No you haven't. Please show the post if you have. Here are the questions again. Please feel free to answer them directly and succintly:
- 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?
The first is a simple yes/no answer. The second should be a relatively short answer too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar
What about the way things are now that prevents entrepreneurs from starting private schools that do exactly what you think they should do?
The fact that the government already takes money from people that could be used for private schooling. Are you really that blind that you don't see this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar
There isn't anything at all that does, so the lack of a large private educational enterprise indicates that there isn't a market for it
You are so utterly wrong it amazes me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar
if you disagree with this statement, then you really don't understand capitalism...
Its quite obvious that you don't. Demand is about available money to be spent on a product or service (not "Gee, I'd like that." sentiments). When the money is already being taken to provide a "free" school system then the "demand" has been absorbed (by force). In this case, the only people that really have a choice are the middle, upper-middle and upper classes simply because their income levels will allow them to absorb the taking of money by the government, as well as the payment for tuition at some other school (basically paying twice...once for one they use and once for one they don't but are forced to pay for anyway). The poor in such a situation do not realistically have any choice here.
It is clear that you believe that people should not have freedom of choice in this matter. You have just avoided saying it out loud and explicitly because you realize how utterly distasteful it is to admit it to yourself (or others). It might actually cause you to re-think your position on this matter.
Chis, just think about everything I have said in this thread. It answers all of your questions and shows clearly, even with your own rationalizations about the economics of the situation, that your proposed privatization model will not provide any greater access to quality education than currently exist. In fact, it goes further, it shows that your proposal will actively deny a large group of people the education they can currently get.
Capitalism has existed for a long time and only when education was made public did it then reach everyone. History is against you, Chris...
Chis, just think about everything I have said in this thread. It answers all of your questions
It was a simple yes or no question...followed by why. You won't answer directly. Got it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar
and shows clearly, even with your own rationalizations about the economics of the situation, that your proposed privatization model will not provide any greater access to quality education than currently exist. In fact, it goes further, it shows that your proposal will actively deny a large group of people the education they can currently get.
You've shown no such thing...you've only claimed it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar
History is against you, Chris...
You got your history from your public school education? It shows.
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.
It's not freedom we are talking about in what you are replying to. It is whether there would be sufficient assistance to families for whom private education would be a real hardship. In my real life experience, it took a big effort on the part of the school and a handful of parents to raise fund for just a few low income families. The number would multiply many times if there were no public schools. Where will the funds come from? It's unreasonable to expect a few parents and generous donors will support all those who would need financial assistance.
As another example, look at the state run universities. Many students must apply for financial aid and the tuition is about $6500 a year, here at Portland State University, which is downtown. Far fewer continue on past high school, so those requiring financial aid in K-12 will be far greater. Such funding will not magically appear, as you seem to think.
The government now supports the poor in many ways, with food stamps, housing assistance and health insurance. It's a system we are stuck with for quite some time. It is not ideal, but then nothing is. Assistance for educational costs is likely the only way to transition away for government supplied schools for children.
For those who think it is unreasonable for the private sector to provided all or most of the educational needs, just consider what we have now. Support for food for the poor. Do they shop at the free government supermarket? No, they get VOUCHERS, called food stamps, which they redeem at the local, privately owned grocery store. Just look at all the aid to low income households, and you will see government funding of private sector goods and services.
Quote:
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?
Again, you don't seem to be following what I posted, that few students apply for classes at more than one school, and it simply doesn't cause a real life problem. In the case of my son's high school, it was simply an arrangement between two schools, and the parents were not involved. If there are funds involved, the school at which my son was enrolled took care of it. I'm sure there are many more ways to handle issues like this too. Why look for little problems that don't exist?
Quote:
. . . 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.
I'm not talking about vouchers at all, really, but about government assistance for education. If parents chooses public schools, it is free, just as it is now. If they choose private, the assistance is limited to $3000 per school year.
Quote:
Once again...much complexity and rules and regulations to try and accommodate 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.
"Let parents keep the money . . ." There is your mistake. We are talking about families who have no money to set aside for private education. There is not easy way to solve this problem, and we must start with what we have. Maybe someday in an idealistic world there will be other solutions, but I don't see any. Please, if you can solve this problem for a poor family, let us know how. What my son's high school was doing was a step toward assistance that did not involve the government. But it work only with great effort by parents help just a few families. The private school system simply isn't prepared to take on the responsibility of educating the children from all the low income families. We might work toward this end, but it can't happen now.
Philosophically, we are very close to agreeing. I've worked in engineering management and have had to deal with economic as well as technical issues that stand it the way of a project. I've never been able to do something in an ideal way, but had to compromise over and over to get the job done. We must work with what we have now, whether we like it or not. I've learned the hard way to say "good enough" when in my heart I'd would like to have done it better.
