Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Private Schooling vs. Public Schooling

Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 5:18:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Let's hear your thoughts on this subject.

Ideas

Pros and Cons
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 5:22:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
In private school a business indoctrinates the kids.

In public school the government indoctrinates the kids.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 5:25:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
private - companies do whatever they want with schools and parents have little say. On top of school being mandatory, children would be forced to deal with whatever decisions, be they good or bad that the business undertakes.

public - parents have a say, children have a say, there is control.

NO PRIVATIZATION ....EVER. Thank you.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 5:58:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 5:25:21 PM, 000ike wrote:
private - companies do whatever they want with schools and parents have little say. On top of school being mandatory, children would be forced to deal with whatever decisions, be they good or bad that the business undertakes.

public - parents have a say, children have a say, there is control.

NO PRIVATIZATION ....EVER. Thank you.

That's not true. If schools were privatized they run the risk of going out of business if parents are unsatisfied, parents have the freedom to take their money somewhere else.

In a centralized public school system parents don't have a say at all. They can't change schools unless they move. Currently I'm being forced to go to a certain school not because it's a school my parents think is particularly great, but because the government says I have to.

I support the voucher and decentralized school system, which allows parents to choose which school they feel is best for their kids and keep control of the schools to the local parents.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 6:07:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 5:58:02 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 8/25/2011 5:25:21 PM, 000ike wrote:
private - companies do whatever they want with schools and parents have little say. On top of school being mandatory, children would be forced to deal with whatever decisions, be they good or bad that the business undertakes.

public - parents have a say, children have a say, there is control.

NO PRIVATIZATION ....EVER. Thank you.

That's not true. If schools were privatized they run the risk of going out of business if parents are unsatisfied, parents have the freedom to take their money somewhere else.

In a centralized public school system parents don't have a say at all. They can't change schools unless they move. Currently I'm being forced to go to a certain school not because it's a school my parents think is particularly great, but because the government says I have to.

I support the voucher and decentralized school system, which allows parents to choose which school they feel is best for their kids and keep control of the schools to the local parents.

Parents already have that power. They can choose to take their children to a private school if they want to. The concern here is for the parents who would not otherwise send their children to school. Lets say we did privatize all schools. Will we make it mandatory to go to schools still? If yes, then we're back at my previous concern. Companies and their greedy ways do not simply go away because we're dealing with children. Many parents won't have the money to pay for a private school. Transportation also becomes an issue. You make it seem deceptively simple for parents to switch schools when unhappy with the current one, but that is not the case. The fact is, parents have less power and less say in HOW their children are educated and the educational decisions are made independently of them by a business conglomerate. Privatization puts education in the hands of businesses, whose only interest is to gain as much profit as possible. This would be a tremendous step down in the improvement of the current education system.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 6:15:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 6:07:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/25/2011 5:58:02 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 8/25/2011 5:25:21 PM, 000ike wrote:
private - companies do whatever they want with schools and parents have little say. On top of school being mandatory, children would be forced to deal with whatever decisions, be they good or bad that the business undertakes.

public - parents have a say, children have a say, there is control.

NO PRIVATIZATION ....EVER. Thank you.

That's not true. If schools were privatized they run the risk of going out of business if parents are unsatisfied, parents have the freedom to take their money somewhere else.

In a centralized public school system parents don't have a say at all. They can't change schools unless they move. Currently I'm being forced to go to a certain school not because it's a school my parents think is particularly great, but because the government says I have to.

I support the voucher and decentralized school system, which allows parents to choose which school they feel is best for their kids and keep control of the schools to the local parents.


Parents already have that power. They can choose to take their children to a private school if they want to. The concern here is for the parents who would not otherwise send their children to school. Lets say we did privatize all schools. Will we make it mandatory to go to schools still? If yes, then we're back at my previous concern. Companies and their greedy ways do not simply go away because we're dealing with children. Many parents won't have the money to pay for a private school. Transportation also becomes an issue. You make it seem deceptively simple for parents to switch schools when unhappy with the current one, but that is not the case. The fact is, parents have less power and less say in HOW their children are educated and the educational decisions are made independently of them by a business conglomerate. Privatization puts education in the hands of businesses, whose only interest is to gain as much profit as possible. This would be a tremendous step down in the improvement of the current education system.

