NationStates Jolt Archive

It would solve a lot of problems related to education today, such as sub-par and under-funded schools. If you leave the government in charge of education, everybody will receive the same quality of schooling, but the quality will be low. There is little incentive for the government to spend money on education when it can spend it on other things, like the military. With private schools, however, the amount of money they make is dependent on how well the school performs. They will be forced to have high standards and good teachers to remain competitive, which means that the quality of education will have to increase. This will in turn lead to a more educated populace. So why not privatize education instead of leaving it up to the government (poll coming)?

... UN Abassadorship, is that you?:p

Yes, because poor people should be denied the right to go to school

I'd rather have schools that teach everybody something, than schools that teach some everything.

It works like we have it now, if you have the money, go to private school, if not, you have public school

You could also just reform the fuck up you call public school.

... UN Abassadorship, is that you?:p

No, I just did the same topic as him and added a poll. :)

Yes, because poor people should be denied the right to go to school

Most poor people will be able to afford to go to school -- less than 1% will not. There will have to be some schools that charge very low rates in order to be able to accommodate them. They can also rely on charity and scholarships. If they are extremely poor, then they will not be able to go to school and will probably have to work as a janitor or somesuch. Somebody has to fill those jobs, anyway.

It works like we have it now, if you have the money, go to private school, if not, you have public school

Yes, but you still have to waste money paying taxes, part of which go to education. Why do you have to pay for a failed educational system when you don't even use it?

Yes, but you still have to waste money paying taxes, part of which go to education. Why do you have to pay for a failed educational system when you don't even use it?
Yeah, you dont, others do.
For poor people to be able to go to private school, rates would have to be rididcoulously low.

Yes, but you still have to waste money paying taxes, part of which go to education. Why do you have to pay for a failed educational system when you don't even use it?
Because you benefit from living in a society that is better educated.

I've never called the police, but I benefit from living in a community that has them.

Yeah, you dont, others do.
For poor people to be able to go to private school, rates would have to be rididcoulously low.

Well, if there are a lot of people who cannot afford to pay for a low-priced private school, there are going to be a lot of cheaper schools springing up. There will be schools that operate at the very minimum cost, which would probably be around $100 per year per student. Anyway, you can always get homeschooled if you don't like it. The quality of education will rise, and parents without a lot of money can decide how much they want to pay for their child's school instead of letting the government decide it for them.

Because you benefit from living in a society that is better educated. I've never called the police, but I benefit from living in a community that has them.

Those are two very distinct things. The police force does not make a profit, but it plays a critical role in our society by apprehending and prosecuting those who have committed crimes. Without them, our society could dissolve into anarchy. And anyway, you cannot privatize the police because no money could be gained by a company that polices people.

Education: failed in its task to educate the populace well and can be privatived
Police: doing well in its task to protect the populace and cannot be privatized

Well, if there are a lot of people who cannot afford to pay for a low-priced private school, there are going to be a lot of cheaper schools springing up. There will be schools that operate at the very minimum cost, which would probably be around $100 per year per student. Anyway, you can always get homeschooled if you don't like it. The quality of education will rise, and parents without a lot of money can decide how much they want to pay for their child's school instead of letting the government decide it for them.
this is assuming its still the law to go to school. And if you've privatized schools, you've lost control over them, and then its probably wont be the law, so there will be massive amounst of children who wont go, especially in the poor areas.

as far as the cheap schools go, they're prbly gonna be worse than public school

School should be a right for everyone. Making it a product jeopardizes this. Of course you could legislate it it several ways. But if they're privatized, people will have to make a profit off it (or want to at least). That profit has to come from somewhere, and I don't think it will come from improving the standard of teaching.
I suppose there's always the option of turning school into a marketing outlet though, just like in Jennifer Government. Indoctrinate them with brands. That's worth a few bucks. Give a good education so they can earn good money and buy your stuff (but not your competition's stuff)

I went to a private school for my senior highschool year in the States to graduate and I honestly don't believe that concerning my general education it was worth the money. It did, however, improve my English tremendously.

I do believe, though, that the public schools in the U.S. could use some of that defense money that keeps the country oh so safe. That might actually help a lot.

What I've noticed in German highschools is that the number of students per class has constantly risen over the last decade or two from around 20 to 30 and more. Also because of the money that is saved by employing fewer teachers...
*sadly shakes head*

But after all, it really is up to the student to learn - no teacher or private school is any good if the student is lazy.

Yes and no. There should definitely be an expansion of voucher programs and grant money to enable low-income parents to send their children to private schools if they so desire, but overall a pure privatization program would not work.

What we should do is increase school choice programs while still working to address the problems in the public system; public education works but it desparately needs reform lest billions of dollars be squandered.

My school is funded by the government and has the fourth highest school in Dublin for students going on to third level education! (96%)

I'll say it again. Private school =/= better
Additionally, the United States has laws on the books which say "All children shall recieve a free and adequate education in the least restrictive environment". All students deserve education. Not just those who can pay.

We have private schools now. We also have public schools. That system seems fine to me. I just wish we could find a way to make the public schools better because I'm sick and tired of the USA being one of the stupid countries.

You can't equate things like policing or defence (public goods) with healthcare or education.

I believe that things like healthcare and education could be provided for much more cheaply and more quickly by private providers than by the state. And, just because healthcare and education is private does not mean that there would be no healthcare or education for the poor. Specialist providers would likely be attracted to the market that offer such services at lower prices. There would be scholarships and charitable awards and trusts etc setup. Religious, humanitarian associations would also start offering free or subsidised healthcare and education. And the government can always act as a last resort commissioner of services, in much the same way that it provides last-resort insurance for victims of crime, or uninsured drivers, or victims of e.g. terrorism.

And if you absolutely cannot stomach the idea of a wholly private healthcare and education system, consider at least the transformation of the role of the state from provider of healthcare (NHS) and education (local LEA run schools) into a commissioner of services. So instead of running and operating hospitals and schools it could be the body that writes the cheques instead. This would still be free at the point of use but would lead to greater efficiency gains thereby leading to lower tax bills. Here in the UK they're moving to that with Trust foundation schools *cough grant maintained schools cough*

Face it, the keynesian statist system run in the producer interest is quite clearly inferior to a private system. Fact. The sooner we drop this stupid socialist ideology the better for us all :D

You can't equate things like policing or defence (public goods) with healthcare or education.

I believe that things like healthcare and education could be provided for much more cheaply and more quickly by private providers than by the state. And, just because healthcare and education is private does not mean that there would be no healthcare or education for the poor. Specialist providers would likely be attracted to the market that offer such services at lower prices. There would be scholarships and charitable awards and trusts etc setup. Religious, humanitarian associations would also start offering free or subsidised healthcare and education. And the government can always act as a last resort commissioner of services, in much the same way that it provides last-resort insurance for victims of crime, or uninsured drivers, or victims of e.g. terrorism.

And if you absolutely cannot stomach the idea of a wholly private healthcare and education system, consider at least the transformation of the role of the state from provider of healthcare (NHS) and education (local LEA run schools) into a commissioner of services. So instead of running and operating hospitals and schools it could be the body that writes the cheques instead. This would still be free at the point of use but would lead to greater efficiency gains thereby leading to lower tax bills. Here in the UK they're moving to that with Trust foundation schools *cough grant maintained schools cough*

Face it, the keynesian statist system run in the producer interest is quite clearly inferior to a private system. Fact. The sooner we drop this stupid socialist ideology the better for us all :D

Yes, lets screw over poor people!

this is assuming its still the law to go to school. And if you've privatized schools, you've lost control over them, and then its probably wont be the law, so there will be massive amounst of children who wont go, especially in the poor areas.

It is not the government's place to tell you whether or not you should go to school, so there should be no laws mandating that you should. In poor areas, children may realize that their only chance to get a good job is to go to school, or they can work in low-paying jobs. It's their choice, and nobody else's. They can decide what they want to do with their life. If you can force people to go to school, why not force them to join the army?

as far as the cheap schools go, they're prbly gonna be worse than public school

Maybe the really cheap ones. But on average, they will be better because the market will take care of those schools that are performing badly. And the people will be able to decide what gets taught at a school instead of the government. If somebody wants to become an astrophysicist, then he can go to a school that specializes in physics and does not require that he/she take 4 years of English or philosophy.

I'll say it again. Private school =/= better
Additionally, the United States has laws on the books which say "All children shall recieve a free and adequate education in the least restrictive environment". All students deserve education. Not just those who can pay.

Well, all children are getting free schooling, but they sure aren't getting an adequate education. At least with private schools, SOME kids will get a decent education.

You can't equate things like policing or defence (public goods) with healthcare or education.

I believe that things like healthcare and education could be provided for much more cheaply and more quickly by private providers than by the state.
The reason you can't rely on private only healthcare is that competion isn't the same as shops.
"Ahh, I'm having a heart attack quick take me to the cheapest hospital possible!"
When you go to hospital you go to the closest one, in the case of insurance hard luck if it doesn't cover a certain hospital.

Yes, lets screw over poor people!

Yes lets! the best way to do that is to institute a socialist/keynesian programme! let's get on it right away!

You can't equate things like policing or defence (public goods) with healthcare or education.
(...)
Since when did healthcare and education cease to be public goods?!? Especially education is the public good, IMHO.

It is not the government's place to tell you whether or not you should go to school, so there should be no laws mandating that you should. In poor areas, children may realize that their only chance to get a good job is to go to school, or they can work in low-paying jobs. It's their choice, and nobody else's. They can decide what they want to do with their life. If you can force people to go to school, why not force them to join the army?

Maybe the really cheap ones. But on average, they will be better because the market will take care of those schools that are performing badly. And the people will be able to decide what gets taught at a school instead of the government. If somebody wants to become an astrophysicist, then he can go to a school that specializes in physics and does not require that he/she take 4 years of English or philosophy.

Ok first of all, they dont know it, but a good education si the way to break the poverty cycle. So they should go to school, at least elementary, you cant even do a lot of jobs if you cant read or write (you can do labor tho)

and as far as the cheap private schools, there you go. The people who need our helpo the most, the poor, will get even lower quality schools, while upper and middle class kids will get a better school.

Yes lets! the best way to do that is to institute a socialist/keynesian programme! let's get on it right away!

Public education speaks for itself. The population as a whole is vastly more educated than they were prior to the implementation of the public education system, so it's clear that it works; the decline in education is a very recent phenomenon.

Yes, lets screw over poor people!

There are bound to be schools that will accept poor people for free in return for tuition money when they graduate and get a well-paying job. Mostly, the people who lose are both stupid and poor. And they weren't going to get anywhere, anyway.

Yes lets! the best way to do that is to institute a socialist/keynesian programme! let's get on it right away!

Kenya, and Cuba (for the socialist example) wre hellholes before they introduced their systems. Now, theyre crap comapared to other nations, but they've improved astronomically

There are bound to be schools that will accept poor people for free in return for tuition money when they graduate and get a well-paying job. Mostly, the people who lose are both stupid and poor. And they weren't going to get anywhere, anyway.

stupid ---> education ---> not stupid

poor ----> education ----> better job ----> not poor

(and indebting poor people? yeah, good luck with that)

Well, we privatised the trains, and now they are so unreliable they needn't have timetables. not to mention its actually cheaper to learn to drive, then buy tax and insure a car, than it is to use public transport for a year.

They privatised the post, and Iv been waiting for a letter for a week, but at least it costs twice as much.

They privatised the coal industry. Now there is no coal industry. Same for steel.

Privatising things is awful. not only does it exclude the poor, it screws the rich as well because everything becomes so shit.

The population as a whole is vastly more educated than they were prior to the implementation of the public education system, so it's clear that it works.

When and what country are you talking about? Do you have a source? And how can you correlate the modern public, educated in public schools, with people in the 1700s? Many things have changed since then.

Yes. And then, when you wake up at the highschool level and realize that the literacy levels are appaling, you can still relish in the thought that you can send a bomber around the world to drop something through the airduct of a building.
It's really amazing and makes perfect sense!

stupid ---> education ---> not stupid

poor ----> education ----> better job ----> not poor

(and indebting poor people? yeah, good luck with that)

stupid ---> crappy public school ---> still stupid
poor ---> crappy public school --> job involving fries ---> still poor

The reason you can't rely on private only healthcare is that competion isn't the same as shops.
"Ahh, I'm having a heart attack quick take me to the cheapest hospital possible!"
When you go to hospital you go to the closest one, in the case of insurance hard luck if it doesn't cover a certain hospital.


OK, you may have a point with extreme accident situations. But that doesn't render the whole hypothesis that private healthcare and schooling is, generally, preferable to state-run healthcare and schooling.

And governments can always legislate for extreme cases like heart attacks/car crashes etc. It would be easy enough to set up a series of accounts for each hospital were monies are transferred to/and from each other and financial positions are closed at the end of the day. banks do it all day, everyday. Why not take advantage of that system?

And what about the non-emergency healthcare? I pay a bollock-load of taxes in my wages everymonth. About GBP 700 (that's what, $1,200 a month?). A year or so ago I sprained my ankle. It's the only medical treatment I've had in years. I had to wait something daft like eight hours at the state-run hospital to get my ankle seen to, and even then all they did was say 'there there, now go home'. My ankle was the size of Outer Mongolia. I went around to my Aunty's house (she knows a bit about medicine) and gave me some proper treatment - bandaged up, painkiller, a piece of cake and a nice cup of tea :)

Anywho, so, for my entire professional life, some six years of it, I've been paying $1,200 a month so i can receive 2 minutes worth of patronising after an eight hour wait. That's hardly value for money, is it?

Well, we privatised the trains, and now they are so unreliable they needn't have timetables. not to mention its actually cheaper to learn to drive, then buy tax and insure a car, than it is to use public transport for a year.

They privatised the post, and Iv been waiting for a letter for a week, but at least it costs twice as much.

They privatised the coal industry. Now there is no coal industry. Same for steel.

Privatising things is awful. not only does it exclude the poor, it screws the rich as well because everything becomes so shit.

Yeah, but as for the rich part, they can throw enough money at stuff till it gets better

stupid ---> education ---> not stupid

poor ----> education ----> better job ----> not poor

(and indebting poor people? yeah, good luck with that)

Yes, some people are going to lose out (the very poor in this case). The cycle of poor --> no education --> poor children can be broken by getting a scholarship or working enough to get money to send your kids to school But:

middle-class/rich --> better education --> smarter --> better job

And if poor people think that they will be able to get a higher-paying job with education, schools may give them scholarships as long as they are smart and will pay back the money if they do get a high-paying job. Some people have to do menial jobs, and it will fall on the poor and stupid now, as it always has.

When and what country are you talking about? Do you have a source? And how can you correlate the modern public, educated in public schools, with people in the 1700s? Many things have changed since then.

Look at literacy rates in the US and Europe as well as the number of people holding high school and college diplomas. Or the former USSR or China for that matter. All of them have seen dramatic increases in literacy over the past century due to public education programs implemented by the government, and all have seen major increases in the number of technical and college graduates in multiple fields over that timeframe.

Since when did healthcare and education cease to be public goods?!? Especially education is the public good, IMHO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_goods[/url] ...]
In economics, a public good is a good that is non-rival. This means: consumption of the good by one individual does not reduce the amount of the good available for consumption by others.[1] Thus, if one individual eats a cake, there is no cake left for anyone else; but breathing air or drinking water from a stream does not significantly reduce the amount of air or water available to others.

The term public good is often used to refer to goods that are non-excludable as well as non-rival. This means it is not possible to exclude individuals from the good's consumption. Fresh air may be considered a public good as it is not generally possible to prevent people from breathing it. However, technically speaking such goods should be called pure public goods. These are highly theoretical definitions: in the real world there may be no such thing as an absolutely non-rival or non-excludable good; but economists think that some goods in the real world approximate closely enough for these concepts to be meaningful.

Non-rivalness and non-excludability may cause problems for the production of such goods. Specifically, some economists have argued that they may lead to instances of market failure, where unco-ordinated markets are unable to provide these goods in desired quantities. These issues are known as public goods problems


Police & defence ... non rivalrous, non excludable. if copper, or for that matter, a nuclear submarine, is patrolling around the is nothing that I can choose from instead and it is not possible for anyone to exclude from me the benefits of those services.

Not so with education or healthcare. I could attend school a, b, or c. i can be excluded from any or all of those instituions. Same goes for the healthcare systems.

(...)
Anywho, so, for my entire professional life, some six years of it, I've been paying $1,200 a month so i can receive 2 minutes worth of patronising after an eight hour wait. That's hardly value for money, is it?
Doesn't that actually imply that the healthcare system needs more money to pay for well-educated doctors so you wouldn't have to wait so long?

The doctors in Germany are on strike at the moment 'cause they work their asses off for little money and haven't seen a raise in the last 5 years. Quite the contrary, they were required to work more and don't get their overtime paid at all...

I honestly don't believe that privatizing is the answer. Like someone else has stated - once the system gets privatized, all that happens is an increase in cost and a decrease in service whereas the stockholder is making money. And it's not your average Joe that earns a buck in it.
(Germany: phone company; mail service; railway service...)

Yes, some people are going to lose out (the very poor in this case). The cycle of poor --> no education --> poor children can be broken by getting a scholarship or working enough to get money to send your kids to school But:

middle-class/rich --> better education --> smarter --> better job

And if poor people think that they will be able to get a higher-paying job with education, schools may give them scholarships as long as they are smart and will pay back the money if they do get a high-paying job. Some people have to do menial jobs, and it will fall on the poor and stupid now, as it always has.

Ok, so your plan is to basically just screw the poor

Public education speaks for itself.

you're right. it's terrible


The population as a whole is vastly more educated than they were prior to the implementation of the public education system, so it's clear that it works; the decline in education is a very recent phenomenon.

you can't really compare 1906 with 2006. We have no idea how society would have evolved w/o state intervention to contrast against.

That said, it is possible for a govt to mandate that a population be educated. It can provide funds to do so. But if it does that, it should limit itself to being a commissioner of services where, as a customer, it can do the greatest amount of good, rather than a provider of services where, in hock to producer interests, it can (and has) done a very great amount of damage

Look at literacy rates in the US and Europe as well as the number of people holding high school and college diplomas. Or the former USSR or China for that matter. All of them have seen dramatic increases in literacy over the past century due to public education programs implemented by the government, and all have seen major increases in the number of technical and college graduates in multiple fields over that timeframe.

When did the US, Europe, USSR and China begin to implement a public education system? The US, at least, has had public education for a long time, yet literacy rates kept rising. Public education is not necessarily the cause of this.

Police & defence ... non rivalrous, non excludable. if copper, or for that matter, a nuclear submarine, is patrolling around the is nothing that I can choose from instead and it is not possible for anyone to exclude from me the benefits of those services.

Not so with education or healthcare. I could attend school a, b, or c. i can be excluded from any or all of those instituions. Same goes for the healthcare systems.
Okay, I can see where you're coming from with that argument.
All I can say to that is build 2 subs less and fund schools a, b, and c to meet a certain standard the government has accepted and you might educate the people enough to have enough doctors and police to serve everyone.

Ok, so your plan is to basically just screw the poor

No, if the poor person is smart, he/she can always get a scholarship, or work for a year and then attend school. However, if you care so much about them and don't want them to have to work for anything, then the government can give everybody $500 dollars or something like that to spend only on education. I personally don't agree with this, but it's possible.

Well, we privatised the trains, and now they are so unreliable they needn't have timetables. not to mention its actually cheaper to learn to drive, then buy tax and insure a car, than it is to use public transport for a year.

They privatised the post, and Iv been waiting for a letter for a week, but at least it costs twice as much.

They privatised the coal industry. Now there is no coal industry. Same for steel.

Privatising things is awful. not only does it exclude the poor, it screws the rich as well because everything becomes so shit.

You must be deliberately trying to troll for me, I'm sure.

Life under the nationalised industries was bloody awful! The trains are vastly superior now. As is the post.

Coal was dying anywho, what would you have done? Kept it propped up? you would have had to pour taxpayers money in more and more. Until you would have bankrupted the country. go and read the wikipedia article on the winter of discontent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_discontent and then come back and tell me that life under nationalisation is better than life under privatisation

you're right. it's terrible

In some countries.

Look at literacy rates in the US and Europe as well as the number of people holding high school and college diplomas. Or the former USSR or China for that matter. All of them have seen dramatic increases in literacy over the past century due to public education programs implemented by the government, and all have seen major increases in the number of technical and college graduates in multiple fields over that timeframe.


And before the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, literacy rates were rising under an aristocratic/capitalist system. As people came out of the countrysides and into the towns they were able to specialise and command a higher wage enabling them to put money aside for education. It was true in Victorian England too.

And, let's not forget, although life was hellish in pre-Bolshevik Russia, it was getting better and bad though it was, it was still a damn sight better than what followed.

Your hypothesis is void.

When did the US, Europe, USSR and China begin to implement a public education system? The US, at least, has had public education for a long time, yet literacy rates kept rising. Public education is not necessarily the cause of this.
Prussia has implemented the first state laws concerning public education as early as 1763 in the "Allgemeine Schulordnung für Preußen" (~General School Regulations for Prussia).

No, if the poor person is smart, he/she can always get a scholarship, or work for a year and then attend school. However, if you care so much about them and don't want them to have to work for anything, then the government can give everybody $500 or something like that to spend only on education. I personally don't agree with this, but it's possible.
How do you get a scholarship to a primary school?

How do you get a scholarship to a primary school?
Don't you know? You gotta be really smart to begin with!!!

How do you get a scholarship to a primary school?

The same way you get a scholarship to a secondary or tertiary school.

Also, a law could be passed that says that every school with over 100 kids must give at least (and possibly the best performing) 1% of its students a scholarship to even the playing field for the poor.

Well, all children are getting free schooling, but they sure aren't getting an adequate education. At least with private schools, SOME kids will get a decent education.
uh huh...well, some are getting superb educations already, on par with some of the best in the world. Those students later populate our university system, which is one of, if not the best. Try coming to New England/the northeast.

additionally, I will tell you what happens when people are completely uneducated. Honda was considering building a factory in North America. It was between the south east US or near Toronto. They chose Toronto, citing the population as being more literate and easier to train. All students must recieve atleast some education.

And we already have private schools. There is absolutly NO reason to get rid of public schools when the system could just be reformed.

Doesn't that actually imply that the healthcare system needs more money to pay for well-educated doctors so you wouldn't have to wait so long?

No no no. It means give me a tax break so that as and when i sprain my ankle I'll gladly fork out a lot of cash on the spot because its still cheaper than throwing vast amounts of cash at a system that basically don't work.

And how much more money does the healthcare system need? When Labour took over from the conservatives, the NHS took about GBP 40Bn. Now it gets something over GBP 95Bn. And it's still bollocks. How much more money do we have to waste before we can say we have proved that putting money into a state-run system does not buy better quality? Surely 75 to 80 years of socialist experimentation is enough? Surely after 75 to 80 years of experimentation we can say, hey, it was a good idea but it just doesn't work?


