Is this true? If so, why?

[Derideo_Te]

I posted a link to a profitable public company that operates elementary schools. I wonder why it was ignored.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7814447-post53.html

Because none of your links addressed the question. They are not designed to replace the entire current public school system with a for profit alternative that will meet all of the needs of the existing system. Instead they are either a technological enhancement to existing public schooling and/or focused exclusively on the wealthy.

Eflatminor was claiming that a for profit model was the solution to public schooling. So far no one has been able to provide a viable business plan that establishes how that will work.

That's it, keep moving those goalposts around. You are a disingenuous interlocutor.

So now you are calling eflatminor a"disingenuous interlocutor" because he "moved the goalposts" by alleging that competition and free markets were the "solution" to public schools even though he has proven himself incapable of substantiating that allegation? Thank you for reminding me why I ignore the vast majority of your posts.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Years ago we had high school which focused on technology, auto mechanics, printing, woodworking and such. Later there existed Regional Occupational Programs (ROP) within high schools where kids could focus (major in) a wide range of professional and technical areas. One of the best was SCROP (Southern California ROP) in LA County.

I visited SCROP with other LE personal who managed jails, it was an eye opener. Young people from the Hollywood Hills working in class with kids from the hood, both with the same interests. Some learned to be Jet Engine Mechanics and received hands on training an experience at LAX. Other learned drawing an animation at Disney Studios.

That's the model that should be started in grade school!

Probably not many 8 or 9 year olds are ready to work on jet engines.

See: SoCal ROC - Southern California Regional Occupational Center 310-224-4200

I see they/ve changed the name, but the concept remains the same; go to the link and see what's available today.

Not the point!

I did the "Bring your Dad to work" thing for my son when he was 6th grade. The guy before me was a fireman and he brought some of his equipment.

Long story short, my son said he was never asking me to come back again

 

[Unkotare]

Because none of your links addressed the question. They are not designed to replace the entire current public school system with a for profit alternative that will meet all of the needs of the existing system. Instead they are either a technological enhancement to existing public schooling and/or focused exclusively on the wealthy.

Eflatminor was claiming that a for profit model was the solution to public schooling. So far no one has been able to provide a viable business plan that establishes how that will work.

That's it, keep moving those goalposts around. You are a disingenuous interlocutor.

So now you are calling eflatminor a"disingenuous interlocutor"

No, I was directing my comments at you. How's that Reading Comprehension course coming along?

 

[Wry Catcher]

I posted a link to a profitable public company that operates elementary schools. I wonder why it was ignored.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7814447-post53.html

Because none of your links addressed the question. They are not designed to replace the entire current public school system with a for profit alternative that will meet all of the needs of the existing system. Instead they are either a technological enhancement to existing public schooling and/or focused exclusively on the wealthy.

Eflatminor was claiming that a for profit model was the solution to public schooling. So far no one has been able to provide a viable business plan that establishes how that will work.

That's it, keep moving those goalposts around. You are a disingenuous interlocutor.

Nice try. An Ad Hominem response to his argument is beyond disingenuous, it is dishonest.

The foundation of his argument is this: They [your links] are not designed to replace the entire current public school system with a for profit alternative that will meet all of the needs of the existing system

No one is arguing against private school. Those who have the money will send their kids to them. Most Americans cannot afford to do so, and given the latest stats demonstrating the 1% continue to garner more and more of the wealth or our nation, and Scott Walker, et al, want to reduce the income of many Americans, a private school experience will remain out of the reach of most of our kids.

 

[Unkotare]

Because none of your links addressed the question. They are not designed to replace the entire current public school system with a for profit alternative that will meet all of the needs of the existing system. Instead they are either a technological enhancement to existing public schooling and/or focused exclusively on the wealthy.

Eflatminor was claiming that a for profit model was the solution to public schooling. So far no one has been able to provide a viable business plan that establishes how that will work.

That's it, keep moving those goalposts around. You are a disingenuous interlocutor.

Nice try. An Ad Hominem response to his argument is beyond disingenuous, it is dishonest.

The foundation of his argument is this: They [your links] are not designed to replace the entire current public school system with a for profit alternative that will meet all of the needs of the existing system

No one is arguing against private school. Those who have the money will send their kids to them. Most Americans cannot afford to do so, and given the latest stats demonstrating the 1% continue to garner more and more of the wealth or our nation, and Scott Walker, et al, want to reduce the income of many Americans, a private school experience will remain out of the reach of most of our kids.

Maybe you should read all the posts before leaping to some yahoo's defense. His original argument did not include the "entire system" part until after his original premise was (repeatedly) proven wrong. Then it became his central premise because he knew that if he kept broadening the premise - even to the point of absurdity - that he could try to prop up a faltering argument. THAT is moving the goalposts, Sunny Jim.

 

[Wry Catcher]

That's it, keep moving those goalposts around. You are a disingenuous interlocutor.

Nice try. An Ad Hominem response to his argument is beyond disingenuous, it is dishonest.

