Jump to content

Menu

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


Ginevra
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Yep, I do expect teachers, schools and the district to educate individual children. It should be addressed at all those levels, with the freedom for each level to do what is best for each child. Edited by unsinkable
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, I do expect teachers, schools and the district to educate individual children. It should be addressed at all those levels, with the freedom for each level to do what is best for each child.

What I meant is that the outcomes won't be the same. So no matter how great an education my little brother with Down Syndrome got he isn't going to end up with a perfect SAT score. But I agree that children's education should fit the child but you can't then expect they will all have equal performance on some test.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Here is where I come down, though, that is probably different than most people.  I don't think that simply stating (or passing a law) that someone has a right to something makes it happen, especially when it comes to a service like education. And I think it's totally possible to get through the public school system and be told that you were provided a free education and come out with very little to show for it.  The people you highlight already getting mostly a piss poor education in the name of guaranteed and free.  I don't see it working well at all to be honest, although I'm sure there are examples of great individuals doing a lot of great things.  Institutionally I think it's a mess.  So we say kids have a right to this and set up our institution and pretend like that's what they are getting, but the people who need things the most are getting the worst end of the deal.

 

What good does it do the 17 year old inner city kid that can't read but "graduated" high school that they were provided a free education by the state? I mean, they got what they were promised, right?  The people you are concerned about being under-served are already being under-served and that problem is compounded by the fact that the government is spending millions of dollars to under-serve them and then saying they are doing the best they can.  I mean, worrying about these kids not getting an education if we do things differently makes very little sense to me because they are already coming out with less and being told they received an education.

 

I was in the military, for example, and worked with mostly high school graduates.  I was the only one out of a dozen that could write an organized paper or presentation for our boss. I've heard SWB cite a similar problem with college freshman coming into her writing class at a fairly nice university - they don't know how to write coherently.  And these are kids who have been "writing reports" since second grade and ostensibly have had professionals providing them a free, guaranteed education at "good" public schools.  I don't say this to brag on myself, but rather to say that what we say we're doing with public schools and what is actually happening is not the same thing.

 

I also have fundamental problems with the institutional nature of public schools and the kind of education provided even at the "good" schools. Which is a large part of why we homeschool. While I'm not a conspiracy theorist, part of what unsinkable said upthread rings true:  when you have government educating the populace, you get a certain result desired by the government. They want good citizens that uphold the status quo.  The advantage we have, of course, is that schools still have a lot of local influence, but that's being gradually degraded in favor of uniformity at the federal level.

 

Which is all to say that I think people are starting to realize all these problems and some parents are trying to do more for their kids but find that their options are stifled because the public school holds such a stranglehold on the market of education.  Here there is one option (public school) unless you are rich (private school) or willing to sacrifice and homeschool. My preference is that there would be more options.

 

Even parents of public school kids that talk to me about how to solve xyz reading/math problem with their elementary kiddo (because I have taught my own kids) acknowledge that their kid would likely learn better in a different setting/with a more individualized approach/that the teacher can't possibly deal with their kid's specific needs...but they see one school that they are allowed to send their kid to, and that's pretty much it unless they want to homeschool or send their kid to the $15k/year private school in our county. So they shrug and plod along.  That's not how education should be, in my mind.

 

So, my ideas about privatization directly relate to creating more options, better options, better access.  But, again, I don't think we ever run a risk of this happening, so people probably don't even have to respond to my posts.  Our society is entrenched with several generations of people who think that the government is responsible to educate our kids and parents have no responsibility in that area.  The vast, vast majority of kids will continue to go to public schools and I don't think there's any worry of my crackpot ideas becoming reality.  ;)

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. Ă¢ËœÂºĂ¯Â¸

 

I have wanted to do this so badly since we moved here, but I have a family of people who are not interested in the work vs how much meat one gets per crab.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would consider public charters that are run by private companies such as K12, IEM, KIPP as privatization of education as well.

 

So if all schools are semi-autonomous public charters and the state funding follows the child instead of the child going to schools based on address, both schools and kids would have more choice. It would become semi free market for schools.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

 

 

IME, special private schools for disabled children are *extremely expensive*, as in 50k/yr or even much more. My mom was an attorney, and as a part of her career, she worked as some sort of magistrate for educational matters. Essentially a special judge who periodically (a couple times a year) spent a couple days hearing educational law suits, generally parents of disabled kids suing the county/state to pay for their kid's private school. The law (in VA in the 80s-2000s) required the state to provide an appropriate education for every child. If the public system didn't have a school that was appropriate to the kid's needs, then they had to pay for a private school, even a boarding school, and these could be EXTREMELY expensive. 

 

So, anyway, I think that schools like that probably have a very few students whose parents can afford the fees and are residents of some state/country where they can't get the gov't to pay for some reason, and the vast majority are paid by the state, no matter the financial status of the parents. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am surprised by the posts saying their district has no APs.

 

My state has a few very rural districts. The state started a virtual school to meet the needs in those locations, but it is open to all students in the state now. The virtual school does not have a huge selection of APs, but it has a few. For various reasons my Dd considered taking AP calc through the state virtual while attending our neighborhood school. The neighborhood school was going to assign her to a math teacher during a "free" period so that if while working independently she needed to ask questions it wouldn't be hard to access a person familiar with Calculus. She didn't do that, but I give the example because with online resources this sort of thing should not be hard yo figure out.

 

My Dd did take a couple other online classes in high school. One went very well. The other was problematic because the teacher was located in New Zealand. The teacher never responded to communication prior to exams due to time delays. That was incredibly frustrating. While that was frustrating, long term I think such issues can be fixed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

But that has to be extremely expensive.

If a regular public school spends an average of, say, 10k per student, a much higher amount than that is spent to educate a student with disabilities. And students who need resources that exceed the public schools' need even more.

How is a family supposed to pay that when education is privatized?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have wanted to do this so badly since we moved here, but I have a family of people who are not interested in the work vs how much meat one gets per crab.

Heh. That's funny. The meat is not the point, but you probably know that.

 

We are on the Chesapeake Bay. Not having a crab feast at Labor Day would be sacrilege! Ă°Å¸ËœÅ’

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh. That's funny. The meat is not the point, but you probably know that.