The doctors in Germany are on strike at the moment 'cause they work their asses off for little money and haven't seen a raise in the last 5 years. Quite the contrary, they were required to work more and don't get their overtime paid at all...
I can't comment on the German system, don't know anything about it.


I honestly don't believe that privatizing is the answer. Like someone else has stated - once the system gets privatized, all that happens is an increase in cost and a decrease in service whereas the stockholder is making money. And it's not your average Joe that earns a buck in it.
(Germany: phone company; mail service; railway service...)

You're entitled to your opinion of course, but, if you look at Britain as an example, under a nationalised system it was awful. High unemployment, high social dissent, expensive etc. Under a privatised system everything is the opposite. Read the Wikipedia article on the Winter of Discontent. then lookup the Wikipedia article on Britain as it is now. it's like a different country. Why? because we (read: maggie thatcher) jettisoned the socialist ideology.

Look, i can see why socialism is attractive - it aims to put people, especially poor people first. it aims to remove all the hardships in life. i can see that. It aims to be a kindly, good system. But it just doesn't work. Worse, it actually ends up doing the exact opposite of what it set out to do - vicious political repression and vicious economic poverty. History shows us that. Surely you can see from history that everywhere and everywhen and in everyway that a basically socialist or communist or any variation system has been tried it has been a complete and utter disaster?

And before the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, literacy rates were rising under an aristocratic/capitalist system. As people came out of the countrysides and into the towns they were able to specialise and command a higher wage enabling them to put money aside for education. It was true in Victorian England too.

And, let's not forget, although life was hellish in pre-Bolshevik Russia, it was getting better and bad though it was, it was still a damn sight better than what followed.

Your hypothesis is void.

Life was better? For who? The aristocracy? The rich? The Russian economy was bankrupt; they were still using a medieval serf system, and those serfs were starving. Granted; like most communist countries, it began to collapse after a while, but the economy improved dramatically for a while and Russia was for a short time the most powerful industrial nation in the world (the USSR under Stalin, in case that doesn't really count). And look at Cuba. Before Castro, it was being run by an American puppet-dictator. When Castro took over, the economy got a hell of a lot better.

And lets not mention the whole plight of the jews in Tzarist Russia, and then the big lack of it in Lenin's Communist Russia.

And as for using Wikipedia as a source. . .its rather unreliable. . .:sniper:

uh huh...well, some are getting superb educations already, on par with some of the best in the world. Those students later populate our university system, which is one of, if not the best. Try coming to New England/the northeast.

Quoting from http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itsv/1105/ijse/wagner.htm:

In the United States, 92 of the 100 largest universities are public or "state-supported" (i.e., supported by one of the 50 individual states, not the federal government), and 77 percent of the nation's college students receive their education at public institutions. Still, the major private universities occupy all but three or four of the top 25 slots in most rankings.

The private university system is one of the best -- not the public one.

Okay, I can see where you're coming from with that argument.
All I can say to that is build 2 subs less and fund schools a, b, and c to meet a certain standard the government has accepted and you might educate the people enough to have enough doctors and police to serve everyone.


Subs need love (and money) too. We certainly found that out in the Falklands War with Argentina. The sub HMS Conqueror famously (and controversially) sank the General Belgrano, which was in a position to seriously threaten the British navy during the Falklands War. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Conqueror_%28S48%29

(...)
Life under the nationalised industries was bloody awful! The trains are vastly superior now. As is the post.
(...)
I like to differ: In the last decade many state-run services like the German mail, the German train and the German telecommunication services were privatized and believe me when I tell you that they have not improved at all.

Letters and parcels disappear because instead of executives who have taken their job seriously the all-dominanting factor has become cost-efficiency to maximize the margin for the stock market and they employ low cost workers who seem to improve their low wages by stealing.

Using the train gets more and more expensive each and every year while the service declines likewise. The railway system has been reduced to the main lines and many who would want to take the train can't because they aren't connected anymore.

Same goes for the telecommunication business.

I would honestly like to say that I see improvements trough privatization but there are none.

And we already have private schools. There is absolutly NO reason to get rid of public schools when the system could just be reformed.

I would reform it by selling it off to the highest bidder :D

I take the point about basic literacy and skills being vital. I would suggest, as I have suggested earlier in this post, that the govt operate as a commissioner of services (i.e. write the cheques) rather than operate as a provider of services (i.e. teach the rugrats). It would be cheaper and better than the public system as it is now. competition between schools would raise standards, just as competition has raised standards in just about every other industry

The same way you get a scholarship to a secondary or tertiary school.

So what's to stop rich and middle class people from getting all the scholarships by sending their kids to pre-schools directed especially to what scholarships ask for? While poor people have to take time(which they may not have) to find out what their children have to know and then teach it to them.

And 1%! It takes 99 people who can afford the education for the chance that 1 poor child can get a small chance to get in!

Subs need love (and money) too. (...)
Oh yeah, the Falklands... Don't you try to tell a German something about U-Boats, though ;)

Quoting from http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itsv/1105/ijse/wagner.htm:

In the United States, 92 of the 100 largest universities are public or "state-supported" (i.e., supported by one of the 50 individual states, not the federal government), and 77 percent of the nation's college students receive their education at public institutions. Still, the major private universities occupy all but three or four of the top 25 slots in most rankings.

The private university system is one of the best -- not the public one.
I never defined whether it was public or private I was speaking about. I already knew it was the private institutions. However, you ignore that our private institutions are research universities, which get most of their funding from professors publishing works and studies. addititonally, the public university system is still among the best.

And while we're talking about privatizing stuff, lets just add a mention for the most powerful SOCIALIST organization in the world.
The U.S. Military.
Completely nationally funded.

Life was better? For who? The aristocracy? The rich? The Russian economy was bankrupt; they were still using a medieval serf system, and those serfs were starving. Granted; like most communist countries, it began to collapse after a while, but the economy improved dramatically for a while and Russia was for a short time the most powerful industrial nation in the world (the USSR under Stalin, in case that doesn't really count). And look at Cuba. Before Castro, it was being run by an American puppet-dictator. When Castro took over, the economy got a hell of a lot better.

And lets not mention the whole plight of the jews in Tzarist Russia, and then the big lack of it in Lenin's Communist Russia.

And as for using Wikipedia as a source. . .its rather unreliable. . .:sniper:


Oh lord ...

Right *rollsupsleeves*

Life was better, or at least had the prospect of becoming better for the very poorest of people who were basically enslaved at the 'mir' i.e. village level. They escaped to the cities and started to educate themselves.

Yes, i agree, tsarist Russia was bollocks. But during its (brief) development phase it was getting better.

The economy never materially improved under Soviet society - it stagnated and eventually declined. I'm not going to argue with anyone who says the economy is better under a soviet/bolshevik/communist system. You're clearly deluded.

The Jews worldwide have had a terrible time from everyone. But how is that relevant to the discussion at hand i.e. is it better or not to privatise education (and a bit off-thread, healthcare)?

Wikipedia can be unreliable yes. It can also be very reliable. Peer reviewed research in the journal Nature (which I have read) indicates the WikiP is as reliable as the Encyclopaedia Brittannica in relation to science articles. It is important when using WikiP to use your judgment.

It would solve a lot of problems related to education today, such as sub-par and under-funded schools. If you leave the government in charge of education, everybody will receive the same quality of schooling, but the quality will be low. There is little incentive for the government to spend money on education when it can spend it on other things, like the military. With private schools, however, the amount of money they make is dependent on how well the school performs. They will be forced to have high standards and good teachers to remain competitive, which means that the quality of education will have to increase. This will in turn lead to a more educated populace. So why not privatize education instead of leaving it up to the government (poll coming)?

Have you even one shred of evidence to support all your "woulds?"

All the evidence that I've seen shows that private schools do not out perform public ones. Their quality has nothing to do with how well they function in a business sense either. e.g. many of the private schools in the South exist either to make sure that white kids don't have to go to school with black kids, or to make sure that fundamentalist baptists don't have to go to school with agnostics or members of some other religion.

And how is quality to be gauged anyway? Are parents all going to give their kids some standardized test to make sure that little Johnny isn't learning less than little Charlie down the street? Whatever it is that will measure the parents' satisfaction, it probably isn't how well the kids are learning, but more likely how politically correct. Whether liberal, conservative, or batshit insane.

And while we're talking about privatizing stuff, lets just add a mention for the most powerful SOCIALIST organization in the world.
The U.S. Military.
Completely nationally funded.

Obviously, the US military exists in furtherance of the state and not some corporation. You can't privatize it.

And while we're talking about privatizing stuff, lets just add a mention for the most powerful SOCIALIST organization in the world.
The U.S. Military.
Completely nationally funded.
That's not socialist.

I like to differ: In the last decade many state-run services like the German mail, the German train and the German telecommunication services were privatized and believe me when I tell you that they have not improved at all.

Letters and parcels disappear because instead of executives who have taken their job seriously the all-dominanting factor has become cost-efficiency to maximize the margin for the stock market and they employ low cost workers who seem to improve their low wages by stealing.

Using the train gets more and more expensive each and every year while the service declines likewise. The railway system has been reduced to the main lines and many who would want to take the train can't because they aren't connected anymore.

Same goes for the telecommunication business.

I would honestly like to say that I see improvements trough privatization but there are none.

Curious. Evidentally we have had different experiences post-privatisation (especially telecoms). I've got a good idea, sell your infrastructure and utilities companies to whoever is running Britain's. You're sure to see an improvement then :D

Oh yeah, the Falklands... Don't you try to tell a German something about U-Boats, though ;)

:D

Cool. A German with a sense of humour. I shall write a WikiP entry immediately!!! :D

And while we're talking about privatizing stuff, lets just add a mention for the most powerful SOCIALIST organization in the world.
The U.S. Military.
Completely nationally funded.


Please see earlier posts about 'public goods.' We've had that discussion.

And how is quality to be gauged anyway?

It would probably be gauged by the amount of money you get paid when you finish school. Of course, some parents can elect to send their children somewhere to learn whatever traditional values they want them to learn, which is fine too.

The majority of private schools are currently hampered because they have to compete with public schools that receive state funding. They cannot compete with an institution which forces people to pay -- it's not a level playing field.

Have you even one shred of evidence to support all your "woulds?"




I don't know about Begoned having any evidence, but I do.

Clicky http://www.dfes.gov.uk/cgi-bin/performancetables/dfe1x2_05.pl?Mode=Z&No=343&Base=b&X=1&Type=

And you'll find a fully comprehensive list of public and private schools in the Northwest region of England. they have been assesed by an external body (the dept for education) against a range of Key Performance Indicators and, lo and behold, the private schools come out top.

:D

Cool. A German with a sense of humour. I shall write a WikiP entry immediately!!! :D
JA! Thank you for noticing (and especially for telling!) :D

(But I have to admit that our, or particularly my dry and sarcastic humor are seldomnly recognized or welcome...) Anyway, I'm happy for who and what I am.

As for the privatization - there might be backside to that: Who knows what the cost would've amounted to had those services not been privatized.
Anyhow, I know how things used to be and how they haven't really improved.

Same goes for electricity, for example: The government opened the market for private companies in hope of competition lowering the prices. Well, that backfired, too: The big four companies have devided Germany into four regions in which each company pretty much has a monopoly and can do whatever they want. And guess what - the prices skyrocketed even when compared to the world-wide increase of energy cost.

You know, it all amounts to making more money than you really should and then wonder why people tend to write less, use the train less and bitch about not being able to afford any luxuries which leads to the domestic market going down the drain...

(I'm getting tired - not of the discussion but in persona - which I can tell in the increased number of typos. Thread is bookmarked - I'll be back tomorrow!)

Oh lord ...

Right *rollsupsleeves*

Life was better, or at least had the prospect of becoming better for the very poorest of people who were basically enslaved at the 'mir' i.e. village level. They escaped to the cities and started to educate themselves.

Yes, i agree, tsarist Russia was bollocks. But during its (brief) development phase it was getting better.

The economy never materially improved under Soviet society - it stagnated and eventually declined. I'm not going to argue with anyone who says the economy is better under a soviet/bolshevik/communist system. You're clearly deluded.

The Jews worldwide have had a terrible time from everyone. But how is that relevant to the discussion at hand i.e. is it better or not to privatise education (and a bit off-thread, healthcare)?

Wikipedia can be unreliable yes. It can also be very reliable. Peer reviewed research in the journal Nature (which I have read) indicates the WikiP is as reliable as the Encyclopaedia Brittannica in relation to science articles. It is important when using WikiP to use your judgment.


Because idiots don't know anything about science, so they leave the wikipedia science articles alone. But lets really not get all hung-up about that. I agree with you on wikipedia.

Indeed, the Czarist development period was very short. And when World War One started, it stopped. There's a reason revolutions happen; usually because the people are unhappy with the current government, often for economic reasons (cause we've all seen how complacent people can be in shitty political conditions). Granted, the beginning years of the Bolshevik regime were crap, mainly due to the Russian Civil War and some very damaging treaties they had to sign with Germany. But afterwards some serious economic reforms were inacted, mostly dealing with grain production and agriculture. Industry took a lot longer to repair, but that's a common trend after large wars. Its rather a pity Trotsky was killed. . .might've been interesting to see how his Soviet Russia would have turned out compared to Stalin's. He was more and advocate of socialist democracy rather than totalitarianist dictatorship.

As for the privatization - there might be backside to that: Who knows what the cost would've amounted to had those services not been privatized.

coulda, woulda, shoulda ... i mean who the hell knows what could or could not have been? There's no real way to tell.


Anyhow, I know how things used to be and how they haven't really improved.
Same goes for electricity, for example: The government opened the market for private companies in hope of competition lowering the prices. Well, that backfired, too: The big four companies have devided Germany into four regions in which each company pretty much has a monopoly and can do whatever they want. And guess what - the prices skyrocketed even when compared to the world-wide increase of energy cost.
You know, it all amounts to making more money than you really should and then wonder why people tend to write less, use the train less and bitch about not being able to afford any luxuries which leads to the domestic market going down the drain...
(I'm getting tired - not of the discussion but in persona - which I can tell in the increased number of typos. Thread is bookmarked - I'll be back tomorrow!)

I can't really comment too much on the German system as I'm not familiar with it. General comments ... seems odd that privatisation worked in Britain but not Germany. Anyone have any thoughts why?

Here's my two pennies worth ...

Perhaps anti-trust/competition authorities are not strong in Germany?
Perhaps, for some reason, there is no intra-European competition operating in the German market? (that's especially true in the Energy markets all over Europe)
Perhaps the privatisation was botched? I remember researching the Californian power market when they had those brown outs a few years ago. What happened there was that the privatisations were botched, combined with some freak natural factors (lack of snowfall in the mountains deprived the hydroelectric generators of kinetic power that year) and human factors (unusually robust demand for energy in one of the Northern States) all added up to cause brown outs. The enemies of capitalism (or, as i like to call them, the forces of evil) decried the privatisation process as not working.

Perhaps the German situation is analogous to any or all of those?

Anywho, GermanNightmare, have a good snoooooze. Speak later.

CDA

Californian power market when they had those brown outs a few years ago. What happened there was that the privatisations were botched, combined with some freak natural factors (lack of snowfall in the mountains deprived the hydroelectric generators of kinetic power that year) and human factors (unusually robust demand for energy in one of the Northern States) all added up to cause brown outs

The cause of the California energy crisis was a failiure to understand market forces. They deregulated the supply side but not the demand side; as a result, the prices paid by consumers were kept artificially low which drove up demand to a point of shortfall. However, this price was so far below the equilibrium that utilities couldn't afford to supply all of the power and blackouts occured.

As a result, the energy companies like Enron took advantage of this disparity and intentionally created shortages, which were ultimately responsible for the price spikes and shortages because they were able to manipulate the market in full confidence of the prices not being passed on to consumers which would have restored the market to equilibrium.

This doesn't include environmental factors, nor does it include the overrestrictive laws in place that inhibited the construction of new plants and resulted in increasingly large supply problems even before deregulation.

That's not socialist.

Its completely funded by the government, its not for-profit, you never see the military asking for donations or anything, and they exist to serve the population. What's not socialist about it?

Because idiots don't know anything about science, so they leave the wikipedia science articles alone. But lets really not get all hung-up about that. I agree with you on wikipedia.

:D



Indeed, the Czarist development period was very short. And when World War One started, it stopped. There's a reason revolutions happen; usually because the people are unhappy with the current government, often for economic reasons (cause we've all seen how complacent people can be in shitty political conditions).

In this case it was because of agitation by the Bolsheviks. Vanguard of the dicatatorship of the Prollys and all that. Not so much, IMHO, a revolution as a coup.


Granted, the beginning years of the Bolshevik regime were crap, mainly due to the Russian Civil War and some very damaging treaties they had to sign with Germany. But afterwards some serious economic reforms were inacted, mostly dealing with grain production and agriculture. Industry took a lot longer to repair, but that's a common trend after large wars.

It was bloody awful, economically, socially and politically from start to finish. Suggest you read, or re-read, 1984, Animal Farm and especially the Master & Margherita, which is a very strange, deeply disturbing and in parts really quite scary book.

One thing you have to give the Bolsheviks (grudging) credit for is tht they created an industrialised, scientific superpower from a nation of farmers within about ten years. But the cost was too high. Way too high.


Its rather a pity Trotsky was killed. . .might've been interesting to see how his Soviet Russia would have turned out compared to Stalin's. He was more and advocate of socialist democracy rather than totalitarianist dictatorship.

Ah, who the hell knows? it's hard to say. That said, Trotsky had form for being an evil sod too. He ordered the execution of 'soldiers' (read: desperately frightened teenagers with no training or equipment - not even guns or bullets - who had been plucked from their farms and dropped in front of veteran nazi stormtroopers) when they fled the battlefield.

Read also "10 days that shook the world" and you will find a very unflattering portrait of Trotsky right there.

The cause of the California energy crisis was a failiure to understand market forces. They deregulated the supply side but not the demand side; as a result, the prices paid by consumers were kept artificially low which drove up demand to a point of shortfall. However, this price was so far below the equilibrium that utilities couldn't afford to supply all of the power and blackouts occured.

As a result, the energy companies like Enron took advantage of this disparity and intentionally created shortages, which were ultimately responsible for the price spikes and shortages because they were able to manipulate the market in full confidence of the prices not being passed on to consumers which would have restored the market to equilibrium.

This doesn't include environmental factors, nor does it include the overrestrictive laws in place that inhibited the construction of new plants and resulted in increasingly large supply problems even before deregulation.


Ah yes, I seem to remember something about 'stranded costs'. Thanx for the reminder/re-instruction

I believe that things like healthcare and education could be provided for much more cheaply and more quickly by private providers than by the state. That would be moving things in the wrong direction. Private providers should be out of education and medicine (not just healthcare) completely. (They should be out of everything completely, but that's beside the point.)

And, just because healthcare and education is private does not mean that there would be no healthcare or education for the poor.It does mean that there won't be enough healthcare or education for the poor.

And if you absolutely cannot stomach the idea of a wholly private healthcare and education system, consider at least the transformation of the role of the state from provider of healthcare (NHS) and education (local LEA run schools) into a commissioner of services. So instead of running and operating hospitals and schools it could be the body that writes the cheques instead. This would still be free at the point of use but would lead to greater efficiency gains thereby leading to lower tax bills. Here in the UK they're moving to that with Trust foundation schools *cough grant maintained schools cough*Good idea, instead of private companies gouging the consumer, they can gouge the government even more, because the government has more money.

coulda, woulda, shoulda ... i mean who the hell knows what could or could not have been? There's no real way to tell.
Nobody?

I can't really comment too much on the German system as I'm not familiar with it. General comments ... seems odd that privatisation worked in Britain but not Germany. Anyone have any thoughts why?
I'm lacking good answers as well!


Here's my two pennies worth ...
Perhaps anti-trust/competition authorities are not strong in Germany?
Perhaps, for some reason, there is no intra-European competition operating in the German market? (that's especially true in the Energy markets all over Europe)
Perhaps the privatisation was botched? I remember researching the Californian power market when they had those brown outs a few years ago. What happened there was that the privatisations were botched, combined with some freak natural factors (lack of snowfall in the mountains deprived the hydroelectric generators of kinetic power that year) and human factors (unusually robust demand for energy in one of the Northern States) all added up to cause brown outs. The enemies of capitalism (or, as i like to call them, the forces of evil) decried the privatisation process as not working.

Perhaps the German situation is analogous to any or all of those?
Probably a combination of all of it?

Anywho, GermanNightmare, have a good snoooooze. Speak later.

CDA
Thanks, I need to get some rest - talk to you later! http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/goodnight.gif

That would be moving things in the wrong direction. Private providers should be out of education and medicine (not just healthcare) completely. (They should be out of everything completely, but that's beside the point.)

It does mean that there won't be enough healthcare or education for the poor.

Good idea, instead of private companies gouging the consumer, they can gouge the government even more, because the government has more money.

Do you have any real arguments to bring to the thread or just a whole bunch of hooey?

Nobody?


I'm lacking good answers as well!


Probably a combination of all of it?

Thanks, I need to get some rest - talk to you later! http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/goodnight.gif


Me too, i need a snoooze.

g'night all.

Do you have any real arguments to bring to the thread or just a whole bunch of hooey?You don't consider the fact that private charity isn't sufficient won't be to be a real argument? Or that private companies will simply gouge the state instead of the consumer? Or is it not a real argument because it doesn't agree with you?

:D



In this case it was because of agitation by the Bolsheviks. Vanguard of the dicatatorship of the Prollys and all that. Not so much, IMHO, a revolution as a coup.



It was bloody awful, economically, socially and politically from start to finish. Suggest you read, or re-read, 1984, Animal Farm and especially the Master & Margherita, which is a very strange, deeply disturbing and in parts really quite scary book.

One thing you have to give the Bolsheviks (grudging) credit for is tht they created an industrialised, scientific superpower from a nation of farmers within about ten years. But the cost was too high. Way too high.



Ah, who the hell knows? it's hard to say. That said, Trotsky had form for being an evil sod too. He ordered the execution of 'soldiers' (read: desperately frightened teenagers with no training or equipment - not even guns or bullets - who had been plucked from their farms and dropped in front of veteran nazi stormtroopers) when they fled the battlefield.

Read also "10 days that shook the world" and you will find a very unflattering portrait of Trotsky right there.

All polticians are evil sods. Comes with the job, undoubtably.

All revolutions are caused by a variety of different issues. Certainly, Bolshevik agitation helped, but there were already a variety of economic issues and problems that helped lead to Bolshevik, and other non-bolshevik, unrest.

As for Revolution or Coup; that all depends on perspective. Isn't it called the 'Colonial Insurrection' there in the UK? I know I've heard that a few times. Or the 'American War for Independece' (frankly I think both of those sound cooler than 'The Revolutionary War. Talk about boring. . .). Although a coup usually implies a military take-over, which doesn't really fit the Russian scene.

