at B&M school.

 

This can happen at a public school, also.  Teachers can quit; there is no guarantee that the school district has a qualified teacher to replace the one who quit; this happened to DS in first grade when his teacher's husband got a job in another state.  But, she had a lot of sick leave and vacation leave accumulated.  So, she would take 3 days of sick leave and come in for 2 days, then take a day of vacation.  For several months DS had a substitute at least 2 days per week of school; once in a 10-day school period he had 8 different substitutes.  When all of her leave was up she quite with six weeks left of the school year--a college student who had been student teaching was then hired to complete the last six weeks.

 

Or, the teacher gets ill and is out for an extended period of time; there is no guarantee that the substitute is qualified.  The advanced math teacher was out in my district for eight weeks, my mom was hired as the long-term sub (babysitter); my mom would be the first to tell you that she can't even handle Algebra I.  

[heartlikealion]

I agree that we might be on the wrong track regarding what we require teachers to know.

 

My kids tell me that their Spanish teacher pronounces words wrong.  My kids can tell because they have heard Spanish speakers; the other students have no idea and will go to high school / college all confused.  Just one example of course.

 

Any chance it's just a different dialect?

 

[goldberry]

That all depends upon where you live.

 

Teacher salaries vary widely according.

 

In my area first year teachers start at $30,000 yr.  That's pretty sorry after 4 years paying for college.  

[goldberry]

I also have problems with the logic that having more school choice or a voucher system would result in a large number of kids receiving a poor education because their parents do not have the ability to distinguish between a poor and a quality education.   Many of those parents were educated in the US public school system.  If they are truly unable to determine the quality of the education, then they are unable to hold the school districts accountable for good schools.   

 

Yes, very true!

[regentrude]

Maybe.  Maybe not.  I would question the authority of a kid in a Spanish class over a Spanish teacher.

 

I live in the PHX area.  Many people around here speak what is sometimes called "Border Spanish."  Like English, languages spoken over vast expanses of the world develop their own pronunciations other distinctives. They all have formal academic "textbook" versions and less formal every day, real life on the streets versions. If textbook English you'll learn going to.  On the streets you'll hear native speakers of American English say gonna.  My Spanish teacher in Jr. High here in AZ learned Spanish from textbooks in classrooms in Alabama.  Kids teased her about her accent all the time because we had about a 40% Hispanic population mostly from Mexico and a few from Guatemala.  The farther south they were from, the more their Spanish changed.  Even people who aren't fluent can pick up on it after a while.  I used to be able to distinguish between real Mexican Spanish and textbook Spanish within a sentence or two.

 

I have a friend whose family are immigrants from Spain.  Her brother-in-law is married to an immigrant from Mexico.  Different pronunciations in their forms of Spanish are instantly recognizable and are loaded with prejudice.  When he's around her circles of friends and family, he speaks Spanish with Mexican pronunciations.  When he's around his circles of friends and family he speaks Spanish with Spanish pronunciations. 

 

 

Or perhaps the teacher is not actually qualified.

My friend is a German teacher and fluent in German. Her school assigned her to teach Spanish which she did not speak. She studied a few lessons ahead of the students in the book, and the school administration was OK with that. 

[goldberry]

 discourage elaborate and top heavy public school burocracies. 

 

Since public schools are publicly funded, I don't see why it can't just be mandated that only X% can be spent on administration, X% on sports, etc.  Why can't we as the taxpayers demand that the money be spent on teachers and students?  

 

Our local school has no money, and is cutting foreign languages, music, etc.  The sports coaches make an obscene amount, and so does the administrator.  That's just WRONG.  If they were privatized, they could do whatever they want.  But while they are public, why can't they be regulated like that?

[Audrey]

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 universal health care, paid parental leave, financial child supports, and free vocational and university education.  You're never going to get all of that, and without it, the ability to allow children the "luxury" of their own childhood is simply not there.  They're also willing, as a society, to put mental well-being above monetary gain.  The bulk of North American society measures self-worth by dollars.  Making that shift in mentality has about as much chance of success as me hopping on a tiger and flying it to the moon and back.

[EmseB]

Why would you think only people with altruistic motives would open schools?

 

I don't think I said that, nor do I think it. Right now the people I personally know opening schools are doing so for largely selfish reasons: they want to provide their kids a school-based education they can't get from public schools. Some might argue that the sacrifice of opening a school is altruistic, I don't know.  I know people open schools or tutorials for a lot of reasons, some selfish, some magnanimous.  As a consumer I'd be looking at quality of education provided, method of education, etc, etc. I wouldn't be examining the hearts of those opening the school in any huge detail. Do you think that altruistic motives should be required for opening a school?