 

We are on the Chesapeake Bay. Not having a crab feast at Labor Day would be sacrilege! Ă°Å¸ËœÅ’

I think we are a couple or three counties south of you, with water on both sides of us and no shortage of people who sell crabs. And yes, the fact that I'd have a bunch of people grumbling about the work involved in crab picking would ruin the whole thing!!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that has to be extremely expensive.

If a regular public school spends an average of, say, 10k per student, a much higher amount than that is spent to educate a student with disabilities. And students who need resources that exceed the public schools' need even more.

How is a family supposed to pay that when education is privatized?

 

I actually think it'd be kind of like it is now as far as the families with the money and the know-how -- they would sue to get their kid's voucher increased to an appropriate level (assuming we're talking a voucher system instead of HAHA YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN).

 

The other kids -- even a bargain-basement school is going to be reluctant to take a kid with severe disabilities if they aren't required to take every kid that comes, so I have a feeling they'd be technically "homeschooled" but probably not get a lot. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like what Esme said just now.  I don't know that I'm in favor of privatization to solve it, but those are many of the problems I see.  I think my first solution would be what someone said upthread is hire professionals in the subject.  Cut out the $$$$ going to bureaucrats and invest in teacher salaries and whatever materials the teachers think are best.  I do think this should be free or low cost.  Or on a sliding scale.  

 

But simply changing how things are funded won't fix education in our nation.  We have to completely overhaul our educational philosophy and possibly how we view children (maybe people in general) in order to actually get anywhere.  I think we've sort of slipped into a view of people as computers that can be desirably programmed with the right inputs, and ultimately only meant to perform functional tasks.  And all our effort and money is spent figuring out what the "right" inputs are to acquire the desired function.  Consider the question, "What do you want to be when you grow up?"  What are we asking?  We're equating existence with a job.  Well what I want my kids to be when they grow up has very little to do with how they'll make a living!  ;)  So however we fund it, and I think it quality should be equally available to all...I think some philosophical shifts are needed before or with the funding shifts

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IME, special private schools for disabled children are *extremely expensive*, as in 50k/yr or even much more. My mom was an attorney, and as a part of her career, she worked as some sort of magistrate for educational matters. Essentially a special judge who periodically (a couple times a year) spent a couple days hearing educational law suits, generally parents of disabled kids suing the county/state to pay for their kid's private school. The law (in VA in the 80s-2000s) required the state to provide an appropriate education for every child. If the public system didn't have a school that was appropriate to the kid's needs, then they had to pay for a private school, even a boarding school, and these could be EXTREMELY expensive.

 

So, anyway, I think that schools like that probably have a very few students whose parents can afford the fees and are residents of some state/country where they can't get the gov't to pay for some reason, and the vast majority are paid by the state, no matter the financial status of the parents.

You must have missed my point about the vouchers.

 

It sounds like taxpayers already are essentially paying for it already now anyway.

Edited by frogger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is where I come down, though, that is probably different than most people. I don't think that simply stating (or passing a law) that someone has a right to something makes it happen, especially when it comes to a service like education. And I think it's totally possible to get through the public school system and be told that you were provided a free education and come out with very little to show for it. The people you highlight already getting mostly a piss poor education in the name of guaranteed and free. I don't see it working well at all to be honest, although I'm sure there are examples of great individuals doing a lot of great things. Institutionally I think it's a mess. So we say kids have a right to this and set up our institution and pretend like that's what they are getting, but the people who need things the most are getting the worst end of the deal.

 

 

Neither do I, but the difference is, there is legal recourse when the government fails to provide a governmentally-guarnteed right. Like the lawsuit in Mississippi that was recently linked on here filed by SPLC on behalf of black students still getting a horrendous public education. (I don't have high hopes for that particular lawsuit, but my point is, at least it's possible to hold someone accountable.) If there was no such thing as a public school and Jane Doe has as her "options" an expensive private school and a church-run, poorly funded, mission-based school, what recourse does she have then? She could go to the church school, maybe, and sign a statement of faith she does not believe and resent that her kids will sit in a church school getting "brainwashed" into some belief system, just so she can have her kid go somewhere.

 

 

What good does it do the 17 year old inner city kid that can't read but "graduated" high school that they were provided a free education by the state? I mean, they got what they were promised, right? The people you are concerned about being under-served are already being under-served and that problem is compounded by the fact that the government is spending millions of dollars to under-serve them and then saying they are doing the best they can. I mean, worrying about these kids not getting an education if we do things differently makes very little sense to me because they are already coming out with less and being told they received an education.

 

I was in the military, for example, and worked with mostly high school graduates. I was the only one out of a dozen that could write an organized paper or presentation for our boss. I've heard SWB cite a similar problem with college freshman coming into her writing class at a fairly nice university - they don't know how to write coherently. And these are kids who have been "writing reports" since second grade and ostensibly have had professionals providing them a free, guaranteed education at "good" public schools. I don't say this to brag on myself, but rather to say that what we say we're doing with public schools and what is actually happening is not the same thing.

 

I totally agree that the public school system has many problems, especially in poorer communities; I said so in this thread. The correlation of wealth to outcomes is stunning. I just don't think the answer to the problem is to take away federally-funded, compulsory education. IME, it does not do what you expect it to do and/or hope it would do. It doesn't introduce healthy competition which keeps the prices affordable. It does not do this. Greed or simple practical business practices gets in the way. Sometimes there is collusion between would-be competitors so the market price is sewn up. So, the boards of three choices meet together and collude: none of us will offer this education for less than $Xxxx.

 

Back to what I said earlier about monoploy: monoploy means one option, correct? College textbook business is essentially a monopoly now. It is an unbelievable racket. The students MUST have the book or on-line access code. It is getting more and more difficult to circumvent expensive textbook prices. The colleges don't even try to in most cases. Sometimes there are individual professors who will help a student get around dumb text practices, but they are few and far between. Now, many "textbooks" are either loose-leaf paper or on-line access codes - $200 for a pile of paper you clip into your own binder, or a string of numbers you cannot re-sell or earn back anything for. If you are lucky enough to get a textBOOK and then re-sell it when the class is finished, you are still getting pennies. This is an unfortunately good example of how the market does not always regulate; it cannot because the student HAS to have the text. I would not be sad if there was a LAW PASSED that the text could not cost more than XYZ amount, or the college HAS to provide a means for students to get the books on loan or for free of whatever.

