The Instigator
wxyz2000
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
Boesball
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

Public Education is Better for Society than Private Education

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
wxyz2000
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/14/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 933 times Debate No: 60460
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

wxyz2000

Pro

In this debate, I will argue that public schools are generally better than private schools for the public. My contender will try to prove the converse.

Round 1 is acceptance.

Round 2 is opening statement.

Round 3 is rebuttal.

Round 4 is rebuttal/conclusion.

I look forward to the debate.
Boesball

Con

I accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
wxyz2000

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate.

Public education has four important benefits.

It can increase a nation"s output of skilled workers. It makes education accessible to everyone. The cost of private schools are enormous, with the cost on par with the cost of universities. The average private school tuition in US for a non-sectarian elementary school is $15 945, and $27 302 a year for secondary school. America"s median income is $51 017. Even in wealthier countries, there would be many people who cannot afford education without widespread public schools. The presence of public education also empowers the government to make education mandatory.

Public schools generally offer a better quality of education. Public institutions generally have more funding than private schools. Most private schools must invite retired/rejected teachers to teach at their schools because the pay/benefits they receive are much less than teachers of public schools. The average pay for private school teachers is $36 000, while the average pay for public schools is $50 000 (not including various kinds of welfare). It is difficult for investors to invest in private education, as it isn"t a very profitable business. Most prestigious universities, who invest large amounts of resources in their students, rely mostly on donations. Jim Rogers, in one of his books, noted that many universities are now in debt.

Public education increase equality. It brings together students from all social classes. America"s top private schools can cost 1 million dollars per family (for all four years), while some cost $16 000 (again for all four years). Private education has the potential to promote different social classes.

Public schools also provide a common standard of education, which provides a more level playing field for all students. For this reason, universities make adjustments to the raw score if the applicant is from a private school. Private schools generally give students higher grades than public schools, and their marking schemes are generally not consistent with each other.

I look forward to hearing your arguments.

http://money.cnn.com...
http://theweek.com...
http://www.theatlantic.com...
http://www.marketwatch.com...
Boesball

Con

Ok, pro is forgetting some key elements of a private schools that make them better for the student. Also remember that the premise of the debate is for you to prove that "public schools are generally better than private schools for the public". I'm proving that private schools are good for the public.

1. Private schools do not always promote different social classes

You have to understand the reasons parents send their kids to private schools. A huge amount of the reason is because of religion. The rich don't even send their kids to private schools as much as you think.



It's about 1/8 of "rich" families choose private, and that's not rediculous. Also, look at this chart (1).

Average Private School Tuition: 2011-12
All LevelsElementarySecondaryK-12 Schools
All Schools $10,740 $7,770 $13,030 $13,640
Catholic $6,890 $5,330 $9,790 $10,230
Other Religious $8,690 $7,960 $16,520 $8,160
Non-Sectarian $21,510 $18,170 $25,180 $22,440


You didn't even look at the religion aspect of private schools. That's the main reason kids go to private schools, and you only looked at the non-sectarian ones. Check out this chart (2).



The overwelming majority for private school education is religion and the families that do sacrifice a lot to send their kids there. The classes aren't generated by the schools because of that. Sometimes, they can be torn down.

2. Private schools generate a far better learning experience

You are selectively including religious and non-sectarian private schools in your data when you need them. The reason that teachers take that paycut (especially at religious schools) is because of the religion element. They share religious beliefs with their students and can relate with them better. They choose to take the paycut because they care more about helping the kids, and there is obvious proof to this. Look at this chart (1).



Private schools do better in all aspects except the last one, and that is excepted. Public schools should help kids with understanding kids from different backgrounds because they have more kids, and that means more diversity. They don't, as it's a tie.

Also, kids at private schools do a lot better on the SAT (1):



Saying that the private schools are less stellar in the learning experience is silly.

Here's even more info about how much of a landslide in education quality all from source number 1 (1).

Percent of kids at various levels in reading:

Grade 4
Private Public
Basic 82 67
Proficient 49 34
Advanced 14 8
Grade 8
Private Public
Basic 91 77
Proficient 57 34
Advanced 10 4


Percent of kids at various levels in math:

Grade 4
Private Public
Basic 87 82
Proficient 48 41
Advanced 9 8
Grade 8
Private Public
Basic 83 73
Proficient 47 34
Advanced 14 8

For all other subjects it's more of the same landslide except in most cases, more extreme.

3. The option of private schools give parents flexibility

Parents can choose whether they want to take a sacrifice in their lives or not in order to get a better education experience. Since most reasons for the private school is religious, then the option is certainly helpful. Parents who are religious often want their kids to be in that enviroment, and that creates less controversy between kids at schools. Also, some kids do better in a smaller class. Maybe their personality fits that better. 80.5% of parents who send their kids to private schools think that the smaller class size is important (3), so I'd say that aspect gives flexibility as well.

