Could education really be fully privatized?

[estradling75]

The bottom line is... Parents... Parents that are engaged and active in their children's education can make just about anything work.  The parents that can't be bothered.. will find that just about everything will fail.

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

The bottom line is... Parents... Parents that are engaged and active in their children's education can make just about anything work.  

That's been proven true in the US with homeschooling.  The long-term studies started in the '80's, and by the time 2000 came around, the results were pretty clear.  Homeschooled students outperformed their public school counterparts, in just about every conceivable demographic.  I remember the most stark compare was looking at standardized test scores.  For inner city black kids in single-parent homes.  Public school kids from those homes were in the 20th percentile, homeschooled kids in those situations were around 80%.  I can only imagine what an inner city single mother goes through to homeschool her kids, but apparently they were making it work.

[Grunt]

19 hours 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. 

There isn't a private school that would educate your kids for $1200 a year.  The education portion of my state property taxes alone were around 5k last year.   I'm not at the high end of the tax bracket, either.   For some schools, that may be enough.  For other schools, it certainly won't be.   However, you'll be paying that higher amount for the time that your children are in school, then you stop paying.   Right now, you pay a lesser amount your entire life and have limited options.  That changes in a market the government doesn't control.

[Grunt]

18 hours ago, Backroads said:

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?

We had a few educators laugh at "I pay your salary" threats in my district.  The townspeople showed up in force and cut their salaries out of the budget and voted not to renew the contracts of the superintendent, elementary principal, and business manager.   They laughed themselves right out of a job.  I love small towns.

[Grunt]

6 hours ago, estradling75 said:

The bottom line is... Parents... Parents that are engaged and active in their children's education can make just about anything work.  The parents that can't be bothered.. will find that just about everything will fail.

Best post of the thread.

[Backroads]

32 minutes ago, Grunt said:

We had a few educators laugh at "I pay your salary" threats in my district.  The townspeople showed up in force and cut their salaries out of the budget and voted not to renew the contracts of the superintendent, elementary principal, and business manager.   They laughed themselves right out of a job.  I love small towns.

That's awesome, I admit.

My point is, it's hard to take abuse from a parent when a whole $40 of their salary makes it to my paycheck. Okay, I'll give you your $40 if you can bother to feed your kid and put them to bed on time and discipline them instead of yelling at me because your kid wigs out in the middle of class. (I speak in the general and universal "you")

[Grunt]

4 minutes ago, Backroads said:

That's awesome, I admit.

My point is, it's hard to take abuse from a parent when a whole $40 of their salary makes it to my paycheck. Okay, I'll give you your $40 if you can bother to feed your kid and put them to bed on time and discipline them instead of yelling at me because your kid wigs out in the middle of class. (I speak in the general and universal "you")

Sure, having dabbled in education at one time and currently very involved with school issues, I assume the parents who toss that out there are the type that when you say "you know what so-and-so said" most people aren't surprised.    I absolutely adore 95% of our teachers.  They get the job done IN SPITE of most parents and the administrators. I made it my personal goal this year to ensure they didn't spend a dime out of pocket on education.   

[Just_A_Guy]

3 hours ago, Grunt said:

 However, you'll be paying that higher amount for the time that your children are in school, then you stop paying.   Right now, you pay a lesser amount your entire life and have limited options.  That changes in a market the government doesn't control.

Indeed.  As I type this it occurs to me that it’d would be interesting to run out the numbers.

Assuming that my income tax has been static since I bought my home at age 32, and assuming that it remains so until I sell my house and move to an old folks’ home at 80–that’s $6K/year for 48 years, that’s $288, or (since I have 6 kids total, counting the one who’s not in school yet) $48K/kid.  In Utah (average K-12 private school cost $11-$12K/year) that gets me about 4-5 years of private school per kid.

So even allowing for me paying school tax for the rest of my productive life, the public school system is still a screaming deal for me and my family.  Other folks’ mileage of course may vary according to tax rates, number of kids, and so on.  

Edited November 16, 2021 by Just_A_Guy

[Grunt]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Indeed.  As I type this it occurs to me that it’d would be interesting to run out the numbers.

Assuming that my income tax has been static since I bought my home at age 32, and assuming that it remains so until I sell my house and move to an old folks’ home at 80–that’s $6K/year for 48 years, that’s $288, or (since I have 6 kids total, counting the one who’s not in school yet) $48K/kid.  In Utah (average K-12 private school cost $11-$12K/year) that gets me about 4-5 years of private school per kid.