 

I also have fundamental problems with the institutional nature of public schools and the kind of education provided even at the "good" schools. Which is a large part of why we homeschool. While I'm not a conspiracy theorist, part of what unsinkable said upthread rings true: when you have government educating the populace, you get a certain result desired by the government. They want good citizens that uphold the status quo. The advantage we have, of course, is that schools still have a lot of local influence, but that's being gradually degraded in favor of uniformity at the federal level.

 

Which is all to say that I think people are starting to realize all these problems and some parents are trying to do more for their kids but find that their options are stifled because the public school holds such a stranglehold on the market of education. Here there is one option (public school) unless you are rich (private school) or willing to sacrifice and homeschool. My preference is that there would be more options.

 

Even parents of public school kids that talk to me about how to solve xyz reading/math problem with their elementary kiddo (because I have taught my own kids) acknowledge that their kid would likely learn better in a different setting/with a more individualized approach/that the teacher can't possibly deal with their kid's specific needs...but they see one school that they are allowed to send their kid to, and that's pretty much it unless they want to homeschool or send their kid to the $15k/year private school in our county. So they shrug and plod along. That's not how education should be, in my mind.

 

So, my ideas about privatization directly relate to creating more options, better options, better access. But, again, I don't think we ever run a risk of this happening, so people probably don't even have to respond to my posts. Our society is entrenched with several generations of people who think that the government is responsible to educate our kids and parents have no responsibility in that area. The vast, vast majority of kids will continue to go to public schools and I don't think there's any worry of my crackpot ideas becoming reality. ;)

You're views are not crackpot to me. I have identified as philosophically libertarian for nearly two decades. It had a large role in my choice to homeschool. I used to wish that practically everything was private market and self-regulated. But I am a strongly idealistic person and also an optimist; I always think people will surely do these for-the-good-of-all things, right? But I have learned how wrong I am about that. So many good things that have happened hsitorically in this country did not happen until the federal government required it. People don't care about dumping toxic waste into waterways until the government makes them stop. Big companies did not care about the appalling conditions of tenament housing until the government made them change. Children could work in chemical factories until the government said no they cannot. And so on.
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're views are not crackpot to me. I have identified as philosophically libertarian for nearly two decades. It had a large role in my choice to homeschool. I used to wish that practically everything was private market and self-regulated. But I am a strongly idealistic person and also an optimist; I always think people will surely do these for-the-good-of-all things, right? But I have learned how wrong I am about that. So many good things that have happened hsitorically in this country did not happen until the federal government required it. People don't care about dumping toxic waste into waterways until the government makes them stop. Big companies did not care about the appalling conditions of tenament housing until the government made them change. Children could work in chemical factories until the government said no they cannot. And so on.

 

Exaaaaactly. 

 

Philosophically I'm still quite far libertarian. But watching how laissez-faire policies actually work in action, I can no longer support it for things that I believe are a public good. I think education is one such. 

 

I also agree with you about the horrendous pricing in college texts. One of the reasons we went with the company we did for access codes in lower courses is because they're a <$100 payment, one time, access for life. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Prof Arthur Benjamin discussed the women who are good in math and science migrating to more lucrative jobs after more jobs were opened to them in an interview which my DS12 watched on YouTube. He also mentioned that most women who went into teaching in the old days didn't need the income so teaching wages were low since there was no incentive to raise it.

 

I know people in Cupertino and Palo Alto who still transfer their kids to private schools or do intensive after schooling because they still think the quality is substandard. So it is very much a chicken and egg problem.

 

While I enjoy tutoring for free or very low rates for friends in need, I hate classroom management and so does my husband. Many lady engineers friends won't switch to teaching in a classroom because of that. Tutoring one to three kids is so different from a class. So raising the pay might reduce the number of teachers leaving the profession for better paying jobs but it might not tempt people in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're views are not crackpot to me. I have identified as philosophically libertarian for nearly two decades. It had a large role in my choice to homeschool. I used to wish that practically everything was private market and self-regulated. But I am a strongly idealistic person and also an optimist; I always think people will surely do these for-the-good-of-all things, right? But I have learned how wrong I am about that. So many good things that have happened hsitorically in this country did not happen until the federal government required it. People don't care about dumping toxic waste into waterways until the government makes them stop. Big companies did not care about the appalling conditions of tenament housing until the government made them change. Children could work in chemical factories until the government said no they cannot. And so on.

I think most libertarians would recognize problems with, " The Tragedy of the Commons" and talk about the need for dealing with it. We still have issues where I live with government regulation of housing. Actually, what comes to mind is the recent Grenfell fire. So you have a lot of topics to unpack but of course this thread is not the place. Most Libertarians do believe in law suits against companies etc. Of course, one can also sue the government. I'd say people in Flint, Michagen have good cause to sue but of course, they would be essentially sueing themselves which is kind of a problem. Better keep all this for another thread.

 

I got to the game late and was covering lots of material at once. I reread some things and I guess we were not including vouchers? Sorry, I went the wrong direction. Our State Constitution includes education and the required votes to change that will not be there without drastic changes in our culture so I wasn't really even considering that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the bigger question is why has "privatization" become a hot topic today.

 

Public education has been rousing success in the US. The founders believed an educated populace was essential to a functioning democracy and throughout most of the 20th century it was assumed that the public would provide for the education of the citizens. This has been a central tenet of our developing democracy. Most of the debates surrounding public education in the past century were focused on expanding that education to more and more people.

 

And, it has largely worked. We managed to transform a nation of immigrants into a superpower. All of our parents and grandparents, who did not speak English, were able to send their children to public schools where they learned English and had access to an education that their parents could not provide at home. There have always been critics of public education. I cannot think of a time when we have not had discussions about what is wrong with the public education system. But, today, public schools are educating more students than ever before. A greater percentage of students are graduating from high school than ever before. A greater percentage of students are attending college than ever before. "No stakes" testing results are better than ever before. Our public schools are not failing. There are clearly problems in rural schools and "failing" schools in high poverty, high minority population and high immigrant population areas. But these schools are struggling because they are dealing with the outsized problems created by poverty and unemployment. We would do better to actually address those problems, rather than blaming the public schools. What exactly do we expect teachers and schools to be? Miracle workers? These problems are bound only to get worse as gaps in wealth and income continue to grow.