It is whether there would be sufficient assistance to families for whom private education would be a real hardship. In my real life experience, it took a big effort on the part of the school and a handful of parents to raise fund for just a few low income families. The number would multiply many times if there were no public schools. Where will the funds come from?
I think its quite workable. I could go into all of the statistics...but don't have teh time. Here's a good starting point that directly addresses that issue:
Again, you don't seem to be following what I posted, that few students apply for classes at more than one school, and it simply doesn't cause a real life problem.
With due respect, I don't think you are seeing my point. Why make this a limitation at all? Why not allow people to choose, a la carte, from a menu of educational options (from different providers) for there kids? Why shouldn't this be allowed? Just because we don't think it is likely? The market would sort out what ends up working best for most.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy
I'm not talking about vouchers at all, really, but about government assistance for education. If parents chooses public schools, it is free, just as it is now. If they choose private, the assistance is limited to $3000 per school year.
I get that. I think you missed my point about the granularity of the usage/"purchase".
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy
"Let parents keep the money . . ." There is your mistake. We are talking about families who have no money to set aside for private education.
Well, first, with much lower taxes they'd have some. But assuming they don't have "enough"...there are solutions to that problem that do not require a massive government funded all or nothing school system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy
Please, if you can solve this problem for a poor family, let us know how.
I think it begins with freedom of choice...expanding that freedom as much as possible. It is the poor that do not have this freedom today. That alone will enable these parents to make better choices for their kids...getting them out of bad schools and into better ones. Financial help can also be arranged, but again, this doesn't require a massive government-funded school system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy
The private school system simply isn't prepared to take on the responsibility of educating the children from all the low income families.
I think you're wrong. I think you'd be quite surprised.
The freedom, accompanyied with the necessary money (already taken from them) to choose any school (public, private, religious, etc.) they want to.
Do be a fool. It does not.
You oppose true freedom of choice for parents on this issue. Just admit it finally.
Parents have choices. Parents make choices. They make career choices. They choose where they live, they choose to have children. They choose all sorts of things that affect their children.
I don't see how this limits their choices in terms of education. Look at dmz, he has chosen to live in Kenai, and with that choice has taken responsibility and decided to home-school his children. He could have lived elsewhere, he could have sent his children to the public school. What you are attempting to claim is that your system will offer more choices, but it won't; only wealthy individuals will actually be able to take advantage of any privatization -- i consider people who own houses worth more than $200000 to be firmly middle to upper middle class, these are the people whose property taxes will directly convert to the "average" tuition of private schools -- btw the breakdown isn't so favorable, the average cost of secular private education is $10000... Everyone below that point -- some 80% of the population will actually have to spend more money on education (assuming the average remains the same, which is unlikely as demand will go up, and supply is not likely to meet that increased demand, because it doesn't currently, and that is the nature of education) than they do currently -- oh, and that is if they only have ONE child in school... With two or more children, people would have to be firmly upper middle class to send their children to private schools...
So... you want to give economic 'choice' for the wealthy while taking away education, for the middle class...
Parents have choices. Parents make choices. They make career choices. They choose where they live, they choose to have children. They choose all sorts of things that affect their children.
But most do not have the realistic or practical opportunity to choose the primary educational path for their children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar
I don't see how this limits their choices in terms of education.
Because they don't have the money. Duh! Are you really this obtuse?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar
What you are attempting to claim is that your system will offer more choices, but it won't;
I'm not attempting to claim this...I am explcitly claiming it.
Yes it will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar
only wealthy individuals will actually be able to take advantage of any privatization
It is only these people that have these options now!
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar
So... you want to give economic 'choice' for the wealthy while taking away education, for the middle class...
Completely wrong.
You clearly do not want poor people to have the freedom of choice that richer people do. Open your eyes man!
Comments
Answer this question for yourself: Why should wealthier people be guaranteed to have better education than poorer people?
I have answered your question time and time again
No you haven't. Please show the post if you have. Here are the questions again. Please feel free to answer them directly and succintly:
- 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?
The first is a simple yes/no answer. The second should be a relatively short answer too.
What about the way things are now that prevents entrepreneurs from starting private schools that do exactly what you think they should do?
The fact that the government already takes money from people that could be used for private schooling. Are you really that blind that you don't see this?
There isn't anything at all that does, so the lack of a large private educational enterprise indicates that there isn't a market for it
You are so utterly wrong it amazes me.
if you disagree with this statement, then you really don't understand capitalism...
Its quite obvious that you don't. Demand is about available money to be spent on a product or service (not "Gee, I'd like that." sentiments). When the money is already being taken to provide a "free" school system then the "demand" has been absorbed (by force). In this case, the only people that really have a choice are the middle, upper-middle and upper classes simply because their income levels will allow them to absorb the taking of money by the government, as well as the payment for tuition at some other school (basically paying twice...once for one they use and once for one they don't but are forced to pay for anyway). The poor in such a situation do not realistically have any choice here.