The foundation of his argument is this: They [your links] are not designed to replace the entire current public school system with a for profit alternative that will meet all of the needs of the existing system

No one is arguing against private school. Those who have the money will send their kids to them. Most Americans cannot afford to do so, and given the latest stats demonstrating the 1% continue to garner more and more of the wealth or our nation, and Scott Walker, et al, want to reduce the income of many Americans, a private school experience will remain out of the reach of most of our kids.

Maybe you should read all the posts before leaping to some yahoo's defense. His original argument did not include the "entire system" part until after his original premise was (repeatedly) proven wrong. Then it became his central premise because he knew that if he kept broadening the premise - even to the point of absurdity - that he could try to prop up a faltering argument. THAT is moving the goalposts, Sunny Jim.

The entire argument for private schools (replacing public schools) is easily inferred. As I pointed out, no one is opposed to private schools though (and I didn't post this explicitly) the public should not be taxed to support a private, for profit, school (via vouchers).

The public should not subsidize religious schools which already have the benefit of accepting donations granting the parents of their students a tax deduction and receiving the same protections from police and fire as do public schools.

 

[eflatminor]

Government bureaucrats? Your disdain for teachers is noted.

I have no disdain for teachers. They should, and would, thrive in a free market of education...at least the more capable ones would. And, they'd be paid well for their efforts, which is hardly the case today with the ridiculous concept of tenure dominating compensation.

Nice try to put words in my mouth. Fail...again.



Any teacher capable of performing up to the standards required of their paying customers...just like any profession.



They'd respond to the demands of their customers, like any service operation. They'd meet or exceed expectations, provide good value for money, or they'd be replace...again, just like any operation.



Different issue. You want to make a case that poor families should receive taxpayer money to pay for their kids education, fine. I'm saying government shouldn't RUN the schools because that takes away competition, consumer choice, the necessity to thrive. What you get, as always, is shitty results and skyrocketing costs...aka, the status quo.

What I'm hearing is one more iteration of "ain't government awful", a poorly thought out and emotional response to a serious problem

Then make the case that despite our spending more per student than just about any other nation, why should we continue to allow unmotivated bureaucrats run the education market. The floor is yours.

I get your ideology. And I understand that the public school system is broken. The answer is not to privatize the system but to improve it. One size does not fit every student - the success of the private school system is the kid must fit the system or out on their ass they go.

However, the rich kid that gets put 'out on his ass' has the choice to attend a different school, more appropriate to his needs. Were affordable education not run by government, there would be far more choices in education that would allow for education customers to choose the school they wanted and that wanted them.

Think of it this way: If you walk into a car dealership and are unable to buy the car you want at the price you're willing to pay, you find another dealer that has your car at your price. With affordable education, it's like government running every car dealership and they only sell overpriced Chevys, when you're a Ford man.

Public schools must accept every kid, bright or not, socialized or not, interested in learning or not. Not an easy task and not one which the private sector would likely service.

I disagree. There are private schools today that thrive on concept of catering to kids with developmental and/or social problems. They're only for rich kids of course, because government monopolizes the market for affordable education for ALL students.

Of course there would be providers who take 'troubled' kids and put them altogether in a contained environment, but rarely does that produce a well educated, socialized adult.

I disagree. A private or charitable school that focuses on troubled kids could very well produce superior results vs the notion of throwing short bus kids into the mix with all other students. Further, if you're right, the market would respond by providing schools that catered to a wide range of students...going after educational dollars for people that think as you do with regard to a diverse student population. However, I suspect that at a school that specializes in troubled kids, they could get the special attention they need. The point is, if they didn't, those parents would have the choice to send them to another school...not the case with the status quo.

It also has the inherent risk of labeling kids and putting them in a box if they, for example, question authority or have interests which are not congruent with the lesson plan.

There is no reason to suspect that a free market for education would reject kids that question authority. If the that's what customers want their kids to do, schools will respond to that demand with an environment that encourages the questioning of authority. Where there is a demand, a supply will always come forward to meet it...unless the law prevents that from happening.

All kids need to learn how to read with comprehension, write clearly and compute.

Which is NOT happening today.

They all also need to be socialized and not with the aid of the latest iteration of Soma. The classroom in a public school is ideally a microcosm of society in general, a place where children of different races, religions and intellectual capacity can lean to get along and work together.

There is no reason to believe that private/charitable affordable schools wouldn't offer classrooms of kids with diverse backgrounds. If that's what you want and others want for your kids, you'll get it. Why would a company in the education market NOT respond to demand? Makes no sense.

Of course that's idealistic, for many reasons that cannot be accomplished. What might be a better way to integrate our kids into a diverse learning environment is to allow them to attend a school structured around their interests and talents

Which a free market for education would allow.

You started by saying we should "improve" the status quo but not allow private organizations or charity step in. You provided a critique of my idea, which I've responded to but specifically, how do you propose we improve on the government's control of affordable education?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Because...? Ah, I see, the "because I say so" retort. Beautiful, works every time...