I'm not for complete privatization of schooling, but there is no doubt that one of the benefits would be that parents of children attending school would have more of an impact. If parents don't like the results of the school's method of teaching, they can simply take their business elsewhere. It does no good for businesses to be bent on selling cheap lousy schooling for a profit since other schools will compete to offer better schooling to make sure they can get more customers.

However under the voucher system, the tax money spent on students who attend public schools is given directly to the parents for them to decide which school they wish to send their child to. I concede that there are many good public schools that compete with private ones. But there are very many bad public schools as well, which cost the same amount of money per student. With the money directly in the hands of the parents, they are free to choose which public school they wish to send their child to making sure that public schools that are worthwhile will survive.

All students are still allowed to go to school.

The control is given directly to parents.

Bad schools will cease to exist.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 6:20:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 5:58:02 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 8/25/2011 5:25:21 PM, 000ike wrote:
private - companies do whatever they want with schools and parents have little say. On top of school being mandatory, children would be forced to deal with whatever decisions, be they good or bad that the business undertakes.

public - parents have a say, children have a say, there is control.

NO PRIVATIZATION ....EVER. Thank you.

That's not true. If schools were privatized they run the risk of going out of business if parents are unsatisfied, parents have the freedom to take their money somewhere else.

In a centralized public school system parents don't have a say at all. They can't change schools unless they move. Currently I'm being forced to go to a certain school not because it's a school my parents think is particularly great, but because the government says I have to.

I support the voucher and decentralized school system, which allows parents to choose which school they feel is best for their kids and keep control of the schools to the local parents.

And what % of parents currently give a damn? Education of the kids of those parents will fall to the lowest bidder (i.e. the companies that pay to allow indoctrination), and the kids will end up suffering because of their parent's choices. We also see that with public schools, the parents that are involved and care, will have kids that do better, so the need for private isn't there.

My issue with private schools, is that they are free to dismiss kids that get poor grades. This artificially raises their scores. If you take a public school, cut out all the kids failing, they'll be right there with private schools in scores.

All in all - Public school for everyone, Private school (with regulations) for those that want to go above and beyond.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 6:28:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 6:20:35 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
We also see that with public schools, the parents that are involved and care, will have kids that do better, so the need for private isn't there.

Excactly, which is why a voucher system would work fine. Parents are allowed to pick the schools they have their kids go forcing bad schools to go away. At least give the parents who care the oppurtunity to choose whether or not a certain school fits their expectations.


My issue with private schools, is that they are free to dismiss kids that get poor grades. This artificially raises their scores. If you take a public school, cut out all the kids failing, they'll be right there with private schools in scores.

So?

All in all - Public school for everyone, Private school (with regulations) for those that want to go above and beyond.

I'm not advocating a completely privatized private school system. School vouchers and a decentralized school system give parents the control to determine what schooling they want their children to have. School vouchers allow all kids to go to school, it simply gives the money spent on their kid in a public schooling system, directly to the parents.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 6:38:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
We also see that with public schools, the parents that are involved and care, will have kids that do better
Who is we? No one "sees" such a thing, they might conclude it, depending on the evidence.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 6:40:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Lets say we did privatize all schools. Will we make it mandatory to go to schools still?
No, that would be a contradiction. Schools in such a system would not be private, they would be competing GSE's.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 6:42:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Also, DO any private schools in fact kick kids out for poor performance? How many do those end up kicking out?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 6:44:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 6:28:27 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 8/25/2011 6:20:35 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
We also see that with public schools, the parents that are involved and care, will have kids that do better, so the need for private isn't there.

Excactly, which is why a voucher system would work fine. Parents are allowed to pick the schools they have their kids go forcing bad schools to go away. At least give the parents who care the oppurtunity to choose whether or not a certain school fits their expectations.

If the parents that don't care simply send their kids to the cheapest schools, I'd rather those cheapest schools be government indoctrination centers than corporate indoctrination centers. At least the people have some marginal control of the government.




My issue with private schools, is that they are free to dismiss kids that get poor grades. This artificially raises their scores. If you take a public school, cut out all the kids failing, they'll be right there with private schools in scores.

So?

I support education for all, not just some.


All in all - Public school for everyone, Private school (with regulations) for those that want to go above and beyond.