 

Why would you think schools that can charge $10,000 a student would be motivated to accept difficult students, students who can't pay that, students who don't fit the ideology of the school? Even the private school I have been using for my kids through high school has both increased the tuition every year AND is turning down more students than they used to (I think 20% of applicants last year). They do this because they can. It is a good school and is desirable, so they frankly have no impetus to accept students that will not help their image.

 

You're assuming that the private school landscape will look exactly as it does now if all US education was privatized. I don't make that assumption.  That will radically change if education was ever privatized. There will be a HUGE amount of more demand, tons of people trying to enter the market, and a massive amount of cash that is no longer primarily going to a bureaucracy. Your question was what do you think would happen if US education was privatized. I've been answering that question with my opinions, but here it seems as if you've already answered that question and are working off a set of a assumptions. I think if someone opens a school for purely economic gain, then they will charge what the market will bear.

 

Also, I think being able to turn down applicants that don't fit with the school for whatever reason is a good thing.  Not everyone fits at a classical school. Not everyone fits at a Montessori school. Not everyone fits at a Waldorf school.  Not everyone fits at a public school model either.  It would be great if a school would be honest and say, "Little Johnny has a couple of learning disabilities that would be much better served at  x, y, and z.  We aren't really equipped to deal with that here." The alternative now is that the school gets some 504 or IEP and often pretends they are doing their level best to follow it while Johnny is strung along getting further and further behind and his parents options are slim and none.

 

Of course, the assumption is then that if a school turns down applicants it must be because they hate special needs kids and are huge elitists. I don't think that's true in my experience.  The private school I have direct experience was looking at ways to open another school which would be better suited for kids with special needs.  The curriculum I use right now publishes curriculum and works with parents on an individual level (for free!) to help them give their special needs kids a GOOD education. 

 

By corporate monopoly, I do not mean one corporation, although something like that would be possible; i.e., Google school. I meant when you provide a service which is desirable for every child and there is no way for the student to obtain it except to pay, you have a monopoly. The price can be practically whatever the business people desire it to be. We already know this does happen; we see it at the college level.

 

Except that's not a monopoly and it's difficult to discuss things like this if we're defining things how we see them.  A monopoly means one choice. Virtually all the money in education right now is going to one large bureaucracy. I'm not sure how you could be against a monopoly and be for our system as it runs currently where something like less than 5% of school kids get any kind of choice and if they do it's hugely expensive and/or a parent has to sacrifice their income.  What you're talking about is not a monopoly but I do understand what you're saying better now that you've explained.

 

Also, you're again making assumptions about the question you asked, that what you're saying would be the scenario.  I think if education were privatized I think there would be much more altruism involved in making sure kids got to a school rather than less.  Right now people assume that's the government's job and so kids, again, who can't afford other options are left with the local public school as their only option.

 

Thirdly, the price cannot be whatever the owner of the school wants it to be.  S/he would only be able to charge what people were willing or able to pay.  I feel like we might be talking past each other in terms of economics because businesses charge what the market will bear (which, again, would change drastically if the entire US education market were privatized), not whatever they want. And non-profits (which many schools currently are) charge only what they need to survive. Many people I know that start schools work without a profit, and use significant donations to operate.  Will every school be like this? No.  But that's not the case now anyway.  And honestly, I'd much rather send my kids to a school that can be profitable and efficient with their dollars and still provide a good education.  Where is the accountability now for the dollars spent?  If a school is spending $10k per pupil, even counting significant special needs populations, that school should look a lot better than most do that spend that much money.

 

I want my daughter to complete college. There were different choices we could make regarding expense, everything from using community college as much as we could, to using an in-state public (and within THAT category, there is a range from a $6,000/year tuition to a $14,000/year tuition), or on to private colleges, some of which could be $60,000/year. We can afford to do this, although we chose a less-expensive option (in-state public). But no matter what route we chose, we have to somehow pay for that. This is sort of okay, I guess; it's four years and, while I consider it really inportant, it's not strictly necessary. But what if this were true for every child's PRIMARY education?

