The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
should all education be privatized?
drdestiny
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Well this is an interesting debate I’m preparing for in school and say yes.
And by privatization, I don’t mean totally, what I mean is that people or businesses run schools for profit with government standards and evaluation tests, with additional government aid or sponsorship to poor performing schools. Also, current educational taxes would be significantly reduced (but there would still be a small percent to aid schools or students, and administer comprehensive evaluations and authorizations of schools)
I’d think it'd be a great idea for the following reasons:
-affordable based because of the great variety available
-most schools would have setup a financial aid system
-people will be free to go to any school they can get accepted into
-competition among what was once a monopoly driving
-smaller class sizes to attract students
-more affordable schools
-high wages for good teachers
-better campuses to attract students
-also the intellectually challenged people would go to schools for their own pace, as will the gifted go to schools for their own pace and style of learning
-students with financial aid will be less burdened because they will not have to pay taxes and tuition
And by privatization, I don’t mean totally, what I mean is that people or businesses run schools for profit with government standards and evaluation tests, with additional government aid or sponsorship to poor performing schools. Also, current educational taxes would be significantly reduced (but there would still be a small percent to aid schools or students, and administer comprehensive evaluations and authorizations of schools)
I’d think it'd be a great idea for the following reasons:
-affordable based because of the great variety available
-most schools would have setup a financial aid system
-people will be free to go to any school they can get accepted into
-competition among what was once a monopoly driving
-smaller class sizes to attract students
-more affordable schools
-high wages for good teachers
-better campuses to attract students
-also the intellectually challenged people would go to schools for their own pace, as will the gifted go to schools for their own pace and style of learning
-students with financial aid will be less burdened because they will not have to pay taxes and tuition
drdestiny on
0
Posts
Long Answer: God no.
edit; PRIVATE SCHOOLS ARE NOT BETTER THAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS BECAUSE THERE IS COMPETITION BETWEEN SCHOOLS. PRIVATE SCHOOLS ARE BETTER THAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS BECAUSE OF COMPETITION BETWEEN STUDENTS. PRIVATE SCHOOLS CAN DETERMINE WHOM THEIR STUDENTS ARE AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS CANNOT. ITS THAT SIMPLE
The general result of privatizing schools would be exactly the same level of quality we have no, with the cost shifted from the tax base to the individual, which would be a disproportionate burden placed on the poorer.
Why do you consider the switch in a school's priority from educating kids (in theory at least. More often than not it's covering their own asses, but I digress) to attracting new 'customers' would lead to anything that's actually beneficial?
1. This is a false assumption. Why would there be more variety? How do you know there wouldn't be less when one "chain" aggressively put another chain out of business? Also this "variety" would only exist in major urban areas. Take soda pop for example -- when you get down to it, you can pretty much ONLY get Coca-Cola or Pepsi made products in 90% of all outlets that sell soda, often times only being offered one or the other as the manufacturers vie for exclusivity contracts like they have in most fast-food chains. Yes, while there's an illusion of selection as they offer different flavors, makes, and sizes, it's really all the same carbonated sugar water. You don't think privatized schools would do this with local municipalities as well? You underestimate the profit motive, it seems.
2. They would? Why? Because they want students to go to school for free? Or because they'd charge interested and put even more hard-working students into debt? This claim is particularly asinine.
3. How is that not the case now? How would this change anything?
4. See Goum's point.
5. What makes you think this? Let's stick with the fast food example -- when a particular branch becomes particularly burdened with business, do they immediately rush out to open another branch nearby to ease the flow of customers, or do they overwork the people in the branch and watch the money flow in? Also considering the logistics of opening another "branch" and there's even less room for expansion.
6. Asinine.
7. How is that different than now? Also why are you so certain? I'm a damn good employee, but I could definitely be making more. I also know some incompetent fucks who landed cush jobs and are somehow piling in the dough. It opens it up EVEN MORE to the same discriminations that create that obnoxious little glass ceiling that we've been fighting against for all too long.
8. Again -- logistics. Are they just going to suddenly by a city block and build a school there? That's some serious fucking investment capital. If it wasn't for eminent domain, most schools could never be built.