I'm not advocating a completely privatized private school system. School vouchers and a decentralized school system give parents the control to determine what schooling they want their children to have. School vouchers allow all kids to go to school, it simply gives the money spent on their kid in a public schooling system, directly to the parents.

see above.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 6:49:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If the parents that don't care simply send their kids to the cheapest schools, I'd rather those cheapest schools be government indoctrination centers than corporate indoctrination centers. At least the people have some marginal control of the government.

There's no such thing as the people.

Corporate indoctrination centers, if that turns out to be the "Cheap" possibility (Indoctrination sounds expensive actually), will at least have competition, which means people are guaranteed to encounter those who disagree with them once outside school, countering the effects of indoctrination. Government indoctrination centers have no such innate guarantee, and the other things appear equal.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 6:52:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Look; when the private sector own schools, they start charging money. Now, as school is mandatory, and many parents won't care about their children's education (It's true, I'm sorry, it is. A lot of parents take no interest in the student's life, barely covering their school costs to begin with), there'll spring up the Taiwan knock-off schools, if you need to get your child through the system, where they may end up learning how to read by 16, and ultra-highend schools for the politically and economically gifted.

If the government owns the "knockoff schools" then they can regulate and improve eductation.

Long term problems mean that the country becomes ineducated, losing its primary income source (if we talk about western countries).

Currently, the education gap is most visible between urban and rural areas, in terms of quality and access to schools. The urban poor can still attend public schools and get an education.

With privatization of some schools, a gap will develop between the rich and the rest.

Due to income levels, it is impossible for most parents to send their children to private schools, even for those who have good jobs. If privitization expands it will also affect the quality of education in public schools as qualified and experienced teachers move to private schools because of higher salaries and other perks.

Granting permission to operate a private school is different from privatization of public schools. Parents who can afford to pay will send their children to private schools to get the best quality education. Consequently, it reduces the government's burden because it does not need to subsidize education for the rich. Private schools can offer high quality teaching with reduced student-teacher ratios.

However, in school privatization, taking over the existing education infrastructure impacts the access and quality of education for many primary/secondary students.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 6:54:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I've heard the school voucher idea before, and its more insane than privatising schools anyway.

What it means is that we have all the problems of privatising schools, except now the government has to pay for it! You realise the insanity of that? Yes, some kids will be able to go to the schools now, but if it remained mandatory, it would make no difference, and without the vouchers simply means there is a cheaper market. Also, I bet there will be corrupt Capitalist teachers (and I'd be one of them) who'd take in the vouchers and exchange them for money. It's ludicrous.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 6:57:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 6:42:26 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Also, DO any private schools in fact kick kids out for poor performance? How many do those end up kicking out?

http://www.nybooks.com...

This covers more than just the expulsions.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 7:01:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The government has a LOT larger sense of CSR, by the way ("corporate" social responsibility), and anyone who disagreed with the system, and there'd be people en masse, would be vocal. Any problems with the public schooling would lead to other candidates for election to launch a media assault on the competition, which is banned to do against a competing business if it is deemed as excessive propoganda, meaning the public schools not only have a guarantee, but a larger one than privatised schools. I heard someone say a few days ago "If ASDA was found to be selling inhumane food, there'd be a riot, but if it was a butcher on the corner, no-one would hear about it."

A government relies on its public image. They'd have a ten times larger guarantee to be better behaved.

P.S the ten times is obviously been pulled from where the sun don't shine, its an exaggeration. :D
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 7:01:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 6:52:41 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Look; when the private sector own schools, they start charging money. Now, as school is mandatory
Again, this is a contradiction, if school is mandatory it's no longer private.

there'll spring up the Taiwan knock-off schools, if you need to get your child through the system, where they may end up learning how to read by 16
That's an interesting number with no evidence behind it.
I for one learned to read long before being influenced by any schools. Even slower folk shouldn't be delayed THAT long if the school does nothing but have an untrained babysitter and a few books.

If the government owns the "knockoff schools" then they can regulate and improve eductation.
That's a bare assertion. Well sure they can regulate it, but you don't regulate education into improving. If you show Johnny a regulation that says "THOU SHALT READ" it doesn't do anything.

Due to income levels, it is impossible for most parents to send their children to private schools, even for those who have good jobs.
It's impossible for most parents to send their kids to college, that's why non-frontloaded payment methods for colleges were invented.