 

There is no good evidence to suggest that charter schools are doing a better job than public schools, and in many cases there is ample evidence to suggest that they are a disaster. And, vouchers simply do nothing to address the real problems schools face. If vouchers are going to work, there have to be schools for kids to go to - schools that don't discriminate, schools that will address the issues of learning disabled and special needs students, schools that are geographically available, schools that are actually teaching what kids need to learn, schools that can provide after school care and free food, schools that are not churches in diguise, etc....

 

So why the big discussion about privatization? Well, if you look under the carefully crafted rhetoric, the "school reform" movement of the 21st century has been funded largely by a small number of corporations/corporate foundations. Why is that?? Perhaps because they have made this education thing a $500 billion dollar a year industry? We all want more options, better options and better access. But, if we look at the facts, if we look at our actual history and not the carefully crafted message of a burgeoning profit-making industry, the place where we have always found that is in the public schools.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not privatized in Texas, but it pretty much has the same concept. In Texas, everything is district run. TEA will not interfere with districts. I have seen our local district and surrounding ones seriously violating laws and rules and the parents have no re-course other than the federal government. And if it is something that would be under state jurisdiction, the parents are out of luck. At the district level, they can do whatever they want. Our local district runs on a campus based model. So every school can easily be drastically different. 

 

Also, teachers are tenured here within 3 years. TEA operates more as a teachers union. They are much more concerned with teachers rights than with education. School districts cannot break contracts with teachers without going through a very expensive and drawn out process. Even then it is difficult. And once a teacher has completed 3 years, even if it is 3 years with 3 different districts, the teacher is tenured. The district has no choice but to keep the teacher, no matter how bad the teacher is. I just found out that a teacher who called in sick 50% of the time (she was my oldest son's teacher in 2nd grade) is a principal in our district now. I am sickened by it. A teacher gets a number of sick days where they retain full pay. But they can continue to call in sick after that and just have the sub fee deducted so they still get paid a portion of the pay. Sometimes, the school used parent volunteers and staff on their break times to fill that classroom so she did not have to pay the sub fee. She was not even sick. She told us she had car trouble. It ended up being his last year in public school. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

I think that might be local/regional or something, as I don't have the impression this is an issue in the schools my kid attended. Yes, he was mainstreamed for K-2 (and would've been beyond that as well - I just happened to start homeschooling him after that point). But, there were other kids in separate special ed classrooms, and my son did have a full-time 1-1 aide for the second half of K and all of 1st and 2nd grade, and would've for 3rd grade and possibly beyond... that would've depended on his progress (the first half of K was in a different state, where he had a part-time 1-1 aide, but K was also more playful the way K used to be). Anyway, my point being that you can't make statements on a national level about this, since not all school districts mainstream all kids, and not all school districts do the opposite either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

There is no good evidence to suggest that charter schools are doing a better job than public schools, and in many cases there is ample evidence to suggest that they are a disaster.

Where do you live?  Here about 25% of school aged kids attend public charter schools.  They have been for a couple of decades now.  No, that's not the case.  We see the same thing we see in regular public charter schools-so are doing very well, some are OK and some do poorly and then are shut down. You have to factor in that children already doing poorly in regular public schools are more likely to switch to a public charter school, so the stats have to be weighted to take that into consideration.

 

You do know that charter schools are a form of public school, right?  They may have less regulation, but they're still overseen by the government and funded by the taxpayers.  Unlike regular public schools, they can been shut down for poor performance. Do you support shutting down poor performing public schools?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 you are in a really strange neighborhood and it's colored your thoughts about what will happen across the US.

 

Looking up stats, around 10% of kids currently attend private schools and the number is dropping.  I didn't look to see if homeschoolers are among that 10%.  I know I've come across oodles and oodles of parents who have told me they could never teach their own kids when I mentioned we homeschooled ours.

 

If everything were privatized I don't expect one iota of change from the 10% who already choose that.  I respect keeping that choice available to those who choose it too.  The 90% though?  Most will go with whatever is available, probably at cheapest cost to them.  If nothing ends up being affordable, then it'll be just like our private health care system that works so well... Education for those who can afford it and if you can't, choices must be made between education and other essentials (like food/shelter).  

 

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.

 

What makes you think any private company is chomping at the bit to start schools in areas where kids (and their parents) aren't necessarily interested in behaving to get that education (or wanting it)?  Then too, what makes you think they can do a better job if they wanted to make the investment?  All of the charter school stats I've seen have matched (or been lower than) public schools.  An individual school (charter or public) can fall outside the norm, but the norm is still there and will be what most people experience.

 

FWIW, I'm not against charter or private schools.  I think folks should have choices, but I don't think all of education should be privatized.

 

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

 

No... no it's not.  We've seen that quite recently with all the believers in Fake News of various sorts and how much power they have.  The vast majority do not have much of an education - and they get dangerous (from anti-vax on).  By dangerous I don't necessarily mean fighting (though that can be part of it).  I mean promoting 100% false "facts" and acting upon them.  I really think we NEED an educated population and the world is better off when we have one (any country).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree hepatica with some of what you said. We are asking more of schools than ever before. We are asking them to be parents and nurses and feed children and tailor the education to the child. My local school district has children whose first language comes from one of 107 languages. A child moves here not speaking English at all and not long after people are complaining they can't pass an English test! We are told we are to provide professionals and computers and art and music for a class of ten in the middle of the wilderness where the cost to provide that is astronomical and then there are children who have extreme special needs. I think there has been a lot of success but I disagree with your conspiracy theory.

 

I really think people have very little imagination on the complexities of educating such a large and diverse population. The majority of people seem to think themselves experts and demand things from politicians who then demand them from states who impose rules on districts and pretty soon kids are taking 4-5 tests a year. It's 4 for our local district. The experts (people in the classroom) then have to work under these onerous conditions. Those in districts with parents who can't or won't help aren't going to be able to keep up. So parents want out. They want out of the tests and regulations and away from the kid two seats over who abuses their child. I think that is where the talk of privatizing comes from.

