Be a Supporter!

Privatizing Education

  • 1,716 Views
  • 49 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Privatizing Education 2012-10-06 15:23:58 Reply

Public education and in fact education in general has major flaws within. Poor unsuitable teachers, useless standardized testing, public education's lack of funding, shuffling kids from a d-f school into successful ones, and for the most part a general lack of knowledge gained by students through the school system. Of course there are the few exceptions.

So by reforming the education system (that is privatizing the whole system) can we effectively tackle all of these problems? More importantly though, through privatizing education how do we guarantee that every child in America will have access to a proper education?

I spent about an hour to an hour and a half (before my Latin Literature class) writing out a very basic proposal which involves and entirely privatized base with a combination of State and Federal regulations/funding.

-Certification of teachers: Potential higher-education teachers are certified by the state government. Classes that involve a certified teacher are biology, physics, chemistry, economics, calculus/pre-calculus, algebra-based classes, statistics, higher level literature/creative writing classes, etc. Certification simply involves whether or not an individual has a bachelors degree in or similar to the field of study or a significant amount of work experience in that field (min. 5 years). For example, a biology teacher must have at least a bachelors degree in biology, any math teacher must at least have a bachelors degree involving the subject such as engineering, an economics teacher must have some sort of a business degree, etc.

This certification effort is suppose to tackle the unqualified teacher issue by preventing the individuals who have a degree in education from teaching higher education classes! These people shouldn't be involved in teaching these upper level courses in high school, because they just don't have the experience! How can you have any experience in chemistry, much less be able to teach chemistry, with a degree in education!?

-Certification of schools: Schools must provide a set variety and amount of classes in order to be certified as a legitimate education institution. Certification is instituted by the state governments.

-Standardized testing: By privatizing education altogether, there will simply be no need for standardized testing, as if there was a need before. The AP and ACT tests are a part of the standards (along with legitimate grades) in determining whether or not a student is qualified for a college education.

-Funding families of all incomes: Quite a simple proposal. Take the money each state spends on education a year for each student (A national average of $10,615 /year, www.npr.org) and redistribute that money as a specialized government check to families with students attending k-12. As of 2008, it costs on average $8,549 /year to send a student to a private school (www.capenet.org) So if a family has 2 students attending school, the family will receive 2 checks of ~$11,000 (with a limit of 3 checks per family, 1 per student) Like food stamps, this check can only be used to pay for debts involving a legitimate educational institution. But once again, these are state dollars, not federal dollars.

By making these funding dollars state oriented, education will finally become an important part of the state budget, not the first thing to be slashed! This is because cutting the education budget has a direct effect on whether or not families (of various incomes) can afford the education institution that they desire! This regulated funding is to assure every child's right to a proper education.

Excess dollars from checks may be exchanged for education bonds with a set among of interest gained /year, in an effort to save for college tuition. Bonds can be exchanged at any time for a specialized check.

-Preventing Cheating: What incentive does a private school (or any school) have in preventing cheating and an inflated grade point average? None. If a student is suspected of cheating, it is verified by an on campus government official who simply records the incident and informs the student and parents that he/she cheated. On the third incident, all federal funding is relinquished from the student and appears on a permanent, visible record. Colleges and testing organizations will be able to view this record and see that this student has history of cheating.

Some good questions to discuss:

Do you expect the cost of private education to increase or decrease on the whole if this proposal was implemented?

Will there be a shortage of certified teachers?

What about religion's influence in private schools? Should we expect an increase in the amount of private schools which do not affiliate themselves with a religion?

How are consequently abandoned public school properties managed?

If major companies start to involve themselves in the business of private education, how should we regulate what they advertise to students? E.g. McDonnalds or Big Tabacco starting a private school franchise

Entice
Entice
  • Member since: Jun. 30, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 13
Blank Slate
Response to Privatizing Education 2012-10-06 15:43:20 Reply

The problem with your idea is that if you privatized education, but then used government funding to provide poor families with access and standardized teaching across schools, then you would essentially just have public education again.

It makes more sense to reform the current system.

Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Privatizing Education 2012-10-06 15:57:24 Reply

At 10/6/12 03:43 PM, Entice wrote: The problem with your idea is that if you privatized education, but then used government funding to provide poor families with access and standardized teaching across schools, then you would essentially just have public education again.

Not just poor families, all families. Just as the existence of public schools assures the right children have to an education, this funding of families will do the same. It's like saying that only poor families attend public school, which is entirely false.

This funding is going directly to the family, not the private schools, which means families have a choice limited by the cost of the specific school and the amount of funding+available income each family has in deciding between private schools.

It makes more sense to reform the current system.

As stated above, there are a vast amount of changes that need to be made to the current public school system. Instead of making these changes, the public school system is going into the opposite direction by implementing more regulation.

A complete overhaul of the system has a much greater chance of tackling all of these issues rather than reforming every policy and the teachers the educational system has put in place.

Entice
Entice
  • Member since: Jun. 30, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 13
Blank Slate
Response to Privatizing Education 2012-10-06 16:07:42 Reply

At 10/6/12 03:57 PM, Saen wrote: Not just poor families, all families. Just as the existence of public schools assures the right children have to an education, this funding of families will do the same. It's like saying that only poor families attend public school, which is entirely false.

Yes, but I assumed that poor families would be the most in need of financial support. I understand what you're saying now though.

A complete overhaul of the system has a much greater chance of tackling all of these issues rather than reforming every policy and the teachers the educational system has put in place.

That's true. My point was that if you impose these regulations on private schools and organize them in this way then it's not really privatized (not that I support the unregulated privatization of schools). You're reorganizing the public education system while keeping it public.

Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Privatizing Education 2012-10-06 16:54:11 Reply

At 10/6/12 04:12 PM, 24901miles wrote: All that does is widen the gap between lower middle income families and upper middle income families, put more money into the pockets of upper class families who already send their children to private schools, and destroy the potential for low-income high population public schools to have decent teachers by taking money away from those schools and giving it to people who don't need it.

That's like saying by currently allowing upper class families to send their kids to public schools we are effectively putting more money into their pockets. I mean sure I guess, but the point is every family is receiving a check(s) (which can only be spent on child education) no matter what the income of the family is, to at least allow them to send their child to private schools while also saving up for his/her college education. This funding process, like the current public school system, guarantees the right for every child to have a proper education.

As it is, very well-educated people sacrifice the potential of earning a much larger sum in the private sector in order to teach students who live on the "lower rungs" of our social structure, usually picking up extra jobs just to make ends meet. Teachers often spend their OWN money to buy supplies for students because they believe they are doing what's right to improve that child's life. Beyond that, they bring their work home with them, spend hours correcting papers and tests, examining and resolving issues with students, and starting up extra-curricular clubs for their students.

