How to improve Education

[Backroads]

And, not to be controversial, allow more discipline. When I was teaching, so much of my time was spent with kids with issues from home. Parents send their kids hoping they would be instructed in discipline, ethics, etc.

[Guest]

I have issues with making everything private as that would only let the rich families get the best education.

I don't agree with this reasoning. I'm not saying to make everything private, I'm just saying this reasoning is not supportable.

Food for example is private. You can't say that only the rich families get the best food. So why conclude such for education? In my town, for example, the richest school is not the best school - it's a drug-infested environment of spoiled buy-my-way-out of education families. One of the Catholic schools in town is the best private school - it's not as expensive to go there especially if you're Catholic. But even then, it is academically head-to-head with a public high school. The advantage with the Catholic school over the public one is the extra-curricular stuff and how it is free from political whitewash and mindless zero tolerance. Which is why non-Catholics send their kids there.

Edited May 17, 2011 by anatess

[Backroads]

I don't agree with this reasoning. I'm not saying to make everything private, I'm just saying this reasoning is not supportable.

Food for example is private. You can't say that only the rich families get the best food.

I don't think the food comparison is good reasoning. I can get very healthy food for very cheap.

If the best schools are charging outrageous amounts of money, only the rich families will be able to afford the best schools. Why should a school charge less when they know people will pay for a great education?

[Backroads]

ANd yes, I suppose good ol' free market can take care of this, but the best schools will still have this power.

I like public education. I think it's a blessing and it's just what the founding fathers wanted. I am against completely privatizing education. I just think public education should expand the charter system more.

[Guest]

I don't think the food comparison is good reasoning. I can get very healthy food for very cheap.

If the best schools are charging outrageous amounts of money, only the rich families will be able to afford the best schools. Why should a school charge less when they know people will pay for a great education?

I edited my post before I saw this response. Can you comment on that? Thanks!

[Guest]

ANd yes, I suppose good ol' free market can take care of this, but the best schools will still have this power.

I like public education. I think it's a blessing and it's just what the founding fathers wanted. I am against completely privatizing education. I just think public education should expand the charter system more.

The price of admission does not equate to the best education. Just like a $1500 Louis Vuitton bag is not better than the $50 Coach one.

Public Education is only as good as the regulations that bind it.

[Backroads]

I edited my post before I saw this response. Can you comment on that? Thanks!

Anything for you.

Once a school gains a reputation as giving an excellent education, people will be begging to get in. This puts all power in the hands of the school. They can charge what they want.

The price of admission does not equate to the best education. Just like a $1500 Louis Vuitton bag is not better than the $50 Coach one.

Public Education is only as good as the regulations that bind it.

I agree that admission price does not necessarily mean best education. Which is why I take issue with people that think Any private school is better than Any public school. Yes, I agree there is plenty of evidence to suggest that private schools are better than public schools, but it's impossible to say that in every case across the board.

However... it's about perception. People tend to THINK the higher price means better education. I know that has nothing to do with my argument, but it's true.

And... I do believe there can be a small correlation between money and education. A great system of education will be able to teach well despite tools, but a school that is able to charge a lot will be able to attract the best teachers with pay, be able to buy tools/instruments/misc. supplies, etc.

I also agree public education is as only as good as the regulations with it. Which is why I support local public education where the community has more control and more knowledge with which to work. Like charter schools. But there is a lot to be said for free education. I grew up in a family of seven children. We were hardly poor, but if we had to pay thousands of dollars per kid for an education... none of us would have made it through high school.

I do think public education desperately needs an overhaul, but I agree with it on principle.

[Backroads]

I edited my post before I saw this response. Can you comment on that? Thanks!

I don't think I commented very well, so I shall attempt again.

In my area, at least, food is plentiful. I can go to the supermarket or one of the local farmers or grow my own or participate in several other options. I can get healthy and tasty food for a reasonable cost. In my area, I'm not competing with others for food.

