For-profit EMOs are most prevalent in charter schools. They run a whopping 16% of them. CITE
Do you have a citation? Surely you must have drawn your “many, if not most” assertion from actual data. There are over thirty thousand private schools in this country. Let’s put a number to your “many, if not most”.
Depends on what state you are in. I am actually having trouble finding national numbers, and since education is a state’s issue, national numbers really don’t mean much either, with each state being its own proving ground for what works and what doesn’t.
As an Ohioan, I care about Ohio stats, and I am having trouble finding number exactly, but I do have cites to back up “most”
Michgan is even worse, with 80% of their charter schools being for-profit. And from the same article, as testified in the house of representatives,
Now, states that haven’t gone the for-profit route are doing the right thing, IMHO, and they do not count towards these stats nationally, but as I said, looking at an issue that is decided state by state by using national stats kind of defeats the entire purpose.
No not for failing to pay. But failing to file tax returns or refusing to acknowledge your tax liability on your tax returns can land you in jail.
I can also shoot you when you try to prevent me from seizing all your assets.
In any event I’m willing to shoot a bullet into someone’s body to compel them to pay taxes to pay for public education. Are you?
This may be slightly OT- but I don’t get the hatred for tenure. Mostly because I don’t understand how tenure for K- 12 teachers differs from the protections that many other government and unionized workers also enjoy. Teachers are hardly the only employees who have contracts requiring that once they have completed a probationary period they can only be fired for certain reasons and after the employer follows a specified process.
Because firemen and police officers are the only public servants that are entitled to good pay or job security. Except for that brief period after Sandy hook when people realized that teachers might be willing to throw down their lives to save the children in their care, teachers are money grubbing parasites trying to suck at the public teat at the expense of our children.
Stefan Molyneux is fucking crazypants. Seriously, the dude’s just all kinds of nuts, and if he’s your favorite conservative commentator… Might wanna recalibrate that bullshit meter.
I can think of virtually no program I’d be willing to shoot someone over, because that’s a truly bizarre way of looking at tax programs. To my understanding, his same idea applies to law enforcement in general, where it becomes even more absurd - no matter what offense I commit, be it refusal to pay my taxes, murder, rape, arson, or jaywalking, if I refuse to comply with the law, at some point the cops are going to end up using force, often in the form of a bullet, on me - at the very latest when I try to fight them off when they attempt to arrest me. That doesn’t mean that supporting laws against jaywalking is support of the death penalty for jaywalking. The whole train of logic is just absurd. That jaywalking (or, indeed, tax evasion) will only lead to someone shooting at you if you’re fucking crazypants is apparently lost on Stefan Molyneux; presumably because he is, as stated, fucking crazypants.
Yeah, I’d be careful criticizing common core without understanding why the teachers do what they do. A lot of it looks really stupid and bizarre… until you step back and think about what they’re really doing.
Finally! Someone who understands us! 
Why do you think the private schools that rose up in the universal-voucher world would be like the ones we have today? People and organizations with the interest and drive to start a private school for altruistic reasons already have. There’s no reason to think they’d wildly expand their offerings just because more people could afford to attend; schools are communities and expansion is rarely a priority. There are tons and tons of private schools with waiting lists. If they wanted to be bigger, they have the potential clients to support it.
The new schools that entered the market would be driven by profit motives–either direct, in the case of a for profit school, or indirect, in the case of a non-profit that pays administrators above-market salaries and/or serves as the main client for a for-profit company.
Can someone on the pro-voucher side please suggest one thing that makes vouchers a superior program to charters and open-enrollment within a district? If we stipulate that school choice is a good thing, what is the argument for vouchers? Because I see a lot of problems and no advantages.
I cited our current reality. If you have evidence to back up your guesses about the future, let’s see it. Charters are relatively new and we’re seeing only a small minority of for-profit charters.
And again, if for-profits are such a problem then they can be avoided with appropriate legislation.
I think you need to present reasons why the future would look like the current reality: universal vouchers would be a profound game-changer. And it’s in the states with the most charter schools–Michigan and Ohio–that the majority are profit-oriented.
If we did pass appropriate legislation, what would be the motive for people to build private schools to satisfy this new demand? And with the huge increase in demand and a stable supply, private school would simply raise its rates and stay accessible only to those who can access it now.
Could you answer my second question? Why vouchers? What do they provide over charters and open-enrollment?
The argument string started with a claim that all savings would go to profit and that this thread is all about for-profit schools. We have not seen evidence for these claims, and these claims are counter to current trends. So no, I do not need to present anything.
If you wish to make an argument, feel free to do so. But if you’re curious about motives for building private schools I suggest asking someone involved in building one of the thirty thousand that someone presumably already had a motive to build.
You made a request of “someone on the pro-voucher side”, so you’ll have to wait for one to show up.
I think that many of the arguments presented against can be dismissed or addressed. But to satisfy all my concerns fully, which include a requirement to charge no tuition above and beyond the voucher, I don’t think you have enough money for a viable program. I’m much more sanguine about charters.
eTA there’s also the whole religious schools thing that leaves me uneasy.
