Private education

[downtown]

Do they have scholarship-type things for private schools?

Depends on the school...most have some sort of program. The most prestigious secular private in Columbus (well, really the only secular private) offers about 10 scholarships a year, half being full tution, half in varying degrees. Schools with very large endowments can offer fin. aid, although you typically only find those in large, urban areas. Students in rural areas often have no school choice at all.

Not a problem. Only smart students need good schools. It's not worthwhile educating someone who's just going to work at a cash register in WalMart, at least beyond basics literacy, civics, and arithmetic.

I don't know you very well, so I can't tell if you're sarcastic or not. But has it occured to anybody that the quality of one's education can *lift* their knowledge and vocational possibilites? We're not so predestined at age 6 you know.

 

[bathsheba666]

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to why, instead of just stating it like it's a self-apparent fact? Simply stating your opinion as fact helps no one; explaining your argument so that we can compare and debate back and forth and learn helps everyone. Competition and contrast lead to improvement in quality - which, ironically enough, was what I was saying about the school system and vouchers in the first place.

OK...After you. Kindly explain your self-apparent fact that competition and contrast lead to improvement in quality.

Specifically, address how this happens in "interplay" between the public and private educational sectors.

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to why?

 

[skywalker]

Oh I agree. Many of the smart people fail to get the extra education they need, and that's the failing of our system.

 

[civverguy]

Choice is good.

 

[aussieboy]

As someone who's been in both worlds, the quality of both is variable. There are insanely good public schools, and insanely bad private schools. There are also insanely good private schools and insanely bad public schools. That's why I advocate the use of vouchers per parent. A household every year gets a voucher equaling the cost of a child's education for one year (per child of course) and they cash in that voucher at the school they send the child to. Public, parochial, or secular private. At the very least, it would force the schools to compete to improve.

The school I go to (government-run) is pretty good, though some of my teachers have no business getting a salary as high as they get for a downright crappy job.

 

[ElEmpecinado]

I go to a private school because I have a feeling that Detroit Public School(DPS) students are coming out more uneducated and ignorant than they went in. Not to mention I may be in good shape but I don't like to fight, not my style. I'd be getting into a lot of those there with my attitude. So you can find the idea as repulsive as you want but I find that to be an insult to people whose situations you can't possibly know.

 

[amadeus]

Don't call it "free," because it isn't; it's taxpayer subsidized.

 

[downtown]

Well, like many government services, its pretty close to free if you dont have much money. After property taxes, the only expences one typically has with a public school are books, lunches, and a small fee of a hundred bucks or so at the start of the term.

Compare that with the thousands to tens of thousands of private school tution, in addition to paying property taxes, and you'll see its almost free.

 

[amaterasu]

I'm against it because it means rich kids are given better education, whereas poor kids aren't given as good education. Therefore the best jobs go to the well educated private school kiddies. It's making a new caste system imvho.

And I don't see education as a market, nor a priviledge, everyone should be able to get a good education. I'm for equality of oppurtunity, and private education quashes that.

Finally, I don't see how it makes a meritocracy ansheem. Children shouldn't be judged on their parents, there is no reward for merit when someone has their way to sucsess paved for them.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Finally, I don't see how it makes a meritocracy ansheem. Children shouldn't be judged on their parents, there is no reward for merit when someone has their way to sucsess paved for them.

Do you think it's morally wrong for a grandfather to leave his inheritance to his grandchildren?

 

[amaterasu]

When an tax is levied on it it is fine, and the child also has to do somethign with it, and it doesn't detract from the oppurunities of others, it's fine as it only gives the child more chances.

But with private education the state system is udermined and the oppurtunities of other kids are detracted from.

 

[aneeshm]

That's absolute nonsense. You're even crazier here than on 'Poly. The right to a decent education is necessary in any non-backwards society.

I think we see why India has so many problems...

And who the hell, may I ask, are you?

As I said, there exists no "right to education". Of course, giving everyone a basic minimum education is a desirable thing, but that doesn't magically translate into a right when the leftist fairy waves her magic hammer and sickle, you know.

You're the one making the statement that such a right exists. Therefore, the burden of proof falls on you in this instance. Please prove that such a right does, in fact, exist.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

When an tax is levied on it it is fine, and the child also has to do somethign with it, and it doesn't detract from the oppurunities of others, it's fine as it only gives the child more chances.