Still waiting for you to defend the status quo. How's that working out?

The onus remains on you to prove that in spite of thousands of years of commerce and education that there is a profit to be made in elementary education. So far you have done nothing but spout platitudes without a single substantive aspect of a feasible business plan.

Multiple examples provided in this thread DESPITE the government monopoly on affordable education.

How's that defense of the status quo coming along???

But amazingly you are incapable of referring to any single one of them as being the "free market competition"" replacement for the existing public school system as you originally alleged was the "solution". On the positive side your track record of failing to provide anything of substance remains unblemished.

 

[eflatminor]

The onus remains on you to prove that in spite of thousands of years of commerce and education that there is a profit to be made in elementary education. So far you have done nothing but spout platitudes without a single substantive aspect of a feasible business plan.

Multiple examples provided in this thread DESPITE the government monopoly on affordable education.

How's that defense of the status quo coming along???

But amazingly you are incapable of referring to any single one of them as being the "free market competition"" replacement for the existing public school system as you originally alleged was the "solution". On the positive side your track record of failing to provide anything of substance remains unblemished.

We get you're a troll. Now go away and let the grown ups discuss the idea of a free market vs. government controlled market for education. Some of us hope to explore the subject and maybe learn someone from one another.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Multiple examples provided in this thread DESPITE the government monopoly on affordable education.

How's that defense of the status quo coming along???

But amazingly you are incapable of referring to any single one of them as being the "free market competition"" replacement for the existing public school system as you originally alleged was the "solution". On the positive side your track record of failing to provide anything of substance remains unblemished.

We get you're a troll. Now go away and let the grown ups discuss the idea of a free market vs. government controlled market for education. Some of us hope to explore the subject and maybe learn someone from one another.

Kindly refrain from projecting your own shortcomings onto others. As far as learning goes we already know that you are incapable of supporting your "free market competition" allegations.

 

[eflatminor]

But amazingly you are incapable of referring to any single one of them as being the "free market competition"" replacement for the existing public school system as you originally alleged was the "solution". On the positive side your track record of failing to provide anything of substance remains unblemished.

We get you're a troll. Now go away and let the grown ups discuss the idea of a free market vs. government controlled market for education. Some of us hope to explore the subject and maybe learn someone from one another.

Kindly refrain from projecting your own shortcomings onto others. As far as learning goes we already know that you are incapable of supporting your "free market competition" allegations.

If you wish to tell us how you'd improve our educational system, we're ready to hear you out. If you want to critique the idea of a free market for education, have at it. Or defend the status quo, that's fine. Otherwise, you're just trolling. It's pathetic.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I have no disdain for teachers. They should, and would, thrive in a free market of education...at least the more capable ones would. And, they'd be paid well for their efforts, which is hardly the case today with the ridiculous concept of tenure dominating compensation.

Nice try to put words in my mouth. Fail...again.



Any teacher capable of performing up to the standards required of their paying customers...just like any profession.



They'd respond to the demands of their customers, like any service operation. They'd meet or exceed expectations, provide good value for money, or they'd be replace...again, just like any operation.



Different issue. You want to make a case that poor families should receive taxpayer money to pay for their kids education, fine. I'm saying government shouldn't RUN the schools because that takes away competition, consumer choice, the necessity to thrive. What you get, as always, is shitty results and skyrocketing costs...aka, the status quo.



Then make the case that despite our spending more per student than just about any other nation, why should we continue to allow unmotivated bureaucrats run the education market. The floor is yours.

I get your ideology. And I understand that the public school system is broken. The answer is not to privatize the system but to improve it. One size does not fit every student - the success of the private school system is the kid must fit the system or out on their ass they go.

However, the rich kid that gets put 'out on his ass' has the choice to attend a different school, more appropriate to his needs. Were affordable education not run by government, there would be far more choices in education that would allow for education customers to choose the school they wanted and that wanted them.

Think of it this way: If you walk into a car dealership and are unable to buy the car you want at the price you're willing to pay, you find another dealer that has your car at your price. With affordable education, it's like government running every car dealership and they only sell overpriced Chevys, when you're a Ford man.



I disagree. There are private schools today that thrive on concept of catering to kids with developmental and/or social problems. They're only for rich kids of course, because government monopolizes the market for affordable education for ALL students.



I disagree. A private or charitable school that focuses on troubled kids could very well produce superior results vs the notion of throwing short bus kids into the mix with all other students. Further, if you're right, the market would respond by providing schools that catered to a wide range of students...going after educational dollars for people that think as you do with regard to a diverse student population. However, I suspect that at a school that specializes in troubled kids, they could get the special attention they need. The point is, if they didn't, those parents would have the choice to send them to another school...not the case with the status quo.



There is no reason to suspect that a free market for education would reject kids that question authority. If the that's what customers want their kids to do, schools will respond to that demand with an environment that encourages the questioning of authority. Where there is a demand, a supply will always come forward to meet it...unless the law prevents that from happening.



Which is NOT happening today.

