In glancing through this thread, what amuses me is that, contrary to the title, no one is "against private schools," and yet some people seem to actually be against public schools.
And you said I was the one that didn't understand how the market works.
We're done.
At the edge of affordability, there is no real choice -- the poor currently suffer through abysmal housing because, while they have economic "power," there are not real choices for shelter -- in fact, this is the source of slum lords, and one of the main reasons why projects exist. Free market education will be no different at this terrible extreme, and by all rights this will be worse than it currently is... So you are giving them "choices," none of which compare favorably to what is currently available -- we should spend our energies actually fixing the education system that is freely available.
Won't most parents pay as much as they can for the best education for their children?
The only way costs would go down is if people searched for the cheapest education they could find... Again, education is not a normal economic good...
In glancing through this thread, what amuses me is that, contrary to the title, no one is "against private schools," and yet some people seem to actually be against public schools.
Maybe midwinter or addabox can come in and take the counterpoint to Chris' position?
This is a perfect example of where I would say that "government intervention in our lives" (i.e., public schools) enhances people's freedom. Unless you think being poor and therefore unable to educate your children gives them more "freedom" than having the option to send their children to public school. And of course, the wealty can send their kids to private boarding schools or whatever. No one's stopping them. Freedom.
Unless you think being poor and therefore unable to educate your children gives them more "freedom" than having the option to send their children to public school.
You (and hardeeharhar) are begging the question. hardeeharhar thinks by simply claiming that the poor will be harmed is the same as showing they will be harmed. This is an unproven assertion and history would seem to actually refute it. Further, it still doesn't provide reasoning for the restriction of the freedoms of the poor (who likely need the options more than anyone). There seems to be this perverse notion that restricting freedom (for the poor) gives freedom (to the poor).
We're going nowhere.
This seems to be a subject worthy of reasoned and deep debate. Alas...this is A.O.
You (and hardeeharhar) are begging the question. hardeeharhar thinks by simply claiming that the poor will be harmed is the same as showing they will be harmed. This is an unproven assertion and history would seem to actually refute it. Further, it still doesn't provide reasoning for the restriction of the freedoms of the poor (who likely need the options more than anyone). There seems to be this perverse notion that restricting freedom (for the poor) gives freedom (to the poor).
We're going nowhere.
This seems to be a subject worthy of reasoned and deep debate. Alas...this is A.O.
I have shown, Chris, that the taxes the poor (and in this case the poor are middle class) pay currently for schools is less than the average cost for private education. I have also pointed out that the average is biased towards religious education which is not a replacement for the secular education students receive in public schools -- secular private eduction being more expensive than the average expenditure in public schools. This means that the poor will only be able to afford education that is significantly cheaper than the current education they receive. While this does not mean they will receive lower quality education a priori, if the market drives demand average income workers will be able to pay for average quality education and below average income workers will receive below average education etc... You can't apply market force economics to education and deny the fact that people without the means won't get it...
I think its quite workable. I could go into all of the statistics...but don't have the time. Here's a good starting point that directly addresses that issue:
Chris, I think you are an idealist, which is good up to a point. The danger is wanting to change too much too fast, causing chaos. Even the Alliance for Separation of School and State suggests a gradual transition at one point, saying, "That even suggests a natural course of action to begin separating school and state. Taxes could be phased out, allowing the private sector to grow over time."
However, they make some statement that are unsubstantiated and I believe are false. For example, "Families could pay tuition bills with funds previously taken as taxes." That's okay for higher income folks who are property owners and currently pay these taxes. Most who really need assistance are not paying such taxes now. Whether education is funded by property tax or income tax, the very poor will not see any change, or at most a very small change. They simply will not be able to pay for tuition.
Their solution is a $1500 scholarship, which will cover about half the tuition. "If all 16 million poor and lower-middle-class children were provided a $1,500 scholarship, educational opportunities in today's independent schools could be opened for all low-income families for only $24 billion." The problem is that this covers about half the tuition. A poor family with four school age children are still faced with about $6000 a year, which they do not have.
I find this article unrealistic. They obviously do not understand poor people. I guess I can claim that I do. My parents had literally nothing. They would skip meals so my sister and I could eat. My dad could not find work for a long time, and my mom took in odd jobs to help out. When my dad got a steady job when I was about 12, things got a lot better. I was even able to attend the state university, where the tuition was low -- governmental supported education. I can't see how it could have happened without public support. Sorry, but I can not buy your approach to education for all people. Without public schools, I would not have gone to school in my early years, and have no idea where I'd be today.
