Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:

And then the vouchers will be whittled down over time. The rich will go to good schools and the poor to crap schools. I've seen this movie before. Vouchers work if they can only be used for another public school.

Another option is open enrollment, whereby you can enroll in any school you can realistically get to on a daily basis, as opposed to only schools within the district you're located.

 Seaward wrote:

The state could do that, yes. The state could also continue right along with public education. My suggestion was that they do neither of those things, but instead simply provide vouchers.

The rapid transition from a public school system to a fully private one would create a significant logistical problem.

Additionally, I suspect that the quality of education at large private schools is not significantly better than that at large public schools.

Obama won't let this happen. He can't control the anti-creationist agenda and attacks on Christianity and US flag t-shirts if we privatize.

Just look at these anti-Bible education manipulators!

Take it a step further Seaward, privatise the military too. Let the people who want foreign interventions pay for it themselves!

Teaching in a private school, I think a lot of what makes them "better" is simply that the cohort of students that goes to them is different to the cohort that attends public schools, and they have greater abilities to kick kids out if they are disruptive. Public schools serve the entire public, which includes antisocial and crazy kids/parents.

I mean, it's way nicer for me to work in a private school (heh, I always laugh when I hear privatisation advocates talking about how easy public sector workers have it- go teach in a public school, smartass). I'm way less stressed and I get to teach to a much nicer audience. I'm very happy in my job. But when it comes down to it, that would not be the case if you made EVERY school private. You'd essentially be damning kids whose parents didn't care about them, or didn't care about education, or those who were just unsuccessful in life. No public system is perfect, but not everything should be privatised, either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Heh heh, actually, the more I think about it, the more hilarious (in a very dark way) it would be. I think I will become an advocate of the US privatising it's schools.

Privatise the government!

No law, only what people can persuade other people to agree to by market forces.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Privatise the government!

No law, only what people can persuade other people to agree to by market forces.

You mean kind of like it is now with companies and rich individuals buying politicians?

No, that's a ridiculous situation.

Everyone should simply pay each other to do stuff and not do crimes and things.

The funny thing about privatization of education is that once you start enrolling all the low performing kids in the private schools, they start to look like the public schools. What do you expect, the underachievers are just going to wake up and start caring about their education because they're in a private school?

If there are no public schools, the government is just going to hand money out and not care about testing suddenly? The thing is, private schools don't have to utilize state testing, they can use their own or generic testing that's not Norm-referenced; amazing how those results can come out..

Also, they're not beholden to educating EVERY child, so they can stick those low achievers in the back of the class and forget about them and then tell them not to show up on test day. Sound familiar? It should, that's what was happening before the ESEA was created.

We could do what they do in Japan and just stop mandatory education at the end of Middle-School and then shuttle the best and brightest off to college prep high schools while everybody else goes to a trade/arts school. Cause applying to high schools like people in the US do to colleges is the best way to get everyone on the same educational footing...

 Hive Fleet Cerberus wrote:
Seperation of church and state should apply here, since its a public school and all.

Should also apply to your banknotes.

From the other side of the ocean, the US seem to have one foot in the future, one foot in the past.

Already been on the moon, but will still stick to the imperial system, the 2nd amendment and refer to God whenever possible.

We keep the best and chuck the rest.

Litcheur wrote:

 Hive Fleet Cerberus wrote:
Seperation of church and state should apply here, since its a public school and all.

Should also apply to your banknotes.

From the other side of the ocean, the US seem to have one foot in the future, one foot in the past.

Already been on the moon, but will still stick to the imperial system, the 2nd amendment and refer to God whenever possible.

To be fair, it's a diverse country. In a lot of the cases, the people doings certain things on that list are almost mutually exclusive of the set of people doing the others.

 CptJake wrote:
Private schools are not always expensive.

My county spends $7,503 per year per student.

The school I send my daughter to costs me under 7k for the year. And the average SAT scores and graduation rates, and acceptance into college rates are a LOT higher than the county schools.

You need to account for the selective nature of private schools. The biggest impact is the quality of households who are willing to spend money on private education - those households are going to place more value on education and give more support to their kids than the average household.

Then consider the nature of expenses in public schools - the average kid is fairly cheap. Sits there among 20 something other kids and quietly listens or daydreams while the teacher talks, and the resources needed by the average student... well they aren't cheap but they aren't much of a chunk out of that $7,500 a year. Then consider troubled kids, either ones with learning difficulties or behavioural problems. The extra hours from teachers and specialists poured in to those kids are a huge drain on resources. Not saying we shouldn't spend that money because we should, but just pointing out that it represents a massive chunk out of the education budget, and it's an expense that private schools generally don't have to wear. The private schools that do tend to specialise in kinds with issues, and they are really, really expensive schools.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
Given that there would be a lot more private schools springing up in the face of the abolition of public schools, I think we can safely say that costs would go down for most. Competition, etc.

For a guy who loves free market rhetoric, it's weird that you've never read any economics. Competition isn't just a word that you can just throw out there, you actually need to look at an individual market and assess whether the necessary elements for effective competition exist. In education, there is the problem that parents lack strong information about which schools are best for their kids (as opposed to which schools have the kids that test best), kids can't just jump from school to school based on which is performing best at any given moment, and schools are not differentiated just on price but services, culture and a whole range of other factors.

So, no, you can't just say 'competition' and 'safely say that costs would go down'. I don't mean to alarm you, but there's a fair chance that right now Adam Smith is dragging himself from his grave and beginning a long journey to wherever you are, just to stand in front of you and yell very loudly 'at least fething read my book'.

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
Given that there would be a lot more private schools springing up in the face of the abolition of public schools, I think we can safely say that costs would go down for most. Competition, etc.

For a guy who loves free market rhetoric, it's weird that you've never read any economics. Competition isn't just a word that you can just throw out there, you actually need to look at an individual market and assess whether the necessary elements for effective competition exist. In education, there is the problem that parents lack strong information about which schools are best for their kids (as opposed to which schools have the kids that test best), kids can't just jump from school to school based on which is performing best at any given moment, and schools are not differentiated just on price but services, culture and a whole range of other factors.

So, no, you can't just say 'competition' and 'safely say that costs would go down'. I don't mean to alarm you, but there's a fair chance that right now Adam Smith is dragging himself from his grave and beginning a long journey to wherever you are, just to stand in front of you and yell very loudly 'at least fething my book'.

You mean Fountainhead didn't cover everything you need to know?

Also, you accidentally a whole word.

 daedalus wrote:
You mean Fountainhead didn't cover everything you need to know?

Also, you accidentally a whole word.

Someone has to proofread my stuff, and I think you just volunteered for the job.