It is clear that you believe that people should not have freedom of choice in this matter. You have just avoided saying it out loud and explicitly because you realize how utterly distasteful it is to admit it to yourself (or others). It might actually cause you to re-think your position on this matter.
I am done here, Chris.
Of course.
Capitalism has existed for a long time and only when education was made public did it then reach everyone. History is against you, Chris...
Chis, just think about everything I have said in this thread. It answers all of your questions
It was a simple yes or no question...followed by why. You won't answer directly. Got it.
and shows clearly, even with your own rationalizations about the economics of the situation, that your proposed privatization model will not provide any greater access to quality education than currently exist. In fact, it goes further, it shows that your proposal will actively deny a large group of people the education they can currently get.
You've shown no such thing...you've only claimed it.
History is against you, Chris...
You got your history from your public school education? It shows.
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.
It's not freedom we are talking about in what you are replying to. It is whether there would be sufficient assistance to families for whom private education would be a real hardship. In my real life experience, it took a big effort on the part of the school and a handful of parents to raise fund for just a few low income families. The number would multiply many times if there were no public schools. Where will the funds come from? It's unreasonable to expect a few parents and generous donors will support all those who would need financial assistance.
As another example, look at the state run universities. Many students must apply for financial aid and the tuition is about $6500 a year, here at Portland State University, which is downtown. Far fewer continue on past high school, so those requiring financial aid in K-12 will be far greater. Such funding will not magically appear, as you seem to think.
The government now supports the poor in many ways, with food stamps, housing assistance and health insurance. It's a system we are stuck with for quite some time. It is not ideal, but then nothing is. Assistance for educational costs is likely the only way to transition away for government supplied schools for children.
For those who think it is unreasonable for the private sector to provided all or most of the educational needs, just consider what we have now. Support for food for the poor. Do they shop at the free government supermarket? No, they get VOUCHERS, called food stamps, which they redeem at the local, privately owned grocery store. Just look at all the aid to low income households, and you will see government funding of private sector goods and services.
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?
Again, you don't seem to be following what I posted, that few students apply for classes at more than one school, and it simply doesn't cause a real life problem. In the case of my son's high school, it was simply an arrangement between two schools, and the parents were not involved. If there are funds involved, the school at which my son was enrolled took care of it. I'm sure there are many more ways to handle issues like this too. Why look for little problems that don't exist?
. . . 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.
I'm not talking about vouchers at all, really, but about government assistance for education. If parents chooses public schools, it is free, just as it is now. If they choose private, the assistance is limited to $3000 per school year.
Once again...much complexity and rules and regulations to try and accommodate 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.
"Let parents keep the money . . ." There is your mistake. We are talking about families who have no money to set aside for private education. There is not easy way to solve this problem, and we must start with what we have. Maybe someday in an idealistic world there will be other solutions, but I don't see any. Please, if you can solve this problem for a poor family, let us know how. What my son's high school was doing was a step toward assistance that did not involve the government. But it work only with great effort by parents help just a few families. The private school system simply isn't prepared to take on the responsibility of educating the children from all the low income families. We might work toward this end, but it can't happen now.
Philosophically, we are very close to agreeing. I've worked in engineering management and have had to deal with economic as well as technical issues that stand it the way of a project. I've never been able to do something in an ideal way, but had to compromise over and over to get the job done. We must work with what we have now, whether we like it or not. I've learned the hard way to say "good enough" when in my heart I'd would like to have done it better.
You got your history from your public school education? It shows.
You are such an ass.
Your question is irrelevant. There is no yes or no answer because the question doesn't make sense in the context of this debate.
You haven't shown that your system creates even a means to produce improvements in education...
Your question is irrelevant. There is no yes or no answer because the question doesn't make sense in the context of this debate.
- 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?
- Do you really think that giving parents a choice in the schooling for the children is a bad thing?
If it is a real choice with guaranteed admittance, they have it.
- What makes you so afraid of giving people this freedom?
What freedom don't they already have?
Your system reduces freedom as indigent individuals will have no means to send their children to school.
It is whether there would be sufficient assistance to families for whom private education would be a real hardship. In my real life experience, it took a big effort on the part of the school and a handful of parents to raise fund for just a few low income families. The number would multiply many times if there were no public schools. Where will the funds come from?
I think its quite workable. I could go into all of the statistics...but don't have teh time. Here's a good starting point that directly addresses that issue:
http://www.honestedu.org/essays/cardiff/poor.php
Again, you don't seem to be following what I posted, that few students apply for classes at more than one school, and it simply doesn't cause a real life problem.
