Can the move towards private schools be harmful?

Great Debates
41

Don’t you know yet, Phil, it’s not about what’s best for your children, it’s about what’s best for society.

There are some posters on this board who are both parents and strong advocates of science. They are capable of supplementing the science education their own children receive in school, since schools have been to known to provide poor science education for political reasons. Doing so, however, would give their children an unfair advantage in a democratic system. Should they be allowed to do so anyway? If so, why shouldn’t they be allowed to hire someone else to do this on their behalf?

42

I disagree. Currently our government makes many decisions that influence the welfare of your children. e.g. Forced vaccinations for one, removal of children from unfit parents, compulsory education, etc… Those decisions have been made because we (the voters) have decided that it is a benefit to society to enact laws that remove some of a parent’s freedom in the decisions on how to raise their children. When you say “it should be up to individuals to decide how much education they want for themselves or their children” that is ignoring the real costs to society that can result from people having no education. No sex education? A higher chance of teenage parents and/or sexually transmitted diseases. No education at all? A higher chance that this person will depend on government aid later on in life. etc…

Sure, I would want to help my child have a better science education. But I would also want public education to include more science in the curriculum, and I would want to do my best to make that happen. If my child is in a private school, that removes some of my motivation for changing the unfortunate state of affairs in the public schools. If I push for changes in the public schools, a larger number of people will benefit.

43

I said:

Many (most?) people in government jobs don’t care about serving anyone, they want their check and benefits, and leave them alone.

then matt_mcl replied:

Oh, and of course corporate presidents care only about serving the public good in any way they can. If it’s a choice between corporate bureaucracy and government bureaucracy, I’ll take the one that at least pretends to serve the public.

matt, at least the private corporation is motivated to make money, and therefore they must please the customer and stockholders, ie make products/provide services which people are willing to pay for and which do not cost more to make than they are worth. I know that it is hard to puta price on a child’s education, but if a private school can do better for less, why not? I know that in California we spend an average of $8,000 per pupil per year (according to state accounting numbers). My son goes to private school now for less than this (and I am glad to pay it even though I could send him to a free public school). At the same time I will work for change in the public schools. So if the private school starts to turn out graduates who can’t read people can take their kids out and go to another, within the public school system you do not have that choice.
Arnold said:

Sure, I would want to help my child have a better science education. But I would also want public education to include more science in the curriculum, and I would want to do my best to make that happen. If my child is in a private school, that removes some of my motivation for changing the unfortunate state of affairs in the public schools. If I push for changes in the public schools, a larger number of people will benefit.

Arnold, by the time one teacher changes one bad situation 20, 30 or 50 kids will have wasted a year in a given course. Yes, parents should be fighting to improve the schools, but at the same time not sacrificing their kids’ education in the process. I will not have my son in the public school teaching him to put condoms on cucumbers but forgetting to teach him how to add, read, and think critically. Sorry, can’t do it!

You are saying that if parents who care take their kids elsewhere they quality of public schools goes down - maybe, and if so, too bad. Maybe more parents should care. Maybe if all parents cared we would never have gone this far in the dumps.

Sili

44

Arnold:

We did? When was this? Not to be glib, but I sure didn’t, and I don’t think you did, either.

Oh, I’m well aware of the costs. I simply think people should be permitted to decide for themselves when and where they get it. Most fears expressed on this basis are predicated on the assumption that everybody but the person speaking is monumentally stupid and will choose not to educate their child unless forced to do so.

Hey, we have that now, with cumpolsory public school ecucation. And the people who seem to be the biggest “problem” are public school attendees. Why should a parent not have a choice as to where to educate their child?

45

I (Arnold) said:
Those decisions have been made because we (the voters) have decided that it is a benefit to society to enact laws that remove some of a parent’s freedom in the decisions on how to raise their children.

pldennison replied:
We did? When was this? Not to be glib, but I sure didn’t, and I don’t think you did, either.

I’m not sure if you’re kidding or not. Are you saying that we both would have been too young to vote on (or elect legislators that decide) such issues as compulsory education, vaccination, sex education, child abuse laws ? Let me be more clear, when I say “we (the voters)” I meant “the general American public”, not specifically pldennison or Arnold Winkelried.
pldennison said:
Hey, we have that now, with cumpolsory public school ecucation. And the people who seem to be the biggest “problem” are public school attendees. Why should a parent not have a choice as to where to educate their child?

If I believe your assertion that the biggest “problem” results from public school attendees, then that would indicate to me that public schools need more attention. Your proposed solution, to have the more affluent put their children in private schools, will just accentuate the gap between the well-off and and the poor, and increase the gap in a capitalist society that affords the rich better health services, education, ability to get legal representation, etc… I personally think that it’s a bad thing.

I am not in favour of legislation that abolishes private schools, but my answer to the question posed in the OP, “Can the move towards private schools be harmful?”, is a resounding yes.

46

No, I’m saying that a system of cumpolsory public education that was instituted and designed over 100 years ago may not necessarily be the best solution now.