And I really fail to see what Animal Farm and 1984 have to do with the Leninist regime. Animal Farm, for a bit. But after (is it Napoleon?) takes over, it becomes more like Stalinist Russia. 1984. . .is just interesting. But they're both fiction, and written by a socialist who thought that Stalin's totalitaianist regime was really not. The debate about whether they're about the dangers of communism or totalitarianism can and will go on for ever (unless they find a way to talk to the dead, and ask Orwell in person, but I don't really see that happening anytime. . .ever).

I'll look up the Master & Margherita; sounds interesting.

It wasn't so much a stagnation, and then decline. There was most definately a climb, as there always is. It wasn't even original; the USSR followed the path of all great empires, just happened a little faster because. . .well. . .it was communist, (Oh, it hurts to admit that). Doesn't change my opinion that socialism is the way to go. Besides, no one has really tried a socialist democracy.

CDG, have you travelled on a British train recently? Vastly superior is not the way I'd describe it, especially with the amount of public money being put into the system.

In relation to the school system;

Public state schools should continue as they provide high quality education to all those who require it, not just those with the money. The reason the private schools are able to gain better results than the state schools is due to their ability to pick and choose their candidates, much like Universities, unlike the public system which educates all. Privatising the system would not help improve education in any way, all it would lead to is an increase in the cost of education for the average Joe.

Full Privatization will only cause more problems...create a hybrid system, IMHO

Yes, but you still have to waste money paying taxes, part of which go to education. Why do you have to pay for a failed educational system when you don't even use it?
you know I wonder that everyday. I think I should get some kind of tax credit to offset the amount I pay in since my kids don't go to school. Not a deduction (although that would be nice to be able to deduct all my homeschool stuff) or even a credit that would wipe out all I pay in, but just a little credit to off set some of it.

I don't think it's going to work to privatize the schools though, even though I don't think it's efficient or a good idea even for the government to run them, I know that a lot of kids will lose out because of their idiot parents. (it's happening now but to less of a degree since most kids can at least expect to be able to read on a 3rd grade level by the time they graduate)

School should be a right for everyone. Making it a product jeopardizes this. Of course you could legislate it it several ways. But if they're privatized, people will have to make a profit off it (or want to at least). That profit has to come from somewhere, and I don't think it will come from improving the standard of teaching.
I suppose there's always the option of turning school into a marketing outlet though, just like in Jennifer Government. Indoctrinate them with brands. That's worth a few bucks. Give a good education so they can earn good money and buy your stuff (but not your competition's stuff)

Food is a right and a product. The poor get vouchers to buy it. I see nothing wrong with that. In fact, I am grateful that the same beurocrats from the DMV (or any public schools administrators) are NOT in charge of providing my Wheaties.

Profit comes from providing a valued product for a reasonable cost. With the government redistributing the cost of education (through vouchers-just like with food) there is no reason to presume everyone would be able to afford an education.

To presume that profit comes from lower quality would obviously mean then that Yugo was a more profitable company than Honda.

Oh, gee. I guess that means you're wrong. And it was so simple to demonstrate too.

Food is a right and a product.
food is not a right.....:headbang:

Food is a right and a product.
Gosh. Never reaslised that. Next time I'm hungry, I'm going to wander into my local supermarket and just start eating. Hey! It's my right!

, you cannot privatize the police because no money could be gained by a company that polices people.
Uh...I guess you've never heard of security guards, then?

Uh...I guess you've never heard of security guards, then?

That's to prevent people from stealing money. You do not make money by employing security guards. There's no company that can gain from catching people speeding and such.

Yes, because poor people should be denied the right to go to school

That's right! After all, if poor people were educated, think of terrible consequences. No longer could the more educated populace enjoy a utterly mindless episode of Cops. Con-Artists around the world would be forced into poverty and Radical Cult leaders would be left without followers.

It's all poppeycock, this free education business! Poppeycock, I tell you!

food is not a right.....:headbang:

Food is at least as much a right as an education is according to the post I quoted. It is in that sense I responded. Many people would also agree with you - Kim Jong-il for example.

Gosh. Never reaslised that. Next time I'm hungry, I'm going to wander into my local supermarket and just start eating. Hey! It's my right!
If you cannot pay for it yourself food stamps (vouchers) are provided. Your attempt at absurdity is pointless.

Education is a responsibility of the state, especially a republican-democracy like the United States. What you fail to grasp is that a school's responsibility does not end at imparting skills, it is also the place were society imparts its values and traditions. Sounds like indoctrination? It is in a way, but this is where the form of government is taught. This is where history is taught. This is where all those little things that go to make up a society and a country are taught.

Could they be taught in a private school or home school? Yes, yes they can and they are, but private schools and home schools would not reach every person in the United States, and every person has the right to vote.

You state that you are ok with poor people not receiving an education because it sucks to be them? They can and do vote. Say hello to Boss Tweed again, because you open the field for him and his ilk again with an uneducated, illiterate population. A huge chunk of the population has no science knowledge? Hello creationism and intelligent design.

They do vote, even now they don't vote intelligently, but let's not make matters worse.

It is in the democratic interest of the state to have an educated population; it is also in the economic interest to have an educated population. We don't HAVE a manufacturing sector any more, it's gone. We don't need all that many service jobs and they don't pay well, so then what? People without an education, without the ability to read or do basic math shall do what for the rest of their lives? If they have no opportunity, they may decide to make one themselves, by force (remember, they haven't had a school to teach them patriotism, so why should they feel any attachment or loyalty to the nation as a whole?). And, perhaps, they would be easy pickings for any well spoken charismatic person who spouts ideologies that they, because of lack of education, cannot tell (and do not know) that they don't work as advertised.

And do you even have any idea how many students are in the US? 55 million, with more coming every year. And they aren't all in nice large urban centers, no, they're scattered all over the place.

Let me tell you about Gerlach, Nevada. It's a small town northwest of Reno, population 499 (If you count the surrounding Empire area). It has a casino (this being Nevada), and a bar, and a gas station. It doesn't have a supermarket (Empire, about an hour away, is the closest market). It has no fast food outlets, no department stores, no nothing. It does have a school with a grand total of 12 students in it. Reno, the city with the next closest school is over 3 hours away on a good day (winter driving is FUN).

Now what company would be glad to build a school to give these kids a good education in Gerlach, Nevada? Or Virginia City, Nevada (school population 150)? Or… There's a lot of little cities and towns that have a school because the state provides for it, because it is the interest of the state to do so.

You also mention a lot of hope that charities and scholarships would step up to the plate and help educate the poor, have you proof of this? I sure as hell haven't seen it.

Finally, consider this, three countries that have constantly out performed the United States, Japan, China, and South Korea, have public school systems. Actually, their schools systems are under far more governmental control that the US system is. And they do much better. Hmmm… so private schools may not provide the boost you seek.

Education is a responsibility of the state, especially a republican-democracy like the United States. What you fail to grasp is that a school's responsibility does not end at imparting skills, it is also the place were society imparts its values and traditions. Sounds like indoctrination? It is in a way, but this is where the form of government is taught. This is where history is taught. This is where all those little things that go to make up a society and a country are taught.

Could they be taught in a private school or home school? Yes, yes they can and they are, but private schools and home schools would not reach every person in the United States, and every person has the right to vote.

You state that you are ok with poor people not receiving an education because it sucks to be them? They can and do vote. Say hello to Boss Tweed again, because you open the field for him and his ilk again with an uneducated, illiterate population. A huge chunk of the population has no science knowledge? Hello creationism and intelligent design.

They do vote, even now they don't vote intelligently, but let's not make matters worse.

It is in the democratic interest of the state to have an educated population; it is also in the economic interest to have an educated population. We don't HAVE a manufacturing sector any more, it's gone. We don't need all that many service jobs and they don't pay well, so then what? People without an education, without the ability to read or do basic math shall do what for the rest of their lives? If they have no opportunity, they may decide to make one themselves, by force (remember, they haven't had a school to teach them patriotism, so why should they feel any attachment or loyalty to the nation as a whole?). And, perhaps, they would be easy pickings for any well spoken charismatic person who spouts ideologies that they, because of lack of education, cannot tell (and do not know) that they don't work as advertised.

And do you even have any idea how many students are in the US? 55 million, with more coming every year. And they aren't all in nice large urban centers, no, they're scattered all over the place.

Let me tell you about Gerlach, Nevada. It's a small town northwest of Reno, population 499 (If you count the surrounding Empire area). It has a casino (this being Nevada), and a bar, and a gas station. It doesn't have a supermarket (Empire, about an hour away, is the closest market). It has no fast food outlets, no department stores, no nothing. It does have a school with a grand total of 12 students in it. Reno, the city with the next closest school is over 3 hours away on a good day (winter driving is FUN).

Now what company would be glad to build a school to give these kids a good education in Gerlach, Nevada? Or Virginia City, Nevada (school population 150)? Or… There's a lot of little cities and towns that have a school because the state provides for it, because it is the interest of the state to do so.

You also mention a lot of hope that charities and scholarships would step up to the plate and help educate the poor, have you proof of this? I sure as hell haven't seen it.

Finally, consider this, three countries that have constantly out performed the United States, Japan, China, and South Korea, have public school systems. Actually, their schools systems are under far more governmental control that the US system is. And they do much better. Hmmm… so private schools may not provide the boost you seek.

amen, brother (or sister)

Privatisation works very well for things which enjoy normal competition. This means they need to be things that have a normal supply and demand curve and sufficient and timely feedback as to the quality and comparability of the product.

Education, health, social welfare, and national defense do not meet these conditions. Perhaps counter-intuitively, policing does.

Health does not have a normal supply and demand curve in that for a large number of cases, the demand is either infinite or non-existant. You don't go and get that aneurysm operation early because the price is good, and you certainly don't hold off on it when you need it because the price is too high.

National defense has this problem plus the additional problem that timely feedback is not readily available. If the service wasn't good enough when it was desired.. there's no opportunity for correction.

Social welfare doesn't work because there is no feedback or competition for comparable products. You will not see competitors to Habitat for Humanity spring up and compete for your charitable housing dollar. Why? Because first there are so few of those dollars to go around already that competition would dilute any effect any of the charities could have, and second, because the organizations are non-profit, which given low levels of donation (levels which, incidentally, are statistically guarunteed not to rise in equal amounts with the reduction in social welfare if the government ceased taxation for it), they have to be, as any reasonable levels of profit would make the organization unable to fulfill its basic mission.

Education doesn't work because of the timely feedback problem. By the time we realize someone has received a poor education, it's too late to correct that. It is very rare that we can then decide, "Well, I'm sending my kid back to grade 1 in this other school!" As such, competition between education institutions rely on children having already suffered. In addition, the demand curve for education on individuals does not properly reflect the demand curve for society as a whole. Education is one of those items that benefits the society as much or more-so than the individual taking it. When things are improperly valued, we run into market failures. In this case, it means spending too little on education, thus forcing reductions in quality/quantity, which plays out as difficulties in our society (less employable people, less entrepreneurs, more health expenses, more crime, etc.)

Policing, actually does fulfill these requirements. It might seem to suffer from the timely information problem, but given that most policing is spent catching criminals, and that crime prevention as done by the police force is more due to deterrence by the simple existance of police than by any specific programs, the word of mouth about particular police service providers is both part of the service and the feedback about the service together. Crimes against the community (such as speeding) would require police services hired by the community.

food is not a right.....:headbang:
Yes it is

so is water, shelter, protection and education

They;re the most basic rights of modern society

That's to prevent people from stealing money. You do not make money by employing security guards. There's no company that can gain from catching people speeding and such.
Right. That's why police don't fine people for speeding, do they?
And if you don't make money from employing security guards, how do security firms stay in business?

Privatizing education would essentially be a tax on poor people with children.

Think about it. You *have* to have education for your child to have a future, so schools can charge the maximum they're physically able to pay.

All the money middle class and lower would save on taxes by privatizing edudcation would just go toward paying for school, or would be stolen by people who didn't get to go to school because they couldn't afford it.

I am in favor of having more private schools and more competition among private schools. Maybe in the form of incentives such as tax benefits if you send your child to private school. That would improve the average quality of education. But free schools much be available, or else you're robbing children with poor parents of a chance to gain employable skills, and consequently, turning them to crime.

I will point out that the benefits of privatization generally come from competition. Competition would force schools to become more efficient and more effective.

The current system works well in some schools, but horrendously in others.
The first step towards privatization is a voucher program. Allow parents a choice of what schools to send their child to, rather than forcing them to get the same crappy education.
Schools that are providing a good education will retain the students. Schools systems that are teaching creationism and graduating high school students who can barely read will have to get better or close down.

The problem with a lot of people who oppose vouchers is that they never went through a crappy school. They seem to think that all public schools are good schools. I am not saying that all private schools are good schools, but those that are not, won’t survive.

It is far better to give students a chance at getting a decent education than forcing a lot of them through bad schools. You want to say you are opposing privatization on behalf of the poor, but you are not. The wealthy have the opportunity to pay for private schools to escape the bad public schools, the poor have no choice. Giving students more opportunities is a good thing – forcing them to attend a bad school is not.

Education is a responsibility of the state, especially a republican-democracy like the United States. What you fail to grasp is that a school's responsibility does not end at imparting skills, it is also the place were society imparts its values and traditions. Sounds like indoctrination? It is in a way, but this is where the form of government is taught. This is where history is taught. This is where all those little things that go to make up a society and a country are taught.

Could they be taught in a private school or home school? Yes, yes they can and they are, but private schools and home schools would not reach every person in the United States, and every person has the right to vote.

You state that you are ok with poor people not receiving an education because it sucks to be them? They can and do vote. Say hello to Boss Tweed again, because you open the field for him and his ilk again with an uneducated, illiterate population. A huge chunk of the population has no science knowledge? Hello creationism and intelligent design.

They do vote, even now they don't vote intelligently, but let's not make matters worse.

It is in the democratic interest of the state to have an educated population; it is also in the economic interest to have an educated population. We don't HAVE a manufacturing sector any more, it's gone. We don't need all that many service jobs and they don't pay well, so then what? People without an education, without the ability to read or do basic math shall do what for the rest of their lives? If they have no opportunity, they may decide to make one themselves, by force (remember, they haven't had a school to teach them patriotism, so why should they feel any attachment or loyalty to the nation as a whole?). And, perhaps, they would be easy pickings for any well spoken charismatic person who spouts ideologies that they, because of lack of education, cannot tell (and do not know) that they don't work as advertised.

And do you even have any idea how many students are in the US? 55 million, with more coming every year. And they aren't all in nice large urban centers, no, they're scattered all over the place.

Let me tell you about Gerlach, Nevada. It's a small town northwest of Reno, population 499 (If you count the surrounding Empire area). It has a casino (this being Nevada), and a bar, and a gas station. It doesn't have a supermarket (Empire, about an hour away, is the closest market). It has no fast food outlets, no department stores, no nothing. It does have a school with a grand total of 12 students in it. Reno, the city with the next closest school is over 3 hours away on a good day (winter driving is FUN).

Now what company would be glad to build a school to give these kids a good education in Gerlach, Nevada? Or Virginia City, Nevada (school population 150)? Or… There's a lot of little cities and towns that have a school because the state provides for it, because it is the interest of the state to do so.

You also mention a lot of hope that charities and scholarships would step up to the plate and help educate the poor, have you proof of this? I sure as hell haven't seen it.

Finally, consider this, three countries that have constantly out performed the United States, Japan, China, and South Korea, have public school systems. Actually, their schools systems are under far more governmental control that the US system is. And they do much better. Hmmm… so private schools may not provide the boost you seek.
hear, hear!

Man, I've been waiting for you to post.
It is also interesting that arguably the top school system in the world (Japan) has been looking to the US to figure out how to get their children to be creative. Education is nothing without creativity. Japan has mastered how to copy the US and modify parts that fail (or, actually, copy the system the US ditched). Very little of what the country does is its own unique system. (NERVUN, feel free to correct me if this is at all incorrect)

I will point out that the benefits of privatization generally come from competition. Competition would force schools to become more efficient and more effective.
How? Education is not a car, you can't really compare it as such. And I worry about the notion of efficient and effective. How will bean counting improve education?

Schools that are providing a good education will retain the students. Schools systems that are teaching creationism and graduating high school students who can barely read will have to get better or close down.
Again though, how do you address the millions of children skattered over so large an area? What do you do about Gerlach, Nevada when a company could not operate at profit there?

Privatizing education would essentially be a tax on poor people with children.

Think about it. You *have* to have education for your child to have a future, so schools can charge the maximum they're physically able to pay.

All the money middle class and lower would save on taxes by privatizing edudcation would just go toward paying for school, or would be stolen by people who didn't get to go to school because they couldn't afford it.

I am in favor of having more private schools and more competition among private schools. Maybe in the form of incentives such as tax benefits if you send your child to private school. That would improve the average quality of education. But free schools much be available, or else you're robbing children with poor parents of a chance to gain employable skills, and consequently, turning them to crime.
there is more to it than just you needing to be educated to succeed. In order for the society or succeed, the base needs to be educated. Without a literate, trainable base, where do we intend to get labor? Particularly with the high competition (see my post that includes the Honda example)

And again, I point out, not all parts of this country are failing. New England in particular places a very high value on education.

This, in my opinion, is one of the main problems. Education doesn't work without parents to help. Many wealthy people look at educators with a bit of disdain because, in many cases, they are more highly educated (read: hold a higher degree) than the teachers. Poorer families leave it to the teacher because they feel they have nothing to input that would be beneficial. When education is valued and teachers respected, then we will see changes. Untill that happens, nothing will change. We will keep listening to politicians and "education experts" instead of the students, teachers, and administrators.

I will point out that the benefits of privatization generally come from competition. Competition would force schools to become more efficient and more effective.

The current system works well in some schools, but horrendously in others.
The first step towards privatization is a voucher program. Allow parents a choice of what schools to send their child to, rather than forcing them to get the same crappy education.
Schools that are providing a good education will retain the students. Schools systems that are teaching creationism and graduating high school students who can barely read will have to get better or close down.

The problem with a lot of people who oppose vouchers is that they never went through a crappy school. They seem to think that all public schools are good schools. I am not saying that all private schools are good schools, but those that are not, won’t survive.

It is far better to give students a chance at getting a decent education than forcing a lot of them through bad schools. You want to say you are opposing privatization on behalf of the poor, but you are not. The wealthy have the opportunity to pay for private schools to escape the bad public schools, the poor have no choice. Giving students more opportunities is a good thing – forcing them to attend a bad school is not.
vouchers do not work. They will create (yet another) "white flight". Additionally, if my money is going to a private school, then I demand that I have a say in its curriculum, same as I do for public schools getting my money. I also demand that the teachers are held to the same standards as those of public schools. You think private teachers are "better"? wrong. They have no requirement to be licensed in any way, or to even have a degree. Also, once you start a voucher program, public schools will need to fire teachers, thus increasing class sizes. this will lead to public school failure. Then, those students will flood the private schools who are competing, and therefore, to keep costs down, will increase classroom sizes. There is no way that a teacher can feasably controll a classroom of 25-30 students. You want something to fix in public education? reduce class sizes. That is the primary benefit of private education.

What people should consider is charter schools. I would link to the wiki article, but it is biased. Basically, a charter school is a public funded school that has a set charter and goals, and chooses how it will impliment these goals. It allows for creativity within public education, while not bankrupting the system.

Reading thru this thread, it's plainly obvious who works in the education system and who doesn't. Those who don't think private schools are great.
Here's why they're great:

They cheat.

and

They spend more money on one classroom than most public schools have to spend on their entire school.


So, how do they cheat?
First, they get to choose who goes to their school, and who doesn't. For a start, a kid from parents wealthy enough to send their child to a private school is going to have lots and lots of books at home. And there is a strong correlation between books at home and academic ability. Second, any acadamic scholarships are based on that child's academic ability (well, duh). In other words they cherrypick the top poor students. You think they're going to have a kid who at 13 is the oldest of 8, comes from a broken home with an alcoholic mother and has a reading age of 6? (I taught such a child btw).
And, of course, they only allow students who are all but guaranteed of passing to sit external exams. Failing students are usually 'discouraged' from sitting (even to the point of being kicked out of the school). How do you think they get their impressive pass rates? By better teaching? If you thought that it shows you obviously don't know the first thing about the private education system.
Obviously, this is all necessary in order to maintain their reputation in a competitive private education market. That's what happens in a private market.

One of my Mum's friend's son won a scholarship to one of the top private schools in NZ. While fees were paid for (which were I think $10 grand a semester), they still had to come up with close to $10 000 for 'other' expenses that all parents were expected to contribute (for outings etc), as well as a top-of-the-range laptop each and every child had to have. They were given a list of suitable laptops. The cheapest was $3000. This was necessary because the school had bluetooth wireless for every classroom and most of the teaching resources were on the school's intranet.

Compare this to the school he had come from (the same one I taught at for 3 years). In a school of 850 we had 2 computers for the maths dept. That's 2 for the entire dept. They were old clunkers too, I might add. That's all the school could afford.
The district where the school was, the average annual income was 40% of the national average. Something like 70% of the students came from broken homes. Drug use was rife (it was the 2nd biggest income earner in the district after dairy). I had students whose reading ages were 7 yrs below their chronological ages. Most homes didn't have books in them.
Unsurprisingly overall exam results weren't that great. I think we had a 60-70% pass rate. Way below private schools '99%' pass rate. (though if you compare our top students, we had similar results).

But to compare a private school's results to a school like the one I taught at is asinine, to say the least. It's not even comparing apples to oranges. It's like comparing an apple to something not even remotely resembling anything edible at all. We had the students no-one else would take.
Giving their parents vouchers isn't going to change their home life, nor make the school they attend better. And it certainly isn't going to make top private schools want to take them.
It's just going to make for a bureacratic mess that helps the rich, as it allows them to send their kids to the top private schools using said vouchers to save themselves money and it allows the top private schools to take in even more money (public tax-payer money). Poor schools in poor districts are going to get shafted, as usual. They'll end up with less. That's what vouchers will do.

hear, hear!

Man, I've been waiting for you to post.
Sorry, I was on vacation. :cool: ;)

It is also interesting that arguably the top school system in the world (Japan) has been looking to the US to figure out how to get their children to be creative. Education is nothing without creativity. Japan has mastered how to copy the US and modify parts that fail (or, actually, copy the system the US ditched). Very little of what the country does is its own unique system. (NERVUN, feel free to correct me if this is at all incorrect)
It's correct as far as it goes. The Japanese system is an almost Frankenstine monster of different traditions that span across the world, but a good majority of it does have roots in the US system that was placed after WWII by SCAP.

But, as with everything else, the Japanese took the system and implanted a Japanese heart.