Exactly, this is why so many people have an interest in education in general. It gives an individual the opportunity to help children trapped in the circle of poverty to escape. However, allowing education to be more of a volunteer based principle (opposed to being properly certified) actually proliferates poor education on the whole, which is pretty ironic considering the reason why most under-qualified teachers choose to teach. If you want to be a teacher in the educational system, you yourself need to have the proper degree first in that field of study along with the experience.

Increasing the quality of education will always shrink the circle of poverty. You can't just want to teach for the good of it, you need to be experienced in your field of study.

The philosophy of "privatizing education" is usually pretty straightforward. People believe that if there's a motive to work for profit, an entity will perform better. What they don't realize is that most teachers aren't motivated by profit, but by teaching students how to learn and succeed in life.

Once again, that is why most teachers teach, it's by far not a highly paid job, but more of a "volunteer" effort. If any regulation is to be had in a private or public sector of education, it should be to severely increase the degree and experience requirements in applying for a teaching position.

WizMystery
WizMystery
  • Member since: Feb. 3, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 11
Musician
Response to Privatizing Education 2012-10-06 17:33:16 Reply

Read the last paragraph of this post and then come back up and work your way down. I am telling you how to read.

Honestly, we could do a lot more to fix education's major flaws if we just taught them how to think and instilled constructive interests within them, and I don't think the large private sector has any motive to do this.

Allow me to spew my philosophy on education before I explain my position. Pay attention because my opinion won't make sense without it.

The reason kids are failing isn't because the teachers suck, it's because nobody fucking cares about what is being said. And why should they? They're not going to be physicists. They're not going to be historians. Ideally they would use their natural interests to define the life they live, but all of that is askew when you're forced to spend seven hours of your day doing boring shit. School is turning many intelligent people off. The subject matter becomes the mundane schoolwork and any interest they might have had in it is lost.

To have no interest in academics doesn't make you stupid - I don't define intelligence as what you know, but how you know. Intelligence is reasoning skills, social skills - any act of processing information. Intelligence is the code, not the CPU or the hard drive (ew, computer analogies). People who are slow or who have low brain capacity can redeem themselves by being open minded. But school doesn't make them open minded - school says things are this way and that's that, but in reality things probably aren't that way because we make new discoveries all the time that refute them. And when those new scientific studies come about people cling to the old knowledge (does Evolution ring a bell here?). In that sense all 12 years of their schooling become useless in a very short period of time - the only thing that will always work is mathematics, which is a form of logic and processing. It all comes full circle, doesn't it?

Now to talk about privatization, I think an obvious connection should be made to the state of college education. Students go to college to pursue a career path they genuinely enjoy. Professors rarely have a degree in education, and yet students can still do well - but it's not because the professor knows a lot about what he's teaching. Professors can confuse the hell out of students sometimes. They can word themselves to the point of being indecipherable. In the end, some don't really do anything that can possibly be defined as "teaching." But students still manage to graduate. This is because they're able to get their information from more understandable sources, often outside of school (internet, textbooks).

There are multiple things operating in this generalization - if K-12 education uses the certification process that you describe, there's no guarantee they'll learn shit. In fact, modern educational philosophy dictates you don't need to know anything about a subject to teach it effectively - just the right method. So ideally these education degrees are much more effective than anything else, but of course they're coming from imperfect sources. That's closer to the reason some teachers suck, but again I insist that this is a non-issue, mostly because those methods aren't as effective as the system of education I believe would work best. Another thing is the motivation of the students - that's something you don't have in general education, even in the perfectionists who just do it for the grades (Surprise! Learning for love of knowledge is a moral precept that doesn't even exist). This is outside the realm of college, for the most part - it could be included in any form of education, but the large private sector just does it for the money.

Which brings me to another general point. What's stopping large corporations from taking over the private education industry and stepping up the requirements to work at their company? They could effectively have people going to school their whole life and that's all they would need as a source of wealth. This may seem like a huge exaggeration and something that could be fixed with regulation, but who would honestly support regulation that apparently lowers the bar of intelligence?

Actually, I could actually go on a million tangents here instead of addressing your points because ideally anything could happen either way in theory - whether education stays public or goes private. I'll just point you to my philosophy on education and we can talk from there, but keep what I wrote in the post for the hell of it.

leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Privatizing Education 2012-10-06 17:33:54 Reply

I can't recall when privatizing anything manifested into a great ideal unless that great ideal included an astronomical combined national and federal debt of well over 30+ "Trillion" dollars and counting.


BBS Signature
Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Privatizing Education 2012-10-06 18:41:43 Reply

At 10/6/12 05:33 PM, WizMystery wrote:

The reason kids are failing isn't because the teachers suck, it's because nobody fucking cares about what is being said. And why should they? They're not going to be physicists. They're not going to be historians. Ideally they would use their natural interests to define the life they live, but all of that is askew when you're forced to spend seven hours of your day doing boring shit. School is turning many intelligent people off. The subject matter becomes the mundane schoolwork and any interest they might have had in it is lost.

To have no interest in academics doesn't make you stupid - I don't define intelligence as what you know, but how you know. Intelligence is reasoning skills, social skills - any act of processing information. Intelligence is the code, not the CPU or the hard drive (ew, computer analogies). People who are slow or who have low brain capacity can redeem themselves by being open minded. But school doesn't make them open minded - school says things are this way and that's that, but in reality things probably aren't that way because we make new discoveries all the time that refute them. And when those new scientific studies come about people cling to the old knowledge (does Evolution ring a bell here?). In that sense all 12 years of their schooling become useless in a very short period of time - the only thing that will always work is mathematics, which is a form of logic and processing. It all comes full circle, doesn't it?

Personally, I believe it's not the school's or teacher's job to make students enjoy learning or respect the institution of school. The school's job is spend all of its resources to provide the best education possible. It's the parents job to inform kids why school is an important part of life and to teach them additional morals. The private sector nor the government can make a person much less a hormone-driven teenager change how he/she thinks or what he/she believes.


Now to talk about privatization, I think an obvious connection should be made to the state of college education. Students go to college to pursue a career path they genuinely enjoy. Professors rarely have a degree in education, and yet students can still do well - but it's not because the professor knows a lot about what he's teaching. Professors can confuse the hell out of students sometimes. They can word themselves to the point of being indecipherable. In the end, some don't really do anything that can possibly be defined as "teaching." But students still manage to graduate. This is because they're able to get their information from more understandable sources, often outside of school (internet, textbooks).

A poor professor significantly contributes to a larger knowledge gap between students and what the professor is teaching. Yes, a good student's natural instinct when dealing with a bad professor is to read the material covered within a textbook.

