Could education really be fully privatized?


Backroads
 Share

Recommended Posts

Chatting with a friend who teaches at a private school but hates her paycheck as private school teachers are notoriously paid squat.

I often hear the cry to privatize education, which to me sounds just fine. If we are worried about an educated populace, we could toss in some standard or another to be met and then let families and communities decide how to do this.

And while I'm sure there are many ways this could play out, my mind goes to one obvious outcome: lots more private schools.

But here's a potential issue I foresee: would enough teachers take private jobs at lower rates?

With lots of private schools now competing for students in this scenario, I see cost being a perk. Lots of people would pick the cheaper schools.

As a teacher myself, I don't see myself working for private school salaries. The majority of private school teachers I know have a wealthy partner or are doing this at the end of a more lucrative career. That's fine and dandy, but would there be enough people in these situations to fulfill the private school demand?

Back to the scenario: potential teachers go to other careers or possibly start their own mini school for those who can afford their rates. Private schools offer more money to attract teachers, but then have to increase tuition.

Families complain about the rising costs of education.

What exactly would prevent a rallying cry for a return to a public education option?

Edited by Backroads
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're just about at the end of our kiddo's  pre-college education.  Did much homeschooling, many different homeschool co-ops.  And, for the last 5 years, did many homeschool outreach programs offered by the public school system.  The options were offered by another school district, and we "choiced in" to that district, even though we don't live within the boundaries.  Colorado has a more favorable education landscape than other states, and allows tax dollars to flow in such situations.

To answer your question, make options possible, make choice possible, and the marketplace will sink the failed crap and rise the worthy options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YSee the invitable result of privatizing education being the reverse cry (to publicize education) years later. 

The best (or rather the perceived best) schools will emerge, consolidating the best/expensive resources there. Come high tuition rates and restrictive waiting lists, and you have school reserved for the wealthy- Notre Dome for kindergarteners. Trickled down the socioeconomic tiers, and the poorest schools have so only the previable scrap resources, teachers, and students.  And then comes the push for “universal education where everyone gets the same opportunity “. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

YSee the invitable result of privatizing education being the reverse cry (to publicize education) years later. 

The best (or rather the perceived best) schools

I've always been fascinated by perception of schools.

A couple of years ago, I watched a neighbor go full-on ugly crying when she learned that all Utah charter schools go right through the same government agency as any other school and that the state has a free-choice policy when it comes to charters (meaning the schools can't turn away students for any reason other than numbers). She thought charters should be reserved for the best and brightest and the teachers should go through their own agency. Basically wanted free private school and now finds it unfair charters are pretty much just another neighborhood school, at least in our state.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Backroads said:

I've always been fascinated by perception of schools.

A couple of years ago, I watched a neighbor go full-on ugly crying when she learned that all Utah charter schools go right through the same government agency as any other school and that the state has a free-choice policy when it comes to charters (meaning the schools can't turn away students for any reason other than numbers). She thought charters should be reserved for the best and brightest and the teachers should go through their own agency. Basically wanted free private school and now finds it unfair charters are pretty much just another neighborhood school, at least in our state.

 

 

Even if the schools can’t turn down kids, a steep price tag or other demands can be used to filter down students. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Even if the schools can’t turn down kids, a steep price tag or other demands can be used to filter down students. 

The biggest barriers I see to charters are uniforms and lack of transportation. If you can't afford the uniform, you're out. If you can't get your kid to the school, you're out. One in my city keeps out poorer people by not participating in the lunch program.

I teach for a virtual charter, and we're actually trying to make an argument to the state for asking families to complete orientation before students are fully enrolled. Our side is that many families get going in the school and find it's a bad fit (don't have the time to work with their students, don't have the needed computer literacy, etc. I actually have two students whose families want an in-person tutor to help them manage everything). Utah says that violates the free-choice law as it is technically gate-keeping.

Edited by Backroads
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

We're just about at the end of our kiddo's  pre-college education.  Did much homeschooling, many different homeschool co-ops.  And, for the last 5 years, did many homeschool outreach programs offered by the public school system.  The options were offered by another school district, and we "choiced in" to that district, even though we don't live within the boundaries.  Colorado has a more favorable education landscape than other states, and allows tax dollars to flow in such situations.

To answer your question, make options possible, make choice possible, and the marketplace will sink the failed crap and rise the worthy options.

