Why is the West culturally antagonstic towards non-state-controlled institutions?

[Arrian]

At what point does the percentage matter? You're basically making up the 70% number, and you're guessing at the number that can afford private schooling in the US (the number varies depending on what private school you're talking about, obviously, since they all have different fees).

There would surely be concern if it was a large % (but still a lot less than 100%). This concern could be mitigated somewhat by scholarship grants so that poor, good students could go. I personally would be a little concerned - wondering what happens to the poorest of the poor (the X% who cannot afford this superior education).

The thing is, leaving your hypotheticals aside, I can address the question by looking at a real life situation - that which currently exists in the United States. The numbers aren't the same as in your hypothetical, but the basic ideas are, and I've tried to answer the question. You remain unsatisfied for some reason...

-Arrian

[Ned]

Originally posted by aneeshm


That doesn't really address my question, which was - what would happen if a network of private schools developed which was affordable only to the top 70% of the populace, and was significantly better than the public network, better enough to confer significant practical advantages? How would society react?

A, that system already exists in many parts of the US, particularly in minority-dominated areas. The system is defended by most because in these areas, it is the only way the middle class and above can see to it that their kids get a good education.

But it is also true that these schools are mainly white islands in minority seas. The system which we used to called "separate-but-equal," where the public school system was segregated by race, remains intact due to these private schools.

Many resist voucher systems that would allow the poor to attend private schools on public money because they do not want real integration.

But that is the United States. Similar conditions do not prevail in Europe where the population remains 90%+ white.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Arrian
By the way, it is my understanding that some of the best private schools are Catholic schools. Including classes such as comparative religion.

-Arrian

Most Christian highschools that I know of have a comparative religion course.

JM

[Ned]

Originally posted by aneeshm


That's all right. But today, what percentage of people can afford them? 5%? 10%? A maximum of, I'd guess, 20%. What happens if, instead of being schools which only include the elite, they become widespread enough that they exclude the poor? What then?

A, they not only exclude the poor now, they exist for the purpose of excluding the poor.

[Arrian]

Many resist voucher systems that would allow the poor to attend private schools on public money because they do not want real integration.

Again with spouting this bull****. This is something that you, or some right wing pundit, pulled right out of your ass because (if true) it means liberals are actually the racists and conservatives are the real champions of racial equality.

-Arrian

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by aneeshm


That's all right. But today, what percentage of people can afford them? 5%? 10%? A maximum of, I'd guess, 20%. What happens if, instead of being schools which only include the elite, they become widespread enough that they exclude the poor? What then?

My family could sort of afford it (for my youngest brother at least). We survived on social security and disability, and the little bit of money my mom brought in (not to much higher than minimum wage).

We were not in the top 50%.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Most people who could afford to send their kids to private school don't, because they don't care to spend the money that way. Not because they can't.

Jon Miller

[Ned]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Most people who could afford to send their kids to private school don't, because they don't care to spend the money that way. Not because they can't.

Jon Miller

Except where it makes a real difference.

In the suburbs, most don't.

In the inner city, most who can afford it, do.

[Aeson]

Vouchers don't change who is rich and who is poor. The rich will still have more money than the poor, and will be able to pay a premium to segregate themselves from the poor in higher class school systems if they still want to. It changes virtually nothing in that regard.

[Arrian]

True. My family is an example. Then again, my family did spend a lot of money to buy a house in the town I grew up in, which had an excellent public school system (due, in no small part, to lots & lots of money taken in via property taxes).

-Arrian

[Kontiki]

Unsurprisingly, aneeshm, you seem utterly incapable of actually understading the situation in the west. Asking your "what would happen if" is rediculous because it's inconceivable it could happen at all. For whatever failings there may be in our state-funded education system, it's still a massive, well organized and funded enterprise. There is simply no inexpensive way to set up an alternative to what we have, and very little incentive to do so. The situation you describe in India is nothing more than a MONUMENTAL failure of your government to provide education, and what you're asking is how we would react if there had been such a massive failure by our governments. It's kinda hard to answer that because part of the very fabric of our societies is that our governments haven't had that failure.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian


Again with spouting this bull****. This is something that you, or some right wing pundit, pulled right out of your ass because (if true) it means liberals are actually the racists and conservatives are the real champions of racial equality.

-Arrian

Arrian, I think that most libs oppose private education because of religion. But still, you have to wonder when liberals still oppose vouchers if the only schools they can be used in are other public schools.

[Arrian]

I believe the concern is white flight from public schools. Again, I have not spent much time reading up on and thinking about the voucher debate, though, so I very well could be wrong.

But this whole "liberals oppose 'real' integration" thing is a particularly nasty little piece of political hackery, and I can't let it pass. Good troll, if it was one. Gets me every time.

-Arrian

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian
I believe the concern is white flight from public schools. Again, I have not spent much time reading up on and thinking about the voucher debate, though, so I very well could be wrong.

But this whole "liberals oppose 'real' integration" thing is a particularly nasty little piece of political hackery, and I can't let it pass. Good troll, if it was one. Gets me every time.

-Arrian

Well, it is an issue that could pry a lot of the black vote away from any politicians who oppose vouchers. On this issue, a majority of blacks favor vouchers even though their leadership (Democrat party members) do not.

I am not sure of how the Mexican community thinks of vouchers. They, of course, may be less concerned about the religion issue because they are, on the whole, Catholic.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by aneeshm
That's a sum total of 4,00,00,000 people who are positively impacted.

That's what, 0.4% of India's population?

Not powerful as in the conventional sense, like a state having power, but they wield tremendous power in how life in these villages and tribes is evolving, and how society in these places evolves.

It's not anti-statist, it's just astatist (is that a word?). It does not concern itself with the state.

These sort of organisations are themselves a sign of backwardness and poverty. They were common in the West before people wised up and compulsory state education was started.

Kontiki's post summed it better than I could. China has managed to provide a reasonable level of education to its 1.2 billion people, why not India? In fact, one Indian state has got a good record on primary education: Kerala, a state governed by a succession of left-wing parties.