That is not my proposed solution. My proposed solution is to let everyone decide where to send their children, affluent or not. If they want them to go to public school, they already pay or that. If they want them to go to private school, they get a voucher. As an aside, if the public schools need anything, it’s an end to the constant politicization.

47

Arnold: I understand your view that more should be done to improve public schools. I have no children, and therefore withdraw from any discussion about school quality or even funding. But I am hearing something different from matt_mcl (and from you, up until I just read your last post.) If I had a child, and wanted to do something I thought was in her best interest, and the government said, “We cannot allow you to do this for your child because you would be harming and exploiting her”, then I could accept this. This would prevent me from forcing her to work in a factory because I had some idea that hard work builds character. But if the government said, “We agree with you that this is a good thing you want to do for your child, but we still cannot allow you to do this good thing for her, because some other parent somewhere else cannot do the same thing for his own child”, then I could not accept this. I am absolutely unable to understand how anyone who had a child could accept it.

48

pldennison said: That is not my proposed solution. My proposed solution is to let everyone decide where to send their children, affluent or not. If they want them to go to public school, they already pay or that. If they want them to go to private school, they get a voucher. As an aside, if the public schools need anything, it’s an end to the constant politicization.

So your proposed solution is that the government give vouchers to parents to reimburse them for the taxes that they are paying to support public schools. They would then use that money to pay for private school?

Why I disagree with that solution:
I would bet that with the money I provide through my taxes to a public school, I will not able to pay for a private school of equal or superior quality. (Reason for this: many more taxpayers pay for schools than actually have children in school, so the amount I personally pay for my children through taxes will not be sufficient to put them in a private school.)

So I would have to pay an additional amount to have my child to go to a private school. The phrase “let everyone decide where to send their children, affluent or not.” is pretty much equivalent to “let the people with higher salaries decide where to send their children.”

Gilligan says: But I am hearing something different from matt_mcl (and from you, up until I just read your last post.)

I don’t think I had ever said that I would make private schools illegal, but I did say I think they’re bad for society in general (though of course, better for certain individuals.)

Gilligan says: But if the government said, “We agree with you that this is a good thing you want to do for your child, but we still cannot allow you to do this good thing for her, because some other parent somewhere else cannot do the same thing for his own child”, then I could not accept this. I am absolutely unable to understand how anyone who had a child could accept it.

I agree with you that most parents want the best for their children (so will I when I have children.) But government is concerned with what is best for the majority of people, not each individual. Let me take again the example of vaccinations. It might benefit certain individual children to go without vaccinations (allergies, some are more sensitve than others, etc…), but it benefits most children, therefore they are required.

49

THat’s just nonsense, Arnold, and there are people throughout the country proving you wrong on a daily basis. My best friend Chris and both of his brothers were all sent to a private Catholic school, and I can honestly say that they are far from being “those with higher salaries.” In fact, his father spent several years as an unemployable drunk, and his mother has worked as an RN in a nursing home since time immemorial. They did it by sacrificing, which is something people do for their children.

That’s the problem with one-size-fits-all solutions; they don’t. Society is not made up of groups–it’s made up of people, who should have the freedom to better themselves if they want to.

50

I am with pld. I have an employee who is a single mom and makes under $30k. She send five, count 'm five children to private school. THey have a program where they man a booth at Rockies games and the profit goes to tuition.

And I went to private school and my dad owned a small archery store. We were not wealthy by any stretch. Many of the kids I went to school with were pretty middle class and a few were downright lower class. .

51

Arnold, you’re right, you never did say you wanted to make private schools illegal. I note that you specifically stated otherwise; I missed it until after I had already written. I apologize for misunderstanding your position.

52

pldennison and Mr.Zambezi both cited examples of children in private schools that did not have wealthy parents. These anecdotes, however touching, are not an accurate representation of the situation. The Los Angeles Times mentioned the results of a study last year (sorry, I can’t find it right now and anyway if I did find it I would have to pay $2.50 or so to get the article and I’m too cheap ;)) which showed that the average salary of parents having children in private schools was much higher than the average salary of parents having children in elementary schools in the same area. The fact is that when something costs more, it is more easily available to people with higher salaries. This seems self-evident to me.

I can come up with my an anecdote of my own: my personal life story. I was born in the USA and live here the first years of my life until my parents moved back to Switzerland, whence they had emigrated after their marriage.

When growing up in California, I was placed in a private Catholic school. My parents helped with manual labour around the school because they couldn’t afford the full fees. They were obviously not wealthy either. My first three grades of school were therefore in a private school.

When we moved back to Switzerland, my parents placed me in a public school, because my parents estimated that the level of excellence of public schools was enough that I would get a good education there. If you ask them (or me) which situation is the better one, we would all unequivocally say the latter: having good public schools. From reading this thread, I get the impression that people think this is an unattainable goal in the USA, one of the richest countries in the world. I personally disagree.

To Gilligan: (in my best Skipper voice) That’s OK, little buddy. I’ve been known to do the same thing.