Still Against Private Schools? Think Again.

Umm, that's a public school with corporate sponsorship. Your title is factually incorrect.

You mean it's entirely disingenuous and has nothing to do with the debate you are trying to incite?

Sounds like a stretch.

There is a lot of room for improvement and increased efficiency in the public school system. Possibly one way to actually do something about it is to let a private corporation run a school, under contract. One thing that stands in the way is the bureaucratic control the state exercises over schools: who is allowed to teach, and who isn't. It really should be just in a contract, what proficiency the student must achieve at the end of each school year. Does it really matter who actually did the teaching? I guess Albert Einstein would not have been qualified to teach science in Oregon public high schools, from what I understand.

I put my money where my mouth is, to use an old expression. We sent our son to private school and still paid for public education through our tax bill. It cost $2500 a year in elementary school, while accounting office figures showed that Portland Public School district spent about $6500 per student.

My son's high school was more creative and cost no more than his grade school. He worked one day a week. They have their own bus fleet to take students to work. Each year students work a different day, and Mondays are rotation day, one day every four weeks. His senior year he worked at Xerox, and before that worked at a local radio station and an animal shelter. The companies pay the school something like $21,000 a year for each student worker. In summer, many students are offered paid summer jobs to keep up the continuity. This work-study program operates well, and is popular with parents and student alike. There is competition to get into this school. We were fortunate that we got in when the school first opened and few parents knew about it.

I think the biggest current problem with public schools, in my experience, is that they 'teach to the standardized test' for whatever state they are in, rather than offering a well rounded education. Would a private school be any better in that respect?

Who is "against private schools" anyhow?

It's a factually incorrect *and* ham-handed title.

Shawn

They'll be out don't worry. Some are against private schools.

Some even want all public schools to be disbanded.

Frankly the best option to establish the best quality scools, with the greatest variety of educational options at the lowest costs would be to privatize the whole system.

The government could require testing for a minimal set of basic skills (reading comprehension, writing, arithmetic, constitutional knowledge, some basic historical stuff and some basic scientific stuff) on a regular basis to ensure that parents are not neglecting the education of their kids.

Separate method (a publicly-funded educational system) from results. Give people the maximum amount of freedom of choice for educating their kids. Create massive amount of competition.

Told you.

That has never worked, and won't ever work, Chris. Good private education is not affordable for the working poor -- your system would punish parents for failing to find affordable good educational opportunities rather than the private institutions that spring up "to ensure parents are not neglecting the education of their children."

The standards and funding ARE to a large degree separate -- funding is at a local level, standards are at a state and national level. My preference would be funding at a state level and standards at a national level.

The problem with all arguments about private schools being more cost effective is the fact that teachers salaries have been forced artificially low by the fact that they are governmental employees -- once you take that barrier away, teachers will need to be paid at what they are worth. And private schools are not significantly better or even necessarily on par with public schools (depending on the region, locality, funding, and support for local schools).

Our PUBLIC educational system is the backbone of economic mobility in this nation, any privatization of the system will by necessity slow class mobility and that is a bad thing.

And this is exactly the wrong discussion to have here. Thanks original poster for your stupid thread title.

What we SHOULD discuss here is how corporate sponsorship in public schools can help to provide a better educational experience for America's youth.

In the early history (mid-1700's to mid-1800's) of this country most schools were privately owned and operated and they worked fine. In fact some argue that compared to today's (basic) educational level, students of that era were far superior. In 1650, male literacy in America was 60%. Between 1800 and 1840, literacy in the Northern States increased from 75% to 90%, and in Southern States from 60% to 81%. This all happened before what we call the public (compulsory, government-funded) school system existed. Funny (sad) statistic: Massachusetts had reached a level of 98% literacy in 1850. This occurred before the state's compulsory education law of 1852. Senator Edward Kennedy's office released a paper in the 1980s stating that literacy in Massachusetts was only 91%.


No. Of course not. Competition would create a wide variety of pricing options for all customers. Further, parents would be able to choose educational options in an a la carte fasion completely unavailable currently.



Wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. Teachers are very well paid...and (at least in my state) they also built in (to the constitution!) cost-of-living raises regardless of economic conditions, attendance, etc. These were the only people getting raises (and not getting laid off) during the last recession. Very secure and well paid...great benefits. The NEA (the largest and one of the most powerful unions in the country) has consistently ensured that teacher pay has not been "forced artificially low".



Indeed (except I would say that when you take away the monopoly position they have)...and for many it will be less than they are currently paid.


Most are at least on par. But more to the point, greater competition and choice will improve all of the schools.


So we're told.


Giving parents a choice of where to send their kids will give them options currently unavailable. If parents are stuck in a poor area...with poor public schools...giving them an (or many) option(s) will enable them to move their kids to other schools seeking out the best education they can afford. Certainly in true hardship cases we would see scholarships and grants established to help truly financially disadvantaged families. This needed even be done through the government though.

Do you really think that giving parents a choice in the schooling for the children is a bad thing?

I don't believe private schools provide a more rounded education per se. Some do I'm sure. Typically, private schools provide a good education at a reasonable price, and offer more variety. This is what I've observed locally.

Public schools are like any public project, inefficient, at least here in Portland. But what influenced me most is the administration. New programs are implemented seemingly without consideration for merit. Someone likes an idea and the kids become guinea pigs. It has to fail badly and undergo years of trying to make it work before it is dropped. Some programs fail less badly and continue seemingly forever without evaluation.

Private schools can't afford to behave this way, and are more goal oriented and budget conscious. When public schools need more money, they usually get it. The practice is to cut programs so it hurts the kids in some visible way. Kid are also brainwashed in class to encourage their parents to vote 'yes' for schools. It always passes at election time.

I'm not getting into the bigger argument here about educational philosophy, except to say free education should be available to all children, K-12. How you go about it is debatable. Some say a voucher system and plenty of private schools, could save a great deal of money and improve efficiency. Public schools would have to compete with the private sector. Others say some of the public schools should be run by private companies under contract, to compete with those run by government employees. With this system we could see who produces the best educated graduates. Still others are happy with the public school system the way it is.

When my son reached school age, I had to choose what I thought was best for him from what was available at the time. I chose private school. With conditions the way they are today, I'd make the same choice. I've seen no progress in public education. It has been status quo.

\

Bah, not nit picking in the least. It's calling you out for being disingenuous and trying to actually discuss the video itself rather than dragging out once again this stupid polarizing public vs private school discussion.

How would that *not* enable massive educational iniquity?

God-- you people don't even want to guarantee a high level of education for all-- just auction it off to the highest bidder and pray to God that competition lowers the price somewhat for those who can't afford a good school.

Despicable.

FWIW, I think that traditional education should *not* be compulsory beyond middle school. I know this may sound crazy at first, but what really hampers public schools is their requirement to take on all comers. That means they basically are baby sitting a percentage of students who simply don't want to be there. This group is what I call the 'lowest common denominator' and this group is what sets the bar so to speak when it comes to acceptable knowledge for graduation. Schools aren't going to fail them they just move them on through despite their short comings. For those who don't want a traditional education they could be required to be enrolled in a trade school. Public schools could then concentrate on getting students ready for college.

Let's face it, a high school degree is not worth much. If that's all one has they probably would be better off with a trade school degree anyway.

Because it would enable people now stuck in bad (public) schools to have a choice to get out of them and find better ones for their kids. It might true that there will be inequity of outcomes...but there would be greater equity of opportunities. Furthermore, ven its most vehement supporters would scarcely claim that public schools offer equal quality of education across socioeconomic lines.


First of all it is a fallacy to assume that you can "guarantee a high level of education for all". Second, implicit in your statement is the typical "one size fits all" philosophy.


Somewhat?


The United States Department of Education is saying that private schools are less costly (by more than half) per student than public schools!

You average statistic is bullshit. While it might be true, it does not reflect the REAL cost of schools to people of middle to low income -- the tax base for schools is property, far less than 50% of people with children in schools are paying that much. What this means, Chris, is that these families will be more than likely unable to afford the education their children currently get. Your proposed system makes things worse for average income earners.