They all also need to be socialized and not with the aid of the latest iteration of Soma. The classroom in a public school is ideally a microcosm of society in general, a place where children of different races, religions and intellectual capacity can lean to get along and work together.

There is no reason to believe that private/charitable affordable schools wouldn't offer classrooms of kids with diverse backgrounds. If that's what you want and others want for your kids, you'll get it. Why would a company in the education market NOT respond to demand? Makes no sense.

Of course that's idealistic, for many reasons that cannot be accomplished. What might be a better way to integrate our kids into a diverse learning environment is to allow them to attend a school structured around their interests and talents

Which a free market for education would allow.

You started by saying we should "improve" the status quo but not allow private organizations or charity step in. You provided a critique of my idea, which I've responded to but specifically, how do you propose we improve on the government's control of affordable education?

What is your background and experience which you rely on in making what I consider absurd examples? I spent a diverse 32 years in law enforcement working with probation, parole, corrections, school districts and providers offering residential treatment for drug and mental health issues.

With all honesty I believe your opinions are beyond absurd and solely based on a ridiculous ideology that the private sector is all good - it ain't - and government is all bad.

BTW, suggesting I'm opposed to public/private partisanship is absolutely wrong. I wrote and managed DOJ grants which included collaboration between the Sheriff's Dept., Probation, various police agencies, State Parole, the Women's Shelter, 52-week batter's treatment programs, drug and alcohol providers, the faith community, HUD and the Chamber of Commerce.

 

[eflatminor]

What is your background and experience which you rely on in making what I consider absurd examples?

Wow. I thought we had begun a conversation on a civil level. Guess not.

My background is an entrepreneur and investment banker. Before that, I spent 15 years with a Fortune 100 financial services company.

I spent a diverse 32 years in law enforcement working with probation, parole, corrections, school districts and providers offering residential treatment for drug and mental health issues.

Great. That certainly qualifies you to comment on the problems of the current education system in America. I'd like to hear your opinion as to how to improve it...or a defense of the status quo.

With all honesty I believe your opinions are beyond absurd and solely based on a ridiculous ideology that the private sector is all good - it ain't - and government is all bad.

First, I never said, nor do I advocate, that all in the private sector is good and in government bad. I'm simply acknowledging the blatant failures of the status quo, despite spending more per student than other nations. I'm suggesting consumer choice would be a better approach than a government monopoly. Nothing more.

If you believe my opinions are absurd, then please, tell us how you would fix the results and costs we see today or defend the status quo. I'm interested in your opinion. I'm not interested in personal attacks.

BTW, suggesting I'm opposed to public/private partisanship is absolutely wrong. I wrote and managed DOJ grants which included collaboration between the Sheriff's Dept., Probation, various police agencies, State Parole, the Women's Shelter, 52-week batter's treatment programs, drug and alcohol providers, the faith community, HUD and the Chamber of Commerce.

If I suggested that, which I don't think I did, I apologize. Again, I'm looking for someone to tell me why an education market based on consumer choice wouldn't work better than what we have today or alternatively how we could improve the status quo.

Stated differently, what's your plan?

 

[Derideo_Te]

In response to eflatminor's "challenge" here are some of the issues his "solution" needs to address with viable and feasible options that will work in all circumstances.

1. Locations and Types of Services.

Schools are build to serve communities. They offer safe and secure premises with a variety of services that range from education, sports, music and arts, special needs, after school activities, counseling, languages, on site medical care, transportation, cafeterias, groundskeeping and janitorial services. Most business models focus on niches and specialize in order to be competitive. In this regard we have seen outsourcing of some service aspects such as administration, food and janitorial aspects of schools. What business model would be capable of profitably addressing all of the above in a one size fits all manner?

2. Student Populations.

One of the major issues in public education is dealing with the ebb and flow of student populations as they grow and shrink depending upon the economic factors of the communities that they serve. Optimal class size is 20 children per teacher. How will your business model cope when it has to deal with an unexpected influx or drop in student population? Will it be flexible enough to expand the number of classrooms or deal with a drop in income because of fewer student enrollments?

3. Academic Standards.

Parents will be paying your "free market" corporations to educate their children. How will you ensure that their children actually receive the necessary education? What guarantees will you provide to ensure that the parents are getting what they paid you for? How will you handle lawsuits when a child fails to pass a grade? How will you handle discipline issues? You are contractually obligated to educate their children. How will dealing with problem children impact your bottom line?

4. Parent/Teacher Associations.

These exist because concerned parents want to be involved in the education of their children. How do you intend to deal with this time consuming aspect of the business? These will occur after hours and you will be obliged to pay overtime in order to hear out what each and every concerned parent has to say.

5. Politics and Prayer in Schools.

Most businesses place a moratorium on the discussion of politics and religion in the workplace. In schools children are taught about politics and religion. Many are encouraged to become politically active. Schools often have student led bible classes. As a for profit business you are going to have to deal with this minefield. How exactly do you intend to make a profit while dealing with these issues? Then there is the matter of the curriculum and whether or not you should be teaching "creation science" and allowing teacher led school prayers. There are no right answers here so how will you deal with the inevitable lawsuits?