With due respect, I don't think you are seeing my point. Why make this a limitation at all? Why not allow people to choose, a la carte, from a menu of educational options (from different providers) for there kids? Why shouldn't this be allowed? Just because we don't think it is likely? The market would sort out what ends up working best for most.
I'm not talking about vouchers at all, really, but about government assistance for education. If parents chooses public schools, it is free, just as it is now. If they choose private, the assistance is limited to $3000 per school year.
I get that. I think you missed my point about the granularity of the usage/"purchase".
"Let parents keep the money . . ." There is your mistake. We are talking about families who have no money to set aside for private education.
Well, first, with much lower taxes they'd have some. But assuming they don't have "enough"...there are solutions to that problem that do not require a massive government funded all or nothing school system.
Please, if you can solve this problem for a poor family, let us know how.
I think it begins with freedom of choice...expanding that freedom as much as possible. It is the poor that do not have this freedom today. That alone will enable these parents to make better choices for their kids...getting them out of bad schools and into better ones. Financial help can also be arranged, but again, this doesn't require a massive government-funded school system.
The private school system simply isn't prepared to take on the responsibility of educating the children from all the low income families.
I think you're wrong. I think you'd be quite surprised.
If it is a real choice with guaranteed admittance, they have it.
No they don't.
What freedom don't they already have?
The freedom, accompanyied with the necessary money (already taken from them) to choose any school (public, private, religious, etc.) they want to.
Your system reduces freedom as indigent individuals will have no means to send their children to school.
Do be a fool. It does not.
You oppose true freedom of choice for parents on this issue. Just admit it finally.
Is there any reason to abandon public schools? Anyone?
- Because they are a failure.
- To give people freedom of educational choice.
- To create a competitive market for educational options.
- To get the government out of the business of dictating what can/can't, should/shouldn't be taught.
- To end the endless bickering about what should and shouldn't happen in schools (books, prayer, arts, evolution/creation, etc.)
- To lower the total cost spent in the country for primary education.
No they don't.
The freedom, accompanyied with the necessary money (already taken from them) to choose any school (public, private, religious, etc.) they want to.
Do be a fool. It does not.
You oppose true freedom of choice for parents on this issue. Just admit it finally.
Parents have choices. Parents make choices. They make career choices. They choose where they live, they choose to have children. They choose all sorts of things that affect their children.
I don't see how this limits their choices in terms of education. Look at dmz, he has chosen to live in Kenai, and with that choice has taken responsibility and decided to home-school his children. He could have lived elsewhere, he could have sent his children to the public school. What you are attempting to claim is that your system will offer more choices, but it won't; only wealthy individuals will actually be able to take advantage of any privatization -- i consider people who own houses worth more than $200000 to be firmly middle to upper middle class, these are the people whose property taxes will directly convert to the "average" tuition of private schools -- btw the breakdown isn't so favorable, the average cost of secular private education is $10000... Everyone below that point -- some 80% of the population will actually have to spend more money on education (assuming the average remains the same, which is unlikely as demand will go up, and supply is not likely to meet that increased demand, because it doesn't currently, and that is the nature of education) than they do currently -- oh, and that is if they only have ONE child in school... With two or more children, people would have to be firmly upper middle class to send their children to private schools...
So... you want to give economic 'choice' for the wealthy while taking away education, for the middle class...
Good job, Chris... Classic classism...
- Because they are a failure.
- To give people freedom of educational choice.
- To create a competitive market for educational options.
- To get the government out of the business of dictating what can/can't, should/shouldn't be taught.
- To end the endless bickering about what should and shouldn't happen in schools (books, prayer, arts, evolution/creation, etc.)
- To lower the total cost spent in the country for primary education.
How are public schools a "failure"?
Do you even know how standards are created?
The total cost will increase because it is capitalism, there is NO pressure to keep profits down.
Parents have choices. Parents make choices. They make career choices. They choose where they live, they choose to have children. They choose all sorts of things that affect their children.
But most do not have the realistic or practical opportunity to choose the primary educational path for their children.
I don't see how this limits their choices in terms of education.
Because they don't have the money. Duh! Are you really this obtuse?
What you are attempting to claim is that your system will offer more choices, but it won't;
I'm not attempting to claim this...I am explcitly claiming it.
Yes it will.
only wealthy individuals will actually be able to take advantage of any privatization
It is only these people that have these options now!
So... you want to give economic 'choice' for the wealthy while taking away education, for the middle class...
Completely wrong.
You clearly do not want poor people to have the freedom of choice that richer people do. Open your eyes man!
The total cost will increase because it is capitalism, there is NO pressure to keep profits down.
And you said I was the one that didn't understand how the market works.
We're done.
It is only these people that have these options now!
You clearly do not want poor people to have the freedom of choice that richer people do. Open your eyes man!
Your proposal does nothing to rectify this very real issue -- and in fact, it makes things worse as I have shown several times now...