# Should all schools be private? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 7, 2013, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-all-schools-be-private/657699 "2013-05-07T14:17:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-all-schools-be-private/657699/101 "2013-05-08T13:58:15Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > This idea that US schools are uniquely terrible simply isn’t true. We are smack in the middle of the pack of developed countries, and in many cases the differences between us and others is not statistically significant. Furthermore, our “good” and even “average” public schools are perfectly competitive. It’s only our worst schools that are worth worrying about. Agree fully. Good schools are good schools, whether they are public or private. The focus should be on transforming the bad schools into good ones, and there is no simple or easy way to do that. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-all-schools-be-private/657699/102 "2013-05-08T14:11:25Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > You just don’t think that anyone anywhere would offer services for reduced costs…? What you usually get for reduced cost are long waits, reduced service, short supplies, old product and damaged goods. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-all-schools-be-private/657699/103 "2013-05-08T15:14:01Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > It might be an indicator that _the parents_ are better and involve themselves in their children’s education. Which is a primary factor in how those children perform in school. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-all-schools-be-private/657699/104 "2013-05-08T15:18:15Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > What you usually get for reduced cost are long waits, reduced service, short supplies, old product and damaged goods. Equal opportunity is what we are talking about yes? Is some student or other given less an opportunity to succeed in any school? Why? Are the teachers in poor performing schools less of a teacher? Are students in private schools somehow given more/better opportunity, how and why? I’ve always posited that students with a lack of parental support are going to do spectacularly worse than those with parental involvement. How is that less opportunity (that the state can provide) to the student? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-all-schools-be-private/657699/105 "2013-05-08T15:24:49Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Or in a historical view. Acquiring food, water, and shelter always have been and always will be the primarily activities of human beings, and they are economic activities. Lots of human activity takes place outside the sphere of economic activity - social interactions, for one thing - we are arguably as interested in sex as we are in the other 3. And even brute subsistence wasn’t really an “economic” activity before trade developed, unless you define _all_ activity as economic, as economists do. > [@](#): > > So, we have sports leagues taking in billions of dollars a year…if they are not an industry, what are they? A non-industrial economic enterprise. Just because it involves money doesn’t make it an industry. Industries produce tangible outputs. > [@](#): > > The legal process that you already control democratically? This is like saying we need to poison representatives before they vote on a bill and promise them the antidote if they vote your way. Why not just vote for representatives who see things your way in the first place? It’s not just the elected political representatives who need to be given incentive, is it? It’s a whole class of people. > [@](#): > > Because there’s a massive logical disconnect between improving public schools and outlawing private ones. Shuttering private schools will do absolutely nothing to improve public ones. I’ve already said how I think that’s not the case. > [@](#): > > You’d rather everyone got the same bad education than for anyone to get an excellent one? Nice strawman - no, I’d rather everyone got an opportunity for decent education. > [@](#): > > Not in this way, no. You have two entirely separate goals here that you’re trying to achieve with one plan. That was sarcasm. I did the :rolleyes: and everything… > [@](#): > > So, what exactly is a wealthy private citizen supposed to do to fix his country’s public schools? Lobby the government to up the education budget. Donate his own money to that effort. Send his kids to public schools where they can mix with _gasp_ non-wealthy kids. > [@](#): > > Teacher’s unions are incredibly powerful in the U.S., and _their_ incentive is to fight for better pay and security for themselves, rather than the quality of the education they are delivering. And it shows in the results we get. The fact that you view teacher’s unions as they presently are as part of the solution instead of part of the problem indicates how far-out you are on this topic. Still better than no teacher’s unions. You might prefer a Walmart-level of education for your kids, I wouldn’t. > [@](#): > > The [fourth-most common major in US colleges and universities](http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=37) is education. We can produce as many teachers as we need, it doesn’t demand some rare trait or genius intellect, it’s just a profession. There’s still an upper limit. That limit might hypothetically be 300 million (but it’s