Replace public schools with the free market?

[galdre]

Have you considered how bad this idea is? It would most likely create state indoctrination for one thing (Which already does happen to some extent although I don't want to take it to a hyperbolic level.

What do you base the accusation that this would create state indoctrination? And private schools don't indoctrinate?

 

[Archbob]

Charging money for education really rubs me the wrong way. Knowledge should be shared with all people.

I think we should move towards and educational system that is student-driven, with instructors there merely to help them along the way. We should remove the pressure of trying to get good grades or score well on exams. We should stop treating all students the same way.

Basic things all kids need to learn and demonstrate proficiency in. You need some metric. Getting good grades demonstrates that either you are smart or you have a degree of responsibility to actually study. If I were a hiring manager, I would want those traits in a students. I think we should stop with this BS about all people being equal and having the same worth because its utter BS. When it comes to doing work, talent, etc, some people are just going to be better than others and when your hiring, you can't pretend people are equal. You want to hire the people with good habits and talent.

I don't want an engineer who sucks at math or a doctor who isn't good at biology. You need to score well and do labs to demonstrate proficiency in those things. Yes, some kids aren't going to be good at learning basic subjects and they are probably on the slow track in life, but thats just something we're going to have to live with. Not everyone is gifted in something useful.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Vouchers are not the free market.
Vouchers are not the free market.
Vouchers are not the free market.

I said to replace public schools with the free market. I didn't say to remove government funding.

While I can understand the logic of what you or one of the anarcho-capitalists linked in your sig would probably support, the reality is that that would almost certainly lead to some people having no opportunity in life.

Quotes below are from Hobbsyoyo

The reason why you are forced to learn subjects you don't care about is to prepare you to function in at least the most basic ways as a member of society. You are going to need that 'boring' math when you want to find out how much interest your credit card bill racks up monthly, or how much tax you are going to have to pay for that new flatscreen.

What you seem to not realize because you're young (I'm not picking on you here, I promise) is that although some subjects don't interest you, you are only being taught the absolute basics. Logarithmic functions and algebraic equations may seem advanced, but they are at the absolute bottom of the heirarchy of mathematic learning.

We actually don't HAVE to take trig here, which may surprise you (NYS.) We have to go to Geometry and then can take an elective math rather than trig if we want to, although that wasn't an option for me due to the way the classes filled up. I ended up taking the first half of a slower trig class, and never took the second half.

What you should realize is that once you are in college (if you go that route, I hope you do) is that then you get to take what you want. At that point, you've learned enough basics to function in society, the direction you take past high school is entirely up to you.

I am definitely going to college. I'm good with everything except Math. I get good grades in science even though I don't enjoy it, and I am very good in history and pretty good in English (I got a 5 on the US History AP test with almost no study, and I got a 3 on the AP European History test while reading through the review book one and a quarter or so times but I didn't even take the class for it.)



I agree with you on this classical hero. A big part of what led me to drop out is that I was insanely bored in 90% of my classes. I would get in trouble for correcting my teachers in a lot of subjects, I just knew them really well out of my own personal interest. But I had to sit through classes that did nothing for me and eventually found out I had way more fun outside of school.

At one point, I was placed in 'academically gifted' programs, but I found that they didn't teach anything the other kids weren't learning. It was the same material, with more papers and projects tacked on top. That made things worse for me. I hated school by 7th grade, and ended up dropping out of high school twice. It took a series of dead end jobs before I went community college to better myself. I've set myself back almost a decade.

Unfortunately, the way the system is set up now, the teachers have to teach to the bottom of the class. I saw plenty of brilliant kids fall by the wayside and turn to drugs and such out of boredom and hatred of school. This is one area our system could drastically improve upon.[/QUOTE]

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I said to replace public schools with the free market. I didn't say to remove government funding.

Government funding =/= free market.

 

[Zelig]

First generation immigrants? I can't see too many people doing if there were a society speaking the parents language around them.