Edit: Your house would have to be worth over $400000 for you to be paying the average public school tuition in property taxes a year, or $200000 for private tuition.

Education isn't a family by family venture, nor should it be. If your neighbor is more poorly educated, it affects you more directly than if they can afford a new boat or not...

I should note that your suggestion that people in the late 18th/mid-19th century were better educated is a bit of a turd. Access to education (formal) was limited to the wealthiest of the wealthy -- the subjects they covered were the classics: read latin and greek and NOTHING else. There was no formal training in math, at least not the the level and depth that we have, there was virtually NO science (perhaps you like that -- get rid of them thar science so dat mi kiddies don't hafta think), there was no literature per se -- the novel barely existed at that time period. Your statistics are as usual irrelevant in this regards, a sign of a well educated population is equity in literacy between genders and classes... you don't have statistics on women, i wonder why... Your statistics are more than likely white men in the 'reading' class.

So there you go... Your economic rational is weak -- average americans cannot afford public schools as is or even private schools. Your statistics are vague and not supportive of your arguments. Your statements on history are hopelessly unadvised, and your general view on this issue is wrong...

Children should be given every real opportunity in the world to get the best education possible. I went to one of the best high schools in the nation, it was public, its population was economically and racially diverse by order of the justice department, it was more work and more intense than the super elite college i attended afterward (which in comparison was a cake walk). My parents could have easily afforded to send me to a nationally known private school (in fact they offered as much), but I got the best education I could have at my local high school. Hands down.

For further proof: Look at the charter schools which have failed completely in every local I have ever lived. Sure, there may be some, somewhere, that provide a good alternative... but they don't live up to the standards of the public school they replace (on average)...

OK. You're right. Let's just continue with bandaging the marvelously effective system we have now.

If I understand, you prefer to eliminate public schools. Taxes would drop drastically, but many low income households would not be able to afford the cost of school. True, the private sector would step in, but it would not work for all, and mean applying for financial aid, which is more red tape for the poor.

What is your opinion of a voucher system? Every child has a voucher for public education, but it may be used for say $3000 toward tuition at a private school. This is less than half the cost of a student in a typical public school. Since I sent my son to both elementary and high schools for less than this amount, every family would have a choice, which is what you appear to want.

The impact on the current system should be minimal, and a transition to more private school would occur naturally, through supply and demand. At first, there will be waiting lists for private schools, and many would have to continue attending public schools. As more private schools become available, the transition would begin.

The argument against vouchers is that it would deprive public schools of adequate funding. True, but not in the way opponents make it sound. Right now, Portland Public Schools is adjusting to smaller enrollments, which is like the impact of a voucher system and shift to private schools. Only, in the case of Portland, it is mostly a shift of school aged population to suburban schools. I suspect there is also a shift to private schools within the city of Portland. Property values have skyrocketed, and the typical household income may now be higher here than in the suburbs.

The declining of public school enrollment is being dealt with in Portland, and is not causing an unmanageable problem. The school district is closing some schools and selling the property. In one case, a former public school building was purchased by a private high school, because they needed to expand.

How 'bout we actually have reforms unimpeded by the cynical anti-education lobby?

Every good reform is hindered by people who don't believe that the schools are worth it...

We have been "reforming" things for decades now. This might be an indication that we are trying to make a silk purse from a sows ear. Have you even stopped to consider the possibility that the system as it currently existed in fundamentally flawed? Or are you simply blinded by your own assumptions of what it is and should be? Have you even tried to consider the other possibilities beyond superficial, pithy dismissals of them?

I think that, on the whole, a private, competitive, free-market system of schools will provide the greatest benefits for the greatest number of people, with the greatest number of options and flexibility.


Probably not as many as the chicken-littles would have us believe...and there would solutions for these.


Why do you assume this?


Voucher systems might be a step in the right direction...but still not a complete solution...a couple of reasons:

1. It seems to not be granular enough...what if you want to do more than simply choose school B over school A? What if you want to choose the math program from school A, the history program from school C, the science program from school D, etc.? Well, then you can sub-divide the "voucher" into "voucher units" or some such thing...but now you have just created a new currency system. Why? You've simply made things more complicated. Why not just let people have their money and let them choose...if enforcement is any issue...testing is a way to handle this. Also, can I use them for home school expenses? How so? How regulated will this be (see next point)?

