Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
beautiful post beautiful. greenspan gave a great speech on voucher system many years ago at the commonwealth club of san francisco. will never forget it.
what makes american universities best in the world
choice
what makes our public schools the worst
choice (there is none)
A voucher system is still public education. There is plenty of choice in most American school districts these days. Open enrollment is the norm in most places. Charter schools, magnet schools and other choice schools are abundant and popular.
Once upon a time, eons ago, most schools were run entirely by local communities because they were practical, efficient, and taught children the basics. In small rural areas, the local church was often used as the classroom on weekdays. Of course, this was during the time when most of America was small and agricultural. As we know, times have drastically changed since then.
I'm not exactly understanding this.. because schools are still run on local levels..more so than on a national scale.
Today's public schools are an enormous burden on taxpayers ... not only on the local levels, but we even have the NEA which is a bloated federally funded bureaucracy. I don't have children, but 70% of my property taxes are robbed from me and stuffed into public schools to supposedly educate other people's children. In addtion to property taxes, voters here in Maricopa County approved a massive public education funding program eight years ago, which became the largest sales tax increase in history. Most every school bond is approved every time there's an election. Yet, despite all the money we throw at public education, we still hear many people complain that the system is under funded.
65% of my property taxes are taken for schools... and part of the problem is that a majority of it is for the overbloated salaries of adminstrators. Locally the schools here are so fragmented by different districts, I believe consolidating districts into county districts ratther than what we have here would trim and mainstream alot of those adminstrative costs. Also, here on our local level it's the teachers unions that are straggling us as the salaries, guaranteed raises etc are what takes up the bulk of our school budgets. Because we have so many little districts within the county each district must negotiate a seperate contract with the unions. This gives the union leverage to use what a neighboing SD negotiated with them to get the same from teh following.. and the many districts weaken the bargaining power of each individual district vs. the bigger union. Again.. this is all on local levels.
There are also many complaints about the poor quality of public schools, which I tend to agree with. The poorer performers are often passed along, and allowed to graduate without the proper skills needed for the real world. The students who study hard and receive good grades are usually bullied, and labeled "geek" or "nerd". Drugs, sex, gangs, and school shootings have also become more common recently.
Again..this is all localized. If you are in a neighborhood where I live that is economically challenged you will find this..but other schools have excellent programs with no problems on that kind of scare or level.
And there is something that we all must really focus in on... parents need to be more involved with thier children and their education. That's not to say you aren't or that all parents arent but there are a lot of elements of the family that are so different today then they were in the "good old days". Both parents are working. leaving them less time to be involved with thier children..etc. Without elaborate I'm sure you know what I'm referring to.
I do agree that teachers need to be held more accountable. Why are students that fail allowed to pass through?
As far as I'm concerned, the only effective solution is to privatize the system. There are those who claim that I don't care about an educated populace, which is absolutely false. I'm highly supportive of education ... and I care about the quality of it so much that I want the government out of the system, and the burden relieved from taxpayers. I attended both public and private schools when I was young, and I can honestly say that there is a 180 degree difference in the quality of private schools vs. that of public.
That difference runs clearly along economic lines.. I can see it right here on LI..where the affluent neighborhoods have the best and highest performing schools.. Private students do not have those of less afluence in them.. because parents can not afford it.
BUT.. and there is a big but.. that doens't mean that excellent students do not come out of less affluent schools..it all depends on the individual students..
There are those who say that making the schools private would put an enormous burden on parents who can't afford the cost of tuition. Well, the solution to that is to PLAN AHEAD before having children. If your financial situation can't handle all the expenses of raising children on your own, maybe you shouldn't be bringing any into the world until you can afford it! Even so, many parents obtain loans to send their kids to college ... so they can also get loans to send their kids to regular school. If that isn't feasible, there is always the option of home schooling.
I have to respectfully disagree with your above statements. So are you saying that people or less economic status.. ie; the middle income families and the working poor shouldn't have children? So then only those of economic affluence should have children?
What money you have in your account does not determine who a good parent makes or doesn't make. The bottom line is there will be a lot of otherwise good, loving hard working parents left out of your equation should the system be privatized and left to who has the biggest wallets. The best schools will be open only to those that have the thickest wallets. Does not every child, regardless of economic standing, deserve to be educated and given the opportunity to raise themselves above their current economic status?
Privatizing the school system would also eliminate two of the "great debates" that have been raging over the years: PRAYER and SCHOOL CHOICE. Actually, the two go hand in hand because parents would have the choice of sending their children to whatever school they want ... and their children could pray all they want respective to their beliefs. Most public schools don't allow prayer and choice.