Lots more to come but let's see you get started with those easy ones first.

 

[Wry Catcher]

We already have a consumer choice educational system, eflatminor. It includes the public school system, religious schools, charter schools\, magnet schools and the right of parents and their kids to be schooled at home.

That said, I have already posted some but not all of my ideas on how the pubic schools might be improved, in the same post wherein I stated they are broken. In short:

Incorporating a Montessori pedagogy for children in the lower division. During that time complete an assessment of each child's abilities, talents and interests and incorporating them into a non rigid educational plan (evaluated each semester) by age 12. Of course each child will need to learn, at their own pace, reading, writing and computation and then advance to the next stage of their educational experience by demonstrating competence in these three critical areas. Competence will be petty much assured with annual assessments and remedial tutoring.

At age 13 and 14 (approximately) each child would enter a small campus within a middle school which they and their parents would choose a focus for each child's special interests: Art, music, sports, mechanics or technology and incorporating the child's interest into history, math, literature, science, etc.

By the 9th grade the teen is ready to choose traditional high school or a regional occupational program. See for example:

SoCal ROC - Southern California Regional Occupational Center 310-224-4200

SCROC incorporates public - private partnerships in a practical application of education which benefits the child and various industries.

 

[eflatminor]

We already have a consumer choice educational system, eflatminor. It includes the public school system, religious schools, charter schools\, magnet schools and the right of parents and their kids to be schooled at home.

I would argue that choice only exists for wealthy or perhaps gifted students...those that can afford a private education or whose parents can afford the time to home school. Affordable education for average kids offers little to no real choice.

That said, I have already posted some but not all of my ideas on how the pubic schools might be improved, in the same post wherein I stated they are broken. In short:

Incorporating a Montessori pedagogy for children in the lower division. During that time complete an assessment of each child's abilities, talents and interests and incorporating them into a non rigid educational plan (evaluated each semester) by age 12. Of course each child will need to learn, at their own pace, reading, writing and computation and need to be able to advanced to the next stage of their educational experience by demonstrating competence in these three critical areas.

At age 13 and 14 (approximately) each child would enter a small campus within a middle school which they and their parents would choose with a focus each child's special interests: Art, music, sports, mechanics and technology. Incorporating the child's interest into history, math, literature, science, etc.

By the 9th grade the teen is ready to choose traditional high school or a regional occupational program. See for example:

SoCal ROC - Southern California Regional Occupational Center 310-224-4200

SCROC incorporates public - private partnerships in a practical application of education which benefits the child and various industries.

That's interesting. I'm a bit concerned this idea could be even more expensive that the status quo...which is among the highest cost-per-student in the world. Still, worth looking into further. I like the idea of incorporating partnerships with private entities. I like the idea of requiring a mastering of the '3 Rs' before a kid can proceed. Still, I like better the idea of true consumer choice in education.

Would you agree that if government didn't so control the current market for affordable education, we'd likely see more of these SCROC-like programs? I suspect we would at the local level. I doubt that will happen as educational control continues to seed its way towards more and more state and federal oversight. Either way, thanks for the input.

 

[Wry Catcher]

We already have a consumer choice educational system, eflatminor. It includes the public school system, religious schools, charter schools\, magnet schools and the right of parents and their kids to be schooled at home.

I would argue that choice only exists for wealthy or perhaps gifted students...those that can afford a private education or whose parents can afford the time to home school. Affordable education for average kids offers little to no real choice.

That said, I have already posted some but not all of my ideas on how the pubic schools might be improved, in the same post wherein I stated they are broken. In short:

Incorporating a Montessori pedagogy for children in the lower division. During that time complete an assessment of each child's abilities, talents and interests and incorporating them into a non rigid educational plan (evaluated each semester) by age 12. Of course each child will need to learn, at their own pace, reading, writing and computation and need to be able to advanced to the next stage of their educational experience by demonstrating competence in these three critical areas.

At age 13 and 14 (approximately) each child would enter a small campus within a middle school which they and their parents would choose with a focus each child's special interests: Art, music, sports, mechanics and technology. Incorporating the child's interest into history, math, literature, science, etc.

By the 9th grade the teen is ready to choose traditional high school or a regional occupational program. See for example:

SoCal ROC - Southern California Regional Occupational Center 310-224-4200

SCROC incorporates public - private partnerships in a practical application of education which benefits the child and various industries.

That's interesting. I'm a bit concerned this idea could be even more expensive that the status quo...which is among the highest cost-per-student in the world. Still, worth looking into further. I like the idea of incorporating partnerships with private entities. I like the idea of requiring a mastering of the '3 Rs' before a kid can proceed. Still, I like better the idea of true consumer choice in education.

Would you agree that if government didn't so control the current market for affordable education, we'd likely see more of these SCROC-like programs? I suspect we would at the local level. I doubt that will happen as educational control continues to seed its way towards more and more state and federal oversight. Either way, thanks for the input.

