Privatize education

[Enyo]

Are you sure these cases aren't just exceptions to the rule? I'm glad to hear about a black high school outperforming a white one, but for the most part, I don't think that's the case...I've heard too many news stories about black under performing....some black high schools have 50% drop out rates.

But is that because of funding, socioeconomic influences, cultural inequity?

Let's put it this way: If I lived in the 'hood with a crack whore for a mother and had no clue who my father was, and my grandmother was dead because my grandfather beat her to death (and he was on death row), do you think I might have different educational expectations (or a different emphasis placed on my academic achievement) than if I came from a middle class family with two parents (not necessarily together, but at least two parents who were both out of prison and drug-free) living in a suburb?

If mom's a crack ho, she's going to probably pay less attention to my grades than mom would if she were a middle class woman without a drug habit to feed. Even if I were equally bright, regardless of my socioeconomic standing, I'm pretty sure that I'd suffer if I lived in the hood.

(Unless, of course, there was extra credit offered for knowing how to build a meth lab. )

 

[booyalab]

Are you sure these cases aren't just exceptions to the rule? I'm glad to hear about a black high school outperforming a white one, but for the most part, I don't think that's the case...I've heard too many news stories about black under performing....some black high schools have 50% drop out rates.

Shouldn't we go with the rule with the fewest exceptions? That would be better schools= better students.

Even if your rule is the correct one, I don't see it as being in any way beneficial to black people. Why should we send a message that essentially says "Give up. You're fucked because of the color of your skin and/or background", when there are many clear examples of black people who succeeded despite race or class. I can't see any other point to the philosophy than as an attempt to infantilize an entire group to advance the Democrat agenda.

 

[reason]

Shouldn't we go with the rule with the fewest exceptions? That would be better schools = better students.

It's time to get liberal with the facts.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

You know we fund the government right?

You know that education has a significant positive externality right? In other words it's in all of our best interest to provide education for those who couldn't normally afford it.

Merc has it right. A federal or state government is not going to be effective at administering education like a local government would be. However I still want that funding. We'd be better off if they provided funding while leaving most of the decisions up to local govenments.

 

[Ivy]

I'm with whoever spoke up in favor of charters. Right now a fair number of them do suck, but they tend not to last long. The good ones are REALLY good and they tend to attract a lot of students from the surrounding districts. They are able to accept funding from the gov't, and of course they have to acknowledge the NC Standard Course of Study (or whatever the curriculum is called in other states) but there is an impressive amount of autonomy in the classroom. If teacher hires are solid then autonomy in the classroom won't be a problem.

PS Homeschooling certainly CAN result in a poorly socialized child, but it's not necessary by any stretch of the imagination. Nor is public school necessarily about getting roughed up and having your lunch money stolen.

In the interests of full disclosure I was public schooled 'til 6th grade, private schooled from 6-9th, and homeschooled for high school so I've done it all. It can all be great and it can all be awful.

 

[Lateralus]

Merc has it right. A federal or state government is not going to be effective at administering education like a local government would be. However I still want that funding. We'd be better off if they provided funding while leaving most of the decisions up to local govenments.

You realize that this is not a reasonable expectation, don't you? If a local school doesn't do what the state or federal government wants, they can withhold funding. As long as funding comes from government sources outside the local community, government will have the ability to exert pressure on that community. That said, state control is superior to federal. The feds just aren't capable of developing many policies that should be applied ubiquitously. It's an unfortunate reality for those who favor centralized government control.

I'd suggest reading Economic Facts and Fallacies, by Thomas Sowell. He discusses this issue. He counters the popular perception that, before there was centralized control in education, more children were getting an education. The government doesn't want to admit that their policies have failed (and failed conclusively), so they purposely lead people to believe that before their involvement, that only the rich could afford education, that the masses were a bunch of bumbling idiots. That is simply not the case. Before government involvement, the US was leading the world in access to education.

 

[Lateralus]

I'm with whoever spoke up in favor of charters. Right now a fair number of them do suck, but they tend not to last long. The good ones are REALLY good and they tend to attract a lot of students from the surrounding districts.

This is EXACTLY how it should work. If you suck at education, you shouldn't be educating.

They are able to accept funding from the gov't, and of course they have to acknowledge the NC Standard Course of Study (or whatever the curriculum is called in other states) but there is an impressive amount of autonomy in the classroom. If teacher hires are solid then autonomy in the classroom won't be a problem.

That's unfortunate. While they might not receive government pressure, right now, the possibility exists, and it will eventually be exercised.

 

[cafe]

I really wish we had charters in my area.

 

[reason]

You know that education has a significant positive externality right?

There are very specific circumstances where education has positive externalities, and many others where it does not. There is a great deal which is done and taught in public schools which will have no benefits for those who pay the cost, and in some circumstances an education system can have negative externalities--education can very easily become indocrination (that is one of the common complaints about religious schools). The fact that the current public education system might bring positive externalities is not relevent, since so would any alternative system, and with fewer costs. In any case, people who tend to their gardens produce a positive externality, because it makes the experience of walking around town more pleasurable, but I do not think that people who tend to their gardens have any claim to the money of taxpayers.