not) > [@](#): > > And this absurd bias clearly informs your thinking on this matter. I’d say the same for your everything-is-commodity approach. > [@](#): > > It is well on the way to shambles, yes. Leaving Iraq and Afghanistan will help, as the military can then reduce in size. Unlike education, there’s no set demand for soldiers like there is for teachers. So why not open it up to competition? > [@](#): > > …Right, which is denying them high-paying jobs. We also deny them the ability to supplement their income by dealing crack to their pupils - what’s your point? If private schools are illegal, they’re illegal. They’re not being denied anything because the high paying (in your head) jobs don’t exist. > [@](#): > > Then why prohibit private schools? If teachers do better in a public system, then a public system would attract the best teachers regardless of whether private schools also existed. Because my concern isn’t just for the teachers, but the students as well, and society as a whole, not just the wealthy bits of it.. Nor am I that convinced the same would happen in the US, where people like you would hobble the teacher’s unions and they wouldn’t be better off. > [@](#): > > Reread that paragraph. “Lots of talented people teach because its what they want to do, not for the big bucks” = “We aren’t paying much”. If people aren’t motivated by money, why would you pay them well? Because it’s the right thing to do? Teachers should make as much as any essential profession, regardless of whether you can get away with stiffing them. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-all-schools-be-private/657699/106 "2013-05-08T15:30:22Z")
**MrDribble** "Because it’s the right thing to do? Teachers should make as much as any essential profession, regardless of whether you can get away with stiffing them. " What in your mind is non-essential? Are the bus drivers? How about the ditch diggers? How about the PD, Fire Dept? Just about any job that has to do with public service would be included. What about the private enterprise stuff that bids and builds roads? Essential? Let’s define essential please. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-all-schools-be-private/657699/107 "2013-05-08T15:58:05Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Lots of human activity takes place outside the sphere of economic activity - social interactions, for one thing - we are arguably as interested in sex as we are in the other 3. And even brute subsistence wasn’t really an “economic” activity before trade developed, unless you define _all_ activity as economic, as economists do. Not all, but nearly all, yes. > [@MrDibble](#): > > A non-industrial economic enterprise. Just because it involves money doesn’t make it an industry. Industries produce tangible outputs. Industries produce economic goods or services. The tangibility is irrelevant. Is there a particular reason you reject all post-19th century economics? > [@MrDibble](#): > > It’s not just the elected political representatives who need to be given incentive, is it? It’s a whole class of people. Including the ones who are unable to achieve what you want them to. You’re incentivizing them to send their children out of the nation, or just hire tutors to make up some of the difference in quality of education. > [@MrDibble](#): > > Nice strawman - no, I’d rather everyone got an opportunity for decent education. Phase 1 of which is destroy the part of the system that’s working just fine, in the vain hope that it will postively influence the part that isn’t working as well. Net effect: worse education. > [@MrDibble](#): > > Lobby the government to up the education budget. Donate his own money to that effort. Send his kids to public schools where they can mix with _gasp_ non-wealthy kids. Or, use tax revenue for the education budget, instead of this indirect pseudo-volunteer effort. Are you under the impression that private schools are exclusively attended by the wealthy? They are not. Many offer scholarships, many aren’t all that expensive, and a few districts use vouchers to offset the cost. > [@MrDibble](#): > > Still better than no teacher’s unions. You might prefer a Walmart-level of education for your kids, I wouldn’t. Are you asserting that unionized teachers outperform nonunion teachers at the actual task of education children? > [@MrDibble](#): > > There’s still an upper limit. That limit might hypothetically be 300 million (but it’s not) There’s no _meaningful_ upper limit. Public schools will never run out of teachers or administrators because of private schools. > [@MrDibble](#): > > I’d say the same for your everything-is-commodity approach. I start from the assumption that all children deserve the best education we can give them. You’re wrapped up in class warfare and “parasites”. > [@MrDibble](#): > > So why not open it up to competition? If you can think of a workable model to do so, propose away. > [@MrDibble](#): > > We also deny them the ability to supplement their income by dealing crack to their pupils - what’s your point? If private schools are illegal, they’re illegal. They’re not being denied anything because the high paying (in your head) jobs don’t exist. They existed until you banned them, you understand. A teacher who made $100,000 at a private academy is more likely to leave the industry for something like corporate training than they are to take a lower-paying job at the public school that transfers them around every couple of years. > [@MrDibble](#): > > Because my concern isn’t just for the teachers, but the students as well, and society as a whole, not just the wealthy bits of it.. Nor am I that convinced the same would happen in the US, where people like you would hobble the teacher’s unions and they wouldn’t be better off. Teacher’s unions in the U.S. are not remotely “hobbled”. > [@MrDibble](#): > > Because it’s the right thing to do? Teachers should make as much as any essential profession, regardless of whether you can get away with stiffing them. So you’d pay teachers as much as other professions, without any regard for supply and demand or the equilibrium wage? You are actively hostile to economics, I must conclude. Which is a problem, because its fundamentals are very real. ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-all-schools-be-private/657699/108 "2013-05-08T16:01:27Z")
> [@XT](#): > > You don’t think that people want their special needs students taken care of, given good care and schooling consummate with their needs and abilities? If YOU have such a child, are you telling me you wouldn’t want them taken care of? If YOU are an institution and there is a need, would you not want to fill it and make money?? 😕 But ok, let’s say no one wants to pay any money to take care of their special needs kids, and businesses don’t want to make money on a niche group because, well, who likes money? In that case, the government could contract those schools out specially, to be run with special grants. Seriously…you can get companies to do anything if you pay them, so even if you are right and no one wants to pay for their special needs kid to go to a special needs school (and leaving aside that you’d need to have the government give vouchers or other means for poor people to have their kids, special needs or not, go to these theoretical private schools) you’d just do what we do today. > > I really don’t see why this is so hard. A privatized system would look very similar to what we have today…just like the health care reforms aren’t radically different than our current health care system. The government would still be involved, there would still be standards and regulations, and the only difference would be who was running the things and who had oversight. Seems easy enough to me, though obviously the devil would be in the details. But broadly? What’s so difficult to understand about this? > > Would it be better than what we have today? No idea…my WAG is it would be pretty much exactly what we have today, with a few tweaks, since that’s what the majority of voters are comfortable with. You seem to be confusing “want” with “be able to.” Yes, most parents of special needs kids would want to pay more for their kids to have the special tuition they need, but it’s preposterous to act as if that also means all those parents would be able to. Your solution is sending all kids with special needs to the only schools funded by the state - yeah, that’d work out well. That wouldn’t mark them out as difficult, nosiree! Colleges and workplaces would treat them just the same as the 95% of kids at private schools! ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-all-schools-be-private/657699/109 "2013-05-08T16:11:41Z")
[QUOTE=SciFiSam] You seem to be confusing “want” with “be able to.” Yes, most parents of special needs kids would want to pay more for their kids to have the special tuition they need, but it’s preposterous to act as if that also means all those parents would be able to. [/QUOTE] Except that’s not what I said. And FTR, I had a special needs child, so I’m well aware of what it takes…and what the current system does. > [@](#): > > Your solution is sending all kids with special needs to the only schools funded by the state - yeah, that’d work out well. That wouldn’t mark them out as difficult, nosiree! Colleges and workplaces would treat them just the same as the 95% of kids at private schools! Again, that’s not what I said (you are mixing sarcastic comments I was making with a misunderstanding of the vague proposals I was just tossing out, and coming up with something that isn’t close to what I said), but ok…what’s your solution then? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2013, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-all-schools-be-private/657699/110 "2013-05-09T07:08:11Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > **MrDribble** Wrong. > [@](#): > > Let’s define essential please. Better to define non-essential: entertainment, sport, stockbroking, some branches of law, most of the military, lots of manufacturing. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2013, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-all-schools-be-private/657699/111 "2013-05-09T07:30:03Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Not all, but nearly all, yes. I disagree > [@](#): > > Industries produce economic goods or services. The tangibility is irrelevant. Is there a particular reason you reject all post-19th century economics? Because most economics isn’t really scientific and fails at making usable predictions. It’s a pseudoscience. > [@](#): > > Including the ones who are unable to achieve what you want them to. Unwilling =/= unable > [@](#): > > You’re incentivizing them to send their children out of the nation, or just hire tutors to make up some of the difference in quality of education. You think I’m going to allow the loophole of private tutoring in my