These professors however DON'T WANT to teach. In order for professors to obtain grant money for their research from the school, they must teach x-amount of class per year/semester. This scenario opposed to a teacher who merely has a bachelors or masters degree within a private institution, whose sole interest and job is teaching, not research.

There are multiple things operating in this generalization - if K-12 education uses the certification process that you describe, there's no guarantee they'll learn shit. In fact, modern educational philosophy dictates you don't need to know anything about a subject to teach it effectively - just the right method. So ideally these education degrees are much more effective than anything else, but of course they're coming from imperfect sources. That's closer to the reason some teachers suck, but again I insist that this is a non-issue, mostly because those methods aren't as effective as the system of education I believe would work best. Another thing is the motivation of the students - that's something you don't have in general education, even in the perfectionists who just do it for the grades (Surprise! Learning for love of knowledge is a moral precept that doesn't even exist). This is outside the realm of college, for the most part - it could be included in any form of education, but the large private sector just does it for the money.

This modern educational philosophy of teaching from thin air is what got us into this deep educational shit hole we're in now. They have absolutely no credibility, and yet these "degree in education" people are the standard of modern day teachers!

It's the parent's job to motivate his/her children before anyone else's. A school merely provides the best education possible for a student that may or may not choose to take seriously.

Which brings me to another general point. What's stopping large corporations from taking over the private education industry and stepping up the requirements to work at their company? They could effectively have people going to school their whole life and that's all they would need as a source of wealth. This may seem like a huge exaggeration and something that could be fixed with regulation, but who would honestly support regulation that apparently lowers the bar of intelligence?

Yes, large corporations can easily become involved in private education (and already have), which is perfectly fine. Of course advertising within the institution will have to be regulated. Stepping up degree requirements as a result? These are high school, middle school, elementary school children, none of which have the current requirements to work as biochemist, a nuclear engineer, etc. So you're right to say that this is a huge exaggeration.

Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Privatizing Education 2012-10-06 18:44:31 Reply

At 10/6/12 05:33 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: I can't recall when privatizing anything manifested into a great ideal unless that great ideal included an astronomical combined national and federal debt of well over 30+ "Trillion" dollars and counting.

So the federal government is a privatized industry with over 30 "Trillion" dollars in debt? That is the fucking ugliest red herring I've ever been slapped in the face by.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Privatizing Education 2012-10-06 19:09:43 Reply

At 10/6/12 03:23 PM, Saen wrote: Public education and in fact education in general has major flaws within.

Absolutely.

So by reforming the education system (that is privatizing the whole system) can we effectively tackle all of these problems?

Absolutely NOT.

More importantly though, through privatizing education how do we guarantee that every child in America will have access to a proper education?

Privatization is the antithesis of equal opportunity blind to financial background. Not going to happen.


-Certification of teachers:

So you're saying that teachers need to have special degrees to teach? That's such a novel idea that's already required in every state. Can't teach high school without a Masters in most states. Can't teach a science based course without a degree in that science.


-Certification of schools: Schools must provide a set variety and amount of classes in order to be certified as a legitimate education institution. Certification is instituted by the state governments.

Again, a novel idea that fails to be novel in any sense of the word as all states already have this.


-Standardized testing: By privatizing education altogether, there will simply be no need for standardized testing, as if there was a need before. The AP and ACT tests are a part of the standards (along with legitimate grades) in determining whether or not a student is qualified for a college education.

Let me get this straight, are you saying we don't need standardized testing because the standardized tests of the AP, SAT, and ACT do the work? Or are you saying that there should be not standardized tests whatsoever and we should eliminate any real method of equally evaluating students from different schools?

-Funding families of all incomes:

You mean vouchers, right? Giving any money to the parents directly is just asking for well over 50% of the students to have less than optimal money for school (if any). Vouchers are just a backhanded No Child Left Behind. They would serve to boost the good schools and make the bad schools worse. Making the bad schools worse is the last thing our educational system needs.


-Preventing Cheating:

This is easily solved now by the existence of very cheap standardized testing. It wouldn't need any new bureaucracy or any convoluted rules to work.


Do you expect the cost of private education to increase or decrease on the whole if this proposal was implemented?

Increase. Private schools now are a major scam. It's like shopping and Barneys. You pay 25% for the substance and the remainder goes to the image that the place is elite. Once the 'riff raff' get money to go to these schools,they will be forced to raise their tuition to keep their elite feel, whilst not adding any benefit to the students. The only reason private schools are better is because the parents that send their children their do so because they value education. It has nothing to do with the school being private.

Will there be a shortage of certified teachers?

That depends if your certification is actually a new idea.

What about religion's influence in private schools? Should we expect an increase in the amount of private schools which do not affiliate themselves with a religion?

Any school that accepts the vouchers would not be allowed to hold religious activities in a manner that reasonably compels students to conform to the beliefs of the patron religion. Problem solved.

How are consequently abandoned public school properties managed?

They wouldn't be abandoned, but because of the drain in money caused by vouchers they sure as hell would look the part.

If major companies start to involve themselves in the business of private education, how should we regulate what they advertise to students? E.g. McDonnalds or Big Tabacco starting a private school franchise

Such advertising should be heavily limited as it can and will interfere with the schools' need to educate students.

In the end you completely miss the method in which schools should be reformed. Making them private is merely a recipe to segment the wealthy and powerful areas from the poorer areas. Think Segregation in the south in the 60s but based on money, not skin color.

The best way to fix our schools would be to breed our system with the Japanese and German systems. This way all students to the age of 12 (current 6th grade) would go to a general school. At that time the differences in cognitive and educational abilities have become quite clear. Instead of funneling all students, from the smartest of the smart to the dumbest, to the same schools with the same goal (college). We can have tiers of secondary education, such as academies for the top 25%. These would gear the students for upper end colleges and focus on the current academic lessons. Trade schools for the bottom 40%. This would skip most academic and teach practical things and unskilled job skills. The rest would be funneled into high schools where they would be taught a mixture of practical and academic. These students would generally excel their way into traditional schools, go to Associates degree type schools, or directly enter higher end unskilled labor.

The biggest complaint about our school system isn't that it is run by the government, it's that the schools teach subjects that most students, even many college bound students, do not need to know. Privatizing will NOT fix this. It's the right solution to a problem that doesn't exist in our educational system (i.e. it's the wrong solution to our problem).

Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Privatizing Education 2012-10-06 20:33:57 Reply

At 10/6/12 07:09 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
-Certification of teachers:
So you're saying that teachers need to have special degrees to teach? That's such a novel idea that's already required in every state. Can't teach high school without a Masters in most states. Can't teach a science based course without a degree in that science.