Of course, such methods require treating children as human beings rather than as pets, but oh well.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 7:01:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 6:54:53 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
I've heard the school voucher idea before, and its more insane than privatising schools anyway.

What it means is that we have all the problems of privatising schools, except now the government has to pay for it! You realise the insanity of that? Yes, some kids will be able to go to the schools now, but if it remained mandatory, it would make no difference, and without the vouchers simply means there is a cheaper market. Also, I bet there will be corrupt Capitalist teachers (and I'd be one of them) who'd take in the vouchers and exchange them for money. It's ludicrous.

Under the voucher program the money spent for each student is given to the parents to pick the school of their own choosing. So no kids are cut on the basis of ability to pay. It simply gets rid of bad schools since there will always be better schools with better teachers and curriculums competing to get those vouchers. If a school is poorly run with bad staff, it will cease to exist. The only problem with complete privatization is that many people wouldn't be able to afford that. So for now I support school vouchers.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 7:03:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 5:25:21 PM, 000ike wrote:
private - companies do whatever they want with schools and parents have little say. On top of school being mandatory, children would be forced to deal with whatever decisions, be they good or bad that the business undertakes.

public - parents have a say, children have a say, there is control.:

The parents have no say? So you're forced to send your kids to private school, eh? Really think about that.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 7:03:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 6:49:26 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If the parents that don't care simply send their kids to the cheapest schools, I'd rather those cheapest schools be government indoctrination centers than corporate indoctrination centers. At least the people have some marginal control of the government.

There's no such thing as the people.

Yes there is.


Corporate indoctrination centers, if that turns out to be the "Cheap" possibility (Indoctrination sounds expensive actually), will at least have competition, which means people are guaranteed to encounter those who disagree with them once outside school, countering the effects of indoctrination. Government indoctrination centers have no such innate guarantee, and the other things appear equal.

Actually, indoctrination is cheap, real knowledge is expensive. Indoctrination is tied to ignorance (which is very cheap), and often suplimented with appeals to emotion and fear (also really cheap).

And we know what happens when people have been indoctrinated encounter those that disagree with them (see most wars in human history).

With public schools, so long as less that 50% of parents take an apathetic view, the majority of parents that do care can force better education on the kids of the parents that don't care. This cannot be done in 100% privatised.

If there are more than 50% apathetic parents, then the apathetic parents control the public schools (in which case, they allow special interests to control them, like politicians, unions, or companies) and there is no different than if there were no public schools. So they have no disadvantage.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 7:09:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 7:01:04 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/25/2011 6:52:41 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Look; when the private sector own schools, they start charging money. Now, as school is mandatory
Again, this is a contradiction, if school is mandatory it's no longer private.

Please, point it out. In England, for example, it is a legal requirement to own insurance. it is still privately funded.
there'll spring up the Taiwan knock-off schools, if you need to get your child through the system, where they may end up learning how to read by 16
That's an interesting number with no evidence behind it.
I for one learned to read long before being influenced by any schools. Even slower folk shouldn't be delayed THAT long if the school does nothing but have an untrained babysitter and a few books.

What is your background and where did you learn? I come from a working class background, and I learned to read at school, and could only read what I class a "book" at the age of seven, due to, well, it might as well be described as a "rivalry" against someone who was smarter than me.
If the government owns the "knockoff schools" then they can regulate and improve eductation.
That's a bare assertion. Well sure they can regulate it, but you don't regulate education into improving. If you show Johnny a regulation that says "THOU SHALT READ" it doesn't do anything.

Of course you can regulate to improvement; that is the point of OFSTED. They regulate the government owned schools to improving them. If we privatise regulation (which is a given, as it has done with every other case of privatisation), then they shall have any standards. It's the Ryan Air equivalent. If someone didn't make one, I'd go straight to trying to make one.

Due to income levels, it is impossible for most parents to send their children to private schools, even for those who have good jobs.
It's impossible for most parents to send their kids to college, that's why non-frontloaded payment methods for colleges were invented.

Of course, such methods require treating children as human beings rather than as pets, but oh well.