I know of a family in Atlanta who, along with I believe 10 other families, each put in $5,000 to hire their own teacher and start their own school. They rented a facility for it and each family also put in a number of volunteer hours. They did this because the public schools in the area were terrible.
Was this a “for profit” school since the teacher received a full salary?
We’ll need some details about how they organized. But likely not.
Uh, no. Is that supposed to be a trick question?
Schools like that are fine, as long as they’re responding to genuinely terrible local schools and not just being racists about it, which definitely happens. But they’re not a scalable solution, nor are they a solution for situations where families don’t have the resources to put in significant volunteer hours or $5,000 annually.
A solution to our education crisis needs to meet the needs of kids living in poverty. One of the best ways to do that is to reduce poverty–but that sort of commie talk doesn’t get listened to.
The thing I want to know about is that family on 46th street that has 3 school age kids. How do you count their voucher? If you get the same approximate amount of money for a voucher, based on a portion of your tax bill, for your one child, you might be able to swing private school tuition, but with three kids, that other family is probably going to be comparatively SOL when it comes to anteing up the tuition they need to accomplish the same thing. If vouchers are parceled out based on how many children you have, that adds in an entirely new level of unfairness.
I don’t think it adds new unfairness; our current system works that way. The problem is how folks are thinking about it.
If you think the “customer” is the parent, you got it backwards. The parent isn’t the customer. There are two customers:
We let parents make decisions because often that’s the best way to guarantee that a kid gets proper care. But for something like education, we demand a certain standard for all kids, and we provide it. We do so regardless of the taxes the kid or the kid’s parents pay.
You shouldn’t get a voucher based on how much taxes you pay. You’re not the beneficiary of the voucher, the kid is, and the kid doesn’t pay enough taxes to cover a voucher’s cost. That’s why it doesn’t matter how many kids you have.
That said, there is a related problem. A family in poverty is not going to be able to afford Thales Academy, of course–but with a voucher, a low-income family might be able to afford a couple hundred bucks a month to make up the cost for a single kid attending the school.
But what if the family has three kids? Four kids? Six kids? Will these children be SOL, as their parents can’t afford the couple hundred for each kid to make up the cost?
Partial vouchers don’t recognize reality.
Neither does this Thales idiot. I can’t get over him. Read that article ITR linked to. He complains about how workers at his factory don’t have good math or science skills, so he starts private schools. But he prices them in such a way that poor kids won’t be able to go, and he excludes kids with learning disabilities from going.
Uh, who does he think are the people applying to his factory jobs: does he think it’s the academically successful children of middle-class families who want to make a career out of manufacturing kitchen vents? How does he think he’s even coming close to solving the problem he identified?
I’d love to go to his factory and apply my pedagogical knowledge to manufacturing vents. “Oh, man,” I’d say, “That vent looks cracked. Have you called home to schedule a conference? Make sure you conduct an observation of its performance. NO DON’T THROW IT OUT YOU MONSTER IT’S AN INDIVIDUAL! Find the right balance of discipline and love to help it focus on venting kitchen odors, and it’ll find a way to succeed! I know how to manufacture vents better than you, because I’m a successful teacher!”
What seems fair is to receive part of whole of what you are saving the school system from not having him/her attend the public school and not a direct percentage of that student to the total # of students. In other words it is marginally cheaper to education 10,000 students then 10,001 students, just in the handouts alone, not to mention the use of desks, and other consumables. So all those incremental savings can be split between the parents and the school, perhaps $400 per year or so. But is would only to get back some part of what they are directly saving the school system by not having their kid consume school resources.
Also for the above mentioned $10,000 for private school , it looks like over $30,000 around here, except perhaps Catholic schools which tend to be cheaper.
The thing with that line of thinking is that it logically leads to it being “fair” to give similar tax benefits to people without children. They’re saving the school system money too.
Unless they’re paying for a child to attend school somewhere else, no they’re not. It’s the kids, not the adults, who benefit from education; and the tax break suggested would offset folks paying for that education.
I was thinking of Ben Shapiro.
[quote]
I can think of virtually no program I’d be willing to shoot someone over, because that’s a truly bizarre way of looking at tax programs. To my understanding, his same idea applies to law enforcement in general, where it becomes even more absurd - no matter what offense I commit, be it refusal to pay my taxes, murder, rape, arson, or jaywalking, if I refuse to comply with the law, at some point the cops are going to end up using force, often in the form of a bullet, on me - at the very latest when I try to fight them off when they attempt to arrest me. That doesn’t mean that supporting laws against jaywalking is support of the death penalty for jaywalking. The whole train of logic is just absurd. That jaywalking (or, indeed, tax evasion) will only lead to someone shooting at you if you’re fucking crazypants is apparently lost on Stefan Molyneux; presumably because he is, as stated, fucking crazypants.
Well the point is that taxes are being collected under threat of force. I might evict you from your house to pay your taxes, you might resist and I might shoot you a bullet into your body with a gun. This is something I am willing to risk to collect money for public education.
Would you? Or would you simply refrain from collecting taxes from people who physically resisted the collection of taxes?
This is not multiplication. And does not require memorization. no one memorizes 32-20