Is this true? If so, why?

[eflatminor]

I have two major arguments against privatizing education. First and foremost, I have an issue with profit being the motive of educational bodies.

So did the communists. Excellent...

Without a profit motive, how exactly do you expect an operation to attract customers? What motivates them to provide a superior service? What is the impetus to provide that service at a price point that their target customers can afford?

Good God man.

Secondly, "choice" exists in the public school system. Most major public education system in the country has merit-based magnet schools and competition

Bullshit. I'm talking about educational choice for all students at all levels of ability. And your 'magnet' schools are still run by bureaucrats.

Pass.

I went to "magnet" schools from 6th grade on, and got a better education in high school than most people get in college.

Not provable and statistically irrelevant.

 

[asterism]

I have two major arguments against privatizing education. First and foremost, I have an issue with profit being the motive of educational bodies. Secondly, "choice" exists in the public school system. Most major public education system in the country has merit-based magnet schools and competition - I went to "magnet" schools from 6th grade on, and got a better education in high school than most people get in college.

Government funding does not remove the profit motive, it merely shifts it.

Instead of building a company where revenue exceeds expenses, administrators build a division where more employees and more influence means higher salary and pension. The revenue is dispensed with by pressuring the county commissioners to increase taxes. If they don't get their way, they just threaten to fire teachers and cut back on materials.

 

[Unkotare]

I have an issue with profit being the motive of educational bodies. .

Why?

 

[Unkotare]

"choice" exists in the public school system...

Not for the most part and not for most people.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I have an issue with profit being the motive of educational bodies. .

Why?

Because when profit is the motive of educational bodies, they'll put profit over education.

I know that's not a great answer, but it's not a simple question, and I don't have a better one.

I don't accept the premise that profit is the only viable motivator. Education should serve a greater good.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

"choice" exists in the public school system...

Not for the most part and not for most people.

I support "school choice", in the sense that there should be a variety of public schools offering different curriculm available to people. I support charter schools, magnet schools, and have no issue with parents choosing to send their kids to private school.

I don't support vouchers, and I can't imagine the US without a public education system.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I have two major arguments against privatizing education. First and foremost, I have an issue with profit being the motive of educational bodies.

So did the communists. Excellent...

Don't be a fucking moron.

Without a profit motive, how exactly do you expect an operation to attract customers? What motivates them to provide a superior service? What is the impetus to provide that service at a price point that their target customers can afford?

I think it's pretty clear that I support a "free" public education system. I say "free" in the sense that there's no fee paid to the school. I understand where the money comes from. In that, I see no reason to worry about price setting or attracting customers.

The problem with attaching a price tag to an education is the people who are least likely to pay to send their kids to a good school are the people who's kids most need good schools.

Good God man.

Secondly, "choice" exists in the public school system. Most major public education system in the country has merit-based magnet schools and competition

Bullshit. I'm talking about educational choice for all students at all levels of ability. And your 'magnet' schools are still run by bureaucrats.

I've never understood why people think that private sector "bureaucrats" are somehow better than public sector ones.

Pass.

I went to "magnet" schools from 6th grade on, and got a better education in high school than most people get in college.

Not provable and statistically irrelevant.

It's anecdotal, but serves as an example of where I'm coming from on this topic.

 

[Derideo_Te]

...our society suffers from an alarming degree of public ignorance...

Yet ANOTHER consequence of the increasingly monopolistic control of affordable education by government.

Get the government out of running the schools and allow competition in the education market. That is the only way to realize improved results and lower prices. The 'top-down' status quo only serves to produce profoundly ignorant students (as O'Connor describes), ridiculous drop out and illiteracy rates, and skyrocketing costs that far outpace the overall rate of inflation.

You want to redistribute money to poor families so that they can purchase an education for their children? Fine, but the idea that government RUNS the schools, from what's in the text books to how many tater tots get served at lunch is the problem. We need COMPETITION in education, not more central planning.

End the government monopoly on affordable education now!

Facts not in Evidence!

The public schools that produce better educated children overseas are all completely government controlled. The current public school system in the USA is based entirely upon the tax value that each school district places upon education. Overseas there is a uniform national standard of education. In the USA local school boards can cherry pick their curriculum. Overseas school books are standardized across the nation. In the USA schools can buy books from far right publishers that have altered or left out relevant facts.

Furthermore the "competition" that was created by the "school voucher" system has been a dismal failure. The voucher schools are not producing any better results than the public schools. The reason for this is because as a nation the USA no longer treats education as being something to aspire to obtaining. Teachers are denigrated as being "lazy unions" and those with higher degrees are derided as being "elitist".

Competition in education has nothing to do with the source of the funding. It comes from the parents pushing their kids to be straight A students. That is what is missing here. Until the attitude towards education changes from being incessantly negative to one of positive reinforcement no amount of outside "competition" is going to make one iota's worth of difference.

 

[Derideo_Te]

much of the planning is done by local committees.

Even if that local planning didn't involve state and federal mandates/funding, which all do, that's no reason for government to run the schools. Should local committees run all markets? Clearly not.