It might become more expensive at the onset, and change in every human endeavor is never easy. Keep in mind the words of Justice O'Conner and comport her words with the success of students in other countries. As one engaged in Investment Banking you might measure the risk of spending more today on the rewards of tomorrow.

Keeping kids interested, not making learning a chore but an adventure would, IMO, reap benefits far beyond anything we might imagine.

 

[eflatminor]

In response to eflatminor's "challenge" here are some of the issues his "solution" needs to address with viable and feasible options that will work in all circumstances.

1. Locations and Types of Services.

Schools are build to serve communities. They offer safe and secure premises with a variety of services that range from education, sports, music and arts, special needs, after school activities, counseling, languages, on site medical care, transportation, cafeterias, groundskeeping and janitorial services. Most business models focus on niches and specialize in order to be competitive. In this regard we have seen outsourcing of some service aspects such as administration, food and janitorial aspects of schools. What business model would be capable of profitably addressing all of the above in a one size fits all manner?

I'm hesitant to address your points given your history, but I'll give it one more try in the name of civility.

No business model need address a "one size fits all" approach. That's the point. With the choice that only a free market can bring, you're free to choose the educational approach that works for YOU without worrying about other people's families.

2. Student Populations.

One of the major issues in public education is dealing with the ebb and flow of student populations as they grow and shrink depending upon the economic factors of the communities that they serve. Optimal class size is 20 children per teacher. How will your business model cope when it has to deal with an unexpected influx or drop in student population? Will it be flexible enough to expand the number of classrooms or deal with a drop in income because of fewer student enrollments?

Yes. Businesses must be flexible to demand or they fail and are replaced by those that are.

If you think 20 is the optimal class size, you get to seek out a provider that offers that class size, not what some bureaucrat thinks is optimal.

3. Academic Standards.

Parents will be paying your "free market" corporations to educate their children.

They pay now through property taxes and other assessments. They have no choice in the matter. I'm suggesting a voluntary approach will produce superior results with much better value for money.

And again, there is nothing to stop charitable organizations from competing in the educational market, which are rarely 'corporations'.

How will you ensure that their children actually receive the necessary education?

Because if the provider doesn't meet or exceed your expectations for a 'necessary education', you get to take your money elsewhere, a choice you don't have with government run schools.

What guarantees will you provide to ensure that the parents are getting what they paid you for?

You have such guarantees with the status quo of public education? Hardly. At least with choice you get to choose another provider if they've failed your child. Companies or even charities that don't meet the expectations of their customers do not last long. Government agencies NEVER go away.

How will you handle lawsuits when a child fails to pass a grade?

Like any business handles a lawsuit. First and foremost, they seek to avoid them by satisfying their customers. You can't sue a public school when a child fails to pass a grade...and we all know how that's working out.

How will you handle discipline issues? You are contractually obligated to educate their children. How will dealing with problem children impact your bottom line?

There would be a contract between the parents and the school, just as with private schools today. They have no problems with the issues you bring up here, why should affordable private schools be any different?

4. Parent/Teacher Associations.

These exist because concerned parents want to be involved in the education of their children. How do you intend to deal with this time consuming aspect of the business? These will occur after hours and you will be obliged to pay overtime in order to hear out what each and every concerned parent has to say.

Again, today's private schools have no problem involving their customers (parents) from the educational process. There is no reason to suggest it would any different if more private schools competed for educational dollars.

5. Politics and Prayer in Schools.

Most businesses place a moratorium on the discussion of politics and religion in the workplace.

That is simply not true of today's private schools.

In schools children are taught about politics and religion. Many are encouraged to become politically active. Schools often have student led bible classes. As a for profit business you are going to have to deal with this minefield. How exactly do you intend to make a profit while dealing with these issues?

Same way current private schools do. With a free market for education, there would be schools that encouraged political discussion and others that stuck to the basics of learning. YOU get the choice that works for your kids. How refreshing!

Then there is the matter of the curriculum and whether or not you should be teaching "creation science" and allowing teacher led school prayers.

If a private school teaches something you don't agree with, choose another school for your child. Problem solved.

There are no right answers here so how will you deal with the inevitable lawsuits?

Again, the same way current private schools do. Further, with greater choice in education, the frequency of lawsuits is diminished. After all, if a school provides unsatisfactory service to a customer, that customer is far less likely to take on the time and costs of a lawsuit if there are more choices in the market. They'll tend to simply pick a new provider.

 

[Derideo_Te]

In response to eflatminor's "challenge" here are some of the issues his "solution" needs to address with viable and feasible options that will work in all circumstances.

1. Locations and Types of Services.

Schools are build to serve communities. They offer safe and secure premises with a variety of services that range from education, sports, music and arts, special needs, after school activities, counseling, languages, on site medical care, transportation, cafeterias, groundskeeping and janitorial services. Most business models focus on niches and specialize in order to be competitive. In this regard we have seen outsourcing of some service aspects such as administration, food and janitorial aspects of schools. What business model would be capable of profitably addressing all of the above in a one size fits all manner?