Yet, it could be made to work with some BIG changes. I am a believer in the efficiency of private enterprise, and their ability to get things done. But if private schools are to be fair for all people, government must be involved.
Quote:
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.
Chris, why are we having a problem with an almost insignificant point? I have not said an a la carte selection of classes from other schools should not be allowed. It was allowed, even encouraged, at my son's high school. What I've been saying is that the parents didn't get involved with the money end of it. We paid tuition to one school, and the school took care of the details. Why would you want parents to have to pay tuition to more than one school if the schools involved are willing to take care of the details? It worked just fine for the minority of students who took advantage of it. My son's high school was relatively small and did not provide a large choices of classes, or athletics. They did have a good track team in which my son participated, after being persuaded by a few of his classmates.
Chris, I think you are an idealist, which is good up to a point. The danger is wanting to change too much too fast, causing chaos. Even the Alliance for Separation of School and State suggests a gradual transition at one point, saying, "That even suggests a natural course of action to begin separating school and state. Taxes could be phased out, allowing the private sector to grow over time."
Phasing in is fine...but the ultimate goal (in my own view) would be total separation from the government. I agree this is probably not practical today...but more because of politics than logistics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy
However, they make some statement that are unsubstantiated and I believe are false. For example, "Families could pay tuition bills with funds previously taken as taxes." That's okay for higher income folks who are property owners and currently pay these taxes. Most who really need assistance are not paying such taxes now.
Well, they are paying these taxes...even if they are renters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy
Whether education is funded by property tax or income tax, the very poor will not see any change, or at most a very small change. They simply will not be able to pay for tuition.
OK...but again...there are solutions that can cover this shortfall that do not require a full, government-funded, government-controlled school system. That is my key point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy
I can't see how it could have happened without public support.
I understand that. Many people cannot. This doesn't mean it cannot happen this way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy
Without public schools, I would not have gone to school in my early years
I think you are making assumptions here based exclusively on your experience. It is pure speculation to suggest that you would have had no other options. In fact in the first part of this country's history, before public schools existed, the attendance and literacy rates of all people (poor included) was increasing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy
But if private schools are to be fair for all people, government must be involved.
I guess we'd have to come to some agreement about what you mean by "fair to everyone".
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy
Why would you want parents to have to pay tuition to more than one school if the schools involved are willing to take care of the details?
That's all well and fine...if the schools are willing to do it. What you described is just fine and I suspect would happen in most cases in a free-market arrangement. But I don't think this as minor a point as you do. If they are not willing to do such things, they you have a problem, and because of the granularity of the "voucher" (it pays for a year of school at some particular place), then you are restricted/limited/stuck. If you have the ability to "pull" some of the money, to send your kid to some program at another school, then you won't be stuck.
Imagine it this way...you have a "voucher" for groceries...but you can only spend all of it at a single store each month (or quarter or year). But you really prefer the produce department at one place, and the bakery at another and the meat department at still another. What do you do? Buy each of these in successive months at each location? It seems silly. I'd just take my (real) money and go to each store and get what I wanted. At that point I have the greatest amount of freedom and the ability to quickly, effciently and effectively "cast my economic vote". Eventually each of those stores might catch on and work to make improvements (in cost, variety or quality) to their bakery (or meat department or produce department). But I always have the option to keep changing if they start to backslide. This is the ultimate motivator to better quality, lower prices and more options.
That's all I am saying.
Ultimately what I am suggesting is enabling parents to have the maximum amount of freedom to choose the educational options for their kids. Currently most parents do not have this (and the poor are the worst off in this regard)...currently most do really have any practical options.
The disingenuous and dishonest suggestion that some make that..."no one is stopping anyone from going to a private school or even home schooling"...is a slap in the face to these parents (especially the poor). It's like saying..."Well, I am going to take some money from you each month...say $300...and setup these grocery stores where you can just come and get food for 'free'...of course only the food I decide you can get." and then turning around and saying..."Well, you are 'free' to go to any other grocery store or grow your own food."...except that you have taken some (or all) of the money I could have used to go buy food at that other grocery story! This is so plainly obvious that anyone should be able to see it.
