Enrollment in US Religious Schools Down. Bush calls for Pell Grants

[Merkinball]

Well, if you are going to have mandated education up to a certain age, then the market is already distorted. However, if the market demands an alternative to what is is publically provided to meet the mandate, then the government should likely not interfere too much in either direction on behalf or against such market providers.

Correct. And in the process we would also have to take away the safety hammock which allows people to pop out children at 14, drop out of school at 16, and still live a comfortable life.

 

[Cu Chulainn]

I think I have an opinion that everyone can disagree with!

I support the idea of vouchers...
so long as religion classes are optional.

 

[Archbob]

A proper public school.

Yeah, but those often suck, even with government subsidizing.

 

[Homie]

Is everybody ignoring my voucher argument?
Why not just get rid of public schools in general and give EVERYONE a voucher! This way everybody gets a chance to an education (which is the point of public schools) and people get the freedom to choose the school they want - they won´t be stuck with public schools just because they can´t afford private school, and schools will be better! It´s a win-win-win! In essence every school would be private, but funded by the gov´t. Although not directly funded by gov´t, but by people - who in turn get their funds from gov´t.

Of course the gov´t gets its funds from people, so we might as well cut out the middle man (gov´t) and let people sort out schooling for themselves.

 

[Shadylookin]

Is everybody ignoring my voucher argument?
Why not just get rid of public schools in general and give EVERYONE a voucher! This way everybody gets a chance to an education (which is the point of public schools) and people get the freedom to choose the school they want - they won´t be stuck with public schools just because they can´t afford private school, and schools will be better! It´s a win-win-win! In essence every school would be private, but funded by the gov´t. Although not directly funded by gov´t, but by people - who in turn get their funds from gov´t.

Of course the gov´t gets its funds from people, so we might as well cut out the middle man (gov´t) and let people sort out schooling for themselves.

There are a lot of areas that would be without schools then because not all locations are good for a for-profit school. Plus getting rid of any kind of government subsidy would mean that the poor would go even more uneducated. Though I guess not everyone would mind if we watch our average intelligence plummet.

 

[Cutlass]

Is everybody ignoring my voucher argument?
Why not just get rid of public schools in general and give EVERYONE a voucher! This way everybody gets a chance to an education (which is the point of public schools) and people get the freedom to choose the school they want - they won´t be stuck with public schools just because they can´t afford private school, and schools will be better! It´s a win-win-win! In essence every school would be private, but funded by the gov´t. Although not directly funded by gov´t, but by people - who in turn get their funds from gov´t.

People who are too eager to privatize government services tend to not know very much about business.

First, the private sector actually isn't better at doing everything. But more importantly, you need to understand what incentives a business faces. So that even if it is possible for a business to do something better than a government, that does not mean that it is the business's best interest to do so.

So If a private school decides to take the money and run, the student and the family lose a lot of time that they cannot readily make up. So in order for the school to be accountable, you still need government auditing of the schools to make certain they are doing their jobs right. It's all well and fine to say "well send them to a different school", but the parents will have little ability (and in the case of some, no ability) to understand how good of a job the school is going. And in any case, by the by the time a school year fails enough for the parents to be sure of it to choose a different school, the student has lost a year. That means that the student will be held back, and someone needs to pay for that.

Also, in rural areas with small populations, there will be little if any competition because it would only make sense to have one school. So if the operator of that school decides to cut corners, the child and family are just screwed.

Of course the gov´t gets its funds from people, so we might as well cut out the middle man (gov´t) and let people sort out schooling for themselves.

It costs some $8,000 per student to send a kid to school. A family with a house and 3 kids pays some $3-4000 in property taxes. Which means that a young family with parents that haven't yet hit their peak earning years could easily pay 100% of their gross income to send their kids to school while the rest of the population gets a free ride by benefiting from the educated workforce they didn't have to pay for.

Just doesn't work. Education is as much a public good as it is a private good. Which means that it will be under provided for unless it's publicly funded.

 

[GenMarshall]

Okay, I know a lot of people are going to be like LULZ RELIGION IS DYING AMERICA IS LIKE SO DUMB,

That's my expatiation to see when seeing religious threads like this .

3) Other reasons?

Tuition costs for non-Catholics and Catholics who don't live in the parish where the Catholic School is located is much higher than for Catholic parish residents

 

[Red Door]

Tuition costs for non-Catholics and Catholics who don't live in the parish where the Catholic School is located is much higher than for Catholic parish residents

Wait, since when? I've never heard of a school that does this.

 

[Cutlass]

every religious school, or the organization that runs it, can set their own rules. it's not going to be uniform.

 

[GenMarshall]

Wait, since when? I've never heard of a school that does this.

That's what is basically done in the Diocese that I live in. Some Dioceses do theirs differently.

 

[Red Door]

That's what is basically done in the Diocese that I live in. Some Dioceses do theirs differently.

Sounds like a pretty unique thing because it's not done around here, New Jersey, or any other diocese I'm aware of.

 

[downtown]

People who are too eager to privatize government services tend to not know very much about business.

First, the private sector actually isn't better at doing everything. But more importantly, you need to understand what incentives a business faces. So that even if it is possible for a business to do something better than a government, that does not mean that it is the business's best interest to do so.

So If a private school decides to take the money and run, the student and the family lose a lot of time that they cannot readily make up. So in order for the school to be accountable, you still need government auditing of the schools to make certain they are doing their jobs right. It's all well and fine to say "well send them to a different school", but the parents will have little ability (and in the case of some, no ability) to understand how good of a job the school is going. And in any case, by the by the time a school year fails enough for the parents to be sure of it to choose a different school, the student has lost a year. That means that the student will be held back, and someone needs to pay for that.

In addition to that, changing schools often means moving, unless you live in a pretty urban area, and thats a pretty big oppertunity cost. There will always be people who live in areas, or who have certain needs, that won't be profitablly addressed by the private sector (say, kids with special needs, a department that many private schools skimp on to save money, since they have selective enrollement). You really can't just say "sucks to be you" for these people, so we need public options.

 

[Cutlass]

In addition to that, changing schools often means moving, unless you live in a pretty urban area, and thats a pretty big oppertunity cost. There will always be people who live in areas, or who have certain needs, that won't be profitablly addressed by the private sector (say, kids with special needs, a department that many private schools skimp on to save money, since they have selective enrollement). You really can't just say "sucks to be you" for these people, so we need public options.

So the penalties placed on a private school that failed would have to be high. Very high. And not just the threat of losing students. But the cost of repairing the damage as well. And more.

 

[downtown]

So the penalties placed on a private school that failed would have to be high. Very high. And not just the threat of losing students. But the cost of repairing the damage as well. And more.

And then I think the risk woud be too high to develop schools. There really aren't very many "for profit" schools in the US, even though there a a lot of private ones, and for good reason I think. The largest private school system in America, by far, is the Catholic school system, and it is a non-profit system.

There are going to be classes of students that are never going to be economically profitable to teach...that doesn't mean we shouldn't teach them.