And you think there is no self selection in Catholic schools? Are you kidding?
Do you really think the cost structure at Catholic Schools can be replicated by the market generally? Are you kidding?
I am fully in favor of letting catholic schools into charter programs (assuming we can get past the establishment clause) but to say they are doing better merely because they are privately run is silly. Whatever they are doing right can be replicated in public schools if there is enough political will.
Well why not. If there is a core group fo kids that are ruining things for everyone else, why doesn’t it make sense to separate them to deal with their issues separately. Perhaps some of them are the victims of poor home environments or whatever but why let that screw up the education of every other kid in their neighborhood? Why can’t we deal with these kids separately with programs designed for them with people who are trained to deal with them?
We do not have an a la carte society with a la carte social services. I can’t hire private security and ask for a rebate for police and I can’t do that with education either.
First of all, the law is what we have to deal with, day in and day out. It is the reality. Whether you like it or not, Bi-polar girl needs to be there. Does she need to be in your kid’s classroom? That really depends on how disabled she is. Most kids are included sometimes during the day, but many of the kids with really difficult needs are likely to be in their own classes for academic classes.
Ok. I admit that the pwincess pwecious thing was over the top. I am, however, afraid I have seen too much of the idea of shielding kids from the disabled.
Also, even people who don’t send their kids or go there themselves benefit from the existence of public schools. The position that you shouldn’t pay for a public service you aren’t taking personal advantage of is often nothing more than an attempt to reap the benefits without paying; this is an example of that.
aye, so maybe we should get rid of all government services other than those that cannot be supplied by the market in a meaningful way? In other words the government should only be involved in defense, stoping violent crime, fraud, and punishing violent criminals.
Lets face it, public education has failed.
We have tried it and it is not working. So why dont we try something else?
Free and appropriate may mean a special school that has special facilities with staff that is specially trained to handle these kids. When discussing social policy we have to decide how to balance the rights of a few against the right of the whole.
And innumerable other things. And forget about “a meaningful way”; there’s all sorts of things that the private sector can muddle through that the government can do much better. Contrary to right wing dogma, the free market is not innately better than the government.
Because the “something else” would be worse than what we have. And while it needs improvement, it’s hardly “failed”.
And if can move more kids into environments like your daughter’s classroom with the use of charter schools, why would you have a problem with that? The way you describe things in your classroom, there is nothing that keeping a promising student is in a failing classroom is doing for anyone.
Let me know when our country decides to take that road and I will start looking for another country to live in.
Just becvause the market is capable of providing a good or service, does not mean that it is the most effective provider. I can make an argument that defense, police, etc. can all be provided by the private sector. Why should police protection go to people who don’t pay for it?
But the environment in my daughter’s classroom is the kids and their parents. My students will bring their chaos wherever they go. Maybe when there were more kids in the district they would have been more spread out and not all put together to create a festering mess.
I strongly disagree with your statement “the free market is not innately better than the government” simply because the free market is
A. Free
B. Cooperation
where as government is
A. Not Free
B. Coercion
The free market at its simplest is two people freely agreeing to a mutually beneficial trade.
That is innately better than the government coercing labour which is used to hopefully beneficial ends.
I am not a right winger, and I do not listen to right wing dogma.
Now interestingly enough with education is seems that private educations is better on two fronts:
It is more ethical in that it does not use violence to bring about the desired end
Private educators are better educators in that a higher percentage of their students are better educated.
Wrong. The “free market” contains plenty of coercion. Especially without that evil, evil government keeping a heavy hand on it. As for freedom, the government is the primary reason freedom exists.
Coercion is coercion. People with your political philosophy simply wants to label economic coercion as morally acceptable because that justifies the subjugation and exploitation of the majority of the population. And then they label the government as bad, because they don’t want the common people to fight back.
No, they don’t. At best, they just take the easiest to teach students, that’s all. That’s when they aren’t just faking their results ( they are a business, and are hardly going to admit when they are producing inferior students ), or taking the money and running.