Maybe it is just my understanding of business and economics, but customers are consumers. You fill the supply and demand chain in business. Businesses will always try and fulfill these things as long as they can be profitable. High Quality, low price education does not exist. Also, businesses would have incredibly high interest rates on these loans, as students are incredibly unreliable for the payback. This ignores the fact that the payment building up over 10 years to receive education capable to do a minimum wage job.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 7:12:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 6:57:33 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/25/2011 6:42:26 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Also, DO any private schools in fact kick kids out for poor performance? How many do those end up kicking out?

http://www.nybooks.com...

This covers more than just the expulsions.

First, charter and private are different things, second, if, as it claims, teachers don't matter, then teachers shouldn't be hired at all. :)

Also, an incentive for quality teachers to avoid wasting their time on **** tier students sounds like a good thing :).

Yes there is.
The fact that you disagree proves there isn't a "the people," only people like me and people like you and perhaps people like neither of us.

Actually, indoctrination is cheap, real knowledge is expensive.
Is that indoctrinated in you, or do you have real evidence?

And we know what happens when people have been indoctrinated encounter those that disagree with them (see most wars in human history).
So according to this the US is in civil war right now, as the products of the US education system meet strange creatures called libertarians and conservatives.

With public schools, so long as less that 50% of parents take an apathetic view, the majority of parents that do care can force better education on the kids of the parents that don't care. This cannot be done in 100% privatised.
Considering the costs I consider that a bad thing, but anyway it clearly contradicts the assertion that it's the kids of the good parents who do better, instead of kids in the schools in good neighborhoods

(in which case, they allow special interests to control them, like politicians, unions, or companies) and there is no different than if there were no public schools. So they have no disadvantage.
If there were no public schools influence is not based on majority or minority, just on being a big enough market to matter.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Tim_Spin
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 7:13:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 5:25:21 PM, 000ike wrote:
private - companies do whatever they want with schools and parents have little say. On top of school being mandatory, children would be forced to deal with whatever decisions, be they good or bad that the business undertakes.

public - parents have a say, children have a say, there is control.

NO PRIVATIZATION ....EVER. Thank you.

http://cslacker.com...
Astonished, the talent agent asks the man what him and his family call their act.The man responds, "The Aristocrats!"
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 7:15:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This happens either way; I still fail to see the difference. You know schools are paid depending on quality and quantity of results, not a fixed amount per year? (At least, that is the English system). This causes management changes quite regularly in terrible schools. I don't go to the school opposite my house as it is the 3rd worst funded in England, I go to a grammar school 40 minutes drive away. Of course, the inconvenience is amazingly large, and would be impossible if it weren't for school-funded bus rides to my town (and other towns obviously) to get to school. This is because the management of our school is great, and runs it with business extensions (my school owns practically all the flats and some of the houses near it, renting them, and builds houses from its profit. A percentage of this goes to improving the school. I think the school's external profits are higher than the revenue of the school next to me. It's simply how it is run. That's just a reference point by the way).
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 7:19:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
hmm... my post from before was about the voucher system...
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 7:24:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 7:09:26 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 8/25/2011 7:01:04 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/25/2011 6:52:41 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Look; when the private sector own schools, they start charging money. Now, as school is mandatory
Again, this is a contradiction, if school is mandatory it's no longer private.

Please, point it out. In England, for example, it is a legal requirement to own insurance. it is still privately funded.
No, it is simply not single-payer public funded. When funds are coerced by law, those funds are, by definition, no longer private.

there'll spring up the Taiwan knock-off schools, if you need to get your child through the system, where they may end up learning how to read by 16
That's an interesting number with no evidence behind it.
I for one learned to read long before being influenced by any schools. Even slower folk shouldn't be delayed THAT long if the school does nothing but have an untrained babysitter and a few books.

What is your background and where did you learn?
At home, with Dr. Seuss. I was the child of a single parent who was starting with nursing, she was on welfare the first two years of my life or so. I'd ask her what a few words meant every day, memorize those words, until I saw patterns in the words and worked out phonics for myself-- the only active instruction she had to undertake was in the alphabet at about 3. By the age of 5 I could read anything the length of my attention span. It's not really a gargantuan task as long as you don't have much to otherwise occupy you.
I was quite shocked when I went to school at 6 and was told that I was to commence learning the alphabet and then I'd learn to read in about a year. Kindergarten was incredibly boring.

Of course you can regulate to improvement; that is the point of OFSTED.
It is fallacious to believe that simply because the intent of X is Y that X will actually achieve Y.