No, no immigrants, just French->English and English->French.

And a very, very, very large body of people who would rise up in arms (figuratively) if you forced them to do so.

Yeah, I'm fine with people sending their kids wherever they want, the existing restrictions are kind of dumb. I'm not familiar with the system in Quebec, I'm more familiar with the K-12 system in Nova Scotia - children are only permitted to attend French schools (as opposed to immersion) if they have a parent or grandparent whose first language is French, which seems like a dumb restriction.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

GhostWriter16,

You need to do better with your attributions. You only named amadeus at first, then went on to quote me, without attribution, making it look like an amadeaus quote. Plus, one quote is broken and makes it look like something you wrote when it was actually me.

I assume you are editing the last post because as it is, the whole last big chunk is just quotes with nothing from you and makes no real sense.

 

[bhsup]

VRWCAgent. You are one cool dude.
Honestly, I expected the kind of knee-jerk response Domination3000 just gave instead of any kind of consideration of the merits of such a tax. But you sir, are a great poster.

Before you decide to leave your wife for me (I KID, I KID! ), understand that I said "I might not be opposed to that" and "something to ponder." It -is- interesting, and definitely merits discussion and research into, the results of which I'd like to see before really being swayed one way or the other.

I just want children to have an even playing field when it comes to education. It isn't their fault they have poor parents or live in a bad neighborhood.

Now this is...well it's one reason why I don't actually like property tax being the primary funding tool for education. Kansas, in particular, is really struggling with this. I don't know all the details, but they do apparently have something in their Constitution about equal schools or something. But the problem is you have most of Kansas, then you have Johnson County, KS, one of the wealthier counties in the country with some of the best funded and just flat out oustanding school districts in the country such as Blue Valley and Shawnee-Mission (Don't get your panties in a bunch, new england and wash d.c. people. I said "some of", not the the absolute best.)

I don't personally have a solution in my noggin. I'll leave that up to people smarter than me.

But I do know that abolishing public education in favor of privatized corporate run education is not the answer!!

 

[JollyRoger]

I said to replace public schools with the free market. I didn't say to remove government funding.

That is not the free market then. If you want to go to a private school, don't do it on the taxpayer dime.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Before you decide to leave your wife for me (I KID, I KID! ), understand that I said "I might not be opposed to that" and "something to ponder." It -is- interesting, and definitely merits discussion and research into, the results of which I'd like to see before really being swayed one way or the other.

Oh no, I got what you meant. I'm just breath-taken when a conservative doesn't start ANGRY CAPPING at me for even using the word 'tax'. It's, just, it's so wonderful and reasonable to have my posts actually considered by the other side.

Now this is...well it's one reason why I don't actually like property tax being the primary funding tool for education. Kansas, in particular, is really struggling with this. I don't know all the details, but they do apparently have something in their Constitution about equal schools or something. But the problem is you have most of Kansas, then you have Johnson County, KS, one of the wealthier counties in the country with some of the best funded and just flat out oustanding school districts in the country such as Blue Valley and Shawnee-Mission (Don't get your panties in a bunch, new england and wash d.c. people. I said "some of", not the the absolute best.)

I don't personally have a solution in my noggin. I'll leave that up to people smarter than me.

But I do know that abolishing public education in favor of privatized corporate run education is not the answer!!

You're right, a big part of why East St. Louis kids suffer is because the tax take is so low as the area is poor. I don't have any solution either I guess.

 

[bhsup]

Oh no, I got what you meant. I'm just breath-taken when a conservative doesn't start ANGRY CAPPING at me for even using the word 'tax'. It's, just, it's so wonderful and reasonable to have my posts actually considered by the other side.

HA! Just wait for the first time you suggest the federal government should be involved in education. I'll angry cap you to death for violating states' rights

But as far as State level goes, no, you won't really get much of a complaint out of me. Even if I may disagree with a proposal, it should at least all be fair game for discussion. Plus, I'm all for supporting our educational systems as best we can (legally, at the State level) as that impacts not only our children and their future but also the well being and future of our State as a whole.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

I said to replace public schools with the free market. I didn't say to remove government funding.