If by special degrees you are referring to a real degree relavent to the field of study he/she would teach, absolutely. You're in saying that science education is currently a bit more strict concerning prerequisites for teaching, however that is not the case at all for math and language/literature and history. We have education majors teaching calculus, telling students to rhyme and sing in order to memorize concepts. P.E. coaches teaching statistics, more education majors teaching higher level literature courses, it goes on and on. Also, a person with a degree in biology shouldn't be able to teach chemistry or physics, it just doesn't make sense.

-Certification of schools: Schools must provide a set variety and amount of classes in order to be certified as a legitimate education institution. Certification is instituted by the state governments.
Again, a novel idea that fails to be novel in any sense of the word as all states already have this.

Yes, obviously this proposal isn't a purely privatized platform. I found it necessary to restate and include current regulations that already define our public schools.

-Standardized testing: By privatizing education altogether, there will simply be no need for standardized testing, as if there was a need before. The AP and ACT tests are a part of the standards (along with legitimate grades) in determining whether or not a student is qualified for a college education.
Let me get this straight, are you saying we don't need standardized testing because the standardized tests of the AP, SAT, and ACT do the work? Or are you saying that there should be not standardized tests whatsoever and we should eliminate any real method of equally evaluating students from different schools?

State standardized tests serve no purpose whatsoever. SAT and ACT testing directly relevant and required for college admission. AP testing attempts to save a student money when taking classes in college. There is no purpose to simply evaluate students for the sake of it, SAT and ACT tests do that just fine with an actual purpose.

-Funding families of all incomes:
You mean vouchers, right? Giving any money to the parents directly is just asking for well over 50% of the students to have less than optimal money for school (if any). Vouchers are just a backhanded No Child Left Behind. They would serve to boost the good schools and make the bad schools worse. Making the bad schools worse is the last thing our educational system needs.

No, because money isn't being given to the parents, in fact the parents never can exchange these checks for cash. Any excess of the yearly check can only be exchanged for education bonds. This idea guarantees that these tax dollars will be spent on a child's education, not on the parent.

One of the major proposals of privatizing education is if schools were privately run, more money would be available within each school. It stops politicians from kicking education funding to the curve and slashing its budjet over and over again. Being in Florida (ranked 50th in education), I know exactly what it's like to have grown up within a school system that has been severely underfunded throughout its lifespan.

-Preventing Cheating:
This is easily solved now by the existence of very cheap standardized testing. It wouldn't need any new bureaucracy or any convoluted rules to work.

Bwahahaha! Then why do you think colleges have the most strict cheating regulation!? Give me a break. College's need to have access to a credible history of a student's cheating record.

Do you expect the cost of private education to increase or decrease on the whole if this proposal was implemented?
Increase. Private schools now are a major scam. It's like shopping and Barneys. You pay 25% for the substance and the remainder goes to the image that the place is elite. Once the 'riff raff' get money to go to these schools,they will be forced to raise their tuition to keep their elite feel, whilst not adding any benefit to the students. The only reason private schools are better is because the parents that send their children their do so because they value education. It has nothing to do with the school being private.

Most private schools currently in existence are affiliated with some sort of a religious foundation. Parents send their kids to these private schools to wear as a social badge when attending church or other social fopas.

Will there be a shortage of certified teachers?
That depends if your certification is actually a new idea.

What about religion's influence in private schools? Should we expect an increase in the amount of private schools which do not affiliate themselves with a religion?
Any school that accepts the vouchers would not be allowed to hold religious activities in a manner that reasonably compels students to conform to the beliefs of the patron religion. Problem solved.

Definitely a great proposal. Educational checks cannot be used for payment when applying for a private institution which a religious foundation.

How are consequently abandoned public school properties managed?
They wouldn't be abandoned, but because of the drain in money caused by vouchers they sure as hell would look the part.

If major companies start to involve themselves in the business of private education, how should we regulate what they advertise to students? E.g. McDonnalds or Big Tabacco starting a private school franchise
Such advertising should be heavily limited as it can and will interfere with the schools' need to educate students.

In the end you completely miss the method in which schools should be reformed. Making them private is merely a recipe to segment the wealthy and powerful areas from the poorer areas. Think Segregation in the south in the 60s but based on money, not skin color.

The best way to fix our schools would be to breed our system with the Japanese and German systems. This way all students to the age of 12 (current 6th grade) would go to a general school. At that time the differences in cognitive and educational abilities have become quite clear. Instead of funneling all students, from the smartest of the smart to the dumbest, to the same schools with the same goal (college). We can have tiers of secondary education, such as academies for the top 25%. These would gear the students for upper end colleges and focus on the current academic lessons. Trade schools for the bottom 40%. This would skip most academic and teach practical things and unskilled job skills. The rest would be funneled into high schools where they would be taught a mixture of practical and academic. These students would generally excel their way into traditional schools, go to Associates degree type schools, or directly enter higher end unskilled labor.

Im sorry, but that is just wrong in so many levels, completely stomping on the rights and creative development of these children.

The biggest complaint about our school system isn't that it is run by the government, it's that the schools teach subjects that most students, even many college bound students, do not need to know. Privatizing will NOT fix this. It's the right solution to a problem that doesn't exist in our educational system (i.e. it's the wrong solution to our problem).

Really? I thought the biggest complaint about the public education system is that it is grossly underfunded.

WizMystery
WizMystery
  • Member since: Feb. 3, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 11
Musician
Response to Privatizing Education 2012-10-06 21:50:59 Reply

At 10/6/12 06:41 PM, Saen wrote: Personally, I believe it's not the school's or teacher's job to make students enjoy learning or respect the institution of school. The school's job is spend all of its resources to provide the best education possible. It's the parents job to inform kids why school is an important part of life and to teach them additional morals. The private sector nor the government can make a person much less a hormone-driven teenager change how he/she thinks or what he/she believes.

What about my point about critical thinking and open-mindedness? You're addressing a small minutia of what I said here.

Nonetheless, you're thinking much to ideally. Whether or not teachers try to persuade or inspire, they certainly do so. More often than not in the wrong direction. And it's not like parents don't tell their kids to do well in school. But that's precisely the issue. They leave it up to the school to inspire them - all they do is set consequences if they don't do well. It should be their job to teach them the basics, yes, but that's not the world we live in. Besides, if we're living in an age where information is increasingly available and parents were to teach their kids to think or make them inspired, what exactly are the point of schools in the first place? I personally don't need to sit around listening to a teacher and I usually just wind up looking up stuff anyway.