Conclusion:

The benefit in education quality, the connection between the students and teachers, and the flexibility all point to the existence of private schools being a positive to society. It also all points to there being a huge benefit of private schools versus public.

(1) http://www.capenet.org...
(2) http://nces.ed.gov...;
(3) http://eagnews.org...;
Debate Round No. 2
wxyz2000

Pro

In response to Con's arguments:

"You have to understand the reasons parents send their kids to private schools. A huge amount of the reason is because of religion."

There are Roman Catholic Public Schools.

"Private schools do not always promote different social classes"

So Con is acknowledging that private school do promote social classes. My opponent"s source cites that there are 13% of people whose income are over $750 000 who attend private schools. This statistic could actually argue in my case, as the present inequality in America stems from the division between the wealthiest few percent with the rest. There are 117 million households in the USA - about 30% are households have children - so there are around 35 million households with children in the USA. 8.8 million (according to Con"s statistics) of 35 million households have income over $750 000, and only 13% of those attend private schools. Given that America"s private schools are some of the most expensive ones in the world, there seems to be a strong correlation between the percentage of the wealthiest Americans and the percentage of students attending private schools.

"Private schools generate a far better learning experience"

Con"s statistics have confounding factors present. In a determined society, richer students tend to do better than poorer students.

Con"s source is also biased, as it is from the Council for American Private Education, which can present misguided information. For instance, a paper from the Ohio State University Research Foundation wrote that students from higher income families are the ones mosts likely to use SAT preparation tools such as classes and tutors, and these students average scores far higher on their SAT tests compared with those who didn"t take the classes. Thus it cannot be argued that students do better on the SAT are better academically than those who do not. Learning through SAT prep tools is not a good way to learn, as it promotes short retention spans, and some of the strategies used on the SAT is not applicable to one"s future endeavours.

Additionally, marks of private schools are inflated. Is it a good system if a school"s potential to earn money is positively correlated to the marks their students receive?

In fact, once public and private school students are put into the same environment, public school students often do better than private school students. The International Journal of Science Education looked at the academic performance of more than 4,500 students in a first-year physics class at the University of British Columbia between 2002 and 2006. They found that those who graduated from public schools in the Metro Vancouver area outperformed their peers arriving from private schools.

Again, I will reiterate that generally, the pay and welfare many public school teachers receive is greater than private school teachers, which gives teachers incentives to move towards public schools. And while public schools have certain minimum requirements for teachers (certificates and degrees), private school teacher may not need those requirements. In fact, in most of the Canadian provinces and territories, independent schools are not even required to hire certified teachers. This is rampant in the United States as well.

"80.5% of parents who send their kids to private schools think that the smaller class size is important (3), so I'd say that aspect gives flexibility as well."

This is obviously the case, but is it better for the public for everybody in the public to be a part of a smaller class? Of course not. There would be not enough teachers. It wouldn"t be practical. Con cannot argue that private schools would be better for the "public" because it has smaller class sizes, simply because it wouldn"t have a big enough impact. Even if it did, there are magnet schools.

http://www.prb.org...

http://researchnews.osu.edu...
http://712educators.about.com...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com...

http://www.moneysense.ca...
Boesball

Con

Ok, sorry for the confusion with sources two and three in my last argument. Here they are:

(2) http://nces.ed.gov...
(3) http://eagnews.org...

I'm sorry for that confusion, there was probably an issue when transfering it from text to rich text. These sources are not gonna be used for this part in the debate directly, so i'll just continue my numbers starting at four starting here.

There are many issues with your argument, and I will point those out. First off, you said: "My opponent"s source cites that there are 13% of people whose income are over $750 000 who attend private schools." If you look at the chart, it shows that about 13% of families with an income of $75,000 send their kids to private schools, so that throws your statistics off a bit.

Also, pro states that richer students tend to do better than poorer students. That is true, but one factor could be that more richer kids go to private schools than poorer kids, and that creates a circular argument. Also, the rich see their parent's success in life, and they aspire to that. The poor, who don't see that success from their parents, may not know what it feels like to succeed.