I would agree with you on one point, and only one point, in your above statement. And that is that Freedom only exists because of government. You are correctly right the government in necessary to insure freedom from violence. And no where did I argue for the abolition of government.
I love how you bring up the phrase economic coercion, which as far as I know is a meaningless phrase. It is not coercion to not sell something. Plain and simple that is no coercion. Having enough food for someone else and not giving it to them is not coercion in any conceivable way,
I love how you try to place my motives. I would appreciate it if you would not. It is pointless, you do not know my motives and I do not know yours. I would ask that we refrain from making assumptions which will often turn out to be false.
Governments are the greatest oppressors of people, just think of all the governments who have opressed their people in so many different ways, beyond what any single corporation or individual could do… Governments are also necessary. So may the people will have more freedom if government are smaller? and if power is not concentrated in the hands of a few?
And lastly, Im gonna ask for a cite on your last paragraph. Show me that they choose easier students, you stated it, now I want evidence. I also want evidence for your statement concerning them fudging the results. You made the statements now back it up.
I’m not disagreeing with her right to get an education - I’m upset at her right to get an education meaning that when she was in my child’s classroom they needed to clear the entire classroom three times during the year because of her tantrums which involved throwing chairs. That even when they aren’t clearing the classroom for this child, there are 31 other children in the room that need the teacher’s attention who get that much less of it because managing this ONE child takes up much of their day. That there was a period of time when one of the parent volunteers wasn’t allowed to work with the children because this child falsely accused her of making inappropriate sexual remarks (I know this woman - she is one of those people who refers to ‘chicken parts’) - which means the other kids weren’t getting the enrichment time.
Frankly, it does not seem fair to me that 31 kids are getting a lesser education for this girl.
My problem with vouchers is that I imagine it’s one of those things that only the “in the know” middle-class parents will take advantage of, not the people who really need it. There is not an unlimiited supply of vouchers for a program, so not everyone who wants to get out is going to be get one. Whether it’s a lottery system or the squeaky wheel system, middle-class folks are generally (IME) going to always be at the front of the line, leaving behind the poor.
I can also envision the scams. Say you’d really like for your kids to go to a nice parochial school where the nuns are tough and no roughnecks are allowed. You move the family just a few miles down the street to the side of town where there are a ton of foreclosed properties and the schools are failing. Enroll your kids (hoping the violence and drugs don’t get to them), register complaints every chance you get (be the squeaky wheel), and meanwhile apply for vouchers. And because you’re vocal and seem to know how to manuver the system, you’ll get them. If such a program would allow one to get vouchers so easily, I have a huge problem with this. For it to be fair, a family should have to demontrate that they’ve been living in a school district and attending the schools for a long period of time.
A lottery system would be fairer, even though I can envision it screwing a lot of needy kids, but it would still siphon away money from the schools and demoralize both left-behind students and the teachers who have to teach them.
Society is benefited from all schools, not just private ones.
The selfishness in the current system, to the extent there is any, is on the part of those who benefit from private schools and don’t pay for them. Vouchers, in that sense, would be fairer.
This is an argument against education in general, not just vouchers.
Poor and single parents don’t take advantage of the benefits of education already. If they did, their children wouldn’t be poor for long, by and large.
I don’t see why students whose parents actually have sense should be denied a benefit because other parents don’t know enough to take advantage of it.
I strongly disagree with this. The free market is innately much better at providing most goods and services than the government because of the competition between different providers. Public education is (nearly) a monopoly, and the quality of the education within those schools suffers because of it. There are few incentives for making the kinds of changes necessary to improve the schools: students will still come to the school the next year, and teachers and administrators will continue to be paid regardless of the performance of students. Competition between schools, whether public or private, would properly re-adjust the incentives for schools to successfully educate children. Schools worked well would expand and successful programs be emulated by other schools; failing paradigms would pass away. Voucher programs are just the way to do this.
On another note: The Beautiful Tree by James Tooley is an interesting read about how people in the developing world are choosing private education over “free” public education. This debate is not limited to the US.