2. Vouchers still have government as the intermediary...meaning that government gets to control what you do/don't spend the "money" on. This gets really tricky...and already most people recoil in horror that anyone might be able to use the "taxpayer's" money to send their kid to a religious school.


As a transitional step...I agree. Better than nothing. My goal would be for complete freedom for parents...and no government intervention (short of some kind of limited testing to ensure parents are not neglecting their kids education).


Only for the one's that probably should be deprived of it because they are not meeting the desires and demands of parents and students. So be it.


The way declining enrollment was dealt with on Colorado a couple of years ago was to ask for more money due to some bizarre reasoning that because they had fewer kids, they needed more money (it passed)...in fact they used the opposite reasoning in two consecutive years! They both passed. I guess the public schools' failure to educate generations in any sort of logical thinking and reasoning is beginning to pay off now.

Eat it, Chris.

Serious, fact based reform efforts have not been underway for any amount of time. We refuse to study the issues at hand, the government doesn't support studies of this sort; that is a problem.

If the institution was fundamentally flawed there wouldn't be an increasing number of people attending college...

Edit:

What assumptions do I have, Chris?

Vouchers historically stem from post-Little Rock Southern Whites attempts to find 'legitimate' means to maintain segregation under the auspices of 'equal opportunity' and 'random' selections.

I don't believe that current attempts have the same racist background, however they are a bandage on a system rather than a fix. Vouchers or similar 'reforms' don't actually fix things, they attempt to avoid the problem (originally blacks, now ... presumably poor schools?). Truthfully, like charter schools energies would be better directed at integrated approaches to improving poor schools.

You also have to remember that schools in rural areas are also quite poor, and opportunities to find outside educational choices are limited...

I stated my point poorly, and you may be correct, that there are few very poor families who could not afford private school at all. I was considering low income households in general, often with many children. Private education would be an extreme hardship on such families. Private school do try to help with scholarships, but it requires a lot of volunteer work for just a few families. With all children going to private schools, I think it would not work, from what I have seen. My son's schools provided scholarships, and my wife put in many hours working on it, for not many families. (Who by the way did not show up to help, but considered it an entitlement, I guess.)



I think your argument may be off a little here. Even with all private schools, few would go to three different schools for their classes. If they do, it can be worked out as in my son's high school. His school handled the details with the other school, not the parents. I don't know how it worked. Maybe the schools traded favors somehow?



I don't envision an actual piece of paper voucher. Whatever school a child attends simply gets a payment from the educational department, which are from tax dollars set aside for education. If the family moves and the child transfers schools, the funds go to the school the child actually attends. You are right that religious schools create a 'potential' problem, which would need to be worked out in advance. It could take special legislation.



Such tactics have been used here too. It is fortunate that the new head of Portland schools has enough common sense to solve the problem reasonably.

hardeeharhar, why don't you just admit that you are opposed to parents having a full range of choices in how they educate their kids. It really is that simple. That's fine. It's your right. But don't try to hide behind a smoke screen of justifications for this basic position that you hold. Dare I say that (on this issue) you are "anti-choice"?

I think it would work better than many people believe. Some people are scared. Some people simply don't wish to allow this kind of freedom. Lots of varying motives to maintain the status quo on this.


Perhaps. But why the limitation at all. Some will choose. More may if they could.


But why? Why couldn't we just let parents choose for themselves instead of relying on behind the scenes trades that may or may not happen?


I understand that. I think you may have misunderstood me. My comment had little to do with "paper" of any kind. The point was that if you start doing things like sub-dividing the "vouchers" into (smaller) "units"...you effectively have created a new, alternative currency.


Once again...much complexity and rules and regulations to try and accomodate what should be a simple thing. Let parents keep the money and decide for themselves. No special legislation is required to allow parents the freedom of sending their kids to whatever school (religious or otherwise) they want to.