Pro says "Again, I will reiterate that generally, the pay and welfare many public school teachers receive is greater than private school teachers." Yes, that is true. But the reason for that is not quality difference. Private schools have less jobs to fill (4) and because of the law of supply and demand, this means there will be naturally lower pay. They don't have as many regulations, and therefore they can charge less. Also, a teacher that gets paid less can actually be better because of the reason they're doing it. They aren't doing it as much for the moeny, but they actually care about their kids, and therefore they are willing to take less money to do their job (4). As I also said, teachers who teach at a religious school already have a connection with the kids. The reason private school teachers get paid less is not because they are worse, it's because they are willing to take less money to do their job the way that they think it should be done. Also, private schools look for different things in teachers. For example, let's say a school is looking for a spanish teacher. A public school would generally hire someone with an education degree and a minor in spanish. They wouldn't know the spanish language as well, but they would be able to handle a 35-40 kid classroom that some public schools have more effectively. A private school generally goes for a teacher with a major in spanish and a minor in possibly literature. That teacher would be far more equipped with the ability to teach spanish, but they wouldn't have to handle the 35-40 kid class because that doesn't happen in a private school. Therefore, the private school mindset in hiring teachers would naturally generate teachers that do the real job of a teacher. That job is teaching kids, and a public school would get teachers that sometimes have to do some babysitting of the kids (5).

Pro said: "Thus it cannot be argued that students do better on the SAT are better academically than those who do not." If that's the case, then did you look at the chart I gave based on proficiency in different subjects? The private school kids did a lot better.

We are not debating that only one is good for society. Read the title to the debate. It says "Public Education is Better for Society than Private Education". We are debating whether that statement is true or not. I think private schools are needed in society and are better than public schools, but I'm not arguing to abolish public schools. Like I've said, private schools give the flexibility to send a kid to a situation with less kids which gives him or her more attention from the teacher. Private schools also have more parent involvement and less regulations because they are private (6). It's like going to a local diner or going to McDonalds. McDonalds is going to be cheaper, but the local diner is probably going to have better food, shorter lines, and it's going to be a more friendly atmosphere. In the same way, public schools are cheaper, but they have less teacher attention to each student, they have bigger class sizes, and they have more bullying and teasing. Some parents just don't want their kids in the public school atmosphere and private schools give them the options.

The parent involvement factor is actually a big issue in public schools. 25% of public school teachers said that the lack of parent involvement is an issue at their school, and for private schools this was 4% (7). Principals at public schools were asked the same thing, and parent involvement was almost as big of an issue at the school as poverty (14.5% versus 14.9%). There's much more weapon possession, alchohal use, and drug use at public schools, and some parents just want their kids out of that atmosphere, and their willing to pay big money to do so. A reason that private school parents are so involved is because they do pay for the school, and if their kids aren't doing the best they can, then it's not worth it. I'd predict that if two families were compared, this would be shown. If one family sent their kids to a private school, those kids would be more prepared for college because the parents would feel obligated to get involved, the kid would feel guilted into working harder because of how much of a sacrifice it is to go there, and the public school kid wouldn't be as prepared for college. Private schools provide that kind of benefit.

(4) http://www.theatlantic.com...
(5) http://privateschool.about.com...
(6) http://www.babycenter.com...
(7) http://nces.ed.gov...
Debate Round No. 3
wxyz2000

Pro

First of all, I would like to apologize for mistyping $75 000 as $750 000. I"ve rechecked my calculations. Using the additional statistics from the Population Reference Bureau in America, the percentage of households with incomes of $75 000 which have registered for private school is close to 5%. A large portion of American wealth is concentrated in the top 5%. While there is no concrete link between the two statistics, the correlation could counter the my opponent"s use of this statistic as an indicator that private school do not promote social classes.

Con states:

"Also, pro states that richer students tend to do better than poorer students. That is true, but one factor could be that more richer kids go to private schools than poorer kids, and that creates a circular argument."

I don"t see how that is circular reasoning, as I merely pointed out a confounding factor in pro"s argument. Also, my opponent also agreed that "more richer kids go to private schools than poorer kids", which also supports my premise that private schools divide society into "social classes".

Con states:

"Also, a teacher that gets paid less can actually be better because of the reason they're doing it. They aren't doing it as much for the moeny, but they actually care about their kids, and therefore they are willing to take less money to do their job.As I also said, teachers who teach at a religious school already have a connection with the kids. The reason private school teachers get paid less is not because they are worse, it's because they are willing to take less money to do their job the way that they think it should be done". That job is teaching kids, and a public school would get teachers that sometimes have to do some babysitting of the kids (5)"

According to Con, the merits of a private school teachers are that they:

Are altruistic (and are more dedicated to their teaching because they are payed less)
Have a religious connection with students (at least some of them)
Are better in their respective fields than public school teacher
Additionally, Con throws in the fact that public schools have much larger class sizes than private schools, with people ranging from 35-40.

I will refute these points one by one.