I'm hesitant to address your points given your history, but I'll give it one more try in the name of civility.

The record of this thread clearly shows that you were the first to engage in incivility so once again I will ask you to refrain from projecting your own shortcomings onto others.

No business model need address a "one size fits all" approach. That's the point. With the choice that only a free market can bring, you're free to choose the educational approach that works for YOU without worrying about other people's families.

You make the assumption that there will be the full range of these "free market" education providers (FMEP for short) in all possible locations where schools are necessary. In the real world markets those choices are restricted by geography. Certainly the best shops in the world can be found in places like Madison Ave and Riverside Drive but they don't have stores in Sayre, PA or Wittenberg, WI. So already your "free market" competition concept has stumbled at the first fence.

2. Student Populations.

One of the major issues in public education is dealing with the ebb and flow of student populations as they grow and shrink depending upon the economic factors of the communities that they serve. Optimal class size is 20 children per teacher. How will your business model cope when it has to deal with an unexpected influx or drop in student population? Will it be flexible enough to expand the number of classrooms or deal with a drop in income because of fewer student enrollments?

Yes. Businesses must be flexible to demand or they fail and are replaced by those that are.

Your cavalier attitude towards a business failing doesn't take into account that it leaves parents out of pocket and without the funds to put their children in another school and leaves their children bereft of the education they deserve.

If you think 20 is the optimal class size, you get to seek out a provider that offers that class size, not what some bureaucrat thinks is optimal.

That you don't know what research has proven to be the optimal class size shows that you have not done your homework for your own concept. Investors look askance at anyone who is this lackadaisical when it comes to knowing their own product offerings.

They pay now through property taxes and other assessments. They have no choice in the matter. I'm suggesting a voluntary approach will produce superior results with much better value for money.

You haven't demonstrated either "superior results" or "better value for money". In order to make that claim you need factual data to demonstrate that it will occur. The charter schools have not managed to do what you claim. What makes you believe that you can do any better?

And again, there is nothing to stop charitable organizations from competing in the educational market, which are rarely 'corporations'.



Because if the provider doesn't meet or exceed your expectations for a 'necessary education', you get to take your money elsewhere, a choice you don't have with government run schools.

Do you have any idea how condescending that sounds? If the parents are too poor to pay for their children's education they will be forced to attend religious based charity schools instead?

You have such guarantees with the status quo of public education? Hardly. At least with choice you get to choose another provider if they've failed your child. Companies or even charities that don't meet the expectations of their customers do not last long. Government agencies NEVER go away.

You miss the point entirely. When a child fails a grade in a public school there is usually a sound reason for that happening. Public schools will offer remedial classes during the Summer and work with the child to bring them back on track. With your FMEP the parents are SOL. They did not get what they paid for and they are told to go somewhere else. Talk about a recipe for disaster. The class action lawyers will have a field day.

Like any business handles a lawsuit. First and foremost, they seek to avoid them by satisfying their customers. You can't sue a public school when a child fails to pass a grade...and we all know how that's working out.

So in order to avoid lawsuits your FMEP's will promote a child regardless as to whether or not they met the criteria for that grade? Isn't that what you are complaining that public schools are doing? How is your "solution" any different other than making you wealthy?

There would be a contract between the parents and the school, just as with private schools today. They have no problems with the issues you bring up here, why should affordable private schools be any different?

Have you ever read one of those contracts?

Again, today's private schools have no problem involving their customers (parents) from the educational process. There is no reason to suggest it would any different if more private schools competed for educational dollars.

Have you done any research at all into how the business model works for private schools?

That is simply not true of today's private schools.

See above.

Same way current private schools do. With a free market for education, there would be schools that encouraged political discussion and others that stuck to the basics of learning. YOU get the choice that works for your kids. How refreshing!

Once again your assumptions are on display. What if those kinds of schools are just not available in your area?

Then there is the matter of the curriculum and whether or not you should be teaching "creation science" and allowing teacher led school prayers.

If a private school teaches something you don't agree with, choose another school for your child. Problem solved.

You assume that everyone will have choices that simply won't exist in the real world. You don't have a solution. You have a pipe dream.

There are no right answers here so how will you deal with the inevitable lawsuits?

Again, the same way current private schools do. Further, with greater choice in education, the frequency of lawsuits is diminished. After all, if a school provides unsatisfactory service to a customer, that customer is far less likely to take on the time and costs of a lawsuit if there are more choices in the market. They'll tend to simply pick a new provider.

Now we know why you didn't produce a feasible business plan initially. Because you haven't done even the most rudimentary of research into this topic. You are simply claiming that "free market competition" is the one-size-fits-all solution to every problem where government is involved. The reality is that is just not true. It takes creativity to find real world solutions. Wry_Catcher has produced more viable and feasible alternatives in 3 posts than you have in the sum total of all of your posts in this thread.

Spoiler: Prediction

This is where you return to calling me a "troll" and pretending that you still have something of value to offer.