In the end it all seems like we're trying to erect this elaborate obstacle course for what seems to be the primary purpose of maintaining the current system (government-funded and operated schools).

Your system of choice is the same system of choice now. People can use their economic positions to move into nicer neighborhoods with nicer schools. No one is preventing them from doing so...
Or as in your case, people can use their economic position to enroll their children in nicer schools in nicer neighborhoods. They are the same.

I think that parents shouldn't have to make a choice. I want a system which is truly equitable, and that system can never exist when it is entirely privatized, and vouchers, charter schools and the like are simply wasted energy away from that goal.

Let's face it. You would rather have the wealthier "many" have a choice at the expense of the poorer 'few." You are a classist.

Incorrect.


That is not what I am talking about. Clearly people can (within limits) do this now. Why should anyone be forced to move to change schools? Answer me that.


No they are not. Under my suggestion, no one would be forced to mvoe or change home or neighborhoods to choose a different school. Furthermore, new schools that currently do not exist would come into existence to meet new and different needs that emerge from the new freedom of choice (and the economic reality that goes along with that).


So? Just because you don't think they should have to does not provide substantive rationale for preventing them from doing so.


That doesn't exist now. Not even close. In a private, competitive system, the variety of choices would expand, the quality would increase and the costs would go down. All of these things would benefit all "customers" (rich and poor).


Wrong.


Wrong.

What makes you so afraid of giving people this freedom?

You are full of shit.

Capitalism is not an equitable system, any claims otherwise are signs of intense naiveté. Your system cannot be fair, students of wealthier individuals living near businesses, er, schools, will have a better chance at getting a quality education than students of even moderate means.

Look at public versus private colleges for a taste of what would occur under your system...

Edit: Capitalism does not increase quality. It increases profit for business owners. Quality, in fact, goes down as items become more profitable. Privatized educational systems will suffer from the same economics -- pressure to keep costs down and profits high with no real judgement of educational value. Capitalism also doesn't work well when you have a service contract type setting -- each student will presumably be required to sign a contract for attendance for a year. Do you honestly expect parents to be able to evaluate, accurately, the educational value their students are receiving and act on that every year? Do you honestly expect schools to appear as needed to provide the proper amount of education at the appropriate economic levels if there are failing schools? Your proposition is as stupid as it is naive....

You are evading the question:

What makes you so afraid of giving people this freedom?

or, put another way...

Do you really think that giving parents a choice in the schooling for the children is a bad thing?

Since you are evading my direct questions, let me add a couple more...

Kids (people in general) need food, clothing and shelter too (in addition to education)...why don't we nationalize/socialize/governmentize the acquisition of these things? Why should we leave these to the free-market when it is obvious that everyone will not be able to get the same (equitable) level of food, clothing and shelter?

Parents have a choice in schooling their children. If there was a market for low cost private school education, such institutions would exist. Oh wait. There isn't... You see, your entire argument depends upon the shutting down of public schools to create a market that doesn't naturally exist.

Education is fundamentally different than all other exchanged goods. Quality of education actually legitimately affects the course of a persons life. In very few cases (for which we do actually provide government money towards) do food, clothing, and shelter matter in this manner. A person wearing a $20 shirt will not be significantly more clothed than a person wearing a $1 shirt. A person with a quality education will be significantly more educated than a person with a bad education. See the difference? Capitalism works fine when the market doesn't deal with things that actually matter for a person's livelihood -- and there are very few things that do, one really. It isn't like you can choose NOT to eat sushi every night, that choice will never exist for education.

Now you are simply being either stupid or dishonest. Which is it?


No it isn't.


As does proper food, clothing and shelter.


Wrong.


This is such a stupid (or wilfully dishonest) statement I cannot even imagine where to begin refuting it.

Since you have now demonstrated:

a) Your complete lack of understanding or recognition of reality, and
b) A refusal to answer direct questions, and
c) A willingness to be completely dishonest...

There doesn't seem to be any point in continuing this.

But...if you'd like to continue, you can answer these questions:

- Do you really think that giving parents a choice in the schooling for the children is a bad thing?
- What makes you so afraid of giving people this freedom?