Let"s assume that Con is correct in that private school teachers are motivated by altruism, and that lower pay is equivalent to more dedication. This claim is ridiculous. The same teachers that are altruistic in private schools can likewise be altruistic in public schools. Additionally, by Con"s logic, teachers in in Luxembourg, Switzerland, Germany, and Canada should be worse than teachers in America. Rather, they are better.
2. Con claims that religious connections can better teacher quality. This claim may or may not be true, but as I pointed out, there are religious public schools.
3. Con claims that private school teachers are better because "a private school hiring a Spanish teacher will want that teacher to have a degree in Spanish language and literature as opposed to an education degree with a minor in Spanish". But my opponent has no statistics to support this fact (I have checked his sources). Even if it were true, then it is the fault of the country"s educational institution, not the fault of the conception of public education. Here is Singapore"s teacher development:

"After grade 12, all Singaporean pre-service teachers attend Singapore's only teacher training institution, the National Institute of Education (NIE), where they receive 100-150 hours of methods courses, 35 hours of mathematical content courses, 40 hours of math pedagogy (teaching methodology), and 25 hours of general pedagogy."

"The average teacher" in Singapore is one of the best in the world, yet they focus more on the "educational degree" than degrees in their specific field. Public schools have more funding than private schools, and have the potential to train teachers to be better.

Con states that student-to-teacher ratio is sometimes 35-40, but again, that is the fault of the institution as well. Public education has the potential to have low ratios. According to Con"s source "http://privateschool.about.com...;, the ideal student-to-teacher ratio is 15:1, but Singapore"s secondary public educational system has reached below that ratio. In 2012, their secondary school"s pupil-to-teacher ratio was 14:1, and they are bent on lowing it even more.

Con states:

""then did you look at the chart I gave based on proficiency in different subjects? The private school kids did a lot better."

The chart you gave me based on the proficiency in different subjects is written by the National Center for Education Statistics, at the system of evaluation is a joke. The NCES authors themselves warn that there are "Cautions in Interpretation" in their sections of report. Various individuals and organizations have used the report to discredit private school voucher programs. The NAEP does not even employ a random survey. Again, as I stated in my previous arguments, many of the marks of private schools are inflated, which makes it even more important to have a common standard of education via public schools.

Con states:

"We are not debating that only one is good for society."

I never said that only one is good for society.

Con states:

"In the same way, public schools are cheaper, but they have less teacher attention to each student, they have bigger class sizes, and they have more bullying and teasing". There's much more weapon possession, alchohal use, and drug use at public schools, and some parents just want their kids out of that atmosphere, and their willing to pay big money to do so."

Again, Con"s argument has a confounding factor. Richer kids tend to be more well-behaved than poorer kids. If the same students were put in private schools, they probably wouldn"t fare any better.

Con states:

"If one family sent their kids to a private school, those kids would be more prepared for college because the parents would feel obligated to get involved, the kid would feel guilted into working harder because of how much of a sacrifice it is to go there, and the public school kid wouldn't be as prepared for college."

This may not necessarily be a good thing. As one private school student acknowledged, "at university it"s a lot more independent, a lot more about self-motivation", and he admitted that private school students would be unprepared for the "independence". As I pointed out in the previous round, public school students often do better than private school students when they are in the same environment (Con has not refuted my argument, so I extend it).

In conclusion, public schools have several edges over private schools:

They do not promote social classes, which private schools does. Public schools are essential for any meritocracy.

Public schools are accessible to everyone (Con did not refute my argument from the first round, so I extend it), while private schools are selective.

Public schools provide a common standard of education, which provide a more level playing field (Con again did not refute my argument from the first round, so I extend it), while private schools do not.

Public schools foster independence, while its higher pay attracts better teachers.

Public schools, unlike private schools, are not restricted by budget limits. With proper management, public schools can be more versatile than private schools and more beneficial for the "public".

http://www.bloomberg.com...

http://www.moe.gov.sg...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com...

http://www.heritage.org...
Boesball

Con

Good debate man, and I think you actually almost convinced me! Your arguments weren't perfect, but they were quite good. You worked hard in this debate, I'll give you the victory.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Boesball 2 years ago
Boesball
It was a good debate, but I didn't have time to finish my last round, so I just conceded :/
Posted by wxyz2000 2 years ago
wxyz2000
Thanks Boesball. It was a nice debate.
Posted by Boesball 2 years ago
Boesball
I felt lazy, and I really didn't want to debate his last round, I thought he had a good debate, and he deserved this one.
Posted by Boesball 2 years ago
Boesball
Vote for pro
Posted by Boesball 2 years ago
Boesball
@wxyz2000 that was a glitch. fixed it
Posted by wxyz2000 2 years ago
wxyz2000
Boesball, the bottom two sources seem to have errors, could you please check on that?
Posted by Boesball 2 years ago
Boesball
I love using charts and graphs in my debates
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Message me when it's time to vote on this.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 2 years ago
TrasguTravieso
wxyz2000BoesballTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
wxyz2000BoesballTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
wxyz2000BoesballTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded. I'm awarding conduct because an honorable concession seems to merit a reward of some type, even though it still means a loss of the debate. Good job to both sides!