 

Except that part of the reason for the rise in college tution is because of government subsidies.  The schools charge what the market will bear.  When the government increases everyone's ability to pay a certain amount, it's just raises the baseline from $0 to whatever a standard aid package is these days. And then those that can't get aid because their parents make too much are stuck in a donut hole of not being able to afford those increased prices. This is as a PP said about vouchers...they actually increase the base cost of a private education by raising the basline of what people can't pay from $0 to $2000 or whatever.  That kind of subsidy simply raises prices by whatever the current subsidy is and distorts the market, making it more difficult for low-income people to afford more choices, ironically.

 

Also, how many students are going to college on merit scholarships, need-based scholarships, sports scholarships, etc? I know people whose children are going to primary school right now on need-based scholarships funded by benefactors of the school exactly because they want kids to get a better than public education without having to worry about cost, but I know many more college students that don't pay full price tuition anywhere because

 

In general, when you look at college where there are many more options and much less of a government monopoly on the market there is tons more of things like endowments, scholarships, private charities, benefactors, etc.  And college is much more expensive, so it doesn't seem logical.  But when was the last time you met an average college student footing the entire bill of their tuition?

 

I have already seen the drawbacks of the non-public models used at homeschool co-ops. The teachers get paid pennies. They are not bound to carry out the class and it is possible they will bail; I have seen it happen and it is sometimes unavoidable. If there is no available teacher within the co-op system who can teach Chemistry then there simply will not be chemistry at co-op that year. The drawbacks of the co-op model was a factor in my decision not to homeschool high school. I wanted amenities that are only available at B&M school.

 

But, IME, those co-ops fold. They fail.  People see how badly they are run, teachers don't want to work there, etc.  Co-ops and schools that are not run well do not get returning students.  They fail and no further students are subject to their poor planning and administration. I was part of a co-op that will not be happening again next year, partly because of the reasons you describe.  The exact opposite is true in our current system.  Poorly performing schools are given more money than they would otherwise get because they are doing a bad job and it is rare for them to fail or get shut down. All the while, kids are getting put through said schools and getting a horrible education, if any at all.

 

I am one of those lucky people who really does have educational choice, because we can functionally live on one earner's income. Our public school district is quite excellent. Homeschooling options are widely available and are quite good. And there are three private schools all within reasonable driving distance that are affordable to me. (Also several other private schools I won't consider because of price.) But I am well aware that many people (most?) don't have the options I have.

 

So you have all these options of choice that you can afford, but you're arguing for what...? That these options should not be increased in favor of more educational dollars going to public schools? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here because my argument is that if privatization were to occur there would be more access to more options like you have for more students, especially at lower income levels. My contention is that people should have more choices, more options, bad schools should have some form of accountability and should not continue to churn kids through, and parents should overall be held more responsible for the education of their own kids.

 

I do believe society is better off the better educated the whole population.

 

I hope that, considering the readership of this board, that the benefit of the doubt can be given that everyone participating in this discussion agrees with this statement.  If you assume that because I have a different approach to these things that I don't think society is better off well-educated, then we don't really have any common ground to start the discussion from, you know?

 

I feel like maybe we are talking past each other as I think I addressed some of this in my last response to you, but I'm not sure.

 

Again, I live very near one of the worst performing districts in the country that spends so much money...more money than I'd have to pay to go the private school of my choice, more money than we did pay for the little classical school we used a few years back.  And they are graduating neurotypical, smart, bright kids that are functionally illiterate.  I have a friend who taught at one of those schools and her stories made me scared for humanity as a whole and what we are passing off as education for those we pretend to care about the most.

 

And, without getting too political, I'll just say that a few generations of students put through government schools gave us our last election (and I'm not just talking about who won, either, but the election as a whole).  That, to me, is the most telling fruit of our educational system, and it is not good.

 

[EmseB]

Since public schools are publicly funded, I don't see why it can't just be mandated that only X% can be spent on administration, X% on sports, etc.  Why can't we as the taxpayers demand that the money be spent on teachers and students?  

 

Our local school has no money, and is cutting foreign languages, music, etc.  The sports coaches make an obscene amount, and so does the administrator.  That's just WRONG.  If they were privatized, they could do whatever they want.  But while they are public, why can't they be regulated like that?

 

Interestingly, in all the private schools I have experience with, the tuition is relatively low and there were minimal sports programs because coaches, facilities, and teams are expensive.  Administration was as bare-bones as they could get while still running efficiently.  They didn't have to pass a law to make it this way, it was how they had to run in order to provide a good education that the local demographic could afford.

 

But try taking football out of some of the public schools I went to and people would go NUTS.