You (and hardeeharhar) are begging the question. hardeeharhar thinks by simply claiming that the poor will be harmed is the same as showing they will be harmed. This is an unproven assertion and history would seem to actually refute it. Further, it still doesn't provide reasoning for the restriction of the freedoms of the poor (who likely need the options more than anyone). There seems to be this perverse notion that restricting freedom (for the poor) gives freedom (to the poor).
We're going nowhere.
This seems to be a subject worthy of reasoned and deep debate. Alas...this is A.O.
I don't get you. I believe you've said in this thread that you would do away completely with public schools. How does keeping public schools, as I want to do, restrict freedom? It's you who wants to take away an option - I'd say that's restricting freedom. That's not difficult or perverse logic.
I don't get you. I believe you've said in this thread that you would do away completely with public schools. How does keeping public schools, as I want to do, restrict freedom? It's you who wants to take away an option - I'd say that's restricting freedom. That's not difficult or perverse logic.
I don't get you. I believe you've said in this thread that you would do away completely with public schools. How does keeping public schools, as I want to do, restrict freedom? It's you who wants to take away an option - I'd say that's restricting freedom. That's not difficult or perverse logic.
Because keeping public schools requires continued taxation to fund a wasteful, ineffective entity. I'm in favor of scrapping them.
If you can figure out a way to create a "public school system" without me having to pay for it, go for it.
No one has ever shown through actual data collected that the American public primary education system is ineffective compared to other alternatives available now -- that includes the entirety of the american private educational system. In other words, there are no good rational reasons for scrapping the schools...
Probably because you were focused on other things earlier in this thread. Or maybe you just don't have that sense of going right for the jugular like me.
Because keeping public schools requires continued taxation to fund a wasteful, ineffective entity.
That's right. Public education is so ineffective that America is on the verge of collapsing under the sheer weight of the ignorant people the schools are producing. It's horrible. Horrible, I say!
OK...but again...there are solutions that can cover this shortfall that do not require a full, government-funded, government-controlled school system. That is my key point.
Comments
And you said I was the one that didn't understand how the market works.
We're done.
At the edge of affordability, there is no real choice -- the poor currently suffer through abysmal housing because, while they have economic "power," there are not real choices for shelter -- in fact, this is the source of slum lords, and one of the main reasons why projects exist. Free market education will be no different at this terrible extreme, and by all rights this will be worse than it currently is... So you are giving them "choices," none of which compare favorably to what is currently available -- we should spend our energies actually fixing the education system that is freely available.
Won't most parents pay as much as they can for the best education for their children?
The only way costs would go down is if people searched for the cheapest education they could find... Again, education is not a normal economic good...
In glancing through this thread, what amuses me is that, contrary to the title, no one is "against private schools," and yet some people seem to actually be against public schools.
Maybe midwinter or addabox can come in and take the counterpoint to Chris' position?
Maybe midwinter or addabox can come in and take the counterpoint to Chris' position?
You mean to eliminate all private schools? I don't think anyone is as extreme as Chris.
I don't think anyone is as extreme as Chris.
It's rather telling that ideas such pushing for greater freedom and questioning the government's intervention into our lives is considered "extreme".
C'est La Vie
Unless you think being poor and therefore unable to educate your children gives them more "freedom" than having the option to send their children to public school.
You (and hardeeharhar) are begging the question. hardeeharhar thinks by simply claiming that the poor will be harmed is the same as showing they will be harmed. This is an unproven assertion and history would seem to actually refute it. Further, it still doesn't provide reasoning for the restriction of the freedoms of the poor (who likely need the options more than anyone). There seems to be this perverse notion that restricting freedom (for the poor) gives freedom (to the poor).
We're going nowhere.
This seems to be a subject worthy of reasoned and deep debate. Alas...this is A.O.
You (and hardeeharhar) are begging the question. hardeeharhar thinks by simply claiming that the poor will be harmed is the same as showing they will be harmed. This is an unproven assertion and history would seem to actually refute it. Further, it still doesn't provide reasoning for the restriction of the freedoms of the poor (who likely need the options more than anyone). There seems to be this perverse notion that restricting freedom (for the poor) gives freedom (to the poor).
We're going nowhere.
This seems to be a subject worthy of reasoned and deep debate. Alas...this is A.O.