 

[eflatminor]

In response to eflatminor's "challenge" here are some of the issues his "solution" needs to address with viable and feasible options that will work in all circumstances.

1. Locations and Types of Services.

Schools are build to serve communities. They offer safe and secure premises with a variety of services that range from education, sports, music and arts, special needs, after school activities, counseling, languages, on site medical care, transportation, cafeterias, groundskeeping and janitorial services. Most business models focus on niches and specialize in order to be competitive. In this regard we have seen outsourcing of some service aspects such as administration, food and janitorial aspects of schools. What business model would be capable of profitably addressing all of the above in a one size fits all manner?

I'm hesitant to address your points given your history, but I'll give it one more try in the name of civility.

The record of this thread clearly shows that you were the first to engage in incivility so once again I will ask you to refrain from projecting your own shortcomings onto others.

You make the assumption that there will be the full range of these "free market" education providers (FMEP for short) in all possible locations where schools are necessary. In the real world markets those choices are restricted by geography. Certainly the best shops in the world can be found in places like Madison Ave and Riverside Drive but they don't have stores in Sayre, PA or Wittenberg, WI. So already your "free market" competition concept has stumbled at the first fence. False example. Sayer, PA most certainly has a demand for education, which a free market would fulfill, even if they don't have a demand for "shops". You've failed to demonstrate your case here.
Your cavalier attitude towards a business failing doesn't take into account that it leaves parents out of pocket and without the funds to put their children in another school and leaves their children bereft of the education they deserve. Wrong again. Without the property and other taxes forcibly taken from our citizens, there would be plenty of money to pay for a free market provided education.
That you don't know what research has proven to be the optimal class size shows that you have not done your homework for your own concept. Investors look askance at anyone who is this lackadaisical when it comes to knowing their own product offerings. Another false example. I didn't state that I don't know the 'optimal' class size, I said you would be free to choose the school that offered the class size you want. Big difference, but I suspect you knew that.
You haven't demonstrated either "superior results" or "better value for money". In order to make that claim you need factual data to demonstrate that it will occur. The charter schools have not managed to do what you claim. What makes you believe that you can do any better? Charter schools are not free market private institutions. They're still governed by bureaucrats, even to the extent they're outsourced. The reason I believe a free market would provide superior results and better value is because that is ALWAYS the case compared to government bureaucracies. If you believe government is more efficient that voluntary markets, I really can't help you.
Do you have any idea how condescending that sounds? If the parents are too poor to pay for their children's education they will be forced to attend religious based charity schools instead? Another false example. As I previously stated, if you want to make the case for taxpayer money going to poor families to pay for education, fine. I'm talking about getting the government out of RUNNING the schools. Big difference, which again, I suspect you knew. Stop being disingenuous in this conversation.
You miss the point entirely. When a child fails a grade in a public school there is usually a sound reason for that happening. Public schools will offer remedial classes during the Summer and work with the child to bring them back on track. With your FMEP the parents are SOL. Horse Hockey. There is no reason to believe a private school wouldn't respond to the needs of their customers. None.They did not get what they paid for and they are told to go somewhere else. Talk about a recipe for disaster. The class action lawyers will have a field day. Yet this does not happen with today's private schools. Interesting you would ignore that fact.
So in order to avoid lawsuits your FMEP's will promote a child regardless as to whether or not they met the criteria for that grade? Isn't that what you are complaining that public schools are doing? Never said that. I said private schools have an impetus to respond to the demands of their customers. Public school bureaucrats face no such pressure. How is your "solution" any different other than making you wealthy? Oh good God...
Have you ever read one of those contracts?
Have you done any research at all into how the business model works for private schools?
See above. They work just fine for millions of wealthier students. A point you seem to want to avoid entirely.
Once again your assumptions are on display. What if those kinds of schools are just not available in your area? You have zero evidence to suggest that demand would not be supplied in the absence of a government monopoly. Zero.
You assume that everyone will have choices that simply won't exist in the real world. You don't have a solution. You have a pipe dream.

I have the reality of all the other free markets that give customers choice and keep prices down. You have the most expensive public school system in the world that produces shitty results. How's that working out?

There are no right answers here so how will you deal with the inevitable lawsuits?

Again, the same way current private schools do. Further, with greater choice in education, the frequency of lawsuits is diminished. After all, if a school provides unsatisfactory service to a customer, that customer is far less likely to take on the time and costs of a lawsuit if there are more choices in the market. They'll tend to simply pick a new provider.

Now we know why you didn't produce a feasible business plan initially. Because you haven't done even the most rudimentary of research into this topic. You are simply claiming that "free market competition" is the one-size-fits-all solution to every problem where government is involved. The reality is that is just not true. It takes creativity to find real world solutions. Wry_Catcher has produced more viable and feasible alternatives in 3 posts than you have in the sum total of all of your posts in this thread.

That you would characterize the diversity of choice that only a free market can offer as "one size fits all" speaks volumes about your understand of basic economics and business. I can help you no further. Good luck with that.