[SKL]

Maybe.  Maybe not.  I would question the authority of a kid in a Spanish class over a Spanish teacher.

 

I live in the PHX area.  Many people around here speak what is sometimes called "Border Spanish."  Like English, languages spoken over vast expanses of the world develop their own pronunciations other distinctives. They all have formal academic "textbook" versions and less formal every day, real life on the streets versions. If textbook English you'll learn going to.  On the streets you'll hear native speakers of American English say gonna.  My Spanish teacher in Jr. High here in AZ learned Spanish from textbooks in classrooms in Alabama.  Kids teased her about her accent all the time because we had about a 40% Hispanic population mostly from Mexico and a few from Guatemala.  The farther south they were from, the more their Spanish changed.  Even people who aren't fluent can pick up on it after a while.  I used to be able to distinguish between real Mexican Spanish and textbook Spanish within a sentence or two.

 

I have a friend whose family are immigrants from Spain.  Her brother-in-law is married to an immigrant from Mexico.  Different pronunciations in their forms of Spanish are instantly recognizable and are loaded with prejudice.  When he's around her circles of friends and family, he speaks Spanish with Mexican pronunciations.  When he's around his circles of friends and family he speaks Spanish with Spanish pronunciations. 

 

 

I know this, but I also know Spanish and have been around Spanish-speaking people from Spain and from about a dozen Latin American countries, and trust me, the teacher's pronunciation is wrong, if my kids' imitations are true.  :)

 

[Guest]

I do believe society is better off the better educated the whole population.

 

I hope that, considering the readership of this board, that the benefit of the doubt can be given that everyone participating in this discussion agrees with this statement. If you assume that because I have a different approach to these things that I don't think society is better off well-educated, then we don't really have any common ground to start the discussion from, you know?

Alright, well I'm not able to quote your whole post so I will have to answer it in bits and pieces, but this is the most important part. I absoultely do not assume anything about you or anyone else. (Proof that I should not be trying to write a comprehensive post while I am also having a Labor Day weekend party with my ILs.) The only reason I said that is because I do agree with the probable outcomes several posters here mentioned that a portion of society would not be able to get a guaranteed education. The poorest people, the people whose parent(s) are tunneled in on other problems, those in areas too rural to have a choice, those who don't fit easily into the available schools, children with special needs that get passed around like a game of hot potato. For sure, the system we have is full of problems; I said that in this thread. But IMO, there is at least the federal requirement that all children have a right to a free, appropriate K-12 education. I do not think those children would be better served if there was no longer a guaranteed right to have that free, appropriate education. I think there would be a much greater risk ofbeing under-served ot having no option at all.

[SKL]

They also have universal health care, paid parental leave, financial child supports, and free vocational and university education.  You're never going to get all of that, and without it, the ability to allow children the "luxury" of their own childhood is simply not there.  They're also willing, as a society, to put mental well-being above monetary gain.  The bulk of North American society measures self-worth by dollars.  Making that shift in mentality has about as much chance of success as me hopping on a tiger and flying it to the moon and back.

 

 

My parents had none of that, yet I managed to have a childhood.  The reasons why kids don't play like we used to are only partly related to how we school.  Yes, homework is an issue at some level, but I think the bigger issue is that we believe in controlling how kids use their time 24/7.  All for their own good of course.

[Carol in Cal.]

Since public schools are publicly funded, I don't see why it can't just be mandated that only X% can be spent on administration, X% on sports, etc.  Why can't we as the taxpayers demand that the money be spent on teachers and students?  

 

Our local school has no money, and is cutting foreign languages, music, etc.  The sports coaches make an obscene amount, and so does the administrator.  That's just WRONG.  If they were privatized, they could do whatever they want.  But while they are public, why can't they be regulated like that?

 

To a large extent the bloated administrative costs are a function of size.  Too big and a school district needs lots of layers of administrators.  Too small, and they can't even afford a principal, although a teacher/principal model can work in some cases.  What I was poking at was the 'too big' districts, because those get to be self-perpetuating at the expense of the students, in my personal observations and those of my sister who is a career public school teacher.

[Guest]

Except that part of the reason for the rise in college tution is because of government subsidies. The schools charge what the market will bear. When the government increases everyone's ability to pay a certain amount, it's just raises the baseline from $0 to whatever a standard aid package is these days. And then those that can't get aid because their parents make too much are stuck in a donut hole of not being able to afford those increased prices. This is as a PP said about vouchers...they actually increase the base cost of a private education by raising the basline of what people can't pay from $0 to $2000 or whatever. That kind of subsidy simply raises prices by whatever the current subsidy is and distorts the market, making it more difficult for low-income people to afford more choices, ironically.