So you want to take a service that's now provided by the government and hand it over to profit oriented corporations while the government will keep paying for it.
It's debatable whether this will increase quality, but it should be obvious to anyone with a triple-digit IQ that it's going to be a lot more expensive.

 

[galdre]

Let's just do to education what's been done to health care - force people to purchase it from private, for profit providers. After all govt run stuff is so inefficient

 

[warpus]

Ah. I actually might not be opposed to that. In addition to the property tax, schools get x amount of State dollars for each student enrolled. Maybe those sending kids to private schools should be hit up for that x amount that they are costing their local district...

Something to ponder, at least.

I'm against doing it by district, because poor districts will end up getting crappier funding, crappier teachers, crappier schools, and the cycle of poverty will continue.

edit: this looks like an xpost.. ah well

 

[GhostWriter16]

What do you base the accusation that this would create state indoctrination? And private schools don't indoctrinate?

Sorry for the harsh tone of my response, this is a subject that kinda has a sore spot with me for several reasons once you get into "Make people go to public schools" category. I would be even more of a wreck than I am were I forced to be in public school at age 11

I agree with you 100% that private schools do indoctrinate. I feel like its worse from the state, but the state aren't the only ones that do it.

However, indoctrinating is one thing (And I'm not saying its being done deliberately), but claiming a monopoly on the right to indoctrinate is another thing altogether.

 

[JollyRoger]

Sorry for the harsh tone of my response, this is a subject that kinda has a sore spot with me for several reasons once you get into "Make people go to public schools" category. I would be even more of a wreck than I am were I forced to be in public school at age 11

I agree with you 100% that private schools do indoctrinate. I feel like its worse from the state, but the state aren't the only ones that do it.

However, indoctrinating is one thing (And I'm not saying its being done deliberately), but claiming a monopoly on the right to indoctrinate is another thing altogether.

There already are private schools, so I do not know of this monopoly you are talking about.

 

[GhostWriter16]

GhostWriter16,

You need to do better with your attributions. You only named amadeus at first, then went on to quote me, without attribution, making it look like an amadeaus quote. Plus, one quote is broken and makes it look like something you wrote when it was actually me.

I assume you are editing the last post because as it is, the whole last big chunk is just quotes with nothing from you and makes no real sense.

I fixed it. I was in the middle of posting something and ended up taking a long break which made it incoherent. Sorry

There already are private schools, so I do not know of this monopoly you are talking about.

Gladre wanted them banned. That's what I was addressing.

 

[Leoreth]

So you want to take a service that's now provided by the government and hand it over to profit oriented corporations while the government will keep paying for it.
It's debatable whether this will increase quality, but it should be obvious to anyone with a triple-digit IQ that it's going to be a lot more expensive.

But ... but ... efficiency!

 

[Cutlass]

But ... but ... efficiency!

What the radical free marketers simply fail to understand about business is that businesses exist to make profits. That goes entirely over their heads. But when you factor it into the equation the real world actually starts to make sense. A business doesn't care if the students get an education, it cares if they make more money going through the motions than they do actually educating the students. They don't care about saving the taxpayers money, they care about pocketing the most of it as possible.

Before you can say a business is going to be good at something, you have to understand their incentives.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I fixed it. I was in the middle of posting something and ended up taking a long break which made it incoherent.

Thank you for fixing it. However, the last few paragraphs in that post are still a broken quote of something I wrote. You can see it has the endquote tag, but is missing the startquote tag.

 

[squadbroken]

What the radical free marketers simply fail to understand about business is that businesses exist to make profits. That goes entirely over their heads.

Oh, they know that quite well, as they are so happy to remind anyone who brings up the radical notion that businesses should have any sort of social responsibility. They just conveniently forget about it when talking about privatization.