But you're right in that MEXT is currently looking at introducing creativity and independance into the system to help Japan inovate more in the 21st century... Of course being MEXT and being Japan, this process invloves a large working group trying to come to a consensus on how to standardize it across Japan. *sighs*

Oh, gee. I guess that means you're wrong. And it was so simple to demonstrate too.You demonstrated no such thing. Because I put enough caveats in my post to cover all those things.
If schools are privatized this does not automatically mean you get 'school-vouchers' if you are too poor. So unless that is guaranteed (or something similar, i.e. the legislation I mentioned) the right to education is in jeoparty, as I said. Not guaranteed to go down the toilet, but in jeoparty.

I also did not say that the lowest quality good had the highest profit. I said that taking a profit from a product means you didn't use that money to make the product better.

So I guess this means you fail at comprehensive reading..

There's no company that can gain from catching people speeding and such.Considering the fines reach into the hundreds of Euros, I'd say they'd make a killing privatising this. Handing out fines for speeding is probably the most profitable scheme the government came up with after taxes.

It would solve a lot of problems related to education today, such as sub-par and under-funded schools. If you leave the government in charge of education, everybody will receive the same quality of schooling, but the quality will be low. There is little incentive for the government to spend money on education when it can spend it on other things, like the military. With private schools, however, the amount of money they make is dependent on how well the school performs. They will be forced to have high standards and good teachers to remain competitive, which means that the quality of education will have to increase. This will in turn lead to a more educated populace. So why not privatize education instead of leaving it up to the government (poll coming)?

Stop talking rubbish and try this for a change :

http://www.fulbright.be/US_Citizens_Info/Studying_in_Belgium/Education_in_Belgium.htm

I understand this isnt the popular position, however there is no denying private schools are better funded and produce better results, its kinda like privatizing social sercurity, it good in the long run. To avoid the oh "its a troll" trait argument, I will add that perhaps we dont get rid of all public schools at first, but every effort should be made to push for private schools. Otherwise it might as well be communism where everyone is equal, and not in the good way.

I understand this isnt the popular position, however there is no denying private schools are better funded and produce better results
Again, Japan, China, and South Korea all have public school systems that do laps around the US public and private schools. As well as your point about private school being better funded just shows that, yes, it will be a place for the rich and not the poor.

To avoid the oh "its a troll" trait argument,
I thought you left anyway.

I will add that perhaps we dont get rid of all public schools at first, but every effort should be made to push for private schools. Otherwise it might as well be communism where everyone is equal, and not in the good way.
BRILLIANT IDEA! Let's push for private schools and in the process we'll make sure the public system gets even worse! We'll shortchange the education an entire generation of Americans, but hey, some sacrifices have to be made, right? What an absolutely scathingly brilliant idea. /sarcasm

Privatizing schools surely would screw everyone, and it would certainly *not* improve the quality.
It is only wanted by the rich who want to keep the poor without education.

As Demented Hamsters already pointed out, private schools cheat big time, and vouchers will only benefit the rich and leave poor schools with even less.

Fortunately, the constitution protects my right to a free education.

psst, it's the Danish one, not the American.

I understand this isnt the popular position, however there is no denying private schools are better funded and produce better results, its kinda like privatizing social sercurity, it good in the long run. To avoid the oh "its a troll" trait argument, I will add that perhaps we dont get rid of all public schools at first, but every effort should be made to push for private schools. Otherwise it might as well be communism where everyone is equal, and not in the good way.
why couldn't you have been on last night? I wanted a good argument and noone would play:( ;)

aaanyway, as it has been stated, private schools are not always better funded. Actually, one near me is closing down because people want their kids in public schools. There is more to education than just teaching skills. There is a huge social aspect to it too. Additionally, when you can kick a failing student out, of course it looks like you are doing better. When you have a class size of 10 instead of 30, of course you are going to do better. And when your family spends $20000 on your middle school, you damn well better be getting and A. The two, as the system currently stands, are not comprable. They function under completely different concepts. We should focus on fixing the public schools rather than abolishing them. That would just create a new set of problems, which we would have little ability to fix.
Additionally, our constitution promises education to all.

Sorry, I was on vacation. :cool: ;)


It's correct as far as it goes. The Japanese system is an almost Frankenstine monster of different traditions that span across the world, but a good majority of it does have roots in the US system that was placed after WWII by SCAP.

But, as with everything else, the Japanese took the system and implanted a Japanese heart.

But you're right in that MEXT is currently looking at introducing creativity and independance into the system to help Japan inovate more in the 21st century... Of course being MEXT and being Japan, this process invloves a large working group trying to come to a consensus on how to standardize it across Japan. *sighs*
haha...hope it was a good vacation.

And of course, it helps that the Japanese have an almost suicidal work ethic. How ironic that the group that is supposed to make Japan creative isn't creative itself.

Yes it is

so is water, shelter, protection and education

They;re the most basic rights of modern society
maybe I have a different definition of rights...

food, water, shelter, these are all things you need, you don't have a "right" to have them

education isn't a basic need, it's a luxury.

When I talk about rights, I mean things guaranteed to people in the Bill of Rights and food, water, education, and a PSP are not in there.

(...)
I can't really comment too much on the German system as I'm not familiar with it. General comments ... seems odd that privatisation worked in Britain but not Germany. Anyone have any thoughts why?

Here's my two pennies worth ...

Perhaps anti-trust/competition authorities are not strong in Germany?
Perhaps, for some reason, there is no intra-European competition operating in the German market? (that's especially true in the Energy markets all over Europe)
Perhaps the privatisation was botched? I remember researching the Californian power market when they had those brown outs a few years ago. What happened there was that the privatisations were botched, combined with some freak natural factors (lack of snowfall in the mountains deprived the hydroelectric generators of kinetic power that year) and human factors (unusually robust demand for energy in one of the Northern States) all added up to cause brown outs. The enemies of capitalism (or, as i like to call them, the forces of evil) decried the privatisation process as not working.

Perhaps the German situation is analogous to any or all of those?
(...)

Well, I honestly haven't heard all that much about the anti-trust/competition authorities. Ever once in a while when businesses want to merge they're not allowed to, but no real scandals in the last years IIRC.
There is no real intra-European competition when it comes to the energy market. Instead of focusing on strengthening the European market as a whole, many countries have sealed off their market, even for companies from other European countries (Most recent example would be the take-over of the biggest Spanish energy producer by a German competitor).
Yes, I believe that there are some botched privatizations. Many company real estates were highly overrated and had to be reassessed, to that doesn't help, either.

But I so totally forgot the most important part of the equasion: The cost of the German Reunification.

IMHO, not only did the Federal Government in the 90s completely miscalculate the real cost of it, but it seems that they also postponed all the serious overhauls that our public systems needed.
So, not only are we pumping literally billions of dollars into the Eastern parts of Germany to get them semi-up-to-par, we also face the consequences of not having reformed our systems when we had the chance to start anew as a whole country in 1990.

Just to give you an idea of the numbers: €156.5 billion (~$188 billion, ~£ 108 billion) will be used for the reconstruction over the next decade, while this year's annual budget consists of €261.7 billion (~$314 billion, ~£180.5 billion).
Our national debt will reach €1,544 billion (~$1,853 billion, ~£1,065 billion) at the end of the year. But the gov' is working on that so we don't have to pay those heavy fines the EU would put on us 'cause we again violate the Maastricht criteria (that, strangely enough, were implemented especially by the former German chancellor of the Reunification!).

Too little, too late, and sometimes absolutely wrong decisions were made...

Meh - I honestly don't wanna think about all of that too much 'cause it makes a) my head hurt and b) really pisses me off.

Do not try to paint this as a rich vs poor thing. It is not.
Eliminating the near-monopoly the Board of Education would not only benefit the wealthy but would benefit everyone. The rich are already in private schools, so nothing much would change there. The poor and middle class students stuck in crappy schools would get the opportunity to go to a decent school.

The only ones that could possibly be in a ‘worse’ situation are the disruptive or incompetent students who have no desire to be in school in the first place. They will no longer get to ruin the education of students who want to learn.

The first thing people need to understand is that your concept that every student is completely equal in ability and desire to learn is completely crap. Since students vary in ability, we should have a differentiated system that allows students to learn with their peers. Why should a bright student who wants to learn have to suffer through a class taught to the pace of the idiot who cannot comprehend basic ideas and would rather act out their frustration?

Privatization would give students a choice. Why are you so adamant on forcing everyone to go to the same shitty school together?

They will create (yet another) "white flight".

White flight? You’ve got to be kidding me. Nobody has ever said that these vouchers would only be available for white kids. They are available to everybody. So unless you are arguing that minorities are so stupid or incompetent that they would insist that their kids stay in a failing school and that only white parents are smart enough to get their kids out, this is a completely ridiculous argument.

Additionally, if my money is going to a private school, then I demand that I have a say in its curriculum, same as I do for public schools getting my money.

Yes, that’s right. You are obviously far more competent to decide what a child should learn than their parents are, much less the teachers and administrators of a school. In fact, why do we bother giving them an education at all? You should write a book and school will now be nothing more than sitting around reading your ideas.

I also demand that the teachers are held to the same standards as those of public schools. You think private teachers are "better"? wrong. They have no requirement to be licensed in any way, or to even have a degree.

Parents would rush at the opportunity to hire an illiterate who cant count past 3 to teach their kids. Just like doctors, or accountants, or occupational therapists, or pilots, or any of those other privatized industries, those people are all completely incompetent because they don’t work for the state. Obviously parents would choose the most incompetent people to be teachers. Once again we should all just bow down to you and do whatever you say, because the rest of us are too stupid to figure out how to wipe our own asses.

Also, once you start a voucher program, public schools will need to fire teachers, thus increasing class sizes.

Why would they need to fire teachers? The only reason would be because there were fewer students. Yes, fewer students mean they need fewer teachers. Its an easy concept to grasp. Try to keep up.

this will lead to public school failure. Then, those students will flood the private schools who are competing, and therefore, to keep costs down, will increase classroom sizes. There is no way that a teacher can feasably controll a classroom of 25-30 students. You want something to fix in public education? reduce class sizes. That is the primary benefit of private education.

First off, I just love that you said a teacher cannot feasibly control a classroom of 25 students. The average class size in the school I went to was 32, and they did just fine.

Secondly, if the students cannot get a decent education in that class, then they can go to another. If a student is disruptive, the school should be able to kick him out. There is no reason why we should allow a disruptive student to ruin the education of the other 30 students in the class. If that means that a violent emotionally disturbed student can only get accepted at a school for violent emotionally disturbed students – rather than attacking the students and teachers of a good highly motivated and capable school, then good. System is working as far as I'm concerned.

What people should consider is charter schools. I would link to the wiki article, but it is biased. Basically, a charter school is a public funded school that has a set charter and goals, and chooses how it will impliment these goals. It allows for creativity within public education, while not bankrupting the system.

So how are charter schools not a step towards privatizing education?

So what's to stop rich and middle class people from getting all the scholarships by sending their kids to pre-schools directed especially to what scholarships ask for? While poor people have to take time(which they may not have) to find out what their children have to know and then teach it to them.

And 1%! It takes 99 people who can afford the education for the chance that 1 poor child can get a small chance to get in!
I don't like it when people miss my posts. :)

maybe I have a different definition of rights...

food, water, shelter, these are all things you need, you don't have a "right" to have them

education isn't a basic need, it's a luxury.

When I talk about rights, I mean things guaranteed to people in the Bill of Rights and food, water, education, and a PSP are not in there.
I concur. You have no innate "right" to food water or shelter. Education, although a right in this country, is a privilege first, then a right. Too many people take it for granted.

well, the voucher system would be win win.

why the hell do people think that the government can somehow outperform the market in terms of education quality?

maybe I have a different definition of rights...

food, water, shelter, these are all things you need, you don't have a "right" to have them
I wonder at that though. I mean, in terms of poltical rights, what use are they if you have no shelter, no food, and no water? I mean, what use is freedom of speech if you are starving to death, exposed to the elements, and dying of thirst. How many times have people traded in their poltical rights for the promise of bread?

I mean, I understand where you're coming from that there is a difference between the poltical rights as stated in the US Constitution as well as various states' constitutions, but would meeting those basic needs for everyone be the first priority of a nation before we start talking about liberty?

education isn't a basic need, it's a luxury.
I disagree, education is a basic need, without which you cannot understand your rights. If you go back to the basic level of education, not just formal school education, but education as the passing of knowledge and traditions from one generation to the next, it becomes a preultimate need as humans are not born knowing what they need to do to survive. Hell, most mamals educate their children how to hunt or forage.

When I talk about rights, I mean things guaranteed to people in the Bill of Rights and food, water, education, and a PSP are not in there.
Hey! I need my PSP! :p

well, the voucher system would be win win.

why the hell do people think that the government can somehow outperform the market in terms of education quality?
I take it you have not read my, NERVUN, Demented Hamsters, or posts from the many other people who either work in or are studing to work in the field?
The voucher system is anything but win-win. If anything it is lose-lose.
We know what we are talking about because no only have we studied and examined these, but we have seen them. Go back and read our arguments and it will clearly show just why we hold our stances.

why the hell do people think that the government can somehow outperform the market in terms of education quality?
Why do you think the private sector can command the resources to educate all 55 million school children in America? Why do you think that the private sector can do it better when the countries that normally out perform the US have, for the majority, a public system?

I hear a lot of "The market does things better" but I have yet to see proof of this beyond it being used as a mantra chanted over and over again.

I wonder at that though. I mean, in terms of poltical rights, what use are they if you have no shelter, no food, and no water? I mean, what use is freedom of speech if you are starving to death, exposed to the elements, and dying of thirst. How many times have people traded in their poltical rights for the promise of bread?
just because it would be a good idea to keep people from starving to death doesn't mean they have a right to food.

It annoys me when people have this "entitlement" thing, where they think just because they need or want something that they have a right to have it.


I disagree, education is a basic need, without which you cannot understand your rights. If you go back to the basic level of education, not just formal school education, but education as the passing of knowledge and traditions from one generation to the next, it becomes a preultimate need as humans are not born knowing what they need to do to survive. Hell, most mamals educate their children how to hunt or forage.
education is a secondary need, but none the less very important. It's just not on the same level as water and food.


right-an abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition or nature; "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"; "Certain rights can never be granted to the government but must be kept in the hands of the people"- Eleanor Roosevelt; "a right is not something that somebody gives you; it is something that nobody can take away"

need- refers to things that people "must" have. They are often contrasted with wants, which are more discretionary.


just in case anyone is curious as to the definitions I am working with.......

I wonder at that though. I mean, in terms of poltical rights, what use are they if you have no shelter, no food, and no water? I mean, what use is freedom of speech if you are starving to death, exposed to the elements, and dying of thirst. How many times have people traded in their poltical rights for the promise of bread?
while it is clear that these things are needed, there is no right to them. It is hard to make the distinction as to why there is no right to these things, beyond the fact that they are needs, not privileges. Rights are given to privileges (Yes, freedom of speech is a privilege)

I mean, I understand where you're coming from that there is a difference between the poltical rights as stated in the US Constitution as well as various states' constitutions, but would meeting those basic needs for everyone be the first priority of a nation before we start talking about liberty?I think the difference is that these fall under the common welfare, rather than common rights.


I disagree, education is a basic need, without which you cannot understand your rights. If you go back to the basic level of education, not just formal school education, but education as the passing of knowledge and traditions from one generation to the next, it becomes a preultimate need as humans are not born knowing what they need to do to survive. Hell, most mamals educate their children how to hunt or forage. You don't need education (in the sense of formal schooling) to live. You just need to know how to get food, water, and shelter. Those are somewhat innate skills.
I don't agree that education is a need, as feral children have been found alive and (more or less) well. Also, children learn by copying...which for the child is education, but with no real teacher.


Hey! I need my PSP! :p:p

Why do you think the private sector can command the resources to educate all 55 million school children in America? Why do you think that the private sector can do it better when the countries that normally out perform the US have, for the majority, a public system?

I hear a lot of "The market does things better" but I have yet to see proof of this beyond it being used as a mantra chanted over and over again.
probably because there is no real proof. You can't compare the private education sector to public sector as they stand today...Its elephants to lizards. (sorry, I got sick of the phrase apples to oranges).

probably because there is no real proof. You can't compare the private education sector to public sector as they stand today...Its elephants to lizards. (sorry, I got sick of the phrase apples to oranges).
I like elephants to lizards much more, they are much more different than Apples and Oranges, and also, I like animals........for dinner......:eek: :p

I like elephants to lizards much more, they are much more different than Apples and Oranges, and also, I like animals........for dinner......:eek: :p
yeah, but its a bit hard to get an elephant steak on the grill.

yeah, but its a bit hard to get an elephant steak on the grill.
not if you have a good knife......or a big grill.........:p

not if you have a good knife......or a big grill.........:p
You still have to kill them so they land on the grill.

So how are charter schools not a step towards privatizing education?
Because the goverment funds it and there's no mandatory fee.

just because it would be a good idea to keep people from starving to death doesn't mean they have a right to food.

It annoys me when people have this "entitlement" thing, where they think just because they need or want something that they have a right to have it.
But as I said, I fail to see how not meeting basic needs is not a human right, and one from which all others extend. I do not think I have a right to a pizza, nor to a steak, but don't people have the right to have their basic needs met?

education is a secondary need, but none the less very important. It's just not on the same level as water and food.
I agree there.

right-an abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition or nature; "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"; "Certain rights can never be granted to the government but must be kept in the hands of the people"- Eleanor Roosevelt; "a right is not something that somebody gives you; it is something that nobody can take away"

need- refers to things that people "must" have. They are often contrasted with wants, which are more discretionary.


just in case anyone is curious as to the definitions I am working with.......
Fair enough. Perhaps my question would best be stated as "Shouldn't it be a right for the people to have their basic needs met?"

while it is clear that these things are needed, there is no right to them. It is hard to make the distinction as to why there is no right to these things, beyond the fact that they are needs, not privileges. Rights are given to privileges (Yes, freedom of speech is a privilege)
But as Smunkeeville posted, rights cannot be taken away, should it not be the case that basic needs are also guranteed? And actually, I may argue that they are stated as a right, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Life, I may argue, inherently inclueds the right to have your basic needs met, or else, how can you have life?

You don't need education (in the sense of formal schooling) to live. You just need to know how to get food, water, and shelter. Those are somewhat innate skills.
I wasn't talking about formal schooling, I was talking about education as the passing on of knowledge, which is needed as babies tend not to know what to do (Heck, my students tend not to know what to do, but they're junior high school students so... ;) )

I don't agree that education is a need, as feral children have been found alive and (more or less) well. Also, children learn by copying...which for the child is education, but with no real teacher.
You don't have to be a formal teacher to teach, and education is not always conducted in the classroom. But learning things is a basic need of humanity for survival, maybe not on the level of food and water, but the human brain craves such knowledge.

Oh, and in case you and Smunkeeville are wondering, I'm just having fun with this debate as I find both your answers fasinating and well argued, so please don't take it as a personal attack, I'm just simply enjoying the debate. :D

You still have to kill them so they land on the grill.
That's got to be one hell of a grill to take an elephant landing on it. ;)

*sighs* I miss BBQing. Japanese hibachi are nice, but they just don't taste the same and are just too small for a proper BBQ.

Oh, and in case you and Smunkeeville are wondering, I'm just having fun with this debate as I find both your answers fasinating and well argued, so please don't take it as a personal attack, I'm just simply enjoying the debate. :D
I also am having fun, if I get frustrated please note it's not frustration with you but with myself for not expressing myself better.

Oh, and yes it should be a right to have your basic needs met in a philosophical type of way, and maybe in a political type of way, but it's not the latter now and that's all I was really trying to say. ;)

Oh, and yes it should be a right to have your basic needs met in a philosophical type of way, and maybe in a political type of way, but it's not the latter now and that's all I was really trying to say. ;)
Works for me then.

Damn...sorry, I didn't see your post untill Seo responded to it. my bad. Anyway...
Do not try to paint this as a rich vs poor thing. It is not.
Eliminating the near-monopoly the Board of Education would not only benefit the wealthy but would benefit everyone. The rich are already in private schools, so nothing much would change there. The poor and middle class students stuck in crappy schools would get the opportunity to go to a decent school.

The only ones that could possibly be in a ‘worse’ situation are the disruptive or incompetent students who have no desire to be in school in the first place. They will no longer get to ruin the education of students who want to learn.

The first thing people need to understand is that your concept that every student is completely equal in ability and desire to learn is completely crap. Since students vary in ability, we should have a differentiated system that allows students to learn with their peers. Why should a bright student who wants to learn have to suffer through a class taught to the pace of the idiot who cannot comprehend basic ideas and would rather act out their frustration?

Privatization would give students a choice. Why are you so adamant on forcing everyone to go to the same shitty school together?
all citizens must be educated. It is that simple. Additionally, we already have "levels" as it would be, within high schools. These levels are remedial, regular, accelerated, honors, and college prep/AP. I reccomend swapping to a hybrid of this and the British system.
If there is only one private school in the area, where is the choice? A town with only 100 children most likely will not even have one school if it is based on profit.
Also, many of those "disruptive" students are ADD/ADHD, autistic, or other behavioral disorders. Look up the NICHY 25th report to congress.



White flight? You’ve got to be kidding me. Nobody has ever said that these vouchers would only be available for white kids. They are available to everybody. So unless you are arguing that minorities are so stupid or incompetent that they would insist that their kids stay in a failing school and that only white parents are smart enough to get their kids out, this is a completely ridiculous argument.You don't understand what "white flight" was, and therefore miss the point of me using it. Vouchers are distributed to all families, yes. The wealthy use these vouchers combined with their own funds to send their children to a school like Chote. Public schools (which would thrive only in poor areas and lightly populated areas) would then have only the poor students left. Moving isn't cheap.



Yes, that’s right. You are obviously far more competent to decide what a child should learn than their parents are, much less the teachers and administrators of a school. In fact, why do we bother giving them an education at all? You should write a book and school will now be nothing more than sitting around reading your ideas.Currently both studying to be a teacher and working within several school districts. I'd say I have a pretty damn good idea about what is needed. I have a say in the public schools my money goes to, therefore, I demand a say in the private ones. You make it fairly obvious you don't understand how school systems work.



Parents would rush at the opportunity to hire an illiterate who cant count past 3 to teach their kids. Just like doctors, or accountants, or occupational therapists, or pilots, or any of those other privatized industries, those people are all completely incompetent because they don’t work for the state. Obviously parents would choose the most incompetent people to be teachers. Once again we should all just bow down to you and do whatever you say, because the rest of us are too stupid to figure out how to wipe our own asses. I did not accuse them of being incompetent. What I said is that I demand they are held to the same standards. All of those professions must pass a bar exam of some sort. Private school teachers don't. Here, you demonstrate that you don't understand what defines a professional. As it is, teachers are in a limbo between professional and not. I want to push it into being a full profession, where it should be.

Also, me stating my opinion is no different than anyone else here. Feel free to disagree, but quit being a douche.