And people can change how you think. It's like learning an instrument. Look into the most efficient psychological process and have them learn it one step at a time. Also, if people can't be inspired, what the hell did we invent the word for? People are inspired by other people's enthusiasm all the time. But enthusiastic teachers are few and far between. Think of it this way: if the teacher whose job it is to know shit doesn't seem to care, why should we?

It would also help me out if you did more than just stating your belief. I can't be convinced if I don't know how you got there.

A poor professor significantly contributes to a larger knowledge gap between students and what the professor is teaching. Yes, a good student's natural instinct when dealing with a bad professor is to read the material covered within a textbook.

These professors however DON'T WANT to teach. In order for professors to obtain grant money for their research from the school, they must teach x-amount of class per year/semester. This scenario opposed to a teacher who merely has a bachelors or masters degree within a private institution, whose sole interest and job is teaching, not research.

So? This doesn't do anything to disprove the fact that people can suck at teaching without an educational degree. It would make more sense to require a double major.

This modern educational philosophy of teaching from thin air is what got us into this deep educational shit hole we're in now. They have absolutely no credibility, and yet these "degree in education" people are the standard of modern day teachers!

How do you know that this is the problem? There are so many factors involved here. If you're talking about standardization of knowledge like in AP programs, most teachers just refer to past AP tests to teach their students. If they don't, they're probably using a bad method of education. One that could be fixed by knowing more about education, not their subject. If there was a mandatory non-honors nationwide standard test for each subject, the same could be said for that as well. SAT/ACT aren't even testing on curriculum, so they aren't reliable in determining a school's performance. If you think more should be done to aim curriculum towards them, that's yet another problem in their ability to educate, not their knowledge of a subject.

I live in NY, which has one of the better public education systems in the country, but I should still raise the point that I've never failed a class and that also translates to the standardization we have here. I can't think of a single time I did poorly because my teacher was wrong about something. But it might be different somewhere else, I don't know.

Yes, large corporations can easily become involved in private education (and already have), which is perfectly fine. Of course advertising within the institution will have to be regulated. Stepping up degree requirements as a result? These are high school, middle school, elementary school children, none of which have the current requirements to work as biochemist, a nuclear engineer, etc. So you're right to say that this is a huge exaggeration.

What is this, some kind of non sequitur?

First off, support your first sentence as I'm not going to just believe that because you told me so.
Second, I wasn't even talking about advertising, so where is this coming from?
Third, what does their age have to do with anything? I'm talking about setting up an environment where students need to be in school longer so these companies get more money. That's something a large corporation would definitely do, as they pull this shit all the time. Smaller companies might be a little more honest, but they have their faults and would probably be destroyed by the corporations anyway.

Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Privatizing Education 2012-10-06 22:29:45 Reply

At 10/6/12 09:50 PM, WizMystery wrote:

What about my point about critical thinking and open-mindedness? You're addressing a small minutia of what I said here.

Nonetheless, you're thinking much to ideally. Whether or not teachers try to persuade or inspire, they certainly do so. More often than not in the wrong direction. And it's not like parents don't tell their kids to do well in school. But that's precisely the issue. They leave it up to the school to inspire them - all they do is set consequences if they don't do well. It should be their job to teach them the basics, yes, but that's not the world we live in. Besides, if we're living in an age where information is increasingly available and parents were to teach their kids to think or make them inspired, what exactly are the point of schools in the first place? I personally don't need to sit around listening to a teacher and I usually just wind up looking up stuff anyway.

I really just don't have any interest in following this tangent.

And people can change how you think. It's like learning an instrument. Look into the most efficient psychological process and have them learn it one step at a time. Also, if people can't be inspired, what the hell did we invent the word for? People are inspired by other people's enthusiasm all the time. But enthusiastic teachers are few and far between. Think of it this way: if the teacher whose job it is to know shit doesn't seem to care, why should we?

You're floating around the issue into your own fantasy land here. We're trying to fix the educational system in this discussion, not talk about why you don't want to listen to your teacher, do your homework, or listen to your parents.

Yes every learns differently, but I can guarantee that if your teacher is lecturing about chemistry and hasn't even taken one class on the subject or worked in a lab, you're not going to learn anything! No matter how happy, inspired, or how many "+'s" that education major has added to your A, you haven't learned anything about chemistry!

It would also help me out if you did more than just stating your belief. I can't be convinced if I don't know how you got there.

I'm not your boyfriend, emotional discussions are out of the question and frankly just aren't relavent to how we can fix the school system.

A poor professor significantly contributes to a larger knowledge gap between students and what the professor is teaching. Yes, a good student's natural instinct when dealing with a bad professor is to read the material covered within a textbook.

These professors however DON'T WANT to teach. In order for professors to obtain grant money for their research from the school, they must teach x-amount of class per year/semester. This scenario opposed to a teacher who merely has a bachelors or masters degree within a private institution, whose sole interest and job is teaching, not research.
So? This doesn't do anything to disprove the fact that people can suck at teaching without an educational degree. It would make more sense to require a double major.

A double major would be fine. It still doesn't make sense to graduate from college just to jump right back into school teaching without experiencing anything within the workplace, laboratory, field, etc.

This modern educational philosophy of teaching from thin air is what got us into this deep educational shit hole we're in now. They have absolutely no credibility, and yet these "degree in education" people are the standard of modern day teachers!
How do you know that this is the problem? There are so many factors involved here. If you're talking about standardization of knowledge like in AP programs, most teachers just refer to past AP tests to teach their students. If they don't, they're probably using a bad method of education. One that could be fixed by knowing more about education, not their subject. If there was a mandatory non-honors nationwide standard test for each subject, the same could be said for that as well. SAT/ACT aren't even testing on curriculum, so they aren't reliable in determining a school's performance. If you think more should be done to aim curriculum towards them, that's yet another problem in their ability to educate, not their knowledge of a subject.

I'm not talking about AP programs and your whole ordeal. I'm talking about teacher having a certain degree and x-amount of years of work experience within/related to that field of study.

I live in NY, which has one of the better public education systems in the country, but I should still raise the point that I've never failed a class and that also translates to the standardization we have here. I can't think of a single time I did poorly because my teacher was wrong about something. But it might be different somewhere else, I don't know.

A teacher can poorly prepare you for any test, even with a student not knowing he/she is poorly prepared until test day. A false sense of knowledge or self confidence. That's partly why allowing these education majors to teach high-level subjects is a huge mistake.

Yes, large corporations can easily become involved in private education (and already have), which is perfectly fine. Of course advertising within the institution will have to be regulated. Stepping up degree requirements as a result? These are high school, middle school, elementary school children, none of which have the current requirements to work as biochemist, a nuclear engineer, etc. So you're right to say that this is a huge exaggeration.
What is this, some kind of non sequitur?