 

The results from State testing came in recently and 68.2% of students were below or far below proficency for math and for English the percentage below or far below proficincy was 61.6%. People were ready to storm the school district and legislatures office. Things they didn't ask was who were the kids (recent immigrants aren't going to do as well on English for example) or those born addicted to drugs on any test. They didn't ask what proficiency meant or what was on the test. It was the first year this test was used. People don't ask questions, they just become an angry mob and tend to think they know more than teachers though they never taught a day in their life. Politics more than anything is what is ruining things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Testing is another issue. One thing that has ALWAYS bugged me is that we have no measurement for tracking kids year-to-year and making progress. 

 

If a kid enters in 5th grade totally illiterate (for whatever reason, immigration, lack of schooling, I don't care) and at the end of the year is at the end of 3rd grade, I think that kid has made FANTASTIC progress and the teacher and school have done an amazing job. But all the damn test says is "not proficient". 

 

This affects gifted kids too, who are neglected because the focus is on getting kids to "proficient". If a kid is at 9th grade at the beginning of 5th and still there at the end, I think the teacher and school really haven't done a good job with the kid. 

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

teachers union. They are much more concerned with teachers rights than with education. School districts cannot break contracts with teachers without going through a very expensive and drawn out process. Even then it is difficult. 

 

 

I know you weren't talking about teacher's unions in general, but earlier in this conversation I did think about those, and I was wondering about a possible parallel to the car industry... I wonder whether they might eventually get more than they bargained for... in the case of the car industry, high wages etc... but then the factories close and relocate to cheaper states/countries. In the case of teacher's unions, people are done with incompetent and worse teachers not being able to be fired and vote to privatize the schools (at which point, presumably incompetent and competent teachers alike can be fired). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where do you live?  Here about 25% of school aged kids attend public charter schools.  They have been for a couple of decades now.  No, that's not the case.  We see the same thing we see in regular public charter schools-so are doing very well, some are OK and some do poorly and then are shut down. You have to factor in that children already doing poorly in regular public schools are more likely to switch to a public charter school, so the stats have to be weighted to take that into consideration.

 

You do know that charter schools are a form of public school, right?  They may have less regulation, but they're still overseen by the government and funded by the taxpayers.  Unlike regular public schools, they can been shut down for poor performance. Do you support shutting down poor performing public schools?

 

 

Charter schools are "public" schools until they end up in court, where they then claim to be non state actors????

 

If there is a study that shows that charter schools are educating better than traditional public schools, I'd like to see it. As far as I have seen, some are doing as well and many are not.

 

Rather than shutting down public schools, I favor addressing the community problems that are plaguing poorly performing public schools. Sometimes, even a poorly performing school is the only safe place kids see all day, and the only place they get fed.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most libertarians would recognize problems with, " The Tragedy of the Commons" and talk about the need for dealing with it. We still have issues where I live with government regulation of housing. Actually, what comes to mind is the recent Grenfell fire. So you have a lot of topics to unpack but of course this thread is not the place. Most Libertarians do believe in law suits against companies etc. Of course, one can also sue the government. I'd say people in Flint, Michagen have good cause to sue but of course, they would be essentially sueing themselves which is kind of a problem. Better keep all this for another thread.

 

I got to the game late and was covering lots of material at once. I reread some things and I guess we were not including vouchers? Sorry, I went the wrong direction. Our State Constitution includes education and the required votes to change that will not be there without drastic changes in our culture so I wasn't really even considering that.

Vouchers just does not mean the same things to all people and there are many different ways that vouchers could be shaped. So - I don't know. Maybe there are voucher options or formats that would work. So far (I mean IRL, not in this thread), I haven't seen a voucher idea that would probably work well.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charter schools are "public" schools until they end up in court, where they then claim to be non state actors????

 

If there is a study that shows that charter schools are educating better than traditional public schools, I'd like to see it. As far as I have seen, some are doing as well and many are not.

 

Rather than shutting down public schools, I favor addressing the community problems that are plaguing poorly performing public schools. Sometimes, even a poorly performing school is the only safe place kids see all day, and the only place they get fed.

 

Just because someone makes some weird claim to defend themselves in a courtroom, that doesn't change what they are: government run and funded public schools.  They are what they are.

 

Yep, we all want to see studies, but as you said yourself, some are doing well.  And you didn't address my point about students who are poorly served by regular public schools transferring at higher rates to public charter schools. Who's to blame there?  Should they have stayed in the regular public school where it wasn't working out? 

 

Why does the regular public school get a pass from you when community problems result in poorly performing regular public schools, but then you're up in arms about public charter schools in the same situation?  This irrational double standard some people have about public charter schools and regular public schools is so weird.  I find it mostly from people who aren't in communities with lots of public charter schools around, so they can build them up in their minds to be something other than what they are-another public school.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Testing is another issue. One thing that has ALWAYS bugged me is that we have no measurement for tracking kids year-to-year and making progress. 

 

Yes. Measuring this year's 5th graders against last year's 5th graders and requiring "progress" is complete nonsense. Who comes up with this and thinks it can possibly be a suitable metric?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

About the free lunches and breakfasts, a lot of parents who are abusive will refuse free lunches and breakfasts and then not send money. That is why some districts have had to crack down on those parents, parents who refuse to apply for free lunch and refuse to send money for lunch, by reporting them to CPS. I wish they had done that when I was a child. Withholding food is abusive and a huge sign of worse abuse behind closed doors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because someone makes some weird claim to defend themselves in a courtroom, that doesn't change what they are: government run and funded public schools.  They are what they are.

 

Yep, we all want to see studies, but as you said yourself, some are doing well.  And you didn't address my point about students who are poorly served by regular public schools transferring at higher rates to public charter schools. Who's to blame there?  Should they have stayed in the regular public school where it wasn't working out? 

 

Why does the regular public school get a pass from you when community problems result in poorly performing regular public schools, but then you're up in arms about public charter schools in the same situation?  This irrational double standard some people have about public charter schools and regular public schools is so weird.  I find it mostly from people who aren't in communities with lots of public charter schools around, so they can build them up in their minds to be something other than what they are-another public school.

 

 

Charter schools are not government run, only government funded (if they were run by the public school system they would be magnet schools). To quote Diane Ravitch, "charter schools are part of a separate system, which has its own interests, its own lobbyists, its own separate advocacy organizations."