Why would they need to fire teachers? The only reason would be because there were fewer students. Yes, fewer students mean they need fewer teachers. Its an easy concept to grasp. Try to keep up.
Okay. Just because you have a voucher doesn't mean you can use it, nor that there are private schools in the area to enroll in. In order to remain competitive, costs must be cut. This leads to fewer supplies, and fewer teachers. Which leads to higher classroom sizes. Understand? And if you want to have any validity against me, drop the fucking attacks.


First off, I just love that you said a teacher cannot feasibly control a classroom of 25 students. The average class size in the school I went to was 32, and they did just fine.Come try teaching a class of 32 6th graders. It is hell. Then, compare the differences between teaching a class of 10 6th graders to a class of 32 6th graders. You sat on the student side. I've sat on both.

Secondly, if the students cannot get a decent education in that class, then they can go to another. If a student is disruptive, the school should be able to kick him out. There is no reason why we should allow a disruptive student to ruin the education of the other 30 students in the class. If that means that a violent emotionally disturbed student can only get accepted at a school for violent emotionally disturbed students – rather than attacking the students and teachers of a good highly motivated and capable school, then good. System is working as far as I'm concerned.
seperate schools are inherently unequal. Who is going to fund these schools for emotionally disturbed students?


So how are charter schools not a step towards privatizing education?They are still fully publicly funded.

But as Smunkeeville posted, rights cannot be taken away, should it not be the case that basic needs are also guranteed? And actually, I may argue that they are stated as a right, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Life, I may argue, inherently inclueds the right to have your basic needs met, or else, how can you have life?I'd argue that your rights can be taken away...quite easily actually. We see it happen every day. A man holds a gun to my head and says "do what I tell you". Do I still have the right to do what I want? yes, but I end up dead. Not much of a right anymore. Also, it is very easy for someone to take away my right to vote, or something such as that.


I wasn't talking about formal schooling, I was talking about education as the passing on of knowledge, which is needed as babies tend not to know what to do (Heck, my students tend not to know what to do, but they're junior high school students so... ;) )Very true, and in that stance, you are correct...and I don't know enough about the feral children found (actually, I don't think anyone does) to know just how much was learned by the child. (how the hell do you deal with junior high? haha)


You don't have to be a formal teacher to teach, and education is not always conducted in the classroom. But learning things is a basic need of humanity for survival, maybe not on the level of food and water, but the human brain craves such knowledge.I think I worded that poorly...I didn't mean to imply that only a formal teacher can teach. What I meant to imply is that a new born learns from every person they are in contact with, and as such there is no "teacher", but more hundreds. I do concede that education is a need, but do see it as a secondary need to food shelter water and security...I'm sure you've had a student who is starving, and therefore can't seem to learn anything.

Oh, and in case you and Smunkeeville are wondering, I'm just having fun with this debate as I find both your answers fasinating and well argued, so please don't take it as a personal attack, I'm just simply enjoying the debate. :Dhaha...I'm enjoying it too. I have way too much respect for you to bring it to personal attacks, and you're making quite good points yourself.:)

You demonstrated no such thing. Because I put enough caveats in my post to cover all those things.
If schools are privatized this does not automatically mean you get 'school-vouchers' if you are too poor. So unless that is guaranteed (or something similar, i.e. the legislation I mentioned) the right to education is in jeoparty, as I said. Not guaranteed to go down the toilet, but in jeoparty.

I also did not say that the lowest quality good had the highest profit. I said that taking a profit from a product means you didn't use that money to make the product better.

So I guess this means you fail at comprehensive reading..

Again you stumble - Making a product better does not always require money nor does more money assure a better product. It is the other things which drive competition and reward entrepreneurs - and it is these things which are missing in a monopoly like the current US public education system.

The only reason you don't fail completely at this is because you are so entertaining. D minus for you.

But as I said, I fail to see how not meeting basic needs is not a human right, and one from which all others extend. I do not think I have a right to a pizza, nor to a steak, but don't people have the right to have their basic needs met?


A right is something which is deserved by everyone and which can be infringed.
Does everyone deserve access to food? Yes. Can it be infringed - yes. Does everyone have a right to free food? Isn't that pretty much what fishing and hunting is about? Yes. Do they have the right to other people's food? OF course not. I think that is where you are tripping.

It would solve a lot of problems related to education today, such as sub-par and under-funded schools. If you leave the government in charge of education, everybody will receive the same quality of schooling, but the quality will be low. There is little incentive for the government to spend money on education when it can spend it on other things, like the military. With private schools, however, the amount of money they make is dependent on how well the school performs. They will be forced to have high standards and good teachers to remain competitive, which means that the quality of education will have to increase. This will in turn lead to a more educated populace. So why not privatize education instead of leaving it up to the government (poll coming)?

For this simple reason. It works.

I dont know about the American system, but in Britain the majority of the education system is state run, and it works perfectly. I went to a state school myself. Why is their little insentive to spend money on the education sector. We dont see that in Britain. Our state education system is very well funded. If you privatise the education system all it will do is entrench the class system beyond belief.

What do you do about Gerlach, Nevada when a company could not operate at profit there?

If there are only a couple of children over so large an area, it is impossible to have a good school, public or private. The school is already below average nationally. The fact that this school is not profitable means that less money goes to other more profitable schools. The best thing to do would probably be to consolidate several school districts into one. If somebody has to walk an hour to get to school, so be it. If not, they can be homeschooled or receive no education.

If there are only a couple of children over so large an area, it is impossible to have a good school, public or private. The school is already below average nationally. The fact that this school is not profitable means that less money goes to other more profitable schools. The best thing to do would probably be to consolidate several school districts into one. If somebody has to walk an hour to get to school, so be it. If not, they can be homeschooled or receive no education.
there hasn't been any evidence that this school underperforms, nor would that be based on the number of students there. Riding an hour or more to school means the child is exhausted and does not learn well. And no student should go without an education.

I'd argue that your rights can be taken away...quite easily actually. We see it happen every day. A man holds a gun to my head and says "do what I tell you". Do I still have the right to do what I want? yes, but I end up dead. Not much of a right anymore. Also, it is very easy for someone to take away my right to vote, or something such as that.
You have a point there. Of course, that opens a whole 'nother can of worms reguarding the fight for rights. But looking at both your and Smunkeeville's posts, I think all three of us are in agreement when it comes to the sense of entitlement and peoples' rights and needs.

On a side note, one of my professors made a very good point about education and entitlement and how by the third generation an educated family starts to take their quality education not as just a right and entitlement, but for granted as well.

Very true, and in that stance, you are correct...and I don't know enough about the feral children found (actually, I don't think anyone does) to know just how much was learned by the child.
There's actually some very interesting work done out there on that subject that I covered in brief when I was in my graduate program. Mainly it was based upon nature/nuture argument and then topped with the usual debate between the Impressionists (The Skinner people) and every other learning system. One thing that stuck in my mind was the so called wolf boy who had been, apprently, abandoned in the woods since around 2ish, but before he had started devloping the ability to speak.

He was found when he was 11 (IIRC) but had enormous difficulties in attempting to learn a language, cultural and social moores, and so on.

The other case was an abuse case where the child was locked in a basement by her abusive mother and not discovered until around age 14, but the case was a bit of a draw as to conclusions because it was hard to figure out if the problems stemmed from the abuse or lack of education.

(how the hell do you deal with junior high? haha)
Why do you think I needed a vacation? ;)

At least right now it's spring break and there's no students running around saying (in that very special whine of theirs) 先生！　英語わからないよ！ Of course, starting next week I'll really be missing them and can't wait for school to start. :p

I think I worded that poorly...I didn't mean to imply that only a formal teacher can teach. What I meant to imply is that a new born learns from every person they are in contact with, and as such there is no "teacher", but more hundreds. I do concede that education is a need, but do see it as a secondary need to food shelter water and security...I'm sure you've had a student who is starving, and therefore can't seem to learn anything.
Granted. Food and water are more important needs than education (And yes, I have had students in such a condition. Especially in the period before lunch).

I just would rate education (at the basic level) as an honest to goodness need, not an after thought.

Come try teaching a class of 32 6th graders.
Try a class of 42 8th graders. That's LOADS of fun, especially when doing so in a foreign language. ;)

A right is something which is deserved by everyone and which can be infringed.
Does everyone deserve access to food? Yes. Can it be infringed - yes. Does everyone have a right to free food? Isn't that pretty much what fishing and hunting is about? Yes. Do they have the right to other people's food? OF course not. I think that is where you are tripping.
Other people's food, no, of course not. However it does get a little bit more complicated now-a-days simply because there is less and less open space for a family to farm for substance food (and it is impossible to do so in a city) and less and less fish and game (and, except in strange intances, none in cities... that are not in zoos).

We'll ignore the need for hunting and fishing tags and limits, and strange regulations because attempting every year to understand just how many fish I can catch makes my head hurt. :P

You have a point there. Of course, that opens a whole 'nother can of worms reguarding the fight for rights. But looking at both your and Smunkeeville's posts, I think all three of us are in agreement when it comes to the sense of entitlement and peoples' rights and needs.
mos def. Did I really just type that? haha
On a side note, one of my professors made a very good point about education and entitlement and how by the third generation an educated family starts to take their quality education not as just a right and entitlement, but for granted as well.I have found that it really has to do with the local atmosphere. I constantly argue for New England, because those are the systems I know best, but it really is true that despite the fact that most are not immigrants, we are raised to see education as a privilege that is mandatory. I know this is very prominent in New England and the Northeast in general (damn liberal intellecutual elite ;))


There's actually some very interesting work done out there on that subject that I covered in brief when I was in my graduate program. Mainly it was based upon nature/nuture argument and then topped with the usual debate between the Impressionists (The Skinner people) and every other learning system. One thing that stuck in my mind was the so called wolf boy who had been, apprently, abandoned in the woods since around 2ish, but before he had started devloping the ability to speak.

He was found when he was 11 (IIRC) but had enormous difficulties in attempting to learn a language, cultural and social moores, and so on.

The other case was an abuse case where the child was locked in a basement by her abusive mother and not discovered until around age 14, but the case was a bit of a draw as to conclusions because it was hard to figure out if the problems stemmed from the abuse or lack of education.
huh...was that boy the wild boy of Avignon? um...Victor I think? Good book, better movie. I had to write a paper about what was wrong with him, and came up with severe autism mixed with a dissociative disorder, hence why he could reach into the fire to grab a potato, and not flinch at a door slam. Also explained why he was totally unable to learn language.

Why do you think I needed a vacation? ;)

At least right now it's spring break and there's no students running around saying (in that very special whine of theirs) 先生!　英語わからないよ! Of course, starting next week I'll really be missing them and can't wait for school to start. :p Despite not knowing a single word of Japanese, I think I know exactly what was said and how they said it. haha


Granted. Food and water are more important needs than education (And yes, I have had students in such a condition. Especially in the period before lunch).

I just would rate education (at the basic level) as an honest to goodness need, not an after thought.I concur


Try a class of 42 8th graders. That's LOADS of fun, especially when doing so in a foreign language. ;):eek:

that clinches it. You are insane.

If there are only a couple of children over so large an area, it is impossible to have a good school, public or private. The school is already below average nationally.
And you base your assesment on what...? Actually the last year I was at my university and working as part of university admissions, three of the four seniors from Gerlach High School scored well enough to gain admission into the university. Two of them did so, one went out of state. Of the two who came, once had a stated major of mining engineering, which is NOT an easy course of study.

The best thing to do would probably be to consolidate several school districts into one. If somebody has to walk an hour to get to school, so be it.
In Nevada, each county comprises a school district, mainly because the state of Nevada is the 7th largest in the nation with 286,367 sqKm of area, but a population of just 2.4 million. I want you to understand that Gerlach is in the middle of the Black Rock Desert, when I say that the city of Reno is three hours away, I mean by car through nothing. I know that might be hard to comprehend for someone who lives in New Jersey, but there is nothing out there, literally.

If not, they can be homeschooled or receive no education.
Parents are working, not everyone can afford to stay home to educate their children and you would rather just ignore that segment of the population? Be thankful that someone decided that it was worth educating you, even if it may have been inconvenent.

And you base your assesment on what...? Actually the last year I was at my university and working as part of university admissions, three of the four seniors from Gerlach High School scored well enough to gain admission into the university.

I couldn't find much information on the school and it is a bit outdated, but it suggests that the school is below average:

http://www.greatschools.net/modperl/achievement/nv/391

That's not to say that it will not have its share of good students -- it will. But on average, it is below average.

I want you to understand that Gerlach is in the middle of the Black Rock Desert, when I say that the city of Reno is three hours away, I mean by car through nothing. I know that might be hard to comprehend for someone who lives in New Jersey, but there is nothing out there, literally.

I just looked at in on Google Maps, and wow. There is literally nobody within 100 miles of there in any direction. I wonder who decided to build a town so far away from civilization? It might be possible to make a barely profitable school, however. Assuming that tuition/child/year is $750 and there are 50 children/year, that would be $37500 to hire a teacher at no profit for one year. Maybe one of the parents living there is willing to teach. But if you want to get a good education, there is an easy solution -- don't live in the middle of the desert! Of course, the more parents are willing to pay, the more possible it is to operate a good school.

you would rather just ignore that segment of the population?

Well, since there is no practical way to reach that segment of the population, then yes. Either they move or homeschool if a profitable school is impossible.

I couldn't find much information on the school and it is a bit outdated, but it suggests that the school is below average:

http://www.greatschools.net/modperl/achievement/nv/391

That's not to say that it will not have its share of good students -- it will. But on average, it is below average.
Er, your web page places Gerlach at 55% (46% 2002) for Language Arts, 50% for Math, and 62% for Reading. Gerlach HS isn't leading the nation by any strech of the imagination, but it is at (or above) the national average, hardly a below average school.


I just looked at in on Google Maps, and wow. There is literally nobody within 100 miles of there in any direction. I wonder who decided to build a town so far away from civilization?
The mining industry, there are some very profitable mines out in that area of state and that's what keeps Gerlach alive (Besides Burning Man every year). There's also scattered ranches throughout the area, raising the beef you eat.

Edit: I happen to like Gerlach. It has nice people, Bruno's makes a killer steak, and the playa on the Black Rock makes you fall to your knees when you go out on it for the wonder of it all.

And some folks just like being out in that area. Whenever you get men and women in the same general area though, you get kids.

It might be possible to make a barely profitable school, however. Assuming that tuition/child/year is $750 and there are 50 children/year, that would be $37500 to hire a teacher at no profit for one year. Maybe one of the parents living there is willing to teach. But if you want to get a good education, there is an easy solution -- don't live in the middle of the desert! Of course, the more parents are willing to pay, the more possible it is to operate a good school.
As I said, what copmany would do so? What company could command the resources to build and maintain a school out there? Gerlach is just one example, there's loads of these little schools skattered thoughout the country in places that people want to live for whatever reason. If you're a miner, you live around your mine. If you're an oil worker, you go where the oil is. If you're a lumberjack, you leap from tree to tree laughing merrily in a forest, very few of which are found in urban enviroments. And people bring their families to that area because that's what makes the money to feed, clothe, and educate them.

Well, since there is no practical way to reach that segment of the population, then yes. Either they move or homeschool if a profitable school is impossible.
There is a practical way, it is already in place, it's called public schooling where Washoe County School District builds and maintains Gerlach High School and aranges buses to transport children from that 100 mile nothingness and makes sure that they get the education needed to keep their town alive if they chose to stay in Gerlach, or suceed if they leave for another area. That's the role of the goverment, service to ALL people, not just those who live in a city.

That's the role of the goverment, service to ALL people, not just those who live in a city.
and here we have the most important line of the entire thread.

School vouchers, while they may sound tempting to some, cause no significant change in the test scores of students who use them to go to private schools. There are a lot of places that have implemented them, but not all places have data which compares students using vouchers to enter private schools to similar students who remain in public schools. Chile and Milwaukee, however, did do so, and this is what they found:

For Chile:
The third finding was that there was no improvement in student achievement, contrary to predictions by voucher proponents. For example, an evaluation based on nationally standardized (although not strictly comparable) achievement tests in Spanish and mathematics found that the scores of fourth-graders declined between 1982 and 1988. Beyond these general averages, all the results reported by socioeconomic class have to be considered tentative, because test scores are reported only as school averages, and the socioeconomic level of the school is based on a questionnaire given to school administrators. Keeping such limitations in mind, comparisons across socioeconomic levels suggest that students in lower-income public schools recorded the sharpest drop in test scores, but scores of students in lower-income subsidized private schools also fell (Prawda 1993). Students in the middle—socioeconomic level schools had small increases in test scores whether they were in public or subsidized private schools.

For Milwaukee:
In Milwaukee qualifying low-income pupils received a $2,500 voucher (by 1995–96 the amount had risen to $4,375) to attend nonreligious private schools. More qualified pupils applied than could be accommodated, so acceptances were issued by lot. An evaluation of the academic performance of private-school voucher pupils and public school students of the same socioeconomic background (corrected for selection bias) found no significant difference in outcomes between the two groups, whether the students had been in private school for one, two, three, or four years (Witte, Thorn, and Prichard 1996). This result is especially strong because the sample of those who had been in private schools for more than a year was increasingly self-selected. Several students who began in the private schools in the first year of the program later either moved or chose to return to public schools (the attrition rate was 30 percent). In addition, several of the original private schools closed, forcing voucher students to return to public schools. As a result only the most motivated students in the successful private schools remained after four years.

The full article can be found here, in pdf format: http://www.worldbank.org/research/journals/wbro/obsfeb97/pdf/artcle~7.pdf

An article which talk about essentially the same things with the same conclusions can be found here, also in pdf format: http://www.education.ucsb.edu/rumberger/ed240a/Levin--Framework%20for%20Evaluating%20Educational%20Vouchers.pdf

I don't feel that privatizing schooling would really improve nor decline anything. Obviously it has a lot to do with one's upbringing and/or financial status whether or not they decide to attend a public or private school. I myself graduated from a public school and had went to public school all my life. The only schools around here that are even private are all religious oriented schools which I definately would not attend. But I think the biggest thing is everyone's own position they play. Nomatter what type of school you attend, you won't get anywhere without doing your work and trying and if you don't and you're attending a private school, you just wasted a few grand.

Now regarding jobs and etc. for one to make something of themselves...
Years ago they used to teach and teach us all the whole "if you don't graduate high school you'll never get a good job" mentality. Well times have surely changed! I was the only person out of my family to graduate high school. My mother, father, and two half brothers all were drop outs. And you know what? My little piece of paper diploma hasn't gotten me anywhere employment-wise. I think what middle and high school educators should be telling the children and teenagers how important it really is to go to college. Hell the area I live in is terrible job and economy wise. There's a lot of single parents raising kids, the minimum wage is $5.15 an hour, and the cost of living is outrageous. The only honest 3 main jobs around here that people have that don't attend college is working in retail, working your ass off in a factory all day, or truck driving. Hell half of the people in the area work at the local Wal-Mart! Tell me that's not sad? I think the government should definately offer more fundings and etc. towards college tuitions and etc. for low incomed or disadvantaged students. I always had A's and B's all throughout my schooling and when senior year came along I signed up for every scholarship and grant that I could and I still never recieved any help at all. On top of that, only being raised by my mother, I grew up in a poor family and knew that my mother wouldn't be able to help me with anything financially. So if you think about it if you grew up in an area sorta like where I'm from you have 1 of 2 choices. Either get a huge loan for college that will take you forever and a day to pay off and do the college thing, or just get a regular blue collar working stiff job and get your own place and do what you gotta do to pay the bills.

Yea that's about all I have to say on that.

Why is it that the American public school system works so badly when in Britian we can manage it so well? I think this is an example of a lack of a proper welfare state leading to poor public services

Why is it that the American public school system works so badly when in Britian we can manage it so well? I think this is an example of a lack of a proper welfare state leading to poor public services

I'm from the US and I agree about the American school system. I do not know what it's like in Britian but I can only imagine how different things are compared to here. And yes, I do think it's a bad example of how the states and the government here are making wrong choices and makes you wonder where their real "priorities" are. And speaking of the word welfare...we aren't even going there. Let's just say I know way too many people around here that need of public welfare services in order to survive with everyday life like the need for groceries. housing, and medicines/insurance and etc. and they are being denied or help and it's just not right. It turns out the people who are getting the help are all the people lying about their income and everything as well as those families who pop out 5 or 10 kids like it's nothing just to be able to live off of it. There needs to be help given but certain limits set pertaining to it all.

I'm from the US and I agree about the American school system. I do not know what it's like in Britian but I can only imagine how different things are compared to here. And yes, I do think it's a bad example of how the states and the government here are making wrong choices and makes you wonder where their real "priorities" are. And speaking of the word welfare...we aren't even going there. Let's just say I know way too many people around here that need of public welfare services in order to survive with everyday life like the need for groceries. housing, and medicines/insurance and etc. and they are being denied or help and it's just not right. It turns out the people who are getting the help are all the people lying about their income and everything as well as those families who pop out 5 or 10 kids like it's nothing just to be able to live off of it. There needs to be help given but certain limits set pertaining to it all.

I still dont understand why America didnt embrace the concept of the welfare state. It works fantastically in Britian and we've been working at it for almost a century now. With a larger population I dont see why you couldnt fund the system through tax as we do.

well, the voucher system would be win win.

why the hell do people think that the government can somehow outperform the market in terms of education quality?
1. Economies of scale.
2. Standardization of materials.
3. Comparability of outcomes.

And personally, I consider education quality to be a reflection of how well it educates everyone, not just the wealthy or "easy" students. So that means they have to be able to educate the poor, slightly slow kid so that he can become something other than "criminal". I don't think there's any private school doing that now, and there probably won't be, because there's no profit in it.

I still dont understand why America didnt embrace the concept of the welfare state. It works fantastically in Britian and we've been working at it for almost a century now. With a larger population I dont see why you couldnt fund the system through tax as we do.
you didn't hear? Them commies is anti-american! They want to destroy us! Or was that the terrorists? huh...

Oh, and not all US schools are bad. New England overall performs very well.

School vouchers, while they may sound tempting to some, cause no significant change in the test scores of students who use them to go to private schools. There are a lot of places that have implemented them, but not all places have data which compares students using vouchers to enter private schools to similar students who remain in public schools. Chile and Milwaukee, however, did do so, and this is what they found:

For Chile:


For Milwaukee:


The full article can be found here, in pdf format: http://www.worldbank.org/research/journals/wbro/obsfeb97/pdf/artcle~7.pdf

An article which talk about essentially the same things with the same conclusions can be found here, also in pdf format: http://www.education.ucsb.edu/rumberger/ed240a/Levin--Framework%20for%20Evaluating%20Educational%20Vouchers.pdf
JB;
Considering that your sources are from a Stanford (liberal) professor (liberal)of education (insane liberal) the results are bound to have (liberal) bias. Considering that his sources are all over ten years old also means that the results are dated. So you have produced a biased and dated excuse for your opinion. Many of his sources existed BEFORE the Milwaukee voucher system was introduced. All others were authored quite soon after it's introduction. Reeks of agenda to me! (I also find it curious that his research is so dependant on student test scores - according to the opponents of 'No Student Left Behind' that is a bad thing - apparently only when it does not support their agend!)