Parents currently do have that choice. those that can afford it can send their children to whatever denomination of private school they want. Nothing is stopping them.
On the contrary public schools offer children an opportunity to share a classroom with children of different races, maybe economic status (more so true in certain areas of the country than others) and different religions. It gives them the opportunity to learn by sitting side by side with a student from a different culture than there own.
Furthermore, too many parents have come to expect schools to be a "free ride". Parents often use the system as a means of subsidized day care, and really don't have much input or concern about their children's education. If parents paid for their kids' education out of their own pockets, more parents would take an interest in what their kids are learning, and how well they're doing. After all, money is a motivator.
I agree with the first portion of that statement.. about parents not being invovled enough. BUT, this is NOT simply because they want to use school as "free daycare" . It is because in todays world, in a middle income family, both parents have to work in order to pay the bills.. it's just a fact.
And schools are NOT a free ride..it's paid for through property taxes. Renters technically aren't paying property taxes.. however that is not entirely true because a portion of what their rent is goes to cover the landlord property tax liability. So public schools are by no means a FREE ride. The fact that they pay property taxes is motivation enough for parents to do the best they can do for their children..
Privatize schools and all you will do is take away good education andgive it to only those that can afford tution to private schools. The cost of college is so high that many parents go into hock and eat into their retirement savings to pay for their childs education. Do you really mean to suggest that middle income families and even lower middle and the poor go even more into hock and deeper into debt.
To suggest that parents "home school" if they can't afford tuition is also not practical. How can they teach their own children when both parents have to work? That, and not all parents are equipped to teach...
I , personally, will monitor my childs education in a public school system.. AND I will teach theme what I feel they need to know that the public school system leaves out.
Parents lack of getting invovled and following through with their childrens education is the reason that public schools are failing. (and again..t hat depends on where you live and the local schools). privatize the system and you'll still have the same problem.. or perhaps even worse as parents will probably have to work more hours to afford the tuition. Having a child turn into a great productive adult starts first at home..
Public schools have, for a long time, been pretty much a monopoly - there was not much competition.
That started to change a few years ago as parents became far more dissatisfied with the quality of education their kids were getting, the decay of facilities, the increasing number of violent acts taking place at the public schools, the lack of ... "oversight" of teachers and administration, etc. Parents wanted better. Hence the discussion started about vouchers -
Now comes the first of the "private" schools - charter schools. And parents began sending their children to them. Now, all across the country, there is a growing private educational system.
Homeschooling is growing also - again, an off shoot of parental dissatisfaction.
Private schools do not have to be for the "rich" - there are private schools that have all economic levels attending - many on "scholarships". One such school is the Andre Agassi Academy in Las Vegas. No tuition - your admission is based on merit - and it works.
Personally, I support the voucher system - to let parents decide how their children are to be educated - not the state.
I am in favor of any system that does not exclude anyone on the basis of finances, disablity, etc. I have room in my mind for private and public systems.
Valley Native, it is very obvious that you have very little interest in the quality or the penetration of education. Your highly-charged terminology contains all the usual buzzwords: "Taxes robbed", "I want the government out", these are not eduation issues at all. The are the generic views that are widespread among a narrow political pespective.
You apparently didn't read my entire original post. If you had, you would have seen that I clearly stated how I AM concerned about the quality of education ... which is why I'd like the government out of it, and handed over to the private sector. When government is involved in something that private enterprise can handle, it is usually overpriced, mis managed, and ineffective. Thus, the current state of the public school system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
You have not really made any arguments at all that would support the view that the private sector actually can or would educate our children more effectively or efficiently that the prevailing public system.
I can offer a study of private school vs. public, and why private schools are much more effective:
This site contains some statistics which prove that the quality & effectiveness of education in the private sector is better than that of the public sector. For instance:
Quote:
Private school students are more likely than public school students to complete a bachelor’s or advanced degree by their mid-20s. Data from the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988, "Fourth Follow-up" (NELS: 1988/2000) show that students who had attended private school in 8th grade were twice as likely as those who had attended public school to have completed a bachelor’s or higher degree by their mid-20s (52 versus 26 percent) and far less likely to not complete a post-secondary education.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
You are an advocate of the user-pay system, in which the entire burden for the cost of an educated and literate nation is borne by the 25-40 demographic, which is the economic sector least able to afford it.