I like this, but taken at face value it seems to still involve a lot of public options. That perhaps may be the most reasonable course of action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Backroads said:

 

But here's a potential issue I foresee: would enough teachers take private jobs at lower rates?

 

The current issue is private schools are competing with government education.   If that was removed, things would change in a free market.

Edited by Grunt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Backroads said:

And how would they change? Would parents really pay more for education? 

Pay more than what?   A LARGE portion of their current tax bill goes towards what is often inadequate education and teacher benefits.   Some parents would pay more, others would pay less, and parents could choose the cost/value that is appropriate for their family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Pay more than what?   A LARGE portion of their current tax bill goes towards what is often inadequate education and teacher benefits.   Some parents would pay more, others would pay less, and parents could choose the cost/value that is appropriate for their family.

But would there be enough teachers willing to accept what families would pay? I'm not willing to work for 20 grand when I can choose another career.

Edited by Backroads
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Backroads said:

But would there be enough teachers willing to accept what families would pay? I'm not willing to work for 20 grand when I can choose another career.

Sure.   There is always supply and demand.  As long as people value education, education will have value.  Those who want to teach, and can teach well, will be in demand.  It will require educators to provide value as well.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting side note is we are starting to see this beginning to play out in NH.   A portion of your tax money can now follow your children to the school they choose.  For example, if my school district provides a crappy education, I can tuition my child to a neighboring school district and he'll take some of my tax dollars with him.   We'll see how this plays out for school districts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is so much to be discussed concerning education.  I believe that the founding fathers realized the importance of education in preserving our freedoms and liberties.  Education was specifically placed under the jurisdiction of the states.  I believe that no federalized government can exercise any degree of tyranny without control of the education of its children.  History teaches well the method of many a tyrannical government begins with the promise of funding - but with tyranny there are always strings attached.

I intended to be a teacher (math and physics) - initially at the high school level.  It may seems strange to many but I find math and physics education critical to freedom and liberty.   Unlike @Backroads (for whom I have a great deal of respect) I am for students wearing uniforms.  I also believe that uniforms should also include academic and scholastic achievements.  This is because of lessons I learned in the military.  The uniform says that students are all on the same footing with the exceptions of individual achievement.  Currently the attire of students reflects the status of parents and predetermined social status.   I believe that nothing happens without incentive - the only reason water flows down hill (and not uphill) is because gravity gives water incentive to flow downhill. 

I believe a school district should control the education within that district - including the defining of academic taught in both public and private school (as well as home schooling).  And I believe the citizens of a school district should control the school district and its board of directors.

I believe teachers should be paid a professional salary based on the number of their students and the academic and scholastic achievements of their students.  Teachers should have the only say concerning who they will have in their classroom under their teaching care.  Parents can remove their child from any class but they cannot demand that any specific teacher take their child.  Only teacher determine who can attend their class.  Teacher should have control of their students and class.  For example if a teacher wants to teach critical race theory as part of their state history class - they can determine to do so but at the same time parents can choose to remove their children from such a class and have their children in a history class that does not teach critical race theory (if there is one public, private or otherwise available that will accept the child).

I also believe that parents should be allowed to make their children available for schooling in other school districts but they cannot have any legal say at the district level because they are not citizens of that district.  And the parents can demand $$$ from their district designated for individual education be transferred to the district where their children are being educated.  I do not believe that federal money should ever be spent for any educational program.  But if the federal government provides any educational support that the federal government must provide equitant amounts to all states without any requirements.  This also includes research grants.

This I believe this to be a "good" start in rehabilitating our educational system.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm ok with the Govt being involved in our kids' education, because a constant flow of freshly-educated citizenry is necessary for the survival of our nation.   I'm OK with individual states running the show as to what's required to be taught - it is a states rights issue.  I'm ok with states taxing citizens, whether they have kids or not, to fund education.  But I'm also a big fan of the voucher idea:  

We know how much we're taxed, and we know how many kids of education age there are in any given state.  Therefore, we know how much $ is available per student.  I'm a fan of the idea that parents should be able to take that amount, and give it to whatever school they want.  That's the voucher idea.  It pretty much solves the issues with "poor kids can't afford it", because poor and rich alike get the same amount.  In fact, in today's woke cultural tsunami, the poorer, the blacker, the gayer the student body, the more highly regarded by the general population.