 

I'm not saying public schools should get a pass (did I say this?), I'm just saying lets not strip resources from them. They don't have enough to begin with. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree that the public school system has many problems, especially in poorer communities; I said so in this thread. The correlation of wealth to outcomes is stunning. I just don't think the answer to the problem is to take away federally-funded, compulsory education. IME, it does not do what you expect it to do and/or hope it would do. It doesn't introduce healthy competition which keeps the prices affordable. It does not do this. Greed or simple practical business practices gets in the way. Sometimes there is collusion between would-be competitors so the market price is sewn up. So, the boards of three choices meet together and collude: none of us will offer this education for less than $Xxxx. 

 

Back to what I said earlier about monoploy: monoploy means one option, correct? College textbook business is essentially a monopoly now. It is an unbelievable racket. The students MUST have the book or on-line access code. It is getting more and more difficult to circumvent expensive textbook prices. The colleges don't even try to in most cases. Sometimes there are individual professors who will help a student get around dumb text practices, but they are few and far between. Now, many "textbooks" are either loose-leaf paper or on-line access codes - $200 for a pile of paper you clip into your own binder, or a string of numbers you cannot re-sell or earn back anything for. If you are lucky enough to get a textBOOK and then re-sell it when the class is finished, you are still getting pennies. This is an unfortunately good example of how the market does not always regulate; it cannot because the student HAS to have the text. I would not be sad if there was a LAW PASSED that the text could not cost more than XYZ amount, or the college HAS to provide a means for students to get the books on loan or for free of whatever.

 

You're views are not crackpot to me. I have identified as philosophically libertarian for nearly two decades. It had a large role in my choice to homeschool. I used to wish that practically everything was private market and self-regulated. But I am a strongly idealistic person and also an optimist; I always think people will surely do these for-the-good-of-all things, right? But I have learned how wrong I am about that. So many good things that have happened hsitorically in this country did not happen until the federal government required it. People don't care about dumping toxic waste into waterways until the government makes them stop. Big companies did not care about the appalling conditions of tenament housing until the government made them change. Children could work in chemical factories until the government said no they cannot. And so on.

It is greed, simple practical business practices, and the profit motive that lead to competition, not that prevent competition.  Collusion between would-be competitors is a violation of anti-trust laws.  Do you trust the government to enforce these laws?  (If not, is that same government able to provide education?)

 

I do not agree with these conclusions of the college textbook market.  First, I am not seeing evidence that there are abnormal profits being earned by anyone.  Publishers are not, by any market measure I can determine, earning above average rates of return.  There are few barriers to entry into the market, much less than there has been in the past.  We are not seeing the market flooded with successful entrants to the market, and we are seeing existing publishers leave the market.  The authors themselves are not making large profits, either.  

 

All of the professors that I know do care about textbook prices.  IME they are not few and far between.  Many professors have gone to offering the looseleaf editions and online editions because they are cheaper, or they thought they were going to be cheaper.  Students who buy looseleaf editions are not simply getting "pile of paper" and students who buy an online edition are not simply getting "a string of numbers," they are purchashing the intellectual property of the copyright holders.  

 

As far as a law being passed about how much a book could sell for, what would be the price?  How would it be determined?  Would it b different for a physics book, an accounting book, a business law book?  Would this be a federal law or a state law?  Does this law apply to people selling their book on Amazon?  Are you expecting the university's to own the intellectual property in the book?  If not, how could the university be required to provide it for loan or for free?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

If the public school couldn't meet the child's needs, then the public school paid the tuition at the private school. I know that where we live now, there is a private school for children with autism. ALL of their students have their tuition paid by public schools.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of the professors that I know do care about textbook prices. IME they are not few and far between. Many professors have gone to offering the looseleaf editions and online editions because they are cheaper, or they thought they were going to be cheaper. Students who buy looseleaf editions are not simply getting "pile of paper" and students who buy an online edition are not simply getting "a string of numbers," they are purchashing the intellectual property of the copyright holders.

 

As far as a law being passed about how much a book could sell for, what would be the price? How would it be determined? Would it b different for a physics book, an accounting book, a business law book? Would this be a federal law or a state law? Does this law apply to people selling their book on Amazon? Are you expecting the university's to own the intellectual property in the book? If not, how could the university be required to provide it for loan or for free?

I'm sure I don't know! I was not suggesting I have the perfect solution in mind; only demonstrating that I no longer mind regulations like this type.

 

The looseleaf papers and online codes are FAR WORSE for student investment because they are not re-sellable for the most part. They may be slightly less expensive in initial cost, but they are a net total loss because they are not able to be recouped. Renting textbooks was supposed to offer the same benefit because they are less expensive than buying, but they are not way less expensive than buying. When I was in college (recently), if there were two options, buy a used book or rent a book, I would buy the used book because oftentimes I could re-sell it and do a decent job of recouping investment.

 

If renting textbooks was really supposed to benefit students, why not rent the textbooks for fifty dollars? And then retain the same book for five years? But that is not what happens.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The course codes actually do serve a purpose (besides laziness). I require course codes because my students do better on my handwritten tests when I do this.

 

I use a mix of online (for simple algebraic questions with simple answers) and handwritten (for graphing and "explain why" problems, as well as problems where I really want to see their work). Online, I allow 3 attempts per problem (numbers are regenerated for each one). The instant feedback means that I'm not getting an assignment where every problem is done wrong. They realize the first one is wrong and go into the book, instead of just contentedly circling their answer and continuing. 

 

Ideally, of course, I wouldn't mark homework at all, but assign it for learning only and post answer keys, and the students would read the answer key and figure out what they did wrong and use it to study for the test. But I have to teach the students that are in the class and not the students I wish I had in the class, and if I tried this, the failure rates would be astronomical. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is greed, simple practical business practices, and the profit motive that lead to competition, not that prevent competition.  Collusion between would-be competitors is a violation of anti-trust laws.  Do you trust the government to enforce these laws?  (If not, is that same government able to provide education?)

 

I do not agree with these conclusions of the college textbook market.  First, I am not seeing evidence that there are abnormal profits being earned by anyone.  Publishers are not, by any market measure I can determine, earning above average rates of return.  There are few barriers to entry into the market, much less than there has been in the past.  We are not seeing the market flooded with successful entrants to the market, and we are seeing existing publishers leave the market.  The authors themselves are not making large profits, either.  