The results speak for themselves. Our kids fail/dropout at an alarming rate. They graduate with 'skills' that wouldn't get them out of the 8th grade a century ago. The costs far outpace the overall rate of inflation. All because THERE IS NO CHOICE in the market for affordable education.

Rome managed to build it's empire without public education of any kind. When they did implement government control of the education market, its timing matched their decline. Not the only reason for their eventual failure, but a correlation and arguable causation in history we should not duplicate.

At the very least, get the damn Feds out from meddling in education!

Ironic how that illustrates a lack of education in both history and logic. Not one reputable source on the fall of the Roman Empire would make that correlation let alone attempt to argue for causation.

 

[eflatminor]

The problem with attaching a price tag to an education is the people who are least likely to pay to send their kids to a good school are the people who's kids most need good schools.

Spoken like a true central planner that's just SURE he knows what's best for others.

Pass.

I've never understood why people think that private sector "bureaucrats" are somehow better than public sector ones.

Because government bureaucrats have no incentive to thrive. In the public sector, if you don't please your customers, you lose your job. Perhaps Carolyn Lochhead said it best:

"Public educators, like Soviet farmers, lack any incentive to produce results, innovate, to be efficient, to make the kinds of of difficult changes that private firms operating in a competitive market must make to survive."

 

[eflatminor]

...our society suffers from an alarming degree of public ignorance...

Yet ANOTHER consequence of the increasingly monopolistic control of affordable education by government.

Get the government out of running the schools and allow competition in the education market. That is the only way to realize improved results and lower prices. The 'top-down' status quo only serves to produce profoundly ignorant students (as O'Connor describes), ridiculous drop out and illiteracy rates, and skyrocketing costs that far outpace the overall rate of inflation.

You want to redistribute money to poor families so that they can purchase an education for their children? Fine, but the idea that government RUNS the schools, from what's in the text books to how many tater tots get served at lunch is the problem. We need COMPETITION in education, not more central planning.

End the government monopoly on affordable education now!

Facts not in Evidence!

Logic not in use!

The public schools that produce better educated children overseas are all completely government controlled.

Doesn't work here. Stick to the reality of what we face in this country. We spend more per student than all those countries (with the possible exception of ultra-rich Switzerland and Austria), yet the more we spend, the worse the results and the higher the costs.

Open your mind to possibilities that aren't part of the central planner's creed, for once.

The current public school system in the USA is based entirely upon the tax value that each school district places upon education. Overseas there is a uniform national standard of education. In the USA local school boards can cherry pick their curriculum. Overseas school books are standardized across the nation.

Ah yes, more leftist central planning...that's the answer.

In the USA schools can buy books from far right publishers that have altered or left out relevant facts.

You're joking, right? Have you taken a look at the tripe that passes for text books lately? Good gawd man, open your eyes!

Furthermore the "competition" that was created by the "school voucher" system has been a dismal failure. The voucher schools are not producing any better results than the public schools. The reason for this is because as a nation the USA no longer treats education as being something to aspire to obtaining. Teachers are denigrated as being "lazy unions" and those with higher degrees are derided as being "elitist".

"Vouchers" still deal with government run schools dumb ass. There is no free market competition in affordable education, not even close.

Competition in education has nothing to do with the source of the funding. It comes from the parents pushing their kids to be straight A students.

How's that working out?

Until the attitude towards education changes from being incessantly negative to one of positive reinforcement no amount of outside "competition" is going to make one iota's worth of difference

A perfect example of policies and law being based on INTENTION rather than RESULTS.

You do not know what's best for other family's children, no matter how much you through a temper tantrum and insist that you do.

 

[eflatminor]

much of the planning is done by local committees.

Even if that local planning didn't involve state and federal mandates/funding, which all do, that's no reason for government to run the schools. Should local committees run all markets? Clearly not.

The results speak for themselves. Our kids fail/dropout at an alarming rate. They graduate with 'skills' that wouldn't get them out of the 8th grade a century ago. The costs far outpace the overall rate of inflation. All because THERE IS NO CHOICE in the market for affordable education.

Rome managed to build it's empire without public education of any kind. When they did implement government control of the education market, its timing matched their decline. Not the only reason for their eventual failure, but a correlation and arguable causation in history we should not duplicate.

At the very least, get the damn Feds out from meddling in education!

Ironic how that illustrates a lack of education in both history and logic. Not one reputable source on the fall of the Roman Empire would make that correlation let alone attempt to argue for causation.

You mean "Not one LEFTIST source".

Got it...

 

[Derideo_Te]

The problem with attaching a price tag to an education is the people who are least likely to pay to send their kids to a good school are the people who's kids most need good schools.

Spoken like a true central planner that's just SURE he knows what's best for others.

Pass.

I've never understood why people think that private sector "bureaucrats" are somehow better than public sector ones.

Because government bureaucrats have no incentive to thrive. In the public sector, if you don't please your customers, you lose your job. Perhaps Carolyn Lochhead said it best:

"Public educators, like Soviet farmers, lack any incentive to produce results, innovate, to be efficient, to make the kinds of of difficult changes that private firms operating in a competitive market must make to survive."