How is that? If the money could be distributed among the lower class, then giving it all to this guy's grandchildren instead means that the people in general are more disadvantaged than they would be otherwise. These grandchildren will spend their money to buy stuff that other people might be able to otherwise afford, and thus these other people are left out of the economic loop.

You're setting a double-standard. If money is directly given from one to another, that's fine, but God forbid that the recipient of the money would use it in some arbitrarily defined market.

 

[amaterasu]

And you are forcing things to eb one way, if education is set at one standard then anyone can rise high, with money, well it's money, and the owner of that money should be able to what they want with it if they have earned it.

I am not setting a double standard, I am saying that there should be equal oppurtunities for people to better themselves, and that private education detracts from that.

 

[Grisu]

Choice is good, but since in Switzerland public education beats private schools hands down I wouldn't send my kid to a private school

 

[Truronian]

I agree with GinandTonic on this one... they're unfortunately needed.

One redeeming asset of private schools is their reliance on good grades to get maintain high fees, which motivates them to teach the brightest students (regardless of their background) for free. Of course, "only the rich and clever" is not much better than "only the rich", but at least it's leveling the playing field somewhat.

 

[Grisu]

The state can't be better than the private system

yeah, right...except that it can

 

[aneeshm]

I'm against it because it means rich kids are given better education, whereas poor kids aren't given as good education.

No now people making use of their money to get themselves better things than those who do not have money is a bad thing?

You could have as well said, "I'm against it (private restaurants and clothing malls) because it means rich kids are given better food and clothing, whereas poor kids aren't given as good a quality of food and clothing."

Therefore the best jobs go to the well educated private school kiddies. It's making a new caste system imvho.

Two things:

First, that statement is ridiculous. Those who have a better education are obviously going to have a better chance at getting a better job. That's self evident. Point is, I don't see what's wrong with it.

Secondly, you seem to have no knowledge whatsoever of the caste system. It's far, far worse than you can imagine. The comparison is way off.

And I don't see education as a market, nor a priviledge, everyone should be able to get a good education. I'm for equality of oppurtunity, and private education quashes that.

Equality of opportunity is NOT a right. The fundamental human rights which the state is supposed to protect are those to life (meaning that nobody will come and kill you, not that someone will bail you out if you can't live on your own), liberty (you can do anything you want as long as you do not violate the rights of others), and property (ownership). ALL rights can be derived, directly or indirectly, from the right to life. As such, it is the only fundamental right.

Secondly, the onus is on you to prove why the education sector is somehow "above" the rules of the market.

Thirdly, the last statement is totally bogus. Private education in no way quashes anything, maybe except the pretensions of leftists.

Finally, I don't see how it makes a meritocracy ansheem. Children shouldn't be judged on their parents, there is no reward for merit when someone has their way to sucsess paved for them.

Again, you miss the point. The children are nearly irrelevant when discussing things like banning private schooling. I am not judging the children at all! The rights of the parents to do as they wish with their money, their (and their wards') right to free association, and their right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness are what are at stake here.

The parent has a right to pave their child's way to success if he can. To try to stop him doing that is wrong. And nobody can ever actually do that - the child is the one ultimately responsible, and if he is not competent enough to handle what he had been given, he will lose it.

As I said, meritocracy may be a good ideal, and in my ideal for society, it is something non-statal societal institutions ensure, but it is not an absolute or fundamental virtue or right, and other fundamental rights cannot be sacrificed to meet its demands.

For instance, democracy is inherently anti-meritocratic.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

I am not setting a double standard, I am saying that there should be equal oppurtunities for people to better themselves, and that private education detracts from that.

What about privately marketed products designed to let a person better themselves or their children? Like an educational CD or even a tutor?

 

[amaterasu]

What about privately marketed products designed to let a person better themselves or their children? Like an educational CD or even a tutor?

They aren't highly exclusive and unotanable to the normal person, its admirable if someone does enrole their kids in the best school avaiable, but the fact that it's probably a private school isn't, as they will be streaching themseleves too far financially most of the time, and the state should be able to offer a very good education system anyway.