The possibility of large corporations becoming more involved in private education is definitely a relevant discussion to education reform.

First off, support your first sentence as I'm not going to just believe that because you told me so.
Second, I wasn't even talking about advertising, so where is this coming from?
Third, what does their age have to do with anything? I'm talking about setting up an environment where students need to be in school longer so these companies get more money. That's something a large corporation would definitely do, as they pull this shit all the time. Smaller companies might be a little more honest, but they have their faults and would probably be destroyed by the corporations anyway.

It doesn't get any longer or more intense than a doctorate level or post doc education. Large corporations pull this shit all the time? If anything, demanding a higher level of education for your employee's making critical financial assessments or conducting ground-breaking research is quite justified. But they've pulled this shit before? Trapping kids within an education system and forcing them to higher degrees?

What have we accomplished so far in our discussion, nothing. Maybe I need to ask a few more questions.

Would private institutions be able to introduce more responsibility to high school students? For example, signing up for classes ahead of time online, a student's individual online profile, and increased time between classes (to possibly ask the teacher questions after lecture).

How would we expect high tuition schools to differ from lower tuition?

Will we see increased subject specialization among different high schools, or a widening of material taught?

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Privatizing Education 2012-10-07 00:54:50 Reply

At 10/6/12 08:33 PM, Saen wrote: We have education majors teaching calculus, telling students to rhyme and sing in order to memorize concepts.

K, I get it. Take what we currently have and actually enforce it. Totally agree.


Yes, obviously this proposal isn't a purely privatized platform. I found it necessary to restate and include current regulations that already define our public schools.

Duly noted.

State standardized tests serve no purpose whatsoever. SAT and ACT testing directly relevant and required for college admission. AP testing attempts to save a student money when taking classes in college. There is no purpose to simply evaluate students for the sake of it, SAT and ACT tests do that just fine with an actual purpose.

Agree here too.

No, because money isn't being given to the parents, in fact the parents never can exchange these checks for cash. Any excess of the yearly check can only be exchanged for education bonds. This idea guarantees that these tax dollars will be spent on a child's education, not on the parent.

So vouchers.

One of the major proposals of privatizing education is if schools were privately run, more money would be available within each school. It stops politicians from kicking education funding to the curve and slashing its budjet over and over again. Being in Florida (ranked 50th in education), I know exactly what it's like to have grown up within a school system that has been severely underfunded throughout its lifespan.

I do too. Back when I graduated high school my district garnered national news for shutting down all of the schools 4 weeks early. (Kinda nice as a senior. They told us in May to just go home. Being on the West Coast we usually ended in the middle of June.) However, giving people the opportunity to allocate where their school money goes will largely end up in bigger divides between the better and the worse schools, thus favoring those with money and hurting those communities without it.

Bwahahaha! Then why do you think colleges have the most strict cheating regulation!? Give me a break. College's need to have access to a credible history of a student's cheating record.

The admission tests are a good way to vet whether the grades of a student are real, or just inflated. Other than that it's extremely difficult to police every single teacher regarding every single student every single year. Colleges have done pretty well as it is vetting with the lack of system now. Heck, with only 50-60% of College students expected to graduate, losing a few cheaters here and there who actually weren't ready is no harm no foul, and frankly, not worth the massive cost it would take to police.

Most private schools currently in existence are affiliated with some sort of a religious foundation. Parents send their kids to these private schools to wear as a social badge when attending church or other social fopas. [<--- faux pas]

That is true to an extent. The social badge of private school is formed out of the appearance that they're better educationally, thus creating an elite student base. The fact that the parents view education as something to behold and a status symbol is a large part of why the students at private schools are better motivated and thus perform better, and thus create the image that private schools are better.
not affiliate themselves with a religion?

Definitely a great proposal. Educational checks cannot be used for payment when applying for a private institution which a religious foundation.

Well, I wouldn't go for a 100% loss, but maybe a 50% reduction in voucher value. Although I don't want schools to be a back door method for churches to get state money, or to indoctrinate youth on the state dime, I don't want to punish people for choosing religious options.

How are consequently abandoned public school properties managed?
Im sorry, but that is just wrong in so many levels, completely stomping on the rights and creative development of these children.

How is that wrong but creating a second class of schools based on nothing but family wealth is ok?

Also, if your goal is to match the other countries, realize that they only have the higher end students take the tests, when we have every student, including our total idiots. So in essence we compare our entire country to their best.

Really? I thought the biggest complaint about the public education system is that it is grossly underfunded.

The biggest complaint by students and those who study the problems with education say it's that the students learn stuff they will never use. Those inside the school system who see schools falling apart and quality teachers leaving because of poor pay blame poor funding. There are many problems with the school system, but they act differently. Poor funding merely hampers our current system with its massive limits. teaching of useless subjects holds back the system in numerous different ways.

Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Privatizing Education 2012-10-07 02:19:54 Reply

At 10/7/12 12:54 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
The admission tests are a good way to vet whether the grades of a student are real, or just inflated. Other than that it's extremely difficult to police every single teacher regarding every single student every single year. Colleges have done pretty well as it is vetting with the lack of system now. Heck, with only 50-60% of College students expected to graduate, losing a few cheaters here and there who actually weren't ready is no harm no foul, and frankly, not worth the massive cost it would take to police.

See the thing is I competed with those cheaters in high school for spaces in the college I initially wanted to attend. At the end of this year I will be competing with another portion of students who choose to cheat and get away with it for grad school. The earlier cheaters are identified within the school system, the better colleges can decipher between legitimate students and grades. So you see, by the time these cheaters have gotten into college, the harm has already been done, and may continue on to grad school.


Well, I wouldn't go for a 100% loss, but maybe a 50% reduction in voucher value. Although I don't want schools to be a back door method for churches to get state money, or to indoctrinate youth on the state dime, I don't want to punish people for choosing religious options.

If you don't prohibit every dime to be spent in a religious-based institution, you can't guarantee those dollars won't slip into the church's coffers. Parents can pay extra to have their child's school blindfold him/her with a religious bias, or they can just simply leave that act to themselves and the churches.


How is that wrong but creating a second class of schools based on nothing but family wealth is ok?

Seeing that currently public education in America costs on average ~$10,600 per student while private education costs ~$8,000-9000 per student a year, there will be plenty of options even for families who can only afford to use voucher dollars (~$10,600 per student /year) to pay for education. Keep in mind, at current rates this would even allow low income families to save those excess voucher dollars (with interest) starting from kindergarten to 12th grade!