You bet I'm an advocate of the user pay system! I don't have children, but why should it be my responsibility to pay 70% of my property taxes (as well as other taxes) to support children who aren't mine? The 25 to 40 age bracket who can "least afford it" shouldn't be reproducing if they can't afford the cost of raising children. If they have kids, they can obtain loans. Taxpayers shouldn't have to be burdened by other people's choices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
They have not yet been promoted to higher paying positions, and they are faced with all the other expenses of early home-making. By forcing them to pay the entire cost of education, you are in many cases forcing them to get second jobs, which would result in huge numbers of children having virtually no contact at all with their parents.
All I can say is my parents sent both of us (me and my sister) to a private school during our elementary and junior high years ... and we certainly weren't wealthy by any means. We simply did without many of the luxuries that many other families felt they "had" to have.
Look at many of today's households with kids. They have big screen plasma TVs, expensive stereo systems, computers, Ipods, and multiple vehicles (SUVs and the like). Do they really NEED those things??? If they sacrificed all those luxuries, they could easily afford private school ... instead of being gluttons and expecting the public to subsidize something which they should be paying for themselves!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
Which private corporations would you like to see owning and operating our schools? Halliburton? Mobil-Exxon? McDonalds? Comcast? Girls Gone Wild Productions Inc?
None of the above. There are a growing number of private institutions which provide quality education without the involvement of large corporations. Just because education should be a private business doesn't mean it has to be run like WalMart.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
What are you going to do with children whose parents cannot afford to send them to school? Just let our literacy rate drop down to 95%, and then 85% and then 60%? Or force them to go to school and "rob" the parents to pay for it, just as you complain that you are now being "robbed" to pay for public education?
Why do you ASSume the literacy rate would substantially drop when there is evidence that children who attend private schools out perform the kids who are in the public system??? As for the parents who can't afford to send them to school, they can obtain loans (as I stated before). My parents paid for our education out of their own pockets. Others can too with a little planning and sacrifice. Having kids isn't a Constitutional right, and shouldn't be a free ride.
Also, Great Day made a good point about scholarships. Kids who work hard and obtain high grades can obtain scholarships to private colleges ... so why shouldn't the high achievers be able to receive scholarships to private elementary/middle/high schools? Hard work should be rewarded and honored. The mediocre & poor performers shouldn't be handed anything free.
I absolutely agree that the system is antiquated, wasteful, and has an appearance of being subsidized daycare. I do have a question for the OP though. What would become of the children who's parents couldn't afford the rate that the private entities charged? IMO, it will never be feasible to turn education over to the private sector.
Perhaps the results would be better if it were privatized, but from a cost standpoint, i'm not convinced that the private institutions would be more cost effective. My basis for that opinion is formed from comparing the tuition costs(board excluded) of private colleges versus the cost at junior/community colleges. I realize that every state is different with regard to how much funding they provide to their state colleges, but i believe that if you excluded that aid, you'll still see a much lower tuition at the public institution in a comparison with a private school.
Private school students are more likely than public school students to complete a bachelor’s or advanced degree by their mid-20s. Data from the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988, "Fourth Follow-up" (NELS: 1988/2000) show that students who had attended private school in 8th grade were twice as likely as those who had attended public school to have completed a bachelor’s or higher degree by their mid-20s (52 versus 26 percent) and far less likely to not complete a post-secondary education.
Private schools can "cherry-pick" their students. Public schools can't.
I absolutely agree that the system is antiquated, wasteful, and has an appearance of being subsidized daycare. I do have a question for the OP though. What would become of the children who's parents couldn't afford the rate that the private entities charged? IMO, it will never be feasible to turn education over to the private sector.
I already gave an example of how my own parents who weren't financially well off were able to afford private school for us. We did without a lot of the perks (video games, large TVs, multiple vehicles, etc.). We had one family car ... and I didn't even drive until I was 19 because we felt that spending money on education was more important for a teenager than getting a car.
Today's "middle class" households have too many gadgets (cell phones, Ipods, video games, plasma TVs with digital cable & 200+ channels, big SUVs, and a new car when the kids turn 16). If parents sacrificed all those luxuries, they would easily be able to afford the cost of education out of their own wallets without burdening taxpayers.
Private schools can "cherry-pick" their students. Public schools can't.
In my opinion - that is not necessary a bad thing. The fact is, while it is a laudable goal to have a diverse population base - there are students who learn at different speeds - and these groups should be educated with children of their own level -
Public schools, while attempting to do this - simply do not have the resources to accomplish this -
In my opinion - that is not necessary a bad thing. The fact is, while it is a laudable goal to have a diverse population base - there are students who learn at different speeds - and these groups should be educated with children of their own level -
Public schools, while attempting to do this - simply do not have the resources to accomplish this -
While I agree, I was pointing out some possible reasons why private school students are more likely to complete college, etc. You need to compare similar groups of students to make meaningful comparisons.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