 

[pure_mercury]

I'd suggest reading Economic Facts and Fallacies, by Thomas Sowell.

+1 from me. I'd suggest reading any Sowell, really.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

You realize that this is not a reasonable expectation, don't you? If a local school doesn't do what the state or federal government wants, they can withhold funding. As long as funding comes from government sources outside the local community, government will have the ability to exert pressure on that community. That said, state control is superior to federal. The feds just aren't capable of developing many policies that should be applied ubiquitously. It's an unfortunate reality for those who favor centralized government control.

Heh, well I was mostly rephrasing something that was said in the podcast link reason gave. I think the speaker was a Libertarian economist. If you think Libertarian's have unreasonable expectations them I'm sure you can take it up with them.

Although I don't think it's unrealistic either. Public universities have a lot of autonomy compared to public schools K-12. They aren't as autonomous as private universities, but I don't think they need to be. College education in the US is said to be the best in the world, so you can certainly get quality education via public funding.

There are very specific circumstances where education has positive externalities, and many others where it does not. There is a great deal which is done and taught in public schools which will have no benefits for those who pay the cost, and in some circumstances an education system can have negative externalities--education can very easily become indocrination (that is one of the common complaints about religious schools). The fact that the current public education system might bring positive externalities is not relevent, since so would any alternative system, and with fewer costs. In any case, people who tend to their gardens produce a positive externality, because it makes the experience of walking around town more pleasurable, but I do not think that people who tend to their gardens have any claim to the money of taxpayers.

Well we can certainly agree that education has positive externalities. However, I like to see government involvement when there is a clear externality. I think we'll simply have to agree to disagree about that.

 

[pure_mercury]

Heh, well I was mostly rephrasing something that was said in the podcast link reason gave. I think the speaker was a Libertarian economist. If you think Libertarian's have unreasonable expectations them I'm sure you can take it up with them.

There is a wide range of libertarian thought when it comes to public schooling. Some want it done away with entirely (I'd prefer that; don't think it will ever happen). Other more moderate types like Milton Friedman advocate vouchers for public, private, and charter schools, subsidiarity (i.e., having money and control come from the lowest possible level of government), and radical overhaul at the federal level, up to and including dissolving the Department of Education. It's an interesting side of the debate, but it's also secondary on the list of libertarian priorities.

 

[Ivy]

This is EXACTLY how it should work. If you suck at education, you shouldn't be educating.


That's unfortunate. While they might not receive government pressure, right now, the possibility exists, and it will eventually be exercised.

I'm not sure I quite understand what you think is unfortunate. That they have to make good teacher choices? That should be a given anywhere, and nobody is overseeing the hires outside of the school. That they have to use the SCOS? I don't think that's necessarily a problem, since the SCOS in every state I've ever worked with (I write test prep materials) is ambiguous enough to allow teachers to work with it in a wide range of ways. Even the straight-up public school teachers I know have a lot of freedom about how they teach.

Charters are unpopular in some circles because they take funding away from public schools. I do wish there were some way to make all schools work this way. The charter schools I'm familiar with are very nearly autonomous.

 

[IlyaK1986]

If this was the case? Corporate without a shadow of a doubt. This is why:

Religious education: You mean the kind that has women wearing potato sacks with slits for the eyes, honor killings, and belief that if you blow yourself up in a restaurant that Allah will give you an orgy of sex and earthly pleasures in the afterlife? Fuck that. That's an ideology we need to eradicate, not proliferate.

Charitable education: No. Let's NOT be communists. You are *not* responsible for the failure of the idiot next to you. And frankly, if you want to be "charitable", then invest in something that coincides with your beliefs, and make money for yourself, AND for the system you believe in. Handouts are for losers.

Which leaves corporate. Which I also happen to adore. Why? Because corporations are out to win. They're selfish. They believe in survival of the fittest, every man for himself, optimal resource allocation subject to all of the legal mumbo jumbo set by the imbecilic guardians to protect the idiots. If you're going to do something, do it well. And I believe that a firm like Goldman Sachs (which I want to work for by far and away a first choice) embodies this, and I'd certainly send my kids (whenever I have them) to such an institution.

 

[Ivy]

If this was the case? Corporate without a shadow of a doubt. This is why:

Religious education: You mean the kind that has women wearing potato sacks with slits for the eyes, honor killings, and belief that if you blow yourself up in a restaurant that Allah will give you an orgy of sex and earthly pleasures in the afterlife? Fuck that. That's an ideology we need to eradicate, not proliferate.

Interesting prejudice you've got there. I abhor all of the things you mention, too. But the individual school I would choose if I had unlimited funds happens to be a religious school, because it would work against all of that as well.

BELIEF THAT TRUTH IS CONTINUALLY REVEALED, which implies:
Openness to answer the light in others; willingness to listen and respond to the still small voice within; belief that answers are dynamic, not static; commitment to look beyond and beneath the obvious, searching for truth and identifying falsehood; engagement in the search for truth because of its inherent value, not simply to find answers.