So let's say the school a low income family chooses has a $8,500 tuition rate and the family uses $8,500 of its $10,500 voucher to send its kindergartener to school. The excess dollars are exchanged for bonds with a yearly 2% interest rate.
Ignoring tuition rates and funding altered by inflation or competition (As inflation will both increase funding and tuition rates while competition, you get the picture) here's the equation for the amount of money save up for college after 12th grade $2,000(13)^1.02 = $27,369. These dollars plus the potential amount awarded by scholarships for lower income students will definitely provide a huge dent in tuition and housing and depending on the degree may even eliminate the need for loans.

Also, if your goal is to match the other countries, realize that they only have the higher end students take the tests, when we have every student, including our total idiots. So in essence we compare our entire country to their best.

I'd prefer to compete with other countries, not copy them. However, school systems need the funding in order to compete in the first place.

Really? I thought the biggest complaint about the public education system is that it is grossly underfunded.
The biggest complaint by students and those who study the problems with education say it's that the students learn stuff they will never use. Those inside the school system who see schools falling apart and quality teachers leaving because of poor pay blame poor funding. There are many problems with the school system, but they act differently. Poor funding merely hampers our current system with its massive limits. teaching of useless subjects holds back the system in numerous different ways.

Useless subjects, like what? I vaguely remember taking a freshman introductory learning course in high school, which was a brand new class that evolved later on to occupy more time. The class really only taught what jobs students should take after college, which is ridiculous. I know plenty of senior in college now who still can't even decide what profession to commit to. That's the only example I can think of an entirely useless class and a great example of government legislation and spending running wild.

Adequate funding though still strikes to me as the biggest issue. For private education to work, it needs to solve this issue nationally.

Assuming that private schools will solve this issue the question remains, will lower-income directed schools falter while higher-income directed schools soar further upwards unfairly? Absolutely not. It all boils down to profit. Higher income schools may have more course offerings, religious practices/ceremonies, guest speakers, ice carving you name it. All of these extra things obviously cost the school more money. On the other hand lower income directed schools may only choose to pay for the required courses. As long as both schools remain profitable by attracting consumers (families), then both types of schools will be able to provide adequate education.

I

morefngdbs
morefngdbs
  • Member since: Mar. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 49
Art Lover
Response to Privatizing Education 2012-10-07 09:54:27 Reply

At 10/6/12 03:43 PM, Entice wrote: It makes more sense to reform the current system.

;;;
That's not a bad idea ....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19816156


Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More

leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Privatizing Education 2012-10-07 09:59:15 Reply

At 10/7/12 09:54 AM, morefngdbs wrote:
At 10/6/12 03:43 PM, Entice wrote: It makes more sense to reform the current system.
;;;
That's not a bad idea ....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19816156

Yup another +1 for a complete overhaul of the current Education system lets brig it up to date :-)


BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Privatizing Education 2012-10-07 12:11:18 Reply

At 10/7/12 02:19 AM, Saen wrote: See the thing is I competed with those cheaters in high school for spaces in the college I initially wanted to attend.

I don't see any problem here. Getting into college is merit based. If an applicant is truly left out because of any small group, they were just barely good enough to begin with. Cheating is definitely not so big a problem that the very qualified applicants are left out.

You're also assuming that the extreme cost of policing every school and every teacher would be worth the money spent. Seeing as cheating is hardly a college admissions problem now, I'd have to say that any money spent on it, lest it be ultra-efficient, is a waste.

If you don't prohibit every dime to be spent in a religious-based institution, you can't guarantee those dollars won't slip into the church's coffers. Parents can pay extra to have their child's school blindfold him/her with a religious bias, or they can just simply leave that act to themselves and the churches.

I know I can't, and that is a risk I'd be willing to take. The 50% off would at least be enough to ensure that kids are force fed a religion is not theirs as it would deter most non-religious/other religion parents from sending their kids there.

Seeing that currently public education in America costs on average ~$10,600 per student while private education costs ~$8,000-9000 per student a year, there will be plenty of options even for families who can only afford to use voucher dollars (~$10,600 per student /year) to pay for education.

Your numbers are off. The cost per student at $10K is a stastically altered figure. That includes the extreme cost of caring for special ed students. The actual cost per mainstream students in closer to $6.5K/yr.

Keep in mind, at current rates this would even allow low income families to save those excess voucher dollars (with interest) starting from kindergarten to 12th grade!

Again you have far too much trust for families and the money. What about a family that does not plan to send their child to college? The incentive then becomes to send the child to the cheapest school possible so that they can get as much of that money back as possible at the end.

School and education should be about education and opportunity. Injecting the private sector into it makes it about profit and money. Those two goals are not the same and often times they are diverging, even to the point of being mutually exclusive. Making something other than education the master of education is hardly a recipe for bettering our schools.


I'd prefer to compete with other countries, not copy them. However, school systems need the funding in order to compete in the first place.

The school systems do have funding. It's a little low, but they have everything they need to compete, and I know this because we do compete. Our college bound students are just as intelligent as every other country. In fact, our college bound students are not only just as intelligent, they are better prepared to lead, to create, and to handle changes in the world around them than other developed nations. The problem with our "competition" is that on the shelf next to the other countries' top brands, we place our dropouts, our assembly line workers, our bus drivers and so on.

Useless subjects, like what?

Why does the person who flips my burgers at McDonalds have to know geometry or algebra? Why does a mechanic need to know about the Teapot Dome Scandal? Why does a physicist need to know the allegorical limits of Animal Farm? Why does an attorney need to know calculus? Why does anyone but a journalist need to know the definition of effervescent?

Now I know there are benefits to having a society educated in basics, but most of the subjects taught in high school are merely exercises in time wasting for all but a third of the students. Why are we wasting MASSIVE amounts of money teaching non-college bound people academic classes? Wouldn't it be a better use of our money to be teaching subjects like shop, cooking, personal finances, and other job skills? Every time we teach a student all of this academic material, we throw away over $28K of tax money.

Also, have you ever thought that the profit driven educational enterprise would end up converting to this manner as the best way to minimize waste and maximize profit?


Adequate funding though still strikes to me as the biggest issue. For private education to work, it needs to solve this issue nationally.

Funding is a big issue, but it's not an issue that holds back the forward extent of our schools' value, like teaching academic courses to folks who will not go to college. Lots of funding does not help, but low funding hurts. Teaching proper courses would help.

MattZone
MattZone
  • Member since: Dec. 11, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Blank Slate
Response to Privatizing Education 2012-10-07 17:39:40 Reply

Let the market decide.

Those four words are the answer for every problem that our education system has. We are funding schools when we should be funding students. The rich have limitless choices for how their children are educated; the poor usually have few choices or none at all. If you live in a certain place, your kid(s) go to a certain school, and if that school sucks and you are too poor to move, you are shit out of luck.