9. WIDE OPEN door for discrimination and prejudice.
10. Huh? But the bills they pay with financial aid will increase, because the schools will not be receiving any matching benefits from the state.
2)Financial Aid? So you can be in debt to businesses? Not a great place to be.
3)You can do that already.
4)There is competition already. You just don't see it between the slack-off students. If you mean school vs. school competition, you obviously didn't grow up in a city. Plus, monopoly means everyone (in theory) has the opportunity to an equal education.
5)Class sizes won't neccessarily be smaller, because everything will be privatized. Besides, it's usually the larger schools that have more course variety.
6)More affordable schools? They're pretty affordable right now. Lowering taxes at the expense of adding tuition costs?
7)That would depend on the policy of the business running the school. If they can keep teachers earning the same thing they do now, they will.
8)Perhaps. But then they could take equiptment back if they wanted to, or if it wasn't being "productive enough."
9)We could do that with public schooling. China already does that, actually (as well as a few private schools in North America), and it works.
10)They'll be in debt to a corporation. Corporations are not people. They are blood sucking monsters! But my point is you shouldn't need to pay for school at all!
They are also better because state regulation does not handicap the teaching staff.
MCAS is bullshit and is hurting the students in this state.
In fact, this statement leads to the conclusion that any type of private schools are bad.
Because all people are the same?
Yeah, lets knock those square pegs into the round holes and call it equality.
Of course, I didn't like my public school much, either. I loved it a damn sight better than I loved my private school, though.
See, I go to a public high school, and there are two other private schools in my area. I have a friend in one; I can't believe how behind they are in math and science. I'm in 11th grade right now, taking Pre-Calc, and the seniors in the private school are at the Algebra II level. This would be fine had their Algebra II course been as tough as mine was, but they were doing Algebra II-lite work, and trigonometry was a separate course no matter the level.
Also, private school kids who have to transfer to our public school for one reason or another always end up getting dropped from the Honors classes because they can't keep up, even though they were classified as super geniuses by their private schools. So either I'm dealing with the exceptionally dumb private schools, or the school system in New Jersey is just completely backwards, which I have suspected for a while now.
NNID: Hakkekage
Goum's point was bs. Only certain types of private schools have merit- or aptitude-based admissions. Catholics schools routinely outperform public school with less funds and no competitive admissions.
Putting the Liberal in Libertarian since 1981.
The point of school isn't to turn kids into encyclopedias and formula crib sheets. Those things exist for a reason, and that reason is not because people are too stupid/lazy to get edumacated. The purpose is to teach them how to teach themselves and think critically while improving their overall understanding of the world around them. As well as forcing some basic understanding of history and math and language and stuff to be hardwired into your skull. There isn't some golden formula to achieving that perfect polymath. Even if there were, it's obviously not the current curriculum of PS 118.
In all honesty, aside from say, mental or physical illnesses, what can a private school offer to your so called square pegs that public schools cannot.
Tynic, darling, I wasn't making a case for public schools.
I was making a case for my awesomeness.
Variety.
A lot of people who came to my school did so because the standardized public schools in the area weren't giving them what they need. We had need blind admissions policies you see.
When the senior classes graduated each of us gave a speech. The people who hadn't fit anywhere else but who had become A students at my school and were lined up to go to ivy league schools usually cried during theirs.
So you see, I value diversity in the array of learning environments.
Better teachers, better school year length, more of a focus on specific subjects of education that are generally overlooked by public schools (for instance, the arts), etc. I'm sure I could think of a few more things off the top of my head if you wanted. This isn't to say that all private schools do excell in any of those areas or that public schools are doomed to fail in them either.
That's worrisome. . . I live in Idaho and in my school district the lowest students take Algebra II as juniors, while a district over the lowest math students take it as sophomores (advanced students can finish Calc BC as juniors). Some students are in "remedial" math, but they're less than five percent of the student body.
Meh, whatevs.
But why did these specific people not do well in public schools? It's nice to have a fuzzy story, but I'm looking for what specifically we need to improve in our public schools. So, in essence, what did the private school do for these students that the public school did not do? Give an example if you can.