 

All of the professors that I know do care about textbook prices.  IME they are not few and far between.  Many professors have gone to offering the looseleaf editions and online editions because they are cheaper, or they thought they were going to be cheaper.  Students who buy looseleaf editions are not simply getting "pile of paper" and students who buy an online edition are not simply getting "a string of numbers," they are purchashing the intellectual property of the copyright holders.  

 

As far as a law being passed about how much a book could sell for, what would be the price?  How would it be determined?  Would it b different for a physics book, an accounting book, a business law book?  Would this be a federal law or a state law?  Does this law apply to people selling their book on Amazon?  Are you expecting the university's to own the intellectual property in the book?  If not, how could the university be required to provide it for loan or for free?  

 

 

I don't think it'd be workable to put a maximum textbook price on college textbooks. That said, I do think it's ridiculous to keep coming out with new editions of books when it's unnecessary from an educational pov. You don't need e.g. a new physics 101 book every 2-3 years. Once a decade is plenty (if there are too few copies at some point, you can always do a second printing, which is much cheaper than a new edition). And it's okay if textbook publishers might have to shrink some if they were to put out new editions only once a decade. But that's just not in their interest... if they can get people to buy new editions every 3 years, why would they lay off a few people and put out new editions only once a decade? From the perspective of people working for textbook companies, it's good for their job security to come up with things like loose leaf editions, online codes, new editions every couple of years, etc. For the people who own a textbook company, it doesn't matter what happens... basically, whatever makes them the most money. For universities, it doesn't matter, so long as students keep attending their university (and realistically, how many students decide which university to attend based on the university's textbook policies? just about none, right?). It's only the students who are financially hurt by unneeded new editions, loose leaf texts, online codes, etc. 

 

The market is just not really working effectively wrt textbooks, since it's so indirect. If you look at teens or adults who are choosing to self-study a college subject, rather than taking a class, then I suspect that you'd find that the vast majority buy used textbooks that are a few years old. Because most people don't care about the 2017 edition... the 2012 edition is generally just fine. That's the market at work.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of the professors that I know do care about textbook prices.  IME they are not few and far between.  Many professors have gone to offering the looseleaf editions and online editions because they are cheaper, or they thought they were going to be cheaper.  Students who buy looseleaf editions are not simply getting "pile of paper" and students who buy an online edition are not simply getting "a string of numbers," they are purchashing the intellectual property of the copyright holders.  

 

The lose leaf copies have little resale value. Textbooks for introductory STEM courses contain content that has been around for fifty+ years and does not warrant new editions every few years that consist of layout and cosmetic changes and has no other purpose than driving up price. There is no other reason for bringing out a new introductory physics book than the desire to make money. None whatsoever. Students can learn all the material just fine from a book that is fifty years old.

 

I paid $900 for my DS' textbooks for bio, chem and calc, because every course had one or several access codes that are bundled with a textbook. All the textbooks are lose leaf custom editions that contain content I could have purchased for $10 in an old edition of a bound book. 

 

This is a scheme to squeeze as much money out of students as possible, and I do not understand why professors choose to be complicit in it.

Edited by regentrude
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I do not believe the schools in Finland spend as much money on sports for the elite few that the schools in the US do. Just imagine if the footballers had the budget that the current science and math teachers and have the science and math teachers were paid what the football staff is paid. Our schools would rock!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Being a working parent vs a stay at home parent is not about luxury. While my sample size is low, every working parent I know, who is in a two income family, will say that they could not possibly live without their vacations, their luxury SUVs, etc. Their extras would easily pay for them to be at home. If the lowest earning member of the family earns enough to cover the cost of working, child care, tutors, etc, then the highest earning one earns enough to support the family. It all just comes down to priorities. Now, I know this is not true 100% of the time, but I resent the notion that having an at-home parent is just a luxury or someone is lucky to have it. It is a sacrifice, a sacrifice that many are not willing to make. And while I am sure there are plenty of people out there that legitmately cannot afford to have an at-home parent, I have not met anyone like that yet. But I have met plenty of one income families that give up a lot to make sure it can happen.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

About the free lunches and breakfasts, a lot of parents who are abusive will refuse free lunches and breakfasts and then not send money.

 

FWIW, this happens in my district, but it certainly isn't a lot of parents.  It's a few (even "few" just among those who qualify).  Most are very appreciative of the assistance.  The vast majority of parents (regardless of income) do NOT want to see their kids going without food.  If nothing else, they're selfish enough to want the budget break so they can afford other things.  But most just want to see their kids eat since the budget is tight.  Those who are so insistent that they prefer having their kids starve are frustrating, but fortunately, the minority.  And yes, those in guidance will try to crack down if they can - often because they care about the kids.

 

ETA  ps  I doubt those kids would do better with privatized education.  Many of their parents wouldn't send them to school... nor homeschool them.  They already have options to homeschool, but choose not to do it.  They can't afford decent private schools.  I don't see vouchers suddenly getting them into decent private schools - just the same caliber school we have now, but with the added hassle of vouchers.

Edited by creekland
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The lose leaf copies have little resale value. Textbooks for introductory STEM courses contain content that has been around for fifty+ years and does not warrant new editions every few years that consist of layout and cosmetic changes and has no other purpose than driving up price. There is no other reason for bringing out a new introductory physics book than the desire to make money. None whatsoever. Students can learn all the material just fine from a book that is fifty years old.

 

I paid $900 for my DS' textbooks for bio, chem and calc, because every course had one or several access codes that are bundled with a textbook. All the textbooks are lose leaf custom editions that contain content I could have purchased for $10 in an old edition of a bound book.

 

This is a scheme to squeeze as much money out of students as possible, and I do not understand why professors choose to be complicit in it.

Exactly. Exactly. Exactly.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the topic of online courses:

"Nationwide, one in ten Americans lacks access to 25 Mbps/3 Mbps broadband. As importantly, there continues to be a significant disparity of access to advanced telecommunications capability across America with more than 39 percent of Americans living in rural areas lacking access to advanced telecommunications capability, as compared to 4 percent of Americans living in urban areas, and approximately 41 percent of Americans living on Tribal lands lacking access to advanced telecommunications capability. "

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-6A1.pdf

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure I don't know! I was not suggesting I have the perfect solution in mind; only demonstrating that I no longer mind regulations like this type.