setup (without diagnosed special needs?) > [@](#): > > Phase 1 of which is destroy the part of the system that’s working just fine, in the vain hope that it will postively influence the part that isn’t working as well. Net effect: worse education. Who said the changeover has to be that drastic? I’d favour gradual movement from one system to the other. > [@](#): > > Or, use tax revenue for the education budget, instead of this indirect pseudo-volunteer effort. Did you miss where I said “lobby for increased education budget”? > [@](#): > > Are you under the impression that private schools are exclusively attended by the wealthy? They are not. Many offer scholarships, many aren’t all that expensive, and a few districts use vouchers to offset the cost. Not exclusively, just dominantly. The rest is window-dressing. > [@](#): > > Are you asserting that unionized teachers outperform nonunion teachers at the actual task of education children? No, I’m saying that not having unions removes any incentive for fair pay of workers on the part of employers, making the schools exactly the sort of minimum-wage employer you think I advocate for state schools. > [@](#): > > There’s no _meaningful_ upper limit. Public schools will never run out of teachers or administrators because of private schools. I contend that there is, in fact, a limited pool of people interested in, and talented at, being teachers, and anything that draws away from that pool is detrimental. > [@](#): > > I start from the assumption that all children deserve the best education we can give them. I’m really, really not seeing the “all”. > [@](#): > > You’re wrapped up in class warfare and “parasites”. Because that’s what it is, and that’s who they are. > [@](#): > > If you can think of a workable model to do so, propose away. You’re the one arguing that competition is better. I think the state should be in charge of the military, just like the schools. > [@](#): > > They existed until you banned them, you understand. And people were free to deal cocaine until it was banned. Your point? Is it that you privilege only the _current_ status-quo, but not that of 1900? > [@](#): > > A teacher who made $100,000 at a private academy is more likely to leave the industry for something like corporate training than they are to take a lower-paying job at the public school that transfers them around every couple of years. Unless what they care about is teaching kids, not money. And do private school teachers really make that much more than state teachers? From what I can [find](http://teaching.monster.com/education/articles/6191-a-comparison-of-public-and-private-school-teaching), not so much: > [@](#): > > One of the greatest appeals of working in a public school is a higher salary. Public school teachers typically make more than their private school counterparts. and [here](http://reason.com/blog/2011/02/22/are-public-school-teachers-ove) > [@](#): > > The National Center for Education Statistics puts it this way: Using 2007-2008 data (the latest available), the average “total school-year and summer earned income” for public school teachers was $53,230 . The equivalent for private-school teachers was $39,690. > > That’s a whopping $13,540 differential on salary alone. And in virtually every subset (highest degree earned, years of experience, you name it), the public-school teachers do far better than the private-school ones. > [@](#): > > Teacher’s unions in the U.S. are not remotely “hobbled”. But you would have them be, which is what I said. > [@](#): > > So you’d pay teachers as much as other professions, without any regard for supply and demand or the equilibrium wage? Yes. Essential services. > [@](#): > > You are actively hostile to economics, I must conclude. Yes, I am. > [@](#): > > Which is a problem, because its fundamentals are very real. Its fundamentals are, to use [a technical term](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit#In_the_philosophy_of_truth_.26_rhetoric), [bullshit](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics#Criticisms_of_assumptions). ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2013, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-all-schools-be-private/657699/112 "2013-05-09T12:31:06Z")
Line-by-line is too tedious. I’m going to do my best to avoid further tangents into whether economics is a science, or whether the wealthy are parasites that society is better off without, and such. Those discussions belong in their own threads. 1. If public school teachers make more, then private schools are no threat to the pool available for public schools. You’d have your pick of the best teachers. 2. If you have the political power to ban private schools, _just raise the education budget_. Which will be eased by private school students’ parents paying the tax while not requiring any outlay of funds. Trying to browbeat donations is ass-backwards, _you have the power to tax._ 3. There are two private schools where I live. One charges $7,125 per year, the other $5,066. They are not the exclusive domain of the wealthy; far from it, they are the domain of the middle class. ETA: We have no voucher program or anything like it. 1. What, precisely, is the mechanism by which banning private schools improves public ones? Again, if you have control of government to do the former, just do the latter. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2013, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-all-schools-be-private/657699/113 "2013-05-09T13:08:42Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Line-by-line is too tedious. I’m going to do my best to avoid further tangents into whether economics is a science, or whether the wealthy are parasites that society is better off without, and such. Those discussions belong in their own threads. Fair enough > [@](#): > > 1. If public school teachers make more, then private schools are no threat to the pool available for public schools. You’d have your pick of the best teachers. I don’t just want the best teachers. I want all the teachers. > [@](#): > > 1. If you have the political power to ban private schools, _just raise the education budget_. Which will be eased by private school students’ parents paying the tax while not requiring any outlay of funds. Trying to browbeat donations is ass-backwards, _you have the power to tax._ This might work if funding was the _only_ goal. It’s not. > [@](#): > > 1. There are two private schools where I live. One charges $7,125 per year, the other $5,066. They are not the exclusive domain of the wealthy; far from it, they are the domain of the middle class. Well, those parts of the middle class that can afford [an average of](http://www.capenet.org/facts.html) $10 000 per year per child. But I see your point. Fair enough, not all private schools are the domain of the rich. Most, in fact, are the domain of the religious. I don’t like that, either. > [@](#): > > 1. What, precisely, is the mechanism by which banning private schools improves public ones? Again, if you have control of government to do the former, just do the latter. It’s social engineering - if everyone goes to public school, there’s incentive to improve them, there’s no religious echo chambers, there’s no class barriers. There’s equality of opportunity (I don’t expect equality of outcome, that’s naive in the extreme) and society benefits. I believe the children would benefit under such a system too. I look to Finnish education as a model for how things should work - they have very few private schools, and they’re _nothing_ like an America private school - they’re still state funded and can’t charge tuition fees. They’re more like charter schools in that they’re for alternative models of education like Waldorf, or the odd religious school. But even there, they can’t discriminate in admissions and pupils must have the same social entitlements as in public school. Finnish public schools are exactly the model I would use for education - egalitarian and comprehensive. No tuition. Free lunches. Small classes (that’s what a good teacher’s union gets you) No streaming until 16. No gifted classes. Emphasis on all-round education. Students encouraged to help those classmates who are struggling. And their teachers - wow! The cream of the crop - respected and well-paid. Given relative autonomy in applying the state-set curriculum. You need a Masters even to teach primary school. All unionized, of course. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2013, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-all-schools-be-private/657699/114 "2013-05-09T13:49:52Z")
Nothing wrong with Finnish education…they are the number one in the world after all with South Korea, IIRC, taking the number 2 slot (the US is 17th). Seems unrealistic to compare a system in a country that has a population of under 6 million, is over 90% one ethnic group (namely, Fins) and religion (Lutheran Church of Finland), and spends between 6-7% of the GDP on education to a continental sized nation nearly 2 orders of magnitude different in population size and much more diverse in its ethnic composition, but one can dream. Personally, I think that considering we ARE a continental sized nation with such a diverse population it’s incredible that we are able to rank so high in relative terms, since we are averaging the best and worst schools in the country (just a fun fact…there are more K-12 students in California than there are citizens in Finland :p). ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2013, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-all-schools-be-private/657699/115 "2013-05-09T14:22:11Z")
To the extend that education affects class barriers, it’s in the quality of the education, and [whether it is even completed](http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012006.pdf). > [@](#): > > In 2009, the event dropout rate of students living in low-income families was about five times greater than the rate of their peers from high-income families (7.4 percent vs. 1.4 percent) (table 1) The greatest school system in the world does no good to someone who drops out. The major problems with our school system mirror the problems with our society, rather than causing them. It’s the same with Finland, the school system is reflective of their society, rather than dictating it. For instance, UNICEF reports that [the United States has the second-highest rate of child poverty](http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2012/05/29/US-Second-highest-child-poverty-level/UPI-67641338349787/) in a sample of 35 developed countries. Finland’s was the second _lowest._ When starting with a wealthy, homogenous, small population will very little poverty, the exact structure of the school system is almost irrelevant, you are almost guaranteed excellent results. Similarly, in areas of the U.S. with similar starting conditions, you get excellent results, like