Let me provide a link to a source of higher quality and credibility. It uses more contemporary data (which, considering the recency of the topic, trumps that stale info you provided) from a more credible author (though not without bias - is such a thing exists) "For 13 years, Salisbury was on the graduate faculty in the Department of Educational Research in the College of Education at Florida State University and was a research associate in that college’s Center for Educational Technology. He was also a visiting scholar at the James Madison Institute for Public Policy Studies in Tallahassee, Florida, and a visiting Fulbright Scholar at the University of Lima in Lima, Peru and at the National University of San Augustin, in Arequipa, Peru." (bio)

"It is becoming increasingly clear that choice helps schools, including public schools, improve."

"What impact does school choice have on the quality of schooling? As school choice expands in the United States, it is becoming increasingly clear that choice helps schools, including public schools, improve. A 2003 study of Florida’s A+ Opportunity Scholarship Program, in which students in failing public schools receive vouchers, showed that the most improvement was found in public schools that were most directly challenged by voucher competition. The study confirmed the findings of an earlier study that found that “failing [public] schools that faced the prospect of vouchers made improvements that were nearly twice as large as gains displayed
by other schools in the state.
Public schools that faced voucher competition implemented a number of effective reforms including hiring more reading specialists, implementing one-onone tutoring programs, and developing reading programs that focus on phonics. Studies of Milwaukee, San Antonio, Maine, and Vermont as well as other locations also show positive improvements in public schools motivated by vouchers. Studies also show that students who move to private schools do better than they were doing in their previous school. the current public school system that they will be able to continue with that system.”

Full article here;
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa551.pdf

you didn't hear? Them commies is anti-american! They want to destroy us! Or was that the terrorists? huh...


American 1 dimentional view of politics (liberal/conservaive) isnt really going to get you anywhere in these issues. The welfare state has served Britian very well over the past century. I fail to see why America cannot see the benefits of a simmilar system

American 1 dimentional view of politics (liberal/conservaive) isnt really going to get you anywhere in these issues. The welfare state has served Britian very well over the past century. I fail to see why America cannot see the benefits of a simmilar system

Because to the American political system, socialism and anything to do with it is an anathema, to be avoided at all costs. Capitalism rules the US system of politics, and seemingly always will.

@Bozzy. Whilst the subject of school vouchers and such isn't something I want to get into, having very little information on, I must take point at your constant attacks on JBs info. It may be out of date, but to add (Liberal) does nothing to your argument and just makes you seem petty, as well as arrogant and oddly out of touch. Not all professors are liberal, for example, and neither is a Professor of an education system.

American 1 dimentional view of politics (liberal/conservaive) isnt really going to get you anywhere in these issues. The welfare state has served Britian very well over the past century. I fail to see why America cannot see the benefits of a simmilar system
I think you missed my sarcasm.

I think you missed my sarcasm.

I noticed it. I was agreeing with your implied intentions. Basicly you were saying that Americans think the welfare state is like communism and therefore "Dangerous" and "Evil". I was agreeing with you and saying the 1-D view of politics is silly.

@Bozzy. Whilst the subject of school vouchers and such isn't something I want to get into, having very little information on, I must take point at your constant attacks on JBs info. It may be out of date, but to add (Liberal) does nothing to your argument and just makes you seem petty, as well as arrogant and oddly out of touch. Not all professors are liberal, for example, and neither is a Professor of an education system.

You consider one post to be constant? My isn't your little Id fragile.

You are right, not all professors are liberals, only about 90% - particularly of the Liberal Arts. The one in question is most certainly liberal - and he is - coincidentally - towing the liberal party line to the 'T'. Sorry if you don't like it - but I call them as I see them - and he is a schill for the liberal agenda. I hope that my one post responding to this this wasn't too much for you.

I noticed it. I was agreeing with your implied intentions. Basicly you were saying that Americans think the welfare state is like communism and therefore "Dangerous" and "Evil". I was agreeing with you and saying the 1-D view of politics is silly.
ooohh...okay...I thought you were saying that I was wrong, and then arguing the same thing as me. Don't post on here overtired.

-snip-
"It is becoming increasingly clear that choice helps schools, including public schools, improve."-snip-

Isn't that an argument not to ban public schools. As it gives more choice.

You consider one post to be constant? My isn't your little Id fragile.

You are right, not all professors are liberals, only about 90% - particularly of the Liberal Arts. The one in question is most certainly liberal - and he is - coincidentally - towing the liberal party line to the 'T'. Sorry if you don't like it - but I call them as I see them - and he is a schill for the liberal agenda. I hope that my one post responding to this this wasn't too much for you.

Ahhh, I see. So just posting an arrogant reply is the best way to argue then? Excellent.

Isn't that an argument not to ban public schools. As it gives more choice.

Nobody suggested banning public schools. Where did you get that idea?

Ahhh, I see. So just posting an arrogant reply is the best way to argue then? Excellent.


Huh? What are you talking about? You now consider factual to be arrogant? You are a peculiar little person, you are.

Nobody suggested banning public schools. Where did you get that idea?
If you're being serious: the thread title and the thread maker.

If you wheren't: Those damn voices! They lied again didn't they!
What kill B0zzy? Ok but if this is a bad idea it's the last time I listen to you.



I'm just curious B0zzy where do you live?

JB;
Considering that your sources are from a Stanford (liberal) professor (liberal)of education (insane liberal) the results are bound to have (liberal) bias. Considering that his sources are all over ten years old also means that the results are dated. So you have produced a biased and dated excuse for your opinion. As far as Chile goes, the sources would have to be over ten years old, as Chile implemented its voucher program in the '80s and discontinued it in the early '90s.

Many of his sources existed BEFORE the Milwaukee voucher system was introduced. Like the Chilean ones?

All others were authored quite soon after it's introduction. The source does say after four years - one could argue that this is soon after its introduction if one likes.

Reeks of agenda to me! (I also find it curious that his research is so dependant on student test scores - according to the opponents of 'No Student Left Behind' that is a bad thing - apparently only when it does not support their agend!)The test scores are being used because they're the available data. No, it isn't a good idea to base results on test scores, but there aren't student portfolios to compare with.

Let me provide a link to a source of higher quality and credibility. The Cato institute isn't credible. It uses more contemporary data (which, considering the recency of the topic, trumps that stale info you provided) [/quote]School vouchers aren't a recent topic - Chile introduced them over 20 years ago and Milwaukee did so over 10 years ago. (According to your own article, Milwaukee did so in 1990.

from a more credible author (though not without bias - is such a thing exists) "For 13 years, Salisbury was on the graduate faculty in the Department of Educational Research in the College of Education at Florida State University and was a research associate in that college’s Center for Educational Technology. He was also a visiting scholar at the James Madison Institute for Public Policy Studies in Tallahassee, Florida, and a visiting Fulbright Scholar at the University of Lima in Lima, Peru and at the National University of San Augustin, in Arequipa, Peru." (bio)

"It is becoming increasingly clear that choice helps schools, including public schools, improve."

"What impact does school choice have on the quality of schooling? As school choice expands in the United States, it is becoming increasingly clear that choice helps schools, including public schools, improve. A 2003 study of Florida’s A+ Opportunity Scholarship Program, in which students in failing public schools receive vouchers, showed that the most improvement was found in public schools that were most directly challenged by voucher competition. The study confirmed the findings of an earlier study that found that “failing [public] schools that faced the prospect of vouchers made improvements that were nearly twice as large as gains displayed
by other schools in the state.
Public schools that faced voucher competition implemented a number of effective reforms including hiring more reading specialists, implementing one-onone tutoring programs, and developing reading programs that focus on phonics. Studies of Milwaukee, San Antonio, Maine, and Vermont as well as other locations also show positive improvements in public schools motivated by vouchers. Studies also show that students who move to private schools do better than they were doing in their previous school. the current public school system that they will be able to continue with that system.”

Full article here;
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa551.pdf[/QUOTE]Hmm, I wonder why...could it be this reason?:

In a study conducted for the Ohio Department of Education, KPMG Public Services Consulting calculated the fiscal effect of the CSTP on state, local, and federal revenue.
Because the CSTP is so small and students are drawn from across the Cleveland public school district, the district was not able to reduce
administrative costs or eliminate any teaching positions. Nevertheless, KPMG concluded that the program had a positive fiscal impact on Cleveland public schools. That was largely due to the fact that local revenue, which is generated through local property taxes, was not reduced by the absence of CSTP students, which resulted in a higher per pupil revenue for Cleveland public schools. In essence, Cleveland public schools had the same number of local dollars to spend on fewer pupils.

In other words, the fact that vouchers exist left fewer students in the schools, thus more money per student. Hardly a ringing endorsement for vouchers.

Ahhh, I see. So just posting an arrogant reply is the best way to argue then? Excellent.
He does that, a lot. Actually, come to think of it, I've never seen him do differently.

If you're being serious: the thread title and the thread maker.

If you wheren't: Those damn voices! They lied again didn't they!
What kill B0zzy? Ok but if this is a bad idea it's the last time I listen to you.



I'm just curious B0zzy where do you live?

The title/threadmaker discusses privatizing - which is not the same as banning public schools. As currently proposed in the States - which is where I live - the public schools would continue but parents would get to choose which schools to send their children to - which could include private schools. Each parent would get a voucher good for educational expenses (think of it like a scholarship) to use where they see fit. Currently parents have no choice of where their children attend school unless they pay out of pocket for private school - in other words - only the rich get choice in education.


Oh, and I would do what the voices in my head are saying - but I don't understand latin - and that is all they speak.

Privet education is bad.
Anyone who doesnt think so is thiiis evil <--------->

Privet education is bad.
Anyone who doesnt think so is thiiis evil <--------->

Why are you against the education of Privet Bushes? Or do you possibly mean Private Education?

That's the role of the goverment, service to ALL people, not just those who live in a city.

The percentage of people who live far away from any type of school is probably less than 0.001%. We can't sacrifice the good of the many for the convenience of a few. If they do not want to be homeschooled and do not want to hire a teacher, then they can move. The only people who lose out if schools are privatized are the people who live extremely far away from all civilization -- everybody else gains.

The percentage of people who live far away from any type of school is probably less than 0.001%. We can't sacrifice the good of the many for the convenience of a few. If they do not want to be homeschooled and do not want to hire a teacher, then they can move. The only people who lose out if schools are privatized are the people who live extremely far away from all civilization -- everybody else gains.
How, exactly, do we benefit? Private schools don't do better except for the fact that they can kick any child they want out. Public schools don't have that luxury.
Additionally, I cite this fact again...We have laws that state that all students in the united states are entitled to a free appropriate education in the least restrictive environment. And the percentage that don't live near large cities is much higher than .001. Our entire midwest and rocky mountain regions are this way.

How, exactly, do we benefit?

Because the private schools have to compete with each other and have to acknowledge what the parents want taught and teach it well if they want to be profitable. Public schools do not care at all about profit.

We have laws that state that all students in the united states are entitled to a free appropriate education in the least restrictive environment.

Can you post a link to those laws again? If there are such laws, they need to be repealed. The government monopoly on public schooling stifles competition and brings down the quality of education. Why should we go to substandard schools when we don't have to?

And the percentage that don't live near large cities is much higher than .001. Our entire midwest and rocky mountain regions are this way.

You don't have to live next to a big city for a profitable school to be built near you. You just have to have a town with a population of more than 5000 people. That shouldn't be too hard.

The percentage of people who live far away from any type of school is probably less than 0.001%. We can't sacrifice the good of the many for the convenience of a few. If they do not want to be homeschooled and do not want to hire a teacher, then they can move. The only people who lose out if schools are privatized are the people who live extremely far away from all civilization -- everybody else gains.
The persentage is far more than that, and if your job is there, if that is how you make your money, and those industries are important to the country at large, do we not have an obligation to keep them going?

Let me put it this way, Carlin, Nevada has an elementary school and high school. Their combined student body is around 450 students. Now, you might say that this is another school that should be closed and the people should have to chose should they stay in Carlin and not having their kids educated, or should they move.

Carlin is the site of the richest gold strike in the US. Should Nevada ever become it's own country, it would be the 3rd largest producer of gold in the world. Just about all gold mined in the United States comes from Nevada, and most of it comes from Carlin. Your computer probably has Carlin gold in it, so does your car. Got any gold jewlery? Carlin. Gold caps? Carlin. So, obviously this is a very important part of the US, we need miners and we desperately need mining engineers. Those folk, college educated, usually graduate degrees, probably won't come unless there are schools there for their kids.

Now, the mining engineers could aford a private school, but the miners themselves? No. And they have kids too.

Your arguments do not hold water, a lot of these rual kids live in areas that are very important since we usually don't have gold mines, or oil wells, or cattle ranches, or farms in cities. And we DO need them.

Their combined student body is around 450 students.

That is enough. Assuming there are 12 grades in total, there are 37.5 kids per grade. Easily profitable. There is no need for them to move.

EDIT: so your only opposition to privatizing schools is that some people in remote areas will get left out? Are there other reasons?

That is enough. Assuming there are 12 grades in total, there are 37.5 kids per grade. Easily profitable. There is no need for them to move.
Carlin Elementary, grades k-6, is 234. Carlin High School, grades 7-12, is 210 (as of 2004, I'm not sure their current student body count).

Carlin Elementary, grades k-6, is 234. Carlin High School, grades 7-12, is 210 (as of 2004, I'm not sure their current student body count).

Yeah, so for grades K-6, there would be one teacher per grade level teaching ~39 kids. For grades 7-12, there would also be one teacher per class, teaching ~35 kids. I'm sure a profitable school could be built with those constraints.

Yeah, so for grades K-6, there would be one teacher per grade level teaching ~39 kids. For grades 7-12, there would also be one teacher per class, teaching ~35 kids. I'm sure a profitable school could be built with those constraints.
Well, one, that assumes that the grades are split evenly, which doesn't happen. It would be nice, but it doesn't happen. Two, 35 students per class is far too many, especially at the younger levels (which is why Nevada passed a law to limit class sizes). Not to mention that in middle school/high school it isn't so much as one teacher per grade as it is one teacher per subject. There's already pressure about secondary teachers taking on subjects that they have no real right to teach due to lack of qualified teachers, let's not make it worse, ok?

But finally, you never did address what do to about those rual kids who are in areas needed for the economic well being of this country who do have a right to demand an education.

Well, one, that assumes that the grades are split evenly, which doesn't happen. It would be nice, but it doesn't happen. Two, 35 students per class is far too many, especially at the younger levels (which is why Nevada passed a law to limit class sizes).

There are probably going to be 40 kids in some grades and 30 in others. Where I went to school, there were 45 kids in my grade and there was nothing wrong with that. All that is needed is some discipline and a whipping rod. :)

But finally, you never did address what do to about those rual kids who are in areas needed for the economic well being of this country who do have a right to demand an education.

Are you talking about places like Gerlach? They're probably going to need to be homeschooled. Although it is unfortunate, it is for the greater good. Look at all those thousands of children getting sub-par education in places like New York and Norfolk. We need to help the majority instead of focusing on the minority and harming the majority.

There are probably going to be 40 kids in some grades and 30 in others. Where I went to school, there were 45 kids in my grade and there was nothing wrong with that. All that is needed is some discipline and a whipping rod. :)
I teach 45 students per class sometimes, and there is a problem with that. Even with two teachers in the class, not only is it hard to maintain disapline, but there's just no way in hell to get to each child and make sure that they understand the English that they were just taught. The result is many kids who slip through the cracks.

Are you talking about places like Gerlach? They're probably going to need to be homeschooled. Although it is unfortunate, it is for the greater good. Look at all those thousands of children getting sub-par education in places like New York and Norfolk. We need to help the majority instead of focusing on the minority and harming the majority.
The challenge and the joy of the US Education system is that it believes that all children are worthy of an education and should have the best chance at that education. No other country educates all of its children as long and as equally as we do. It's actually the strength of the US system. It might seem stupid, but that's America for you. See, we kinda believe in this little thing called equality where no man is better or worth more than another and that all men should have equal oppertunity to suceed or fail in life. We're also a big believer in protecting the minority against the tyrany of the majority, which is why in the Senate of the United States, Nevada's representation is the same as New Jersey's, even though I am sure there are cities there with more population that my entire state.

Right now I teach in system that requires its students to go to school till the end of junior high. After junior high they are tested and forced to make a decision upon which track and how their life will take shape. Those who are thinking college are going to an academic high school, those who are thinking to take over their parent's watermelon farm (don't ask) will be going to the local agricultural high school. There are no second chances in Japan. There's no real going back to school to earn a different degree when you're older. There isn't even a standard system that provides an education allowing stduents to choose at the end of high school what they will do or allow them to change later on.

Japan, with it's public school system, is far stronger academically than the United States, but it also ignores any child who will not fit in and conform to the mold of what the state thinks it wants. The US system, maybe not well, attempts to educate all of its children in the idea that not only is an educated citizenry a good thing, but also that you never can tell when someone from Gerlach, Nevada might start the next Micro$oft.

Because the private schools have to compete with each other and have to acknowledge what the parents want taught and teach it well if they want to be profitable. Public schools do not care at all about profit.
Right. Because outside of a major city, there will be more than one private school? Nope, sorry. Not going to happen. And you think public schools don't have to be held accountable for what is taught? Look at the district in Penn that was going to teach ID. There is not a single person who voted for that left on the board.


Can you post a link to those laws again? If there are such laws, they need to be repealed. The government monopoly on public schooling stifles competition and brings down the quality of education. Why should we go to substandard schools when we don't have to?
They should repeal the law because it is such a bad thing to demand that we have an educated society? Uh huh...
Additionally, there is NO government monopoly. Incase you haven't heard, there is no law banning private schools. We have many.
http://www.nichcy.org/idealaw.htm
I believe it is in the NICHY/IDEA laws

You don't have to live next to a big city for a profitable school to be built near you. You just have to have a town with a population of more than 5000 people. That shouldn't be too hard.So you propose we get rid of the logging, farming, mining, and oil industries?

There are probably going to be 40 kids in some grades and 30 in others. Where I went to school, there were 45 kids in my grade and there was nothing wrong with that. All that is needed is some discipline and a whipping rod. :)



Are you talking about places like Gerlach? They're probably going to need to be homeschooled. Although it is unfortunate, it is for the greater good. Look at all those thousands of children getting sub-par education in places like New York and Norfolk. We need to help the majority instead of focusing on the minority and harming the majority.
If by New York you are refering to the city, its school system is actually relatively strong. If you are talking about long island area, its very good. If you're talking about upstate, then those are the very students you are talking about having to be homeschooled. Also, many of these families have two working parents because that is what is needed. When do you propose they teach their children? Rather than being unfair to one group of students, you propose a system that is unfair to another. It is still unfair, a sub-par education, and would be an equivilent, if not larger, number. Ignoring part of the future workforce is just as detrimental as a base level of education for all.

The challenge and the joy of the US Education system is that it believes that all children are worthy of an education and should have the best chance at that education.

The downfall of the US educational system is also that it fails to educate its students properly. 11% of high-school and college students cannot point to the US on a map, given four choices. The educational system has obviously failed them. Everybody is worthy of an education, and the privatization will not alter that. However, everybody is worthy of the best education they can have. We should not force people to pay for mediocre education when they can have much higher standards. You are not giving them a chance at a good education -- you are dragging them down. But at least you're dragging them down by the same amount, I guess. Privatization will raise the bar for the quality of education.

No other country educates all of its children as long and as equally as we do.

Yet other countries continuously outperform the US in all subject areas. Perhaps it is time to rethink how we education our children, because we are obviously lagging behind other countries.

See, we kinda believe in this little thing called equality where no man is better or worth more than another and that all men should have equal oppertunity to suceed or fail in life.

No, that system of government would be called communism. In America, all people are equal before the law, but that's as far as it goes. The rich have a greater chance of succeeding in life no matter what -- that's the beauty of capitalism. And under the public school system, you are giving them an even greater chance to succeed by sending them to classy private schools while the poor and middle class are stuck in substandard public schools. If you send the poor and middle class to private schools, then you are giving them a chance.

We're also a big believer in protecting the minority against the tyrany of the majority

Are you also a believer in dragging the majority down to benefit the minority? Nobody should be constrained from their potential because that would be disadvantageous towards an extremely small minority. The minority in this case are a dead weight that are dragging the entire educational system down. Those who live in very small towns must either be homeschooled, go to school in a different town, or move. The 270,000,000 others, however, can enjoy a much higher level of education.

The US system, maybe not well, attempts to educate all of its children in the idea that not only is an educated citizenry a good thing, but also that you never can tell when someone from Gerlach, Nevada might start the next Micro$oft.

An educated citizenry is a good thing, but we do not have an educated populace. We have an uninformed, ignorant populace, a majority of which cannot point to either of the countries we are at war with on a map. A good education is the cornerstone of any successful democracy. Unfortunately, that is what we are lacking. We must privatize to protect our democracy from those artless citizens who would otherwise hijack it.

See, we kinda believe in this little thing called equality where no man is better or worth more than another and that all men should have equal oppertunity to suceed or fail in life.
No, that system of government would be called communism. In America, all people are equal before the law, but that's as far as it goes. The rich have a greater chance of succeeding in life no matter what -- that's the beauty of capitalism. And under the public school system, you are giving them an even greater chance to succeed by sending them to classy private schools while the poor and middle class are stuck in substandard public schools. If you send the poor and middle class to private schools, then you are giving them a chance.
That's not communism, he's not refering to everyone being rewarded equally or the state owning production.
Private schools wouldn't be better if they had to teach everyone. The ideal solution to substandard public schools is non-substandard public schools.
Private schools in poor areas(at least) would be worse not better then public ones.

Private schools in poor areas(at least) would be worse not better then public ones.

How do you figure? Private schools would get the same amount (or more) per student as public schools, only they would be better because competetion forces them to be if they want to stay in business.

How do you figure? Private schools would get the same amount (or more) per student as public schools, only they would be better because competetion forces them to be if they want to stay in business.
What competitive forces? Yes, they are a private business, and therefore operate for profit. but outside of a major city, who is going to open more than one school? There is no reason to. What you will see, however, is a consolidation of school districts, which means longer trips to school on average, which has been shown to lead to worse performance. Private schools succeed today because they a) choose who goes there. It is easy to say 100% of a graduating class went to top tier universities when you kicked out anyone who wouldnt. b) they have dedicated parents c) they have small class size.

outside of a major city, who is going to open more than one school?

Wherever there is a market for more than one school, another will be opened. If some parents do not want their children to go to a big school, another will be built. If the existing school does not meet the expectations of the parents, another will be built or the old one will be improved. Schools always have to watch out for potential competition, and that keeps the standards high. Public schools, on the other hand, have nothing to worry about.

What you will see, however, is a consolidation of school districts

How so? If anything, there will be more schools built per district to target the specific values of certain groups of people (Christians, mathematicians, etc.).

