Jesse Jackson, Jr and Federalising Education

[Sava]

oh yeah...

I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but you compared public education to the institution of slavery. When you realize how dumb that comparison is, I'll forgive you and consider taking what you say seriously.

[Dis]

yeah, seems like a dumb comparison

but I still say privatization cost less money than goverment funded programs. I saw some statistics in the cost per pupil on some good christian private schools (yeah they are christian- they aren't perfect now) and the cost per pupil in many big city school districts. Lets just say the big city school districts were higher.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Sava
Our country isn't commited to education or providing equal opprotunity to everyone, ideally, I want a universal education system; but if the American people don't consider education important enough, any proposed system will fail. I'm actually more for the current system because at least some local districts succeed because some communities are commited to education. This problem goes beyond the question of organization of funding. It encompasses a great deal of other socio-economic issues that require reform.

Education is a key component of Democracy. Whether or not selfish conservatives feel they should contribute to society is another question altogether. But that's why we have taxes... because people aren't willing to do things willingly, so in the interest of the greater good, government must fund education. Privatization means higher costs which means less can afford education which means an increase in un-educated workers, which means more poverty, which means more crime, more drugs, more problems.

I can't comment further because I don't know what Mr. Jackson proposes. If it's got the usual suspects up in arms, then it's probably good. But then again, I shouldn't speculate.

Your assertion that privatizing education is more expensive than the current local / state / federal mishmash is going to require some proof to be accepted. Catholic schools for instance seem to be both cheaper and more effective than public schools. Three of my co-workers have their kids in Catholic schools, and none of them are wealthy or Catholic, they simply are willing to pay for a decent education. Of course they are paying twice, once for a substandard public education that they don't bother with, and once for an education that while not perfect, is still better than that available in public schools.

Like you, I was fortunate to have spent most of my K-12 years in a good public school system. These are unfortunately fairly rare, as I found out when I got to college and noted that the first two years rarely strayed from the teching of skills and ideas that I had already learned in high school. I feel that if the feds move into education in a big way that even these fairly rare school systems will be averaged down into mediocrity at best.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I also had a good public school education. Even went to a public university (which made it cheaper for me). Public education is important, however, I also believe that it should be a local thing and people shouldn't be double charged for sending their kid to a private school, especially in some areas where it is almost required if you want your kids to have a decent education (because the alternative - public schools - are crap).

[Willem]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Agreed, let people keep their tax dollars and let them decide where their kids are educated - it's the "free" thing to do.

Yeah, and to hell with the multitude of parents who can't afford to send their kids to a private school. So much for the concept of freedom of equal opportunity.

[Agathon]

Re: School choice.

I'd like to point out that New Zealand tried a virtual voucher scheme some years back; called "Tomorrow's Schools" it was basically a "school choice" system. You could send your kid to any school you liked as long as they would take you (previously schools were zoned - you had an absolute right to send your kid to the local school). The Government would then pay that school the standard rate for one student.

Sound good? Well it wasn't.

Basically a few good things came out of it, but they were outweighed by the bad.

1. Of course the wealthy did very well since they could send their kids anywhere they liked. However, those on more modest incomes found that to send their kids to their local school (if it was a good one) wasn't feasible since these schools took rich kids on the basis that they'd pay more (officially this wasn't allowed, but there were plenty of ways around it). So many people couldn't send their kids to the local school but had to track across half of Auckland to get their kids to school.

2. Schools in poorer areas became much worse rather than better.

3. The workload of teachers and staff increased greatly on account of other aspects of the reforms (bulk funding).

4. Schools spent much more time sending their students out fund-raising than they previously had. This cut into education time.

5. Teacher per student ratios went down rather than up.

6. Schools spent time and resources competing with each other that detracted from those spent on actually educating the students.

Read about it

http://schoolreform.smartlibrary.info/NewInterface/segment.cfm?segment=2139

http://www.unesco.org/courier/2000_11/uk/doss31.htm

http://www.bctf.ca/ezine/archive/2002-05/support/06SchoolChoice.html

Food for thought

[Berzerker]

Sava -

Sorry Berz, I really would like to agree with your libertarian "the government is bad and stuff" attitude... but I had the privilage of going through a very good public education system.

And millions are stuck in lousy public schools while many rich liberals send their kids to private schools.

If you are concerned with government waste, education is hardly the most wasteful part of government.

You mean I should ignore the waste on this issue? Yeah, let's send our money to Washington DC to educate our children, make sense?

Why don't you look at military spending? Farm subsidies? Private contracted infrastructure projects?

I'm against all forms of welfare, including corporate welfare and the trillions we've wasted on the military creating enemies abroad. i.e., libertarianism.

Think of privatization this way... some of your money might be wasted now, but you'd be paying a lot more for the same education if we privatized. Or you wouldn't get an education at all because it wouldn't be affordable.

I didn't get much of an education in the government schools to begin with for the amount of time spent. Most of what I've learned came after leaving the government schools.

oh yeah...

I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but you compared public education to the institution of slavery. When you realize how dumb that comparison is, I'll forgive you and consider taking what you say seriously.

I didn't compare government schools to slavery, I showed why your "greater good" argument is invalid. You see, Imran? That's why I "parse" paragraphs, so the person I'm debating will know which point I'm addressing.

Sikander -

Of course they are paying twice, once for a substandard public education that they don't bother with, and once for an education that while not perfect, is still better than that available in public schools.

Imagine the outrage if a law was passed requiring all new car buyers to buy a Ford before getting the car they wanted.

Willem -

Yeah, and to hell with the multitude of parents who can't afford to send their kids to a private school. So much for the concept of freedom of equal opportunity.

Since when does freedom require "equal opportunity"? As for all those parents who can't afford private schools, there would be more private schools if government wasn't creating an economic advantage for it's own schools. That would drive down the cost of a private education. Second, if we weren't being forced to pay for all these leftist programs, millions of people could afford private schools. Like I said, the cost of secondary education started going way up once government got in the business of subsidising tuitions. Btw, you didn't explain how sending taxes on the circuituous route I've described results in more money spent on education. Didn't you read my opening post?

Agathon -

I'd like to point out that New Zealand tried a virtual voucher scheme some years back

The Government would then pay that school the standard rate for one student.

That's the problem, government subsidising schools. The marketplace was not allowed to work.

1. Of course the wealthy did very well since they could send their kids anywhere they liked. However, those on more modest incomes found that to send their kids to their local school (if it was a good one) wasn't feasible since these schools took rich kids on the basis that they'd pay more (officially this wasn't allowed, but there were plenty of ways around it).

You mean there were no private elite schools accomodating the rich before this plan? It seems to me if people were allowed to keep their money in the first place and buy the tuition they wanted, more schools should have come online. Just how long did they give this plan time to work compared to the time allowed for the government schools?

2. Schools in poorer areas became much worse rather than better.

Meaning they were bad and got worse without the subsidies? In the marketplace, failed businesses don't get propped up by government subsidies. That's why Japan's economy has been suffering for more than a decade, because their economic policy is designed to divert resources away from more efficient businesses to the less efficient.

5. Teacher per student ratios went down rather than up.

Assuming this is a bad thing, sounds like this plan wasn't designed to increase education outlets.