A school, however, can only take so many students. That creates competition. There is a popular charter school in my area that has a gigantic wait list.

Also, to get healthy, tasty food, I'm not paying a heck of a lot more than I would pay for any other food. In education, I could be paying a lot more.

[Guest]

Anything for you.

Once a school gains a reputation as giving an excellent education, people will be begging to get in. This puts all power in the hands of the school. They can charge what they want.

I agree that admission price does not necessarily mean best education. Which is why I take issue with people that think Any private school is better than Any public school. Yes, I agree there is plenty of evidence to suggest that private schools are better than public schools, but it's impossible to say that in every case across the board.

However... it's about perception. People tend to THINK the higher price means better education. I know that has nothing to do with my argument, but it's true.

And... I do believe there can be a small correlation between money and education. A great system of education will be able to teach well despite tools, but a school that is able to charge a lot will be able to attract the best teachers with pay, be able to buy tools/instruments/misc. supplies, etc.

I also agree public education is as only as good as the regulations with it. Which is why I support local public education where the community has more control and more knowledge with which to work. Like charter schools. But there is a lot to be said for free education. I grew up in a family of seven children. We were hardly poor, but if we had to pay thousands of dollars per kid for an education... none of us would have made it through high school.

I do think public education desperately needs an overhaul, but I agree with it on principle.

There's a saturation point for tools to enhance education. Let's say you buy each child a computer in your school. Okay, you might see an increase in educational achievement there. Let's say you buy each child the best computer money can buy... Ehhh, no difference there.

Public Education is not free. It costs $8400 per child per year in my county. That money came from somebody - most likely me. So, what would you do if instead of giving the money to the public school nearest to you, they give you the money instead (to be spent on education - homeschool included).

Now, you're gonna say, but, but, but, it will kill public education! Not necessarily. You can let the public schools fight for that money by charging tuition if you like - kinda like the post office competing with Fedex.

Where would you send your kid then?

[Backroads]

There's a saturation point for tools to enhance education. Let's say you buy each child a computer in your school. Okay, you might see an increase in educational achievement there. Let's say you buy each child the best computer money can buy... Ehhh, no difference there.

Public Education is not free. It costs $8400 per child per year in my county. That money came from somebody - most likely me. So, what would you do if instead of giving the money to the public school nearest to you, they give you the money instead (to be spent on education - homeschool included).

Now, you're gonna say, but, but, but, it will kill public education! Not necessarily. You can let the public schools fight for that money by charging tuition if you like - kinda like the post office competing with Fedex.

Where would you send your kid then?

Yes, it costs money to educate a child. You forget I've worked in education. But it's not coming out of the individual student's family's pocket. Have it come out of taxes, you allow a lot of kids to go to school who otherwise could have come up with 8400$ or whatever. You might say "but if a family cares, they'll find a way". Please. Too many families just won't be able to.

Now, on giving the money back to you... I'm fine with that. Vouchers and similar ideas. I find them great. Last time they were on the ballot I voted for them even when the UEA told me not to (stupid UEA...). I think they are a great idea.

But that argument was not my point. YOu give the 8400$ back, it still has to come from somewhere. Contrary to popular opinion charter schools ARE PUBLIC. A voucher system would still use PUBLIC money.

If the money is still coming out of our taxes (thus being public) and given back to the families as vouchers/other concept in order to pay for education, that is great.

But if families are expected to come up with education money completely on their own, you are going to see quite a few families who just won't be able to front the expense for the school they want. You might say the government can offer scholarships and grants... that money still has to come from somewhere.

This is why I think the basic idea of public education is a good one. It gives opportunity. We can't return to the Dark Ages where only the rich were educated.

And yes, there is a money saturation point where money still not efficiently improve education. Doesn't stop a school from lowering its tuition.

Edited May 17, 2011 by Backroads

[Traveler]

Anything for you.

Once a school gains a reputation as giving an excellent education, people will be begging to get in. This puts all power in the hands of the school. They can charge what they want.