Wherever there is a market for more than one school, another will be opened. If some parents do not want their children to go to a big school, another will be built. If the existing school does not meet the expectations of the parents, another will be built or the old one will be improved. Schools always have to watch out for potential competition, and that keeps the standards high. Public schools, on the other hand, have nothing to worry about.



How so? If anything, there will be more schools built per district to target the specific values of certain groups of people (Christians, mathematicians, etc.).
You illustrate my point exactly. There are not many markets that can support more than one or two schools. Therefore, there is no competition. You also make my exact argument. Why privitize, when we can just improve the school system we have?

You also argue for me again here. There is no way a school can survive with 30 students. My town only has a christian school. I don't want my kids to go there. The next town over, I don't think is good for whatever reason. The nearest good school (in my opinion) is three or four towns away. The fact is that if a district only has 500-1000 students, it can feasibly support one, maybe two schools. Look at that competition:rolleyes: Schools won't be built unless they can make a profit. Take the cost of building the school, having enough programs to get it accredited, staff/faculty, transport fees, etc. That won't get covered by 30 students.

You illustrate my point exactly. There are not many markets that can support more than one or two schools. Therefore, there is no competition. You also make my exact argument. Why privitize, when we can just improve the school system we have?

We already have a monopoly on schooling -- public schools. The people do not have a choice of which school to go to for precisely that reason. Any step taken in order to destroy the monopoly would be a step forward. Yes, some markets would have one school, in which case that would be the same as before privatization. What's wrong with our public schools is that the students cannot get out of them. They have no choice but to attend public school, while the rich can attend private schools.

We already have a monopoly on schooling -- public schools. The people do not have a choice of which school to go to for precisely that reason. Any step taken in order to destroy the monopoly would be a step forward. Yes, some markets would have one school, in which case that would be the same as before privatization. What's wrong with our public schools is that the students cannot get out of them.
You do know that we HAVE private schools, right? We have the option for home schooling, we have private institutions, we have charter schools, we have religious institutions, we have coop style schools, you can pay to go to a different public school district, you have direct control over your board of education and budgets.
I fail to see a monopoly.
edit: there is also a large difference between a public instution that exists to serve the populace, and a private institution which exists to serve its sharholders.

You do know that we HAVE private schools, right?

Yes, and private schools cost money on top of the tax money you already pay for public schools. Who is able to afford private schools? That's right -- the rich.

We have the option for home schooling

And who is able to homeschool their child? A hard-working parent who has to work low-wage jobs for long periods of time? No, the rich.

you can pay to go to a different public school district

And who is able to pay? The rich.

you have direct control over your board of education and budgets.

How much control do you have? I don't know exactly how the current system works, but I thought that parents don't have that much control over what is taught at school and how the budget is spent.

You do know that we HAVE private schools, right? We have the option for home schooling, we have private institutions, we have charter schools, we have religious institutions, we have coop style schools, you can pay to go to a different public school district, you have direct control over your board of education and budgets.
I fail to see a monopoly.
edit: there is also a large difference between a public instution that exists to serve the populace, and a private institution which exists to serve its sharholders.
A choice which is denied to the poor and moderate income. They are stuck with the monopoly.

The downfall of the US educational system is also that it fails to educate its students properly. 11% of high-school and college students cannot point to the US on a map, given four choices. The educational system has obviously failed them. Everybody is worthy of an education, and the privatization will not alter that. However, everybody is worthy of the best education they can have. We should not force people to pay for mediocre education when they can have much higher standards. You are not giving them a chance at a good education -- you are dragging them down. But at least you're dragging them down by the same amount, I guess. Privatization will raise the bar for the quality of education.
Not only have you not shown that it would 'raise the bar', you do so at the expense of other students, a good chunk of students I might add.

Yet other countries continuously outperform the US in all subject areas. Perhaps it is time to rethink how we education our children, because we are obviously lagging behind other countries.
And, as I have noted, those countries out perform the United States using a public school system. Japan? Public. China? You better believe public. South Korea? Public. Various countries of the European Union? Public/Mixed. Matter of fact, none of the industrial countries that out perform the US has a fully private school system. They're doing well with public schools and doing better. Some, like China, have an absolute monopoly on their education system. So the need to compete is obviously not the stick that you seem to think it is. Instead, you'll force out a good chunk of children (Talking big numbers, say, 1 million) for a system that you cannot prove will operate better.

No, that system of government would be called communism. In America, all people are equal before the law, but that's as far as it goes. The rich have a greater chance of succeeding in life no matter what -- that's the beauty of capitalism. And under the public school system, you are giving them an even greater chance to succeed by sending them to classy private schools while the poor and middle class are stuck in substandard public schools. If you send the poor and middle class to private schools, then you are giving them a chance.
Suddenly turning all school to private will not increase schools. Even now there are vast inequalities between the public schools due to the way they are funded. Inner city schools are not as good as suburban schools. What makes you think that the same system would not be mirrored in the private sector, again? There's a difference between a BMW and a Ford, obviously.

And the system I am talking about is not communist, but the American dream that all are equal before the law and the law does state that all children deserve an education.

Are you also a believer in dragging the majority down to benefit the minority? Nobody should be constrained from their potential because that would be disadvantageous towards an extremely small minority.
I love this, you're trying to take away the education of around a million students, and yet you are trying to tell me that no one should be constrained from their potential.

The minority in this case are a dead weight that are dragging the entire educational system down. Those who live in very small towns must either be homeschooled, go to school in a different town, or move. The 270,000,000 others, however, can enjoy a much higher level of education.
Why don't you go look at a book of where people who became the foremost Americans are from. Most of them were not from New York City. Many of them came from small towns and had, you guessed it, public education.

An educated citizenry is a good thing, but we do not have an educated populace. We have an uninformed, ignorant populace, a majority of which cannot point to either of the countries we are at war with on a map. A good education is the cornerstone of any successful democracy. Unfortunately, that is what we are lacking. We must privatize to protect our democracy from those artless citizens who would otherwise hijack it.
:rolleyes: And back to point one again, even lacking an education, they will still vote, and be even worse at it now, or do you plan to propose an amendment to institute a poll tax that only those who have been educated can vote?

The public system has served this country well for a half a century of universal education and far longer for selective education. It is a mixture of both successes and failures. Does it need to be reformed? Yes, yes it does. But to change it is going to require a lot of effort on the behalf of the society that has made this system.

See that is the kicker, the schools mirror the society that created them, not the other way around. "Fixing" schools will not magically change society; society must be fixed first before we can change the schools. As I have said, the countries that out perform the US do so with public systems, the 'magic' of privatization obviously is not needed there, so what is the difference between these countries and the US? From my experience as both a teacher in America and Japan, my studies at university of various educational systems, it boils down to the fact that an education is valued in those countries as the foremost path to a good and stable life and not so in the United States, at least not any more.

My junior high school in Japan (Considered a rough school actually) does more with less money than the junior high school I taught in while at university in the US. But the children here are pounded constantly with the need of an education, they understand this. Community involvement is huge. My JTE apologized to me that during visitation day, only about 60% of the parents showed up to watch their child's classes for the day. He said that in a good Japanese school, it would be closer to 80%; but could you imagine 60% of parents in the United States coming to school for the whole day just to watch their child and be involved in the school and the classes? My Japanese co-workers visit home twice a year to check on the child and go over study habits and course work for the year, parents make sure that they are home for this. There are regular parent/teacher conferences and the PTA is a force to be feared.

Can you imagine this in the US? US schools feel lucky if we can get 50% of parents to show up for an hour once a year on back to school night, if we still even have those.

And this doesn't even address the need for qualified teachers, support for them, and helping them deal with parents as well.

No, the US goal of educating all students to the best of their ability is a wonderful noble goal, and one that should be continued. Kicking students out of school because they live in the middle of no where, because that's where their family has to live to make their bread, or because they are poor, or force them to graduate from Wal*Mart Schools (Max's rather sarcastic look at the idea of fully privatized schools in Jennifer Government isn't all that unthinkable), or lost to the system because the school closed due to lack of profit, is not a way to go around fixing schools.

Yes, and private schools cost money on top of the tax money you already pay for public schools. Who is able to afford private schools? That's right -- the rich. So now, that money that you pay in taxes will become a voucher. Everyone will be able to send their children to a mediocre private institution while the rich take that voucher money and combine it with what they were already paying, and send their children to an elite private institution. Nothing will change.



And who is able to homeschool their child? A hard-working parent who has to work low-wage jobs for long periods of time? No, the rich.there are people on this board who homeschool their children and aren't "rich". And your argument sounds exactly like me and NERVUN's arguments against you earlier.



How much control do you have? I don't know exactly how the current system works, but I thought that parents don't have that much control over what is taught at school and how the budget is spent.
Well, if people would get off their asses and vote (note: the bitterness here isn't directed at you by any means...just a bit of bitterness) they would have alot of control. Look in Pennsylvania. The schoolboard voted to teach ID. The entire school board is now gone, replaced by new people. The general populace has great control over how much money goes to a school board, who is on that board, and if the parent is vocal enough, they can directly influence the politics of the school (PTA's are known for the power they wield). With a private institution, we have no say unless they grant it to us. And for those children in the majority of the country where there aren't multiple schools, then this creates a huge problem.

A much better solution is to improve the public system (by listening to teachers, not politicians who have never set foot in a public school or "education specialists") and find something that solves the problems, rather than thinking a private system would be a cure-all. We would just transfer our current problems onto the private sector and create a whole new group of problems. In order to be a viably competitive nation, we have to have a fully literate population at the very least. Parents need to give a damn about their kids educations, as well.

A choice which is denied to the poor and moderate income. They are stuck with the monopoly.
as opposed to a voucher system where you can afford a mediocre school while the rich can afford an elite institution? Vouchers do not fix that problem.

:rolleyes: And back to point one again, even lacking an education, they will still vote, and be even worse at it now, or do you plan to propose an amendment to institute a poll tax that only those who have been educated can vote?

The public system has served this country well for a half a century of universal education and far longer for selective education. It is a mixture of both successes and failures. Does it need to be reformed? Yes, yes it does. But to change it is going to require a lot of effort on the behalf of the society that has made this system.

See that is the kicker, the schools mirror the society that created them, not the other way around. "Fixing" schools will not magically change society; society must be fixed first before we can change the schools. As I have said, the countries that out perform the US do so with public systems, the 'magic' of privatization obviously is not needed there, so what is the difference between these countries and the US? From my experience as both a teacher in America and Japan, my studies at university of various educational systems, it boils down to the fact that an education is valued in those countries as the foremost path to a good and stable life and not so in the United States, at least not any more.

My junior high school in Japan (Considered a rough school actually) does more with less money than the junior high school I taught in while at university in the US. But the children here are pounded constantly with the need of an education, they understand this. Community involvement is huge. My JTE apologized to me that during visitation day, only about 60% of the parents showed up to watch their child's classes for the day. He said that in a good Japanese school, it would be closer to 80%; but could you imagine 60% of parents in the United States coming to school for the whole day just to watch their child and be involved in the school and the classes? My Japanese co-workers visit home twice a year to check on the child and go over study habits and course work for the year, parents make sure that they are home for this. There are regular parent/teacher conferences and the PTA is a force to be feared.

Can you imagine this in the US? US schools feel lucky if we can get 50% of parents to show up for an hour once a year on back to school night, if we still even have those.

And this doesn't even address the need for qualified teachers, support for them, and helping them deal with parents as well.

No, the US goal of educating all students to the best of their ability is a wonderful noble goal, and one that should be continued. Kicking students out of school because they live in the middle of no where, because that's where their family has to live to make their bread, or because they are poor, or force them to graduate from Wal*Mart Schools (Max's rather sarcastic look at the idea of fully privatized schools in Jennifer Government isn't all that unthinkable), or lost to the system because the school closed due to lack of profit, is not a way to go around fixing schools.
Ya know, if we wern't both dudes, the bold parts would be enough for me to propose to you.:p

Yes, and private schools cost money on top of the tax money you already pay for public schools. Who is able to afford private schools? That's right -- the rich.
You're arguing our point. How do you think that folks who cannot afford a private education now can suddenly afford it should all schools go private?

Since mid-level schools can be built now, you can make as many of them as you want, children can be pulled out of public schools if the parent so wishes. The laws state that a child MUST be educated, not that the child HAS to go to public school.

But, oh, wait, I don't see a whole lot of companies making schools for poor students to go to. Gee, might be that it's not profitable.

How much control do you have? I don't know exactly how the current system works, but I thought that parents don't have that much control over what is taught at school and how the budget is spent.
:headbang: Perhaps you should educate yourself then, because parents have the final say.

The budget for how much money gets spent on schools is set by... yes, that great school board the meets in the state capitol every so often, your state legistlature (or whatever it's called). Guess who controls and aproves their actions? You got it, parents who vote.

The state board of education which decides such things as statewide standards/textbooks and how much money to request from the Great School Board is either directly elected by... parents or is appointed by the govenor, again elected by.... parents!

Well, maybe state politics is a little scary for you, but soft! There may just be a local board that meets to determine everything from local standards to curricula, to hireing and fireing of teachers and school administation, to who gets new carpet that year. Who is this mysterious group? The local school board, which had far more control over the actions and status of individual schools than the Department of Education (Actually, the DoEd has little to no control). Who appoints these men and women who have such powers over the course of a child's future and their education experiance? To whom are they responcible to?

Why, bless me, it seems that all across the United States of America, they are elected by parents.

So, tell me, do you know who your school board representative is? Have you been to a school board meeting? They tend to bend over backwards for loud squeeky wheels after all, being small time politicians who have to make people they see everyday happy to keep their elected positions.

Or, let me guess, this is the part of the ballot you either choose at random or skip entirely?

No, the final call is always with the parents. It is to they that all these folks are responcible to, but are rarely held to it because people just don't care.

Ya know, if we wern't both dudes, the bold parts would be enough for me to propose to you.:p
*LOL* Sorry, but my fiancee would really have some problems with that. ;)

*LOL* Sorry, but my fiancee would really have some problems with that. ;)
haha...really? You think your fiancee would have an issue with a 20 year old guy proposing to you based soley on things said in an internet forum? I couldn't imagine why:confused: :p

Infrastructure, Emergency Services, and Education are three areas where privatization never serves the public good. The problem isn’t that the Public school system should be Private, the problem is that the Government under funds education. “No child left behind” were empty words. As long as the powers that be can send their elite children to private schools that exclude the unwashed masses then those private schools will do very well with the money received from the rich. The existing two-tier system is part of the problem not part of the solution. If rich people had to send their kids to public schools, you’d see an immediate change in Public School policy, but as long as these people can ignore the problems of less wealthy families there will not be any change. Privatizing all education will result in McSchooling for most children and result in a bad system becoming an international disgrace.

The US has already seen what corporations in the classroom can do for them. There are now public schools with nutritional classes sponsored by MacDonalds! It’s like having Osama Binladen as your children’s school bus driver! Schools funded by Pepsi who are forced to flog their products and expel a child for wearing a Coke shirt on Pepsi Day for the school. I think that corporations need to have less access to schoolchildren, not more.

The State has failed the education system in so many ways. In a bid to save money, the state has their own textbooks that are often very badly written and factually challenged. Schools have the choice of accepting these textbooks for free or paying for better textbooks out of their budget. With school boards always feeling the heat over keeping costs under control, you can guess which route they are forced to take.


The Bruce

It would solve a lot of problems related to education today, such as sub-par and under-funded schools. If you leave the government in charge of education, everybody will receive the same quality of schooling, but the quality will be low. There is little incentive for the government to spend money on education when it can spend it on other things, like the military. With private schools, however, the amount of money they make is dependent on how well the school performs. They will be forced to have high standards and good teachers to remain competitive, which means that the quality of education will have to increase. This will in turn lead to a more educated populace. So why not privatize education instead of leaving it up to the government (poll coming)?

May I point out, privatization (or for profit schools) of schools has and is being tried, but with rather unimpressive results... most of the time kids are getting equal or worse educations. Of course there are more established success stories through religious institutions and such.. but generally speaking there are no statisics which indicate private schools are any better then public ones. We could do so much more to improve the public system by tearing down the districiting system and building an education system around vouchers (for only public schools) allowing parents to choose the public school their kid may attend .. those schools more heavily prefered receive appropriate funding, while schools less successful maintain funding proportional to the students they education (benifiting from smaller class sizes) . This is a rather simplistic view of what I feel would be the best reoranization of education but.. a bold and fresh plan if i dont say so myself, I actually intend at some point to propose a bill to my senators about it

May I point out, privatization (or for profit schools) of schools has and is being tried, but with rather unimpressive results... most of the time kids are getting equal or worse educations. Of course there are more established success stories through religious institutions and such.. but generally speaking there are no statisics which indicate private schools are any better then public ones. We could do so much more to improve the public system by tearing down the districiting system and building an education system around vouchers (for only public schools) allowing parents to choose the public school their kid may attend .. those schools more heavily prefered receive appropriate funding, while schools less successful maintain funding proportional to the students they education (benifiting from smaller class sizes) . This is a rather simplistic view of what I feel would be the best reoranization of education but.. a bold and fresh plan if i dont say so myself, I actually intend at some point to propose a bill to my senators about it
wow...that might be one of the best theories I've heard in a long time. I daresay it would work, so long as those "worst" schools can still afford to educate their children. There would also need to be elected boards still.

May I point out, privatization (or for profit schools) of schools has and is being tried, but with rather unimpressive results... most of the time kids are getting equal or worse educations. Of course there are more established success stories through religious institutions and such.. but generally speaking there are no statisics which indicate private schools are any better then public ones. We could do so much more to improve the public system by tearing down the districiting system and building an education system around vouchers (for only public schools) allowing parents to choose the public school their kid may attend .. those schools more heavily prefered receive appropriate funding, while schools less successful maintain funding proportional to the students they education (benifiting from smaller class sizes) . This is a rather simplistic view of what I feel would be the best reoranization of education but.. a bold and fresh plan if i dont say so myself, I actually intend at some point to propose a bill to my senators about it
I'm curious though, right now schools can take students from out of their feeder zones (and in some cases, out of district) should there be enough room at the school in question. The reason for the feeder zones is to keep a school for being overwhelmed with students who want entrance and ignoring one that sits nextdoor. The district system was set up to keep control of schools local as the districts are responcible to the local elected school board.

Questions:
1. How would your plan keep schools from being overwhelmed by students applying for the elite schools?
-Er, I would like to point out that I ask because Japan has the same system at the high school level, and their idea is to make the kids take entrance exams for the schools. The result is examination hell starting in the third year. From January to mid-March when they graduate, I don't see my 3rd year students because they are taking test after test, so I am curious how you would work around this.

2. As stated, the districts were to provide local control over the schools and to make sure chools reflected the local tastes and cultures (within reason). If you remove the districts, what would you replace them with? Central control? Statewide districts? What?

There are now public schools with nutritional classes sponsored by MacDonalds! It’s like having Osama Binladen as your children’s school bus driver!I disagree. It would be more like having bin Laden as their American History teacher. :D

I disagree. It would be more like having bin Laden as their American History teacher. :D
or western religions. I can see it now...
"Jews: INFIDELS!
Christians: INFIDELS!!
*ahem*
muslims...they're kinda okay!"

:sniper: :mp5: :gundge: :headbang: :upyours: :mad:


private school is shit :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :

private school is shit
Thank you for that well thought out and eloquently stated reply. :rolleyes:

How has Public school 'failed' anyway people are still learning, isn't that the point?

Im 16 living in Great Britain, I go to Public (meaning Private) School over here. I get subsidised a riduculous amoubnt by the MOD. Like £4.5K a term. Every term. Okay the School grooms you for life in the army, and pressurises you to go to Welbeck and Sandhurst (which most of us want to anyway), but you don't have to, and I dont ever have have to pay that subsidsed money back (which amounts to £170,000 by the end). I live with my Mum who is a cleaner, so just above minimum wage, but because my dad was in the army I can go to this school. Incidently my mum works in a different boarding school £7K a term and that it just as good, you do pay for the quality of your education- The more you pay the further in life you will probably get. If you went to Eton, you will near enough always be given job interviews, just for that reason.

It would solve a lot of problems related to education today, such as sub-par and under-funded schools

... and create a whole host of new ones instead. Entire schools, dedicated to advertising! If a school is deemed unprofitable, BANG, it's closed, possibly leaving entire towns in the middle of nowhere with no form of education whatsoever. Teachers who reward their students with A*s even if they don't deserve them, just to be able to afford that new car they've been looking to get... oh, and if you think that schools are cutting costs now, just wait until they have to make a profit. Boy oh boy, that'll be fun. Unlike existing private schools you see, they'll have to be cheap enough for your average Joe to afford, otherwise your entire economy will collapse when the next generation enters the market place with absolutely no education whatsoever. And these few problems are just the icing on the cake.

Reform, don't replace. Democracy doesn't work very well either, but you don't see people campaigning to replace it with oppressive dictatorships. There's a reason why public schooling fails in some places, like the US and to a lesser degree the UK, and succeeds in others, like certain European countries. A big part of it is culture, too -- you can throw all the money you want at schools, but at the end of the day if the students don't want to learn, you can't teach them.

We could do so much more to improve the public system by tearing down the districiting system and building an education system around vouchers (for only public schools) allowing parents to choose the public school their kid may attend That sounds sort of like Belgium's system, except it's not voucher based, it's a form of market socialism.

How has Public school 'failed' anyway people are still learning, isn't that the point?

20% dropout rate - Up to 50% among minorities. Students entering High school illiterate. Students GRADUATING high school illiterate. Students who don't know what the difference between executive and branches of government. Students who can't tell you what war Pearl Harbor was bombed in.

20% dropout rate - Up to 50% among minorities. Students entering High school illiterate. Students GRADUATING high school illiterate. Students who don't know what the difference between executive and branches of government. Students who can't tell you what war Pearl Harbor was bombed in.
Most of the American public can't tell you that, no matter when they graduated.

20% dropout rate
At what age are they allowed dropout?

Not only have you not shown that it would 'raise the bar', you do so at the expense of other students, a good chunk of students I might add.

Of course it would raise the bar. Private schools with equal funding as government schools perform better currently. Even schools with less funding than public schools perform better. If by a "good chunk" of students you mean those extremely isolated cases in which students are hundreds of miles away from any civilization, then yes. Otherwise, it would be beneficial to everybody. Also, schools would need to be more efficient and better because they have a larger pool of students to choose from, so there will be more competition among private schools.

(Talking big numbers, say, 1 million)

How do you figure? Certainly less. I'd say around 10,000.

What makes you think that the same system would not be mirrored in the private sector, again?

It would be mirrored in the private system. Currently, we have public schools that rate, let's say, 6, 7, and 8 out of 10 and private schools that rate 7, 8, 9 and 10 out of 10. If we made all schools private, their quality of education would remain fairly constant. However, more students would get a better education, even though rich students would get a better education that poor students (this is true currently, so nothing changes).