Massachusetts produces with a mix of public and private schools. Where structural problems do exist, the teacher’s unions more often than not are their cause. The sort of testing system you propose to evaluate teachers is exactly what they fight against, along with keeping teachers with seniority over ones who perform better. Example: [Teacher of the Year Gets Lay-Off Notice](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/15/michelle-apperson-teacher_n_1601015.html). [Progress is being made](http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2012/06/14/balance-compromise-bill-teachers-gets-job-done/ww2gjH8w9musHQDj8w4viO/story.html) in some areas, but if you want to examine the issue realistically, you need to accept that teachers have their own incentives that do not perfectly (or even decently) match up with the ideal of delivering the best education possible. You’d also have to accept that Americans are a very religious people, and will demand the option of a religious education, which need not be inferior to a wholly secular one. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2013, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-all-schools-be-private/657699/116 "2013-05-10T00:31:25Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > I don’t know of any countries that don’t have state schools. Somalia? It seems to be the go-to example of libertarianism gone mad. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2013, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-all-schools-be-private/657699/117 "2013-05-10T02:38:47Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > I look to Finnish education as a model for how things should work - they have very few private schools, and they’re _nothing_ like an America private school - they’re still state funded and can’t charge tuition fees. They’re more like charter schools in that they’re for alternative models of education like Waldorf, or the odd religious school. I just want to point out again that the idea that charter school = freedom from traditional shackles = educational innovation = better results just doesn’t work out in the real world. Some charter schools work out better than the traditional public schools, some work out the same, and some fail spectacularly. In addition to my previous cite about St. Louis, it looks like [Baltimore is seeing the same results.](http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-02-12/news/bs-md-ci-charter-school-vote-20130212_1_baltimore-civitas-middle-school-board-schools-under-district-control) Ain’t no magic bullet, folks. ---
**Author:** ![sisu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@sisu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sisu)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2013, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-all-schools-be-private/657699/118 "2013-05-10T03:54:03Z")
> [@PastTense](#): > > The alternative to public schools and business run schools is schools run by nonprofit organizations (including churches). We have all three in Australia and it seems to work out OK. There is the argument of privilege that comes up every election cycle but if the government run schools are funded properly with common curriculum across ALL schools (state and private) then it seems to me to be OK. We even have selective state schools that pick the cream of the crop. All schools get funding from the government with some means testing of parents for uber-rich schools. Just to illustrate my kids go to a mid level private school but have friends from expensive top of the range schools through to state schools. Maybe we don’t have such a wide difference between the rich and the poor in Australia? IMO education should not be about profit and loss it should be about what is in the best interests of the country ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2013, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-all-schools-be-private/657699/119 "2013-05-10T12:46:14Z")
I keep hearing this “It’d never work outside Finland, everywhere else is sooo different” argument, and I don’t buy it. It’s never been _tried_ outside Finland, with a similar focus on learning not testing, a similar expectation of teacher excellence and concomitant teacher compensation, and (most importantly) a similar commitment to egalitarianism between and within schools. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2013, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-all-schools-be-private/657699/120 "2013-05-12T16:33:59Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > 1. If public school teachers make more, then private schools are no threat to the pool available for public schools. You’d have your pick of the best teachers. Except public schools do pay their teachers more than private schools, even the elite ones like Exeter and Andover. However, that hasn’t caused Exeter, Andover, St. Georges, St. Paul’s etc. from getting really good, high quality teachers. There are lots of reasons for this, but the main one is that in many ways teaching at public school is vastly tougher. My uncle went from teaching at a private school to public school and in his words, “at a private school you get to actually teach, while at a public school it’s far more about crowd control.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-all-schools-be-private/657699.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-all-schools-be-private/657699.md?page=7)