Rich folks'll always find ways to use money to get better things, and that'll remain true no matter what system we have.  But I remain a big fan of vouchers anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Backroads said:

Chatting with a friend who teaches at a private school but hates her paycheck as private school teachers are notoriously paid squat.

I often hear the cry to privatize education, which to me sounds just fine. If we are worried about an educated populace, we could toss in some standard or another to be met and then let families and communities decide how to do this.

And while I'm sure there are many ways this could play out, my mind goes to one obvious outcome: lots more private schools.

But here's a potential issue I foresee: would enough teachers take private jobs at lower rates?

With lots of private schools now competing for students in this scenario, I see cost being a perk. Lots of people would pick the cheaper schools.

As a teacher myself, I don't see myself working for private school salaries. The majority of private school teachers I know have a wealthy partner or are doing this at the end of a more lucrative career. That's fine and dandy, but would there be enough people in these situations to fulfill the private school demand?

Back to the scenario: potential teachers go to other careers or possibly start their own mini school for those who can afford their rates. Private schools offer more money to attract teachers, but then have to increase tuition.

Families complain about the rising costs of education.

What exactly would prevent a rallying cry for a return to a public education option?

I see homeschooling becoming big before private schools. And I’m not talking about traditional homeschool long where the parents teach everything, but homeschooling with co-ops and community run classes, even using a few public school classes where needed. parents take care of the basic classes that they can teach, but Sarah Baker offers to teach geometry twice a week to some kids for  X amount of money. Kyle Jones teaches an advanced English course once a week for x amount of money, you send your kid to high school every other day for 3 months to learn Chemistry, and so on.
 

My wife and I have a 3 year old and we just started looking into homeschooling. We are extremely impressed with the homeschooling group activities and classes that are offered in our small town. I can only see that growing.

Edited by Fether
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Grunt said:

An interesting side note is we are starting to see this beginning to play out in NH.   A portion of your tax money can now follow your children to the school they choose.  For example, if my school district provides a crappy education, I can tuition my child to a neighboring school district and he'll take some of my tax dollars with him.   We'll see how this plays out for school districts.

This will probably vary by state, but . . . 

Most of the money used to educate my kids in the public school system is not, and never was, “my money”.  My state income and property taxes amount to slightly less than $6K per year. I have five kids in school, and I don’t think there’s a private school on the continent that would educate my kids for $1200/kid/year.

A private-sector service provider that has to pay its bills as it goes, will never be able to truly compete—either in product or in quality of its employee compensation package—with a competitor that is receiving a government subsidy on the scale that public schools receive.  (It’ll be more efficient, of necessity; but efficiency is not the only or even the most important way to quantify the “success” of an educational institution.)  Sure, you’ll find individual private schools that are competitive either because they are extraordinarily well-funded (attached to a church, for example) or because they are the (inevitably temporary) beneficiaries of a uniquely motivated, plucky staff with a sense of mission that leads them to make extraordinary sacrifices on behalf of their pupils.  But, on a more generalized scale:  To make a critical mass of private schools truly competitive, in the long term they have to be able to tap into the same sort of revenue stream that public schools have access to.  Just giving the parents “their own” tax money back isn’t going to be nearly enough. 

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fether said:

I see homeschooling becoming big before private schools. And I’m not talking about traditional homeschool long where the parents teach everything, but homeschooling with co-ops and community run classes, even using a few public school classes where needed. parents take care of the basic classes that they can teach, but Sarah Baker offers to teach geometry twice a week to some kids for  X amount of money. Kyle Jones teaches an advanced English course once a week for x amount of money, you send your kid to high school every other day for 3 months to learn Chemistry, and so on.
 

My wife and I have a 3 year old and we just started looking into homeschooling. We are extremely impressed with the homeschooling group activities and classes that are offered in our small town. I can only see that growing.

I think homeschooling would be huge in this scenario, hopefully with a change in family structure so it's not just sending kids to what functionally become mini private schools. Not that I'm against co-ops, just it seems at some point the line gets blurred.

But yes, I think it would be a big thing if career teachers became in short supply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

This will probably vary by state, but . . . 

Most of the money used to educate my kids in the public school system is not, and never was, “my money”.  My state income and property taxes amount to slightly less than $6K per year. I have five kids in school, and I don’t think there’s a private school on the continent that would educate my kids for $1200/kid/year.