Why do we persist with this socialist system when capitalism works so well? If a poor person in a sparsely populated town is hungry, there are still multiple options to choose from. Restaurants, cafes, food trucks, and grocery stores compete with each other in a variety of ways (price, variety, quality, etc.) in order to earn a poor person's dollar. As a result, no one seriously complains about the quality or quantity of food available to even the poorest in this country.

I am not saying that tax dollars should not pay for education; on the contrary, universal publicly funded education has greatly improved the lives of the poor and middle class, and it has been a key driving force in our modern economy. The only change that we need to make is to start funding students instead of schools. One simple change, and it would instantly create a true education market with all the benefits that market competition provides.

leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Privatizing Education 2012-10-07 18:16:11 Reply

At 10/7/12 05:39 PM, MattZone wrote: Let the market decide.

You mean the market or "the "Free-Market", isn't it ? which is contrary to popular belief simply a means anyone can do whatever they want and maximize however they want within the confines of legal legislation, legal legislation which, make no mistake, is also for sale in the Free-Market as well, as are political officials, regulatory institutions and whatever social entity you wish to consider.


BBS Signature
MattZone
MattZone
  • Member since: Dec. 11, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Blank Slate
Response to Privatizing Education 2012-10-08 12:35:18 Reply

At 10/7/12 06:16 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:
At 10/7/12 05:39 PM, MattZone wrote: Let the market decide.
You mean the market or "the "Free-Market", isn't it ? which is contrary to popular belief simply a means anyone can do whatever they want and maximize however they want within the confines of legal legislation, legal legislation which, make no mistake, is also for sale in the Free-Market as well, as are political officials, regulatory institutions and whatever social entity you wish to consider.

Politicians are for sale in any system, so what is your point? You think that the system that we have now is not corrupt? Or do you believe that a free market would be more corrupt than the current system?

leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Privatizing Education 2012-10-08 14:09:51 Reply

At 10/8/12 12:35 PM, MattZone wrote:
Politicians are for sale in any system, so what is your point? You think that the system that we have now is not corrupt? Or do you believe that a free market would be more corrupt than the current system?

30+ TRILLION in combined debt therefor I am inclined to not believe anything you say about how when you are trying to mitigate the fallacy of the American way of socioeconomics or rather DEBT LOL.


BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Privatizing Education 2012-10-08 15:48:16 Reply

At 10/8/12 12:35 PM, MattZone wrote: Politicians are for sale in any system, so what is your point? You think that the system that we have now is not corrupt? Or do you believe that a free market would be more corrupt than the current system?

I don't disagree that there is corruption in politics. However, not only is there corruption in the market, the market is driven by a goal that is different from, and often contrary to the goal of educational institutions. The reason I don't like it because it's putting a very important service in the influence of a master that doesn't have its best interests in mind.

MattZone
MattZone
  • Member since: Dec. 11, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Blank Slate
Response to Privatizing Education 2012-10-08 16:40:30 Reply

At 10/8/12 02:09 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: 30+ TRILLION in combined debt therefor I am inclined to not believe anything you say about how when you are trying to mitigate the fallacy of the American way of socioeconomics or rather DEBT LOL.

Debt that is mostly from socialist redistribution programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. The same type of programs that are collapsing the economies of multiple European countries.

leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Privatizing Education 2012-10-08 16:55:51 Reply

At 10/8/12 04:40 PM, MattZone wrote:
Debt that is mostly from socialist redistribution programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. The same type of programs that are collapsing the economies of multiple European countries.

The National Debt is primarily from Military overspending on false wars and attempt global domination. $100,000 per year x 1.5Million to cover the pay and benefits of a typical American warfighter. $3 billion each year on weapons it ends up canceling etc ....


BBS Signature
MattZone
MattZone
  • Member since: Dec. 11, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Blank Slate
Response to Privatizing Education 2012-10-08 17:07:58 Reply

At 10/8/12 03:48 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I don't disagree that there is corruption in politics. However, not only is there corruption in the market, the market is driven by a goal that is different from, and often contrary to the goal of educational institutions. The reason I don't like it because it's putting a very important service in the influence of a master that doesn't have its best interests in mind.

The goal of the market, or rather of the individuals that make up the market, is to get the most/best product and service for the lowest cost. Each individual is their own master, and serves their own interest. On the other hand, educational institutions have multiple masters. Parents have a say, yes, but so do politicians, teachers unions, and taxpayers. Educational institutions are turned into political battlefields with each faction trying to gain control.

A free market changes the battleground. All the arguments over how much teachers should be paid or what should be taught and what should be censored or how much to spend on sports or what the dress code should be or any of a thousand other arguments... all that goes away when individuals have the right and the power to choose for themselves. In a market, individual students are the consumers, individual teachers are the producers, and the only thing for the politicians on both sides to fight over is what the tax rate should be because every other question has the same answer... let the market decide.

leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Privatizing Education 2012-10-08 17:13:15 Reply

At 10/8/12 05:07 PM, MattZone wrote:
The goal of the market, or rather of the individuals that make up the market, is to get the most/best product and service for the lowest cost.

That's an earnest ideal however my friend the only thing "The Market" is about is Maximizing profit in anyway possible.


BBS Signature
leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Privatizing Education 2012-10-08 17:15:47 Reply

At 10/8/12 05:07 PM, MattZone wrote:
The goal of the market, or rather of the individuals that make up the market, is to get the most/best product and service for the lowest cost.

That's an earnest ideal however my friend the only thing "The Market" is about is Maximizing profit in anyway possible and that's the bottom line.


BBS Signature
MattZone
MattZone
  • Member since: Dec. 11, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Blank Slate
Response to Privatizing Education 2012-10-08 17:16:53 Reply

At 10/8/12 04:55 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: The National Debt is primarily from Military overspending on false wars and attempt global domination. $100,000 per year x 1.5Million to cover the pay and benefits of a typical American warfighter. $3 billion each year on weapons it ends up canceling etc ....

Wrong. Medicare and Medicaid alone added more to the debt than defense spending. Factor in Social Security and other programs and they add 3 dollars of debt for every dollar that defense does.

<Cite>

leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Privatizing Education 2012-10-08 17:24:30 Reply

At 10/8/12 05:16 PM, MattZone wrote:
<Cite>

So you try and claim that Medicare is a bad thing well guess what you are wrong LOL. National "Defence" budget was just as much as Medicare which is just pathetic and highly Fasict. 130 Military Bases out of 190+ total countries in the world is highly Fasict. Spending as much on the military as Medicare is highly Fasict. Heck if more people where healthy in the states they would not need to spend so much on medicare.


BBS Signature