 

 

 

The evidence that price setting by the government actually benefits consumers is spotty at best.  In fact, there are many cases where, even though price regulation was put in place with the best intentions, consumers are harmed by it rather than helped by it.  Implementing price regulation is much more complicated than a government entity passing a law of one maximum price that private companies must obey.  What happens when there are quality differences?  What happens to innovation?  What happens when no supplier wants to supply at that government mandated price?  What happens when technology advances allow for substitute goods which do no come under the initial price regulation?  What happens when those in government are motivated by the same type of self interests in those in business, so they accept bribes and other paybacks?  What happens when you add the cost of regulation and enforcement that taxpayers have to pay, are they really coming out ahead?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the topic of online courses:

"Nationwide, one in ten Americans lacks access to 25 Mbps/3 Mbps broadband. As importantly, there continues to be a significant disparity of access to advanced telecommunications capability across America with more than 39 percent of Americans living in rural areas lacking access to advanced telecommunications capability, as compared to 4 percent of Americans living in urban areas, and approximately 41 percent of Americans living on Tribal lands lacking access to advanced telecommunications capability. "

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-6A1.pdf

 

I'm an online professor and teacher, and even being close to a major metropolitan area, you would be amazed how many potential students don't have access to high speed internet. One of the instructors at the gym I go to regularly has to take her teens to Panera to finish up online assignments because she has satellite internet with monthly limits. She's 15 minutes from town.

 

And online education is NOT for everyone. There has to be time for self-teaching, a strong commitment, and the ability to learn that way. About 1/2 of my online college students are don't finish with a passing grade, and some of my other students taking live online courses from me probably would do better in a 5-day-a-week, face-to-face classroom or they need a parent involved every day to cover or overcome their challenges with online classes.

 

People are always calling online education the "wave of the future" that will put colleges out of business. I strongly disagree with that. Certainly online is a valid option for a segment of students, but it is not going to put face-to-face education out of business. My two college students did self-study, face-to-face, live online, and asynchronous classes in high school, and both much prefer face-to-face. My younger one is doing online classes through a local college because of health issues, which is a great reason to do online, but she's eager to return to the classroom. It just isn't the same.

Edited by G5052
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The lose leaf copies have little resale value. Textbooks for introductory STEM courses contain content that has been around for fifty+ years and does not warrant new editions every few years that consist of layout and cosmetic changes and has no other purpose than driving up price. There is no other reason for bringing out a new introductory physics book than the desire to make money. None whatsoever. Students can learn all the material just fine from a book that is fifty years old.

 

I paid $900 for my DS' textbooks for bio, chem and calc, because every course had one or several access codes that are bundled with a textbook. All the textbooks are lose leaf custom editions that contain content I could have purchased for $10 in an old edition of a bound book. 

 

This is a scheme to squeeze as much money out of students as possible, and I do not understand why professors choose to be complicit in it.I

I can't really speak to the textbooks for STEM courses, but in area like finance some of the basic content is the same as it was 50 years ago; time value of money is the same and the formula is the same.  However, the students are different (perhaps requiring different pedagogy) and the applications are different.

 

If I go to teach time value of money, and I show students an older textbook that has a summation sign it, they are clueless.  And, to be honest, if I am working a time value of money problem, I pull out my financial calculator or use Excel.  The newer textbooks reflect this new technology; the old textbooks do not.  Some of the pedagogical differences are more subtle.  Many of my students today cannot handle the vocabulary of an older text.  Do I use an older text where all of the examples are of white males running businesses and the only time a woman is mentioned in an example is how she is budgeting for her trips to the beauty shop?  I am told me the university's administration that doing so will make my predominantly minority student population feel alienated and impact graduation rates.   Does the online code give the student who has grown up in a world of instant feedback that feedback and would I receive complaints of how slow it was if they had to wait for me to grade homework to give feedback?  

 

I gave my students a study guide before an exam and received an email from a student that he couldn't find the definition of one of the terms on investopedia.  I asked if he looked in the textbook and his response was "where do I look?"  I suggested the index and got the response "what is an index?"  When I get students coming to college who do not know what an index is, is it time for me to start using a searchable ebook?  

 

The accrediting agency wants to see continuous improvement, learning outcomes statements, evidence-based pedagogy that ties back to the LOS, documentation of internationalization, innovation, etc.   The easiest way for my department to check all of those boxes has been to require a code, have students answer online questions that match up with LOS, generate the report, and then spend time on actual teaching.  

 

Personally, I do not like most of the online content and avoid it as much as possible.  Most professors I know are seriously looking at these issues and are concerned about the prices of textbooks.  One of the issues is whether the textbook is simply content or whether it is a significant portion of the course pedagogy.  When schools are pushing to have a professor have over 1000 students per semester (and the students enter college ill trained to read a traditional textbook), the publisher's content starts becoming a significant part of the class pedagogy.  This is intensified when a school begins relying heavily on adjuncts (who don't even have an older edition of the textbook) are thrown into large classes at the last minute.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read the responses, mostly because I am lazy and also not really wanting to get on my soapbox at this point of the discussion but I did want to add a point that maybe hasn't made it here yet.

 

The neighborhood my son grew up in (we moved there when he was little and moved out when he was graduating) was a seriously upper class neighborhood.  There were about minors in the neighborhood.  And among those 20 kids, *12* schools were represented, 13 if you count our homeschool (which most the neighbors assumed we did because we couldn't afford a Real School. haha).  

 

The effect of this was atomizing.  None of the kids played with one another, and I never really got to know the other moms.  We were all busy driving our kids to school or getting them to their activities or whatever.  My friends whose kids attended the local public school, they had nearby mom-friends, and their kids had a lot of fun playing together in the neighborhood, without having to make a big Play Date Deal out of it.  

 

I'm not trying to draw a pie-in-the-sky picture of this--I know that it isn't always the thing you want, your kid playing with the neighbor kid...but I definitely felt the atomization of people going so many directions and never connecting in the neighborhood.  

 

I wonder if that would happen in a completely privatized world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...