This is an honest question, because I believe the public education system is the most important part of the government and I want to know where things are going wrong and why.
Well, I'm in the Honors course, so I took AlgII in soph year. Trig is bundled in with the Honors course, so people in Level 1 AlgII take Trig this year (or they took it for credit over the summer). Like your school system, advanced kids take things a year earlier. My genius little sister (but still bratty) doubled up in Frosh year, giving her the opportunity to take Geometry and AlgII together, and start Pre-Calc in sophomore year. This also allowed her to skip the completely inane Physical Science course all other Froshies have to take and go straight to Biology.
So basically my sister is taking the same Math and Science courses as I am, but she's in a grade lower. Which I guess is damn fine, because now her Senior year has a whole lot of options.
so jealous
NNID: Hakkekage
Yeah, that's great, but I'm not sure why you think it is best to give everyone the same curriculum when different people are different. Or why you think you can make the same education equally valuable to everyone.
What made my school great was the small class sizes and personal relationships between students and teachers. You hade the same teachers year after year and the average class size was seven to twelve. They could get that kind of ratio because almost everyone who worked their taught. There was no administrative apparatus, no bureaucracy, no assigned class plans with acronyms like EFB or ANW or anything like that to stifle creative teaching. And the teachers were very well educated.
My school is run for profit with the goal of gearing students for performance in English related subjects. The quality of education is a competitive advantage at our school, due to a large number of schools of similar quality densely packed in a large industrialized city center.
Yes, competition can bring schools to focus more on education. Better schools have more students, but the drive to keep class sizes small also encourages schools to open up regional branches. There are several country wide franchises that have uniform education methods.
This system works as a "cram" school for different subjects, which allows wealthier students to get an advantage over the poor by allowing them to get better grades in school. This in turn allows them to get into better middle schools, high schools, and colleges, which allows them to get into better jobs, thus perpetuating the system.
The education industry is huge here. There are cram schools, known as hakwons, for every subject imaginable. Parents spend thousands of dollars on supplemental education to keep their children competitive. This is largely due to the connections made in college that can cement a successful career.
Students spend 13 years of their life studying for their college entrance examinations, which basically will determine their societal status for the rest of their lives.
College isn't about what you learn, but who you know. 95% of students apply for the same top 3 Korean universities, leading to INTENSE national competition for grades. This, in turn, drives the private school industry.
The system is good at what it does: It turns out students fluent, or at least competent in English and Korean, with high level math and science skills. It also robs students of all their free time and causes elementary students to break down from stress related sicknesses. It also perpetuates class warfare on the poor, and keeps a societal boundaries in place that make people's influence based more on their friends their their competency.
TL;DR answer? No, not really a good idea.
I'm more worried about your different people who can't afford a different school.
Yes, I know the benefits of private schools. I wasn't asking that. I was asking specifically why square pegs were able to get A's at this school and not public schools. If these are the reasons, I don't believe these are unattainable for the public school system if we pumped more cash into it. Shit, I was in Honors Physics and with 9 other people and it was cool. I don't believe a standardized curriculum stifles creative teaching. The teacher is creative, not the material. I had quite a few creative teachers in my day. My off the rocker poli-sci teacher mowed down the class with his pretend AK47/7 iron in response to a stupid question. That's creative.
Significant problem with public education?
Lack of vocational training. Most industrialized countries have them, but our system forces people who, for whatever reason, totally refuse to work toward a "higher" education and "bettering themselves" by expounding on the symbolism of The Scarlet Letter, or otherwise. Some people know they'd rather just start a career out of college, which is fair enough, there are jobs for them. Others are more concerned with making bongs in ceramics classes than with their futures. Either way, by offering vocational training, or requiring it if standardized scores aren't met, some people will have a job out of highschool or others might be motivated to work, saving everyone's time and sanity.
Oh, and lack of real economics courses. Most students have a better understanding of obscure literary terms than they do of the economic system to which the world aheres.
And too many joke classes, like ceramics and life time sports.
When did you leave highschool Tuna?