BELIEF IN SEEKING PEACE WITH ONESELF AND OTHERS, which implies:
Commitment to achieve a level of self-awareness necessary to interact genuinely with others; effort to foster relationships founded on trust; commitment to a life of nonviolence; belief that peace is not the absence of conflict but the peaceful resolution of conflict; accepting that the resolution of personal and interpersonal conflict is a lifelong task.

BELIEF IN ACCEPTING AND RESPECTING EACH INDIVIDUAL’S UNIQUENESS, which implies:
Commitment to employ and enroll individuals of diverse backgrounds; commitment to provide community members with opportunities to learn to know one another; shared resolve to be open to the differences in others; commitment to provide a curriculum that enables each to celebrate one’s unique talents and heritage and those of others; acceptance of the responsibility for one’s own learning; commitment to lessen divisions among ages, among school units, and between the School and the broader community; acceptance of that of God in each person; belief that the individual achieves identity in relation to community and that an individual’s identity is nurtured and enhanced by community; shared resolve to promote tolerance and address the issues of prejudice.

BELIEF IN THE SPIRITUALITY OF LIFE, which implies:
Effort to instill a sense of awe and reverence for nature; responsible stewardship of all our resources; intentional teaching of a humble interaction with, rather than an arrogant attitude toward, living things; commitment to serve and empower others; celebration of the inner life of persons; respect for the harmony of mind, body, and spirit.

BELIEF IN THE VALUE OF SIMPLICITY, which implies:
Resolution to speak plainly, clearly, and honestly; reliance on one’s own creative resources when possible; wariness of the slick and shallow; awareness of the oftentimes fine line between the necessary and the frivolous; acknowledgment that our capabilities and possessions are gifts to be shared with others; commitment to create a community/learning structure that is sensible and devoid of structural trivia, appreciation of the truth that the simple is often very complex.

BELIEF IN THE POWER OF SILENCE, which implies:
Experiencing times of silence during the school day; developing awareness of the significance of shared silence; practicing the discipline of centering as a means to deeper understanding; desiring to foster deep and profound listening; including Meeting for Worship as a part of significant School events; incorporating silence as part of the decision-making process; recognizing the distinction between quiet and a deeper, settled silence.

 

[ajblaise]

Shouldn't we go with the rule with the fewest exceptions? That would be better schools= better students.

Even if your rule is the correct one, I don't see it as being in any way beneficial to black people. Why should we send a message that essentially says "Give up. You're fucked because of the color of your skin and/or background", when there are many clear examples of black people who succeeded despite race or class. I can't see any other point to the philosophy than as an attempt to infantilize an entire group to advance the Democrat agenda.

We should go with whatever the reality is. Having people recognize the poor condition of black education in America will speed up the process of getting something done to help them. If people deny the problem, or just talk about the exceptions to the rule, this could hinder progress in that realm.

One big problem is that whenever there is talk of helping disadvantaged minority groups, economic conservatives protest.

 

[ajblaise]

But is that because of funding, socioeconomic influences, cultural inequity?

It's all three, except replace "cultural inequity" with "cultural differences".

 

[IlyaK1986]

One big problem is that whenever there is talk of helping disadvantaged minority groups, economic conservatives protest.

In my opinion, the resources spent on trying to help the disadvantaged are much better spent on cultivating the gifted. There will never be a shortage of menial labor minimum wage jobs to do. However, we should try and find as many of the leaders of tomorrow as possible, and spare no expense to do so.

 

[ajblaise]

In my opinion, the resources spent on trying to help the disadvantaged are much better spent on cultivating the gifted. There will never be a shortage of menial labor minimum wage jobs to do. However, we should try and find as many of the leaders of tomorrow as possible, and spare no expense to do so.

They had something like this were I grew up in Syracuse. The school population was like 70% black, and they had something called the Center For Inquiry were all 30 or so schools would send gifted students to once a week. It was a great experience, the classes were "art" "theater" "humor" "politics" ..... I met some really talented black people there.

 

[Lateralus]

We should go with whatever the reality is. Having people recognize the poor condition of black education in America will speed up the process of getting something done to help them. If people deny the problem, or just talk about the exceptions to the rule, this could hinder progress in that realm.

One big problem is that whenever there is talk of helping disadvantaged minority groups, economic conservatives protest.

Whenever I read your posts, I wonder if you just put down Time magazine, or some other useless periodical. Your posts are full of platitudes like "the poor condition of black education in America". You're clearly trying to make it sound like people who are against public education are racist.

Here's some reality for you. It's not about race, it's about class and the fact that government intervention exacerbates that problem. The rich will always be able to afford education, regardless of the system. When the government wrecks a system, like it has with education, the poor are affected the most. They're the ones stuck with crappy government run schools. In the past, there were charity funded schools, but not anymore. Government has assumed that responsibility, which has caused people to stop donating. Can the solution be any more simple? I don't think so, but some people are obsessed with top-down organizations. They can't understand how systems can form naturally, without direction from above.