I agree that admission price does not necessarily mean best education. Which is why I take issue with people that think Any private school is better than Any public school. Yes, I agree there is plenty of evidence to suggest that private schools are better than public schools, but it's impossible to say that in every case across the board.

However... it's about perception. People tend to THINK the higher price means better education. I know that has nothing to do with my argument, but it's true.

And... I do believe there can be a small correlation between money and education. A great system of education will be able to teach well despite tools, but a school that is able to charge a lot will be able to attract the best teachers with pay, be able to buy tools/instruments/misc. supplies, etc.

I also agree public education is as only as good as the regulations with it. Which is why I support local public education where the community has more control and more knowledge with which to work. Like charter schools. But there is a lot to be said for free education. I grew up in a family of seven children. We were hardly poor, but if we had to pay thousands of dollars per kid for an education... none of us would have made it through high school.

I do think public education desperately needs an overhaul, but I agree with it on principle.

Just one little point here - I do not believe anyone should be educated (public or private) unless they are willing to contribute to that education. I also do not believe money should ever be considered a contribution sufficient by itself. I also believe that every community should have schools and that no community should have to accept any person into their community that is not willing to contribute to their schools.

The Traveler

[Backroads]

Just one little point here - I do not believe anyone should be educated (public or private) unless they are willing to contribute to that education. I also do not believe money should ever be considered a contribution sufficient by itself. I also believe that every community should have schools and that no community should have to accept any person into their community that is not willing to contribute to their schools.

The Traveler

I think that's a fair statement.

One of the reasons I like the the opportunity for education is that it prevents people from having to live off of government welfare (and yes, I think trade school and such skills are excellent forms of education). So-n-so who never learned anything and thus has no potential for providing for himself makes me angry.

Many charter schools required so much parent volunteering, which is one idea of contribution.

Education should serve the community.

Well-said.

[rameumptom]

Rich people already send their kids to the best schools. How many presidents and Congressmen do you think send their kids to the Washington DC public school system?

Vouchers allow all kids to compete for private schools. The voucher system in DC allows the poorest kids to go to public schools. The vouchers are for about $7500 per child per year. To go to a public school costs $28,000 per child per year. The poor kids on the vouchers virtually all do better than the average kid in public school. So we get better performance for 1/4 the money. If we went to a voucher system, we could improve schools everywhere.

If there is a bad school, no one would attend. Other schools would open to offer better services. It is, after all, a true competition between schools for the voucher money. If one school fails, another better school will pop up to replace it. At the same time, the competition will ensure better teachers and programs will be offered.

Yes, the poor may not be in the richest schools, but they will be in much better schools than they are in now.

Along with Thomas Jefferson, I believe a decent education should be available to everyone. I do not believe I should kick people out of my community or schools, just because they cannot afford to contribute. If I educate their kids, then their kids will be contributing soon enough.

[Guest]

Yes, it costs money to educate a child. You forget I've worked in education. But it's not coming out of the individual student's family's pocket. Have it come out of taxes, you allow a lot of kids to go to school who otherwise could have come up with 8400$ or whatever. You might say "but if a family cares, they'll find a way". Please. Too many families just won't be able to.

Now, on giving the money back to you... I'm fine with that. Vouchers and similar ideas. I find them great. Last time they were on the ballot I voted for them even when the UEA told me not to (stupid UEA...). I think they are a great idea.

But that argument was not my point. YOu give the 8400$ back, it still has to come from somewhere. Contrary to popular opinion charter schools ARE PUBLIC. A voucher system would still use PUBLIC money.

If the money is still coming out of our taxes (thus being public) and given back to the families as vouchers/other concept in order to pay for education, that is great.

But if families are expected to come up with education money completely on their own, you are going to see quite a few families who just won't be able to front the expense for the school they want. You might say the government can offer scholarships and grants... that money still has to come from somewhere.

This is why I think the basic idea of public education is a good one. It gives opportunity. We can't return to the Dark Ages where only the rich were educated.