A private-sector service provider that has to pay its bills as it goes, will never be able to truly compete—either in product or in quality of its employee compensation package—with a competitor that is receiving a government subsidy on the scale that public schools receive.  (It’ll be more efficient, of necessity; but efficiency is not the only or even the most important way to quantify the “success” of an educational institution.)  Sure, you’ll find individual private schools that are competitive either because they are extraordinarily well-funded (attached to a church, for example) or because they are the (inevitably temporary) beneficiaries of a uniquely motivated, plucky staff with a sense of mission that leads them to make extraordinary sacrifices on behalf of their pupils.  But, on a more generalized scale:  To make a critical mass of private schools truly competitive, in the long term they have to be able to tap into the same sort of revenue stream that public schools have access to.  Just giving the parents “their own” tax money back isn’t going to be nearly enough. 

I think this gets to the heart of my question. I just don't know many people who, saving on taxes, will suddenly be able to afford private school. (This is also why I tend to laugh at "I pay your salary" threats.) 

What would this revenue stream be that would fund private schools without becoming a government school?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Grunt said:

Sure.   There is always supply and demand.  As long as people value education, education will have value.  Those who want to teach, and can teach well, will be in demand.  It will require educators to provide value as well.   

Still, where would the money come from to pay for these in-demand teachers? JaG addressesed the myth of saving a bunch of tax money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Backroads said:

Still, where would the money come from to pay for these in-demand teachers? JaG addressesed the myth of saving a bunch of tax money.

Vouchers.  Best idea in the world.  Unless you ask the teacher's union.  And the politicians bought by the NEA's millions.

Click the link, I dare ya.  I double-dare ya. 

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=l1300

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Backroads said:

I think homeschooling would be huge in this scenario, hopefully with a change in family structure so it's not just sending kids to what functionally become mini private schools. Not that I'm against co-ops, just it seems at some point the line gets blurred.

But yes, I think it would be a big thing if career teachers became in short supply.

The reality of the situation is that a large portion of students will end up resorting to whatever is default. There is going to be a large population of children whose parents dump them off wherever is easiest. I served my mission in KY and the amount of strip clubs, drive through liquor stores, and smoke shops was terrible… but even worst was the amount of daycares. I swear there was a daycare on every street corner.

As for career teachers. I can see that become a realistic part time job for many people. I picture a community center or school with non-specific class rooms. A person that is familiar with a certain difficult topic can reserve a class room Three days a week and have kids come over to learn the topic. No mandatory curriculum, no paperwork you have to fill out, you just offer to teach a subject you are familiar with (of course they would have to advertise what the topic is and how it will help them get a good grade on GED, ACT/SAT, or prepare for college) and parents who can’t teach it well send there kids to you. I picture it like a buffet high school. Throughout the week there are classes on various topics being offered and you can pay $10-20 or so to send your kid to whatever class you want. That money goes to the teacher and maintenance of the “school”. The better teacher you are, the more students you attract.

There could even be classes on taxes, communication, critical thinking, work ethic, how to study better, how to start a business, developing social skills and confidence, leadership, finances, etc. none of these would have to be year long either. Some of the more soft skill ones could simply be a single class once a month or something. just enough time to teach the topics so the kids can learn. They can retake them if they needed too.

Edited by Fether
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great post @Fether.  We homeschooled our kids, and found a little of your email here, a little there.

Most successful we saw, was a homeschool co-op run out of a local mega-church.  We had our kids there for 5 years or more.  Student fees were minimal, and were lower if the parent volunteered for something.  Fees covered rent for the space, and some class materials.  The parents did everything for free.  Individual parents would sign up to teach this or that class, everyone signed up for what they wanted.   We had more than one family where a parent was a public school teacher, but chose to homeschool their own kids.  They taught a lot of the core classes required by Colorado.  We had a lady who got a PhD in molecular biology, who was taking an 18 year pause in her career to raise her kids - she taught science to the teenagers.  Music, art, history, logic, speech/debate, geology, hula dancing, dozens of others.  Classes targeted to specific age groups.  I called it the "200 mommies and me" building, because I was one of the only guys there.

We avoided the geology classes, because it was all taught by a bunch of young earth creationists who preached against the evil lies of luceferian evolution.  Some of the science classes were a little overly-evangelical and wary of actual facts.  But other than that, everyone was pretty much a proud Christian American teaching good things in good ways for good reasons.  Maybe one family found out we were LDS and had a big loud problem, everyone else love-bombed us within inches of our lives.  It was a great experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share