I have shown, Chris, that the taxes the poor (and in this case the poor are middle class) pay currently for schools is less than the average cost for private education. I have also pointed out that the average is biased towards religious education which is not a replacement for the secular education students receive in public schools -- secular private eduction being more expensive than the average expenditure in public schools. This means that the poor will only be able to afford education that is significantly cheaper than the current education they receive. While this does not mean they will receive lower quality education a priori, if the market drives demand average income workers will be able to pay for average quality education and below average income workers will receive below average education etc... You can't apply market force economics to education and deny the fact that people without the means won't get it...
I think its quite workable. I could go into all of the statistics...but don't have the time. Here's a good starting point that directly addresses that issue:
http://www.honestedu.org/essays/cardiff/poor.php
Chris, I think you are an idealist, which is good up to a point. The danger is wanting to change too much too fast, causing chaos. Even the Alliance for Separation of School and State suggests a gradual transition at one point, saying, "That even suggests a natural course of action to begin separating school and state. Taxes could be phased out, allowing the private sector to grow over time."
However, they make some statement that are unsubstantiated and I believe are false. For example, "Families could pay tuition bills with funds previously taken as taxes." That's okay for higher income folks who are property owners and currently pay these taxes. Most who really need assistance are not paying such taxes now. Whether education is funded by property tax or income tax, the very poor will not see any change, or at most a very small change. They simply will not be able to pay for tuition.
Their solution is a $1500 scholarship, which will cover about half the tuition. "If all 16 million poor and lower-middle-class children were provided a $1,500 scholarship, educational opportunities in today's independent schools could be opened for all low-income families for only $24 billion." The problem is that this covers about half the tuition. A poor family with four school age children are still faced with about $6000 a year, which they do not have.
I find this article unrealistic. They obviously do not understand poor people. I guess I can claim that I do. My parents had literally nothing. They would skip meals so my sister and I could eat. My dad could not find work for a long time, and my mom took in odd jobs to help out. When my dad got a steady job when I was about 12, things got a lot better. I was even able to attend the state university, where the tuition was low -- governmental supported education. I can't see how it could have happened without public support. Sorry, but I can not buy your approach to education for all people. Without public schools, I would not have gone to school in my early years, and have no idea where I'd be today.
Yet, it could be made to work with some BIG changes. I am a believer in the efficiency of private enterprise, and their ability to get things done. But if private schools are to be fair for all people, government must be involved.
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.
Chris, why are we having a problem with an almost insignificant point? I have not said an a la carte selection of classes from other schools should not be allowed. It was allowed, even encouraged, at my son's high school. What I've been saying is that the parents didn't get involved with the money end of it. We paid tuition to one school, and the school took care of the details. Why would you want parents to have to pay tuition to more than one school if the schools involved are willing to take care of the details? It worked just fine for the minority of students who took advantage of it. My son's high school was relatively small and did not provide a large choices of classes, or athletics. They did have a good track team in which my son participated, after being persuaded by a few of his classmates.
Chris, I think you are an idealist, which is good up to a point. The danger is wanting to change too much too fast, causing chaos. Even the Alliance for Separation of School and State suggests a gradual transition at one point, saying, "That even suggests a natural course of action to begin separating school and state. Taxes could be phased out, allowing the private sector to grow over time."
Phasing in is fine...but the ultimate goal (in my own view) would be total separation from the government. I agree this is probably not practical today...but more because of politics than logistics.
However, they make some statement that are unsubstantiated and I believe are false. For example, "Families could pay tuition bills with funds previously taken as taxes." That's okay for higher income folks who are property owners and currently pay these taxes. Most who really need assistance are not paying such taxes now.
Well, they are paying these taxes...even if they are renters.
Whether education is funded by property tax or income tax, the very poor will not see any change, or at most a very small change. They simply will not be able to pay for tuition.
OK...but again...there are solutions that can cover this shortfall that do not require a full, government-funded, government-controlled school system. That is my key point.
I can't see how it could have happened without public support.
I understand that. Many people cannot. This doesn't mean it cannot happen this way.
Without public schools, I would not have gone to school in my early years
I think you are making assumptions here based exclusively on your experience. It is pure speculation to suggest that you would have had no other options. In fact in the first part of this country's history, before public schools existed, the attendance and literacy rates of all people (poor included) was increasing.
But if private schools are to be fair for all people, government must be involved.
I guess we'd have to come to some agreement about what you mean by "fair to everyone".