And yes, there is a money saturation point where money still not efficiently improve education. Doesn't stop a school from lowering its tuition.

We're actually very much aligned on our viewpoints here. As I've mentioned before, I'm not an advocate for full privatization. I am very much for a properly administered public school system with choice.

But, our similar viewpoints come from very divergent reasoning. I don't believe in the rich-versus-poor arguments. It is not a supportable premise as I've demonstrated.

So, why am I for public schools? Because - you are in a democratic republic. The literacy of your neighbor directly affects you. Because, he has the same privilege to vote. Therefore, a person lacking in basic comprehension skills who votes for Candidate X for the simple reason that he didn't know that button was for Candidate X, not Y, has the very powerful capacity to nullify your well-thought-out vote for Candidate Y.

Therefore, I completely believe that a society who gives the citizens the power to decide government has the responsibility to educate their citizens with the skills necessary to cast an intelligent vote.

Edited May 17, 2011 by anatess

[Backroads]

Along with Thomas Jefferson, I believe a decent education should be available to everyone. I do not believe I should kick people out of my community or schools, just because they cannot afford to contribute. If I educate their kids, then their kids will be contributing soon enough.

OH, but there are other ways to contribute besides financially.

So... without going over all the posts... is there anyone on here who has a good argument AGAINST vouchers? (as at a glance it looks like all who have contributed to this thread more or less like them).

[Backroads]

We're actually very much aligned on our viewpoints here. As I've mentioned before, I'm not an advocate for full privatization. I am very much for public schooling.

But, our similar viewpoints come from very divergent reasoning. I don't believe in the rich-versus-poor arguments. It is not a supportable premise as I've demonstrated.

So, why am I for public schools? Because - you are in a democratic republic. The literacy of your neighbor directly affects you. Because, he has the same privilege to vote. Therefore, a person lacking in basic comprehension skills who votes for Candidate X for the simple reason that he didn't know that button was for Candidate X, not Y has the very powerful capacity to nullify your well-thought-out vote for Candidate Y.

Therefore, I completely believe that a society who gives the citizens the power to decide government has the responsibility to educate their citizens with the skills necessary to cast an intelligent vote.

My argument only really applies in a full-on privatized system. I"m afraid I can get far too hypothetical.

[Guest]

OH, but there are other ways to contribute besides financially.

So... without going over all the posts... is there anyone on here who has a good argument AGAINST vouchers? (as at a glance it looks like all who have contributed to this thread more or less like them).

Hoosier gave an anti-voucher viewpoint. I wouldn't call it good, though. His reasoning is on the rich-versus-poor vein. I quoted it below.

I know the natural reaction to bad schools is taking your kids out of those schools and putting them in private schools. But this is going to end up bad for the U.S. Private schools are private because they don't let everyone in the school in the first place.

We will see more money flowing from the public to private schools. The private schools will cherry pick the best teachers from the public schools. They will cherry pick the best students.

What we will see is the dream of many, taking this country back to the southern 1800's and that caste system they had with different levels of people and difficulty to move from the bottom up.

We already have different economic levels in the U.S. - poor, lower middle class, upper middle class, lower wealthy, mid wealthy, upper wealthy, etc.. But with more private education we will start to to see walls built between those levels. One of the great things about the U.S. is the middle class and how people can move from the lower to middle and middle to upper and from upper to middle and lower. But with more private education that movement is going to stop.

This push to a voucher system is bad for the country.

[Delanie]

The above strikes me as too extreme a possibility to really happen quickly. This could happen at a local level, but it would take awhile and no other option for it to affect the entire country.

[rameumptom]

OH, but there are other ways to contribute besides financially.

So... without going over all the posts... is there anyone on here who has a good argument AGAINST vouchers? (as at a glance it looks like all who have contributed to this thread more or less like them).

I wasn't giving an argument against anything, except the concept that people should have to pay for their kids' education. This can be done most effectively and efficiently in a voucher system.