The ludicrous fallacy of attempting to equate education to capitalism is so obvious and yet none of those who try to do so seem to be capable of grasping it.

If there was a real profit to be made in elementary education why has this opportunity never been seriously exploited by corporations before now?

 

[eflatminor]

If there was a real profit to be made in elementary education why has this opportunity never been seriously exploited by corporations before now?

Wow, if this has to be explained to you, I'm not sure there is any hope...but here goes:

No company, entrepreneur or capital market is going to invest into a sector (affordable k-12 education) that is controlled by a government monopoly.

Think about it with a modicum of logic and reason. The people are forcibly taxed to pay for public education. Who, other than the very rich, are going to pay twice for their kids education?

Duh.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Even if that local planning didn't involve state and federal mandates/funding, which all do, that's no reason for government to run the schools. Should local committees run all markets? Clearly not.

The results speak for themselves. Our kids fail/dropout at an alarming rate. They graduate with 'skills' that wouldn't get them out of the 8th grade a century ago. The costs far outpace the overall rate of inflation. All because THERE IS NO CHOICE in the market for affordable education.

Rome managed to build it's empire without public education of any kind. When they did implement government control of the education market, its timing matched their decline. Not the only reason for their eventual failure, but a correlation and arguable causation in history we should not duplicate.

At the very least, get the damn Feds out from meddling in education!

Ironic how that illustrates a lack of education in both history and logic. Not one reputable source on the fall of the Roman Empire would make that correlation let alone attempt to argue for causation.

You mean "Not one LEFTIST source".

Got it...

Your failure to substantiate your allegation is duly noted.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yet ANOTHER consequence of the increasingly monopolistic control of affordable education by government.

Get the government out of running the schools and allow competition in the education market. That is the only way to realize improved results and lower prices. The 'top-down' status quo only serves to produce profoundly ignorant students (as O'Connor describes), ridiculous drop out and illiteracy rates, and skyrocketing costs that far outpace the overall rate of inflation.

You want to redistribute money to poor families so that they can purchase an education for their children? Fine, but the idea that government RUNS the schools, from what's in the text books to how many tater tots get served at lunch is the problem. We need COMPETITION in education, not more central planning.

End the government monopoly on affordable education now!

Facts not in Evidence!

Logic not in use!



Doesn't work here. Stick to the reality of what we face in this country. We spend more per student than all those countries (with the possible exception of ultra-rich Switzerland and Austria), yet the more we spend, the worse the results and the higher the costs.

Open your mind to possibilities that aren't part of the central planner's creed, for once.



Ah yes, more leftist central planning...that's the answer.



You're joking, right? Have you taken a look at the tripe that passes for text books lately? Good gawd man, open your eyes!



"Vouchers" still deal with government run schools dumb ass. There is no free market competition in affordable education, not even close.

Competition in education has nothing to do with the source of the funding. It comes from the parents pushing their kids to be straight A students.

How's that working out?

Until the attitude towards education changes from being incessantly negative to one of positive reinforcement no amount of outside "competition" is going to make one iota's worth of difference

A perfect example of policies and law being based on INTENTION rather than RESULTS.

You do not know what's best for other family's children, no matter how much you through a temper tantrum and insist that you do.

Strike two!

 

[Derideo_Te]

If there was a real profit to be made in elementary education why has this opportunity never been seriously exploited by corporations before now?

Wow, if this has to be explained to you, I'm not sure there is any hope...but here goes:

No company, entrepreneur or capital market is going to invest into a sector (affordable k-12 education) that is controlled by a government monopoly.

Think about it with a modicum of logic and reason. The people are forcibly taxed to pay for public education. Who, other than the very rich, are going to pay twice for their kids education?

Duh.

Primary education has been around in one form or another since the dawn of civilization. So has capitalism. In all those thousands of years you have failed to establish that there is a profit to be made in elementary education.

Strike Three!

 

[psikeyhackr]

"The more I read and the more I listen, the more apparent it is that our society suffers from an alarming degree of public ignorance" Sandra Day O'Connor

Retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in Boise, laments 'alarming degree of public ignorance' - KansasCity.com

How long did it take her to figure that out?

Our schools are designed to produce indoctrinated ignorance.

Various professionals want people kept ignorant of their area of specialty.

How can double-entry accounting be 700 years old and economists not suggest it be mandatory in the schools. And then don't talk about what consumers lose on depreciation of cars and air conditioners and computers etc. etc.

Politicians want dumb voters too.

People can't figure out supposedly collapsing skyscrapers either. That one is really funny.

psik

 

[psikeyhackr]

Primary education has been around in one form or another since the dawn of civilization. So has capitalism. In all those thousands of years you have failed to establish that there is a profit to be made in elementary education.

Strike Three!

Mass education is less than 200 years old. It did not exist in Adam Smith's day. It started in the 1880s. Before then it was for the rich.

psik

 

[Unkotare]

as a nation the USA no longer treats education as being something to aspire to obtaining. .

That is BS.