I love this, you're trying to take away the education of around a million students, and yet you are trying to tell me that no one should be constrained from their potential.

There are not 1,000,000 people living in all the Gerlach, Nevadas of the US. The only people for whom this system would be detrimental are those who live in places like Gerlach, and there are very few of those. However, they can get homeschooled or something like that, so all is not lost. People in cities and rural areas benefit from the increased amount of competition.

Many of them came from small towns and had, you guessed it, public education.

There is a higher proportion who came from big cities than came from small towns. Depends on who you define as a "foremost" American, though.

do you plan to propose an amendment to institute a poll tax that only those who have been educated can vote?

No, they'll be better educated on average. The same people who are allowed to vote now can do so in the future.

"Fixing" schools will not magically change society; society must be fixed first before we can change the schools.

It's not magic. To change society for the better, a good first step would be to better educate your citizenry. Fixing schools could then lead to a better society.

As I have said, the countries that out perform the US do so with public systems, the 'magic' of privatization obviously is not needed there

Making education public gives the government more control over each individual student. They would not willingly want to give up that power for no reason, even though it might work better.

Of course it would raise the bar. Private schools with equal funding as government schools perform better currently. Even schools with less funding than public schools perform better. As other people have pointed out numerous times before, they only perform better because they can kick out the students who don't perform well. Public schools are forced to keep those students, which brings their average down.

As other people have pointed out numerous times before, they only perform better because they can kick out the students who don't perform well. Public schools are forced to keep those students, which brings their average down.

No, they also perform better because competition requires them to perform better. If they do not have a monopoly, they need to outperform their competition to get students to attend, and therefore money. Public schools do not need to make money, so they have no incentive to be "as good as they can be."

No, they also perform better because competition requires them to perform better. If they do not have a monopoly, they need to outperform their competition to get students to attend, and therefore money. Public schools do not need to make money, so they have no incentive to be "as good as they can be."Not necessarily. If parents want their children to be taught conforming to strict religious guidelines, they will send their children to such a school even if a better secular school is available.
Because private schools need to make money, they rarely take in problem students, or children with severe learning disabilities.
Money isn't the only incentive that a school would have for being as good as it can be. Parental pressure either at PTA meetings or at the voting booth can force change.
Furthermore, if a private school can expel a student who is performing poorly and then make up the difference by increasing costs for the other students by saying "look how great our students do", then they will do so.

Yes, because poor people should be denied the right to go to school


hence there are *scholarships.* i go to Phillips Exeter Academy, the best private school in america, and there are plenty of students here (including me) who receive massive amounts of financial aid.

You're entitled to your opinion of course, but, if you look at Britain as an example, under a nationalised system it was awful. High unemployment, high social dissent, expensive etc. Under a privatised system everything is the opposite.


Erm... bollocks. Well parts of it. (sorry if this has already been commented on).

Under the social consensus of the 50s-late 70s employment was generally consistantly high (there were some blips true, and I think it was at its highest towards theend of the period). People could look to a job for life. High social dissent did occur at some points, yes, again mostly towards the end o the period, and it almost certainly was expensive. But lets look at what followed.

Under Thatcher unemployment rose, social discontent was at some points probably at its worst since the General Strike, she increased tazes (at first, they did come down in the end), and the public services had their budgets cut. Looking at the current state of the NHS and the state education system (in England a public school means very elite private school. Doesnt apply in Scotalnd, but to remain clear I will say state) it could be argued many (yes, not all) of the problems came from over a decade of underfunding, which even with a massive budget increase it takes a while to sort out, and a number of the things still are a problem, like bidding for cleaning etc.

And then lets look at privatised things. Oh, what about British rail? Since privatisation the service has got worse, more trains being late, services cut, some lines stopped altogether, ticket prices have gone up, all at a time when demand for train travel has gone up, and with the concerns with the environment we should be encouraging people to use public transport, particularly the cleanest (the railways. True, it aint totally clean, but compared to a plane?). About the only thing that has improved is the rolling stock, and thats only on certain lines. And on those local lines which have been temporarily re-nationalised, services have usually been improved, and then gone down again after re-privatisation.

You cannot make a such blanket statement that under nationalisation things where bad, or nder private ownership things are good. In some places private is better than public, and in others public is better than private.

And from my experience of the British state education, it aint as bad as is often said. I went to a very good Scottish state comprehensive, and I, and many of schoolmates, did very well in terms of grades, successful university entrance, and general ability and achievement. In fact most studies show that in Britain state secondary schools add more to the pupils than private ones do. And achievement among similar socio-economic groups in state schools and private schools is pretty much the same. The main problem is not the state of state schools, but lack educational aspirations, support and encouragement in the less well off. Those who live in poorer areas dont see much of the advatages of education, as some of them have lived for years (maybe even their entire life) with their family living with shitty or non-existant jobs, and so they dont see a chance of them getting a job of any worth, so why beother with the effort to succeed in school?

The problem is not with it being a state education service, it will be a mixture of bad schools (not something a state school will neccesarily be, unlike many seem to presume in this thread), underfunding (Yes, we spend nearly $500,000,000,000 (US defense budget) a year on killing people, but properly fund a state school system? What are you mad?) and lack of educational aspirations.

Oh, and if anyone notices any spelling mistake that will be due to my rather rushed typing, and my sometimes poor spelling. This spelling ability cannot be blamed on the school I went to, as we actually spent quite some time on spelling. I just seem to be a poor speller. Dont think any school would change that. Personally I blame the English language.

That's not communism, he's not refering to everyone being rewarded equally or the state owning production.


Erm... communism doesnt reward everyone equally.

"From each man as his ability, to each man as his need" suggests those that have greater needs would be rewarded more. If you mean equally taking into account their need, then maybe, but not equally when you look at what they actually get.

Erm... communism doesnt reward everyone equally.

"From each man as his ability, to each man as his need" suggests those that have greater needs would be rewarded more. If you mean equally taking into account their need, then maybe, but not equally when you look at what they actually get.
You're right, I mustn't have been thinking when I wrote that.

Of course it would raise the bar. Private schools with equal funding as government schools perform better currently. Even schools with less funding than public schools perform better. If by a "good chunk" of students you mean those extremely isolated cases in which students are hundreds of miles away from any civilization, then yes. Otherwise, it would be beneficial to everybody. Also, schools would need to be more efficient and better because they have a larger pool of students to choose from, so there will be more competition among private schools.
you continue to ignore the fact that private schools can kick out students who do poorly, and have students whos families care about education. Private schools cannot accuratly be compared to public.


How do you figure? Certainly less. I'd say around 10,000.
I'd say NERVUN's estimates are closer, if not still low

It would be mirrored in the private system. Currently, we have public schools that rate, let's say, 6, 7, and 8 out of 10 and private schools that rate 7, 8, 9 and 10 out of 10. If we made all schools private, their quality of education would remain fairly constant. However, more students would get a better education, even though rich students would get a better education that poor students (this is true currently, so nothing changes).we have some public schools that rank a 10. Come visit New England. I'll prove it. We have 98-100% going on to higher education, and those who don't are generally entering the military and getting educated there.



There are not 1,000,000 people living in all the Gerlach, Nevadas of the US. The only people for whom this system would be detrimental are those who live in places like Gerlach, and there are very few of those. However, they can get homeschooled or something like that, so all is not lost. People in cities and rural areas benefit from the increased amount of competition.Gerlach, Nevada IS rural. I also cite the areas of the rest of Nevada, Upstate New York, most of the midwest, the far northern states like New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, and Alaska, several islands of the Hawaiian chain, areas of California, Oregon and Washington, West Virginia, the adirondaks and appalachia, the Nazchez region, indian reserves...need I go on?



There is a higher proportion who came from big cities than came from small towns. Depends on who you define as a "foremost" American, though.
I'd argue that. Heavily.



It's not magic. To change society for the better, a good first step would be to better educate your citizenry. Fixing schools could then lead to a better society.
exactly. Fixing. Not replacing.


Making education public gives the government more control over each individual student. They would not willingly want to give up that power for no reason, even though it might work better.federal government has almost no control over education in this country. Even state government, in most states, has little control. Most things are handled at the town or individual school level.

hence there are *scholarships.* i go to Phillips Exeter Academy, the best private school in america, and there are plenty of students here (including me) who receive massive amounts of financial aid.
uh huh...there ARE scholarships. Noone denies this fact. Are there, however, enough scholarships to allow our full population to go to school for 12 years, especially with a growing poverty rate?

No, they also perform better because competition requires them to perform better. If they do not have a monopoly, they need to outperform their competition to get students to attend, and therefore money. Public schools do not need to make money, so they have no incentive to be "as good as they can be."
want to bet that public schools don't need to make money and try to be as good as they can be?
One of the top reasons for people moving is to find a better school district.

Most of the American public can't tell you that, no matter when they graduated.
Compliments of the public school system..


At what age are they allowed dropout?
Any age they wish - but it seemes a waste for anyone to turn their back on completing 13 years of free education.

..exactly how competition in the primary education market is supposed to work?

How do you find out if a school is crap? By getting crap kids out of it.
So, if a private school is crap, it closes -- after doing damage to three years of kids or more, that is. Does this mean the people that made it magically vanish? Or does this mean they go to a market that hasn't heard of them, start up a new school in a disadvantaged area under a new name, do a crap job there, then rince, wash, and repeat?

Public education provides accountability over the long term.

All costs borne by public education are similarly borne by private educators, with the addition of requiring a profit. So exactly how you expect to see higher quality for the same dollars I'm not exactly sure. The only way you can compare public school success to private school success is to examine a private school that has roughly the same demographics and same dollars/student as a public school. Until you do that, any assertions that private schools will perform better are, at best, blind faith.

Any age they wish - but it seemes a waste for anyone to turn their back on completing 13 years of free education.
dropout age is 16 with parental concent, 18 without, 21 manditory cutoff

dropout age is 16 with parental concent, 18 without, 21 manditory cutoff


How could someone still be at school at age 21? Or is this something I am not going to unerstand due to big differences between the US and British education system? Ah hell, I have enough of a problem understanding the English system, even though I only went to school over the border from it.

How could someone still be at school at age 21? Or is this something I am not going to unerstand due to big differences between the US and British education system? Ah hell, I have enough of a problem understanding the English system, even though I only went to school over the border from it.
By repeating grades a lot of times like 4 times I presume. :confused:

How could someone still be at school at age 21? Or is this something I am not going to unerstand due to big differences between the US and British education system? Ah hell, I have enough of a problem understanding the English system, even though I only went to school over the border from it.
nearly all students in the system past the age of 20 (20 allows for a late start [such as someone born in december, but starts the year later rather than earlier so they are the oldest rather than youngest] and being held back twice...which is rare at best) are in special education programs and have severe learning disabilities or retardation. They aren't so much being taught in the traditional sense, but more being taught life skills, such as a trade and how to cook for yourself and how to shop for food. They are still considered to be in education tho.

Ah, right.

you continue to ignore the fact that private schools can kick out students who do poorly, and have students whos families care about education. Private schools cannot accuratly be compared to public.

Why would schools want to kick out those who perform poorly? They want to make as much money as possible. Parents would judge the school on the quality of its teachers, not on the worst students. If they only want to accept good students, they only accept good students. They will rarely kick somebody out in the middle of the year. However, public schools can do the same thing. It's called expulsion or holding somebody back a grade.


I'd say NERVUN's estimates are closer, if not still low

Low!? You think 1,000,000 live in such small towns that building a school would not be profitable? That's insane.

we have some public schools that rank a 10. Come visit New England. I'll prove it. We have 98-100% going on to higher education, and those who don't are generally entering the military and getting educated there.

Some schools, primarily in rich towns, do have high college enrollment rates. Of course, the rich people would benefit anyway. The poor and middle class people who do not have access to such good schools are the ones who lose out. On average, schools rate way below a 10.



I also cite...places...need I go on?

Let me cite places where people do live in towns big enough for a profitable school to be built...everything that you did not mention! New York, New Jersey, Mississippi, Florida, Massachusetts, Ohio, etc. The fact is that only a very, very small minority of towns do not have at least 500 kids in them.

Fixing. Not replacing.

You can fix something by replacing it. I can fix a car by replacing the engine, for example.

As a capitalist believer myself I think it's a bad idea.... it will saturate education with.... bad things.

Damn it! After spending about 10 minutes typing up a reply, it goes and loses it. Feck.

Damn it! After spending about 10 minutes typing up a reply, it goes and loses it. Feck.

It's obviously an act of God. It's his way of saying "you're wrong." :)

Why would schools want to kick out those who perform poorly? They want to make as much money as possible. Parents would judge the school on the quality of its teachers, not on the worst students. If they only want to accept good students, they only accept good students. They will rarely kick somebody out in the middle of the year. However, public schools can do the same thing. It's called expulsion or holding somebody back a grade. For the same reason that you argue we should have private schools. It makes them look better. Why do universities kick failing students out? It makes them look better, and allows classes to perform better. Why would a private school do it? The same reason. And how do you judge the quality of teachers, exactly? Based on the results they get. Expulsion is only a penalty for behavior issues, not failing classes, and holding a student back holds them in the school longer.




Low!? You think 1,000,000 live in such small towns that building a school would not be profitable? That's insane. Over 75% of our country is rural. Actually, only coastlines are dense.



Some schools, primarily in rich towns, do have high college enrollment rates. Of course, the rich people would benefit anyway. The poor and middle class people who do not have access to such good schools are the ones who lose out. On average, schools rate way below a 10.
The entire region of New England is above the national average. It isn't that we don't have poor areas. We run them well, value education, and support the schools. On average, every school system rates well below a 10.




Let me cite places where people do live in towns big enough for a profitable school to be built...everything that you did not mention! New York, New Jersey, Mississippi, Florida, Massachusetts, Ohio, etc. The fact is that only a very, very small minority of towns do not have at least 500 kids in them.Yes, big cities can. But I did mention a significant portion of our nation that could not support a school. My argument stands. Not even a significant majority of the nation outside of the major cities would be able to support a single, if not more than one, private school.



You can fix something by replacing it. I can fix a car by replacing the engine, for example.false analogy. You argue to fully replace the current education system. This would be akin to saying "I can fix a car by replacing the car". The car is still not fixed. The analogy you use is actually supportive of my argument, saying you can fix the overall structure by fixing smaller broken parts.

Well most of my points were made just there so at least my losing my post wasnt a bit problem.

The only majpr one was that Parents do often judge a school on shallow things like the marks gained, without taking account of things outside a school and teachers' control. Also, parents have chosen not to send people to a school purely on the worst pupils that attend. I dont think many parents actually go to the bother of going "ok, maybe I should go and talk to the teachers, watch some of the classes and find out the economic and educational background the pupils come from". Those are the things that would really need to be known to assess how good a school and its teachers are, not some over percentage of pass marks, but yet parents choose schools on those alone. A school that starts with a lower level of pupil, and closes the gap between them and a more successful pupil is better than a school that has that more succesful pupil and results in him getting a better mark. But which with get the better image on a league table?

Why would a private school do it? The same reason. And how do you judge the quality of teachers, exactly? Based on the results they get. Expulsion is only a penalty for behavior issues, not failing classes, and holding a student back holds them in the school longer.

You're right about the kicking students out part. However, it is a good thing. Students need to be separated based on their knowledge/intelligence instead of on socio-economic status. If a private school kicks out a student because they fail to meet their standards -- good for them! They may only do this if there are sufficient students for it to be competitive, however. A school in a rural area with no competition will not kick an underperforming student out because there will be no one to replace him/her. If a school kicks a student out, there will always be a school with less qualified students to accept that student. Everybody's happy -- the school gets to keep its high standard and the student gets to go to a school where the student body is not smarter than he/she is. Rich or poor, if you don't cut it, you leave.

Over 75% of our country is rural. Actually, only coastlines are dense.

A rural place isn't the same thing as a place that does not have enough children to attract a private school. There are many rural places, but almost all of them have 500 or more kids living there.



The entire region of New England is above the national average. It isn't that we don't have poor areas. We run them well, value education, and support the schools. On average, every school system rates well below a 10.


false analogy. You argue to fully replace the current education system. This would be akin to saying "I can fix a car by replacing the car". The car is still not fixed. The analogy you use is actually supportive of my argument, saying you can fix the overall structure by fixing smaller broken parts.

A educational system is made up of many components. The engine is the monetary system that makes is run. The wheels are the teachers which allow the car to move and accomplish its task. The gas is the students who provide fuel to power the system. And so on. You are not scrapping the entire system -- just the engine. However, an extended simile isn't the point.

You're right about the kicking students out part. However, it is a good thing. Students need to be separated based on their knowledge/intelligence instead of on socio-economic status. If a private school kicks out a student because they fail to meet their standards -- good for them! They may only do this if there are sufficient students for it to be competitive, however. A school in a rural area with no competition will not kick an underperforming student out because there will be no one to replace him/her. If a school kicks a student out, there will always be a school with less qualified students to accept that student. Everybody's happy -- the school gets to keep its high standard and the student gets to go to a school where the student body is not smarter than he/she is. Rich or poor, if you don't cut it, you leave.
You can seperate them (and they are) in the public system. It is the remedial/regular/accelerated/honors/college prep system. You could go further and do the 10 track system modeled after britain. Students will always be seperated by SES unless you can somehow get a family living below poverty to afford to live in Greenwich CT or Orange County, CA.
And why wouldn't a school kick out an underperforming child? Under your logic, it would make them look better and therefore make them more competitive. This would attract more families to the area (one of the top 5 reasons for moving...)
And where do we put these schools for "less qualified" students? One per town? State? So we make families with the dumb kids move? How do we get teachers to teach there? Pay them more? then the school will cost more. So dumb kids have to both move and pay more?
Additionally, your naiviete is showing. You think a rich kid will be treated the same? Not as long as rich families donate money.


A rural place isn't the same thing as a place that does not have enough children to attract a private school. There are many rural places, but almost all of them have 500 or more kids living there.
Actually, a truly rural place (IE, not suburbs, which sadly people consider "rural" today) generally does not have over 5000 residents total, the majority being over schooling age.



A educational system is made up of many components. The engine is the monetary system that makes is run. The wheels are the teachers which allow the car to move and accomplish its task. The gas is the students who provide fuel to power the system. And so on. You are not scrapping the entire system -- just the engine. However, an extended simile isn't the point.You aren't fixing the monetary system. You are shifting it.

additionally, I'm curious. what of special education, exactly?

You can seperate them (and they are) in the public system. It is the remedial/regular/accelerated/honors/college prep system.

Yes, and that is essentially what you are doing when a private school kicks somebody out because they fail to meet their standards.

And why wouldn't a school kick out an underperforming child?

They would. Why shouldn't they? The child who gets kicked out can go to a different school in the same area, only a school that has lower standards. Rural schools that do not have a high base of students will not kick students out because they will have no one to replace them, and they need money. City schools can be selective, however, and that will increase the quality of the educational system and the market will ensure that a child goes to a school that is right for him/her.

And where do we put these schools for "less qualified" students? One per town? State? So we make families with the dumb kids move? How do we get teachers to teach there? Pay them more? then the school will cost more. So dumb kids have to both move and pay more?

The market will ensure that these schools are put where there is a fair quantity of less qualified students. Wherever it is profitable, there will be one. We don't have to make the families of the dumb kids move. You can have less qualified teachers teach less qualified students, so the cost will actually go down. The cost of a school is proportional to the quality of education one receives there. Why would you pay a teacher more for an easier job requiring less expertise?

Actually, a truly rural place (IE, not suburbs, which sadly people consider "rural" today) generally does not have over 5000 residents total, the majority being over schooling age.

If they have 5000 residents and if ages are distributed equally, then the amount of people that are the right age for school will be over 500. However, it is possible that several school districts will be consolidated into one if there really aren't enough students.

additionally, I'm curious. what of special education, exactly?

If there are enough kids that fit that requirement, then each school can have a teacher to teach them. Otherwise, there would be a separate school for "special" children.

They would. Why shouldn't they? The child who gets kicked out can go to a different school in the same area, only a school that has lower standards. Rural schools that do not have a high base of students will not kick students out because they will have no one to replace them, and they need money. City schools can be selective, however, and that will increase the quality of the educational system and the market will ensure that a child goes to a school that is right for him/her.
its those rural schools I refer to. so education might get better in cities, but stay the same in the country, if not get worse?



The market will ensure that these schools are put where there is a fair quantity of less qualified students. Wherever it is profitable, there will be one. We don't have to make the families of the dumb kids move. You can have less qualified teachers teach less qualified students, so the cost will actually go down. The cost of a school is proportional to the quality of education one receives there. Why would you pay a teacher more for an easier job requiring less expertise? You should have the most qualified teachers educating the students most at risk for failure (those would be the "less qualified" students) the job is actually much more difficult and, in some cases, dangerous. Additionally, you would pay more because no one wants to teach there. same reason cities pay more than suburbs.
And you fail to see the point, still. If there is only one lower level school in a region, then people with students going there will have to live near by.



If they have 5000 residents and if ages are distributed equally, then the amount of people that are the right age for school will be over 500. However, it is possible that several school districts will be consolidated into one if there really aren't enough students.ages are almost never equally distributed, and we currently have an aging population. And driving over an hour to school is unreasonable, as would be the case in rural areas.



If there are enough kids that fit that requirement, then each school can have a teacher to teach them. Otherwise, there would be a separate school for "special" children.Unconstitutional (Brown v. board of ed). Additionally, we have tried that, it has failed. Not to mention the fact that we have students who only need partial seperation, such as kids with ADD/ADHD and such. Try again.

its those rural schools I refer to. so education might get better in cities, but stay the same in the country, if not get worse?

The education will get better in cities because choice and competition have been introduced into and otherwise stagnant school system. In rural areas, there will still be no choice, unless the parents want to move. However, the parents will have a more direct influence over the school because the school needs their patronage. A public school does not need a bunch of students to stay in business -- a private school does. This is both its greatest strength and its downfall. It will be good because it must perform to the needs of every student, but none will be created if there are too few students.

You should have the most qualified teachers educating the students most at risk for failure (those would be the "less qualified" students) the job is actually much more difficult and, in some cases, dangerous.

You may need teachers that know how to teach "at-risk" students. You do not need teachers that know multivariant calculus. I'm willing to bet that there is a greater pool of teachers that can teach "at-risk" students well than the pool of teachers that can teach multivariant calculus well. As for the job being dangerous...

If there is only one lower level school in a region, then people with students going there will have to live near by.

Yes, but there will be more schools in the region if there are potential students there. Where there is demand, there will be supply. Chances are very high that you will live near at least one school. The only way you will not live near a school is if you live in the middle of nowhere, which is not common in this day and age.

driving over an hour to school is unreasonable, as would be the case in rural areas.

You are saying that you think there will be no schools with 20 miles of a rural area? There will be schools distributed wherever there is demand. The likelyhood of having to drive that far is miniscule.

Try again.

Give them meds, send them to regular school, homeschool them, send them to a special school, or don't send them to school at all. Tough luck.