 

Also, how many students are going to college on merit scholarships, need-based scholarships, sports scholarships, etc? I know people whose children are going to primary school right now on need-based scholarships funded by benefactors of the school exactly because they want kids to get a better than public education without having to worry about cost, but I know many more college students that don't pay full price tuition anywhere because

 

In general, when you look at college where there are many more options and much less of a government monopoly on the market there is tons more of things like endowments, scholarships, private charities, benefactors, etc. And college is much more expensive, so it doesn't seem logical. But when was the last time you met an average college student footing the entire bill of their tuition?

No, the large majority of the reason my DD is at a public, in-State tuition is because, due to taxes subsidizing our public colleges, I can afford her college. I know the "donut hole" well; we are sitting up on the edge of the donut hole. We get no need-based scholarships. DD does get a tiny merit scholarship for being an over 3.8 GPA student. Other than that, yes, I do see a student paying (almost) full tuition for college every year. She gets a $2,500 scholarship a year; we pay $24,000+ out of pocket. The federal subsidy (which we have not yet used) is not a gift; it is a loan with gracious lending terms.

 

I know people going to primary schools with a scholarship, too, but those benefactors could not cover all the need if the governments (state and fed) were no longer contributing anything. Also, what I see a lot of around here, with the bougie private schools we have, is that expensive private schools give scholarships for Lacrosse or Wrestling to have a kid at their school who shows tremendous promise, but these are always or almost always kids from upper middle families who have spent tens of thousands of dollars grooming their kid for the sport. So, yeah, they get a scholarship to a $25,000/year high school, but this is not a poor family getting a leg up; this is about wealthy folks helping other wealthy folks. I know people who specifically strategize spending tons of dough on their kids sports because they expect the payoff to come when the kid earns a sports scholarship to a D-1 college and/or high school.

 

I hate to leave it hanging without speaking to more of your post, but we'll be eating crabs soon, so I may not be back on. ☺ï¸

[goldberry]

 

But try taking football out of some of the public schools I went to and people would go NUTS.

 

I grew up in Texas, so...I know!  But it doesn't have to be eliminated, just not be the most expensive department in an academic institution.  That's probably dreaming though!  

[frogger]

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.

Well, honestly I had multiple children when my husband lost his job and ended up making poverty wages (about a 1/3 of what he had made when we chose to have kids). We qualified for many Federal programs but didn't pursue assistance. I ended up choosing to wait tables for the closing shift (even though I made more money in my before children career) so that I didn't have to pay for childcare. A lot of it was also I didn't want a stranger caring for them. I'm not saying that I would demand others to do the same but your ideas of what people HAVE to do aren't really accurate. I think a lot of people are smart enough to figure something out. There are cases where it seems nigh impossible like a single mom not near relatives or somebody suddenly has cancer etc etc. The average two parent middle class income, excuse me while I shrug my shoulders. Yet, how do we best help those in really tough situations is a good question.

 

 

Below is not related to quote.

 

I'm not sure this particular discussion is narrow enough to have a real discussion.

 

 

 

 

My biggest concern are those children whose parents don't care. If they are already being neglected at home, as bad as it is to be basically a ward of the state, it is better that kids can show up somewhere get a free breakfast and lunch and have hopefully a teacher that cares about them though the teacher may be limited in what they can do. There have been times that they ended up changing the course of a child's life.

 

I'm not even sure that it takes privatation to give more choices. What if there was more freedom for schools to make decisions rather than politicians putting demands on teachers?

 

What if vouchers were dependent on educational needs. A larger amount for people with disabilities and an even larger amount for people who had special medical needs and needed an individual aid.

 

My Aunt worked for a private school for students with disabilities. These children were too extreme to be put in regular public schools. I should ask how they were financed. I don't think it is safe to assume only public schools can handle those with disabilities. I know a local nonsectarian school that specializes in helping students with dyslexia too.

 

 

 

 

I do think Homeschool Mom in AZ made very important points on what we are asking too. Is it a equally good education or one with equal results?

 

I can't smooth out results of my own kids with similar genetics and a super zealous mom working her tail off to give tailor made educations to individual children whatever the cost. Private tutors, expensive curriculum for the one with dyslexia, etc. Yet, people expect teachers to somehow do that.