If we privatise regulation
Incoherent without new definitions

Maybe it is just my understanding of business and economics, but customers are consumers. You fill the supply and demand chain in business. Businesses will always try and fulfill these things as long as they can be profitable. High Quality, low price education does not exist.
And government doesn't alter the scarcity of such things, it only dumps money after it whether it's worth it or not. When the money is in taxpayer hands, they can spend it in the same ways, or not.

Also, businesses would have incredibly high interest rates on these loans, as students are incredibly unreliable for the payback.
Whereas government has "interest rates" so high you NEVER stop paying, and you don't even have the option to say no or pursue an alternative business.

This ignores the fact that the payment building up over 10 years to receive education capable to do a minimum wage job.
Minimum wage jobs do not require most of what is taught in public schools.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 7:25:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 7:15:43 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
This happens either way; I still fail to see the difference. You know schools are paid depending on quality and quantity of results, not a fixed amount per year? (At least, that is the English system).
It's definitely not the US one, and I doubt it's a fully accurate description of the English one.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 7:28:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 7:12:02 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/25/2011 6:57:33 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/25/2011 6:42:26 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Also, DO any private schools in fact kick kids out for poor performance? How many do those end up kicking out?

http://www.nybooks.com...

This covers more than just the expulsions.

First, charter and private are different things, second, if, as it claims, teachers don't matter, then teachers shouldn't be hired at all. :)

It doesn't claim teachers don't matter, it claims that they are not the biggest factor.

"According to University of Washington economist Dan Goldhaber, about 60 percent of achievement is explained by nonschool factors, such as family income. So while teachers are the most important factor within schools, their effects pale in comparison with those of students' backgrounds, families, and other factors beyond the control of schools and teachers. Teachers can have a profound effect on students, but it would be foolish to believe that teachers alone can undo the damage caused by poverty and its associated burdens."


Also, an incentive for quality teachers to avoid wasting their time on **** tier students sounds like a good thing :).

Doesn't to me. While it may mean less competition for higher end jobs, it ultimately means a weaker economy since you have weaker workers.


Yes there is.
The fact that you disagree proves there isn't a "the people," only people like me and people like you and perhaps people like neither of us.

No it doesn't. "The People" refers to the majority, not 100.00000%.


Actually, indoctrination is cheap, real knowledge is expensive.
Is that indoctrinated in you, or do you have real evidence?
Is there high cost indoctrinated in you, or do you have real evidence?

I believe this is where you find the cost for public schools (which are claimed to be indoctrination centers) and compare them to some of the private schools which may be cheaper and say "EVEIDENCE!" and then I point to the cost of a public school college (community college even, those are major indoctrination centers, amiright?) and compare them to the cost of Harvard or some expensive private school and say "EVEIDENCE!"


And we know what happens when people have been indoctrinated encounter those that disagree with them (see most wars in human history).
So according to this the US is in civil war right now, as the products of the US education system meet strange creatures called libertarians and conservatives.

Right, because no libertarians, nor conservatives go to public schools. I'm sorry what school do you attend?


With public schools, so long as less that 50% of parents take an apathetic view, the majority of parents that do care can force better education on the kids of the parents that don't care. This cannot be done in 100% privatised.
Considering the costs I consider that a bad thing, but anyway it clearly contradicts the assertion that it's the kids of the good parents who do better, instead of kids in the schools in good neighborhoods

No, the kids of good parents will send them to what ever school is best, public or private. I don't support 100% public. But they (through their voting power) will keep their local schools at a higher quality.

You may ask "why would they care, their kids are in a different school?" because they don't want uneducated, indoctrinated hoodlums running around in their neighborhoods, that's why.


(in which case, they allow special interests to control them, like politicians, unions, or companies) and there is no different than if there were no public schools. So they have no disadvantage.
If there were no public schools influence is not based on majority or minority, just on being a big enough market to matter.

Big enough market to matter = money
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 7:30:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
And by the way, Oreele, that's the Economy plan education-- not indoctrination, but cutting out all the subjects that have no utility for most jobs-- which is incidentally most of the room to fit ideological content into an education. If you're poor and you don't want to take out loans or do similar things, you don't go off to get indoctrinated by business instead, you go off and buy a bare bones education-- reading, a little writing, arithmetic-- and then work until you can afford more education if you want it. :)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.