Why would you want parents to have to pay tuition to more than one school if the schools involved are willing to take care of the details?
That's all well and fine...if the schools are willing to do it. What you described is just fine and I suspect would happen in most cases in a free-market arrangement. But I don't think this as minor a point as you do. If they are not willing to do such things, they you have a problem, and because of the granularity of the "voucher" (it pays for a year of school at some particular place), then you are restricted/limited/stuck. If you have the ability to "pull" some of the money, to send your kid to some program at another school, then you won't be stuck.
Imagine it this way...you have a "voucher" for groceries...but you can only spend all of it at a single store each month (or quarter or year). But you really prefer the produce department at one place, and the bakery at another and the meat department at still another. What do you do? Buy each of these in successive months at each location? It seems silly. I'd just take my (real) money and go to each store and get what I wanted. At that point I have the greatest amount of freedom and the ability to quickly, effciently and effectively "cast my economic vote". Eventually each of those stores might catch on and work to make improvements (in cost, variety or quality) to their bakery (or meat department or produce department). But I always have the option to keep changing if they start to backslide. This is the ultimate motivator to better quality, lower prices and more options.
That's all I am saying.
Ultimately what I am suggesting is enabling parents to have the maximum amount of freedom to choose the educational options for their kids. Currently most parents do not have this (and the poor are the worst off in this regard)...currently most do really have any practical options.
The disingenuous and dishonest suggestion that some make that..."no one is stopping anyone from going to a private school or even home schooling"...is a slap in the face to these parents (especially the poor). It's like saying..."Well, I am going to take some money from you each month...say $300...and setup these grocery stores where you can just come and get food for 'free'...of course only the food I decide you can get." and then turning around and saying..."Well, you are 'free' to go to any other grocery store or grow your own food."...except that you have taken some (or all) of the money I could have used to go buy food at that other grocery story! This is so plainly obvious that anyone should be able to see it.
Anyway...goodbye, farewell and amen.
You (and hardeeharhar) are begging the question. hardeeharhar thinks by simply claiming that the poor will be harmed is the same as showing they will be harmed. This is an unproven assertion and history would seem to actually refute it. Further, it still doesn't provide reasoning for the restriction of the freedoms of the poor (who likely need the options more than anyone). There seems to be this perverse notion that restricting freedom (for the poor) gives freedom (to the poor).
We're going nowhere.
This seems to be a subject worthy of reasoned and deep debate. Alas...this is A.O.
I don't get you. I believe you've said in this thread that you would do away completely with public schools. How does keeping public schools, as I want to do, restrict freedom? It's you who wants to take away an option - I'd say that's restricting freedom. That's not difficult or perverse logic.
I don't get you. I believe you've said in this thread that you would do away completely with public schools. How does keeping public schools, as I want to do, restrict freedom? It's you who wants to take away an option - I'd say that's restricting freedom. That's not difficult or perverse logic.
Why didn't I take that tack?
I don't get you. I believe you've said in this thread that you would do away completely with public schools. How does keeping public schools, as I want to do, restrict freedom? It's you who wants to take away an option - I'd say that's restricting freedom. That's not difficult or perverse logic.
Because keeping public schools requires continued taxation to fund a wasteful, ineffective entity. I'm in favor of scrapping them.
If you can figure out a way to create a "public school system" without me having to pay for it, go for it.
Because keeping public schools requires continued taxation to fund a wasteful, ineffective entity. I'm in favor of scrapping them.
If you can figure out a way to create a "public school system" without me having to pay for it, go for it.
Prove that the public education system is wasteful and ineffective.
Because keeping public schools requires continued taxation to fund a wasteful, ineffective entity. I'm in favor of scrapping them.
If you can figure out a way to create a "public school system" without me having to pay for it, go for it.
If you don't like the oppression that our education system makes you suffer, you can always leave the country for one with less fascism.
Why didn't I take that tack?
Probably because you were focused on other things earlier in this thread. Or maybe you just don't have that sense of going right for the jugular like me.
Because keeping public schools requires continued taxation to fund a wasteful, ineffective entity.
That's right. Public education is so ineffective that America is on the verge of collapsing under the sheer weight of the ignorant people the schools are producing. It's horrible. Horrible, I say!
OK...but again...there are solutions that can cover this shortfall that do not require a full, government-funded, government-controlled school system. That is my key point.
Yes. There are.