So even allowing for me paying school tax for the rest of my productive life, the public school system is still a screaming deal for me and my family.  Other folks’ mileage of course may vary according to tax rates, number of kids, and so on.  

Maybe.  Depends on what parts of your income stream are returned to you. Many different taxes and fees go into the education pot.  We'd also have to determine what a "screaming deal" is, and that would likely differ between people and districts.   In my district, I'm comfortable with the education my children get and the tax dollars I pay get my children an education I'm happy with, even though it's on the backs of my neighbors.  In the last district I lived in, the education could have been free and it wouldn't have been a screaming deal.   They would have to pay me to send my kids there.   

It's also worth pondering, in my opinion, whether it's fair to forcibly take money from my neighbors to send my kids to school.  Personally, I don't think it is.

[Backroads]

15 hours ago, Grunt said:

It's also worth pondering, in my opinion, whether it's fair to forcibly take money from my neighbors to send my kids to school.  Personally, I don't think it is.

I have conflicted feelings on this. On one hand, the libertarian in me says it's not fair. The part of me that values a cohesive society says I'm already having money taken forcibly from me to build roads and whatnot, why is it so bad I pay to educate the populace? I still don't have a firm view on it myself. 

I have about four homeless students in my virtual class this year (homeless being they're couch-surfing, long-term camping, and living at homeless shelters). My school goes through the state, so the usual charter funds cover their education, because three of these parents are, from what I can surmise, pretty much incapable of holding down jobs to earn money. 

Back to my aforementioned conflict, who would pay for them as they would never be able to afford their own tuition? Would we declare it necessary all students be educated to X degree of schooling?

[Traveler]

 

16 hours ago, Grunt said:

It's also worth pondering, in my opinion, whether it's fair to forcibly take money from my neighbors to send my kids to school.  Personally, I don't think it is.

 

34 minutes ago, Backroads said:

I have conflicted feelings on this. On one hand, the libertarian in me says it's not fair. The part of me that values a cohesive society says I'm already having money taken forcibly from me to build roads and whatnot, why is it so bad I pay to educate the populace? I still don't have a firm view on it myself. 

I have about four homeless students in my virtual class this year (homeless being they're couch-surfing, long-term camping, and living at homeless shelters). My school goes through the state, so the usual charter funds cover their education, because three of these parents are, from what I can surmise, pretty much incapable of holding down jobs to earn money. 

Back to my aforementioned conflict, who would pay for them as they would never be able to afford their own tuition? Would we declare it necessary all students be educated to X degree of schooling?

There is a great book "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat (link ---: https://www.sjsu.edu/people/john.estill/courses/158-s15/The Law - Bastiat.pdf) that can be read in a couple of hours.  He talks about "legal plunder" by governments.  I mostly agree but differ when it comes to education.  Things like military for national defense is considered okay and I think the same concerning public education.  I do not believe a free society can continue without education of the next generation.  In addition it has been shown that a well educated population expands the economy.  Being a fan of Milton Friedman I believe and understand that a expanding economy helps all (raises all ships) from the richest to the poorest.

I believe that there is no government more helpful to its citizens than that government that fosters free and open education - as well as a free and open economy where labors can enjoy the fruits of their labors - to all ideas and possibilities.  Education should be free and open or should I say a safe place for diverse ideas.   I even believe in religious education and often wonder about those that demand separation of church and state in education.  How can anyone accomplish an accurate teaching of history without the understanding of religion and the effects of religion on the events of history. (good and bad) 

The greatest threat to our freedoms and liberties is the need of some to silence the opinions of others - something that is fostered by both political parties and is dividing our citizens.

 

The Traveler

Edited November 16, 2021 by Traveler

[JohnsonJones]

I must admit, I'm not a fan of property taxes.  In the United States we can buy property, but in truth we never truly own it.  We continuously pay rent to the government in the form of Property taxes.  Of course, it is a very old thing and is never going to depart from us.

(It started as a feudal thing, where the King was the true owner of the land, and thus his nobility, which paid fealty to the king, would pay taxes to the king.  To raise these taxes, they would tax their lessers, and so on and so forth until it came to the lowest peasant to pay taxes.  This continued in the Colonies as paying to the King and as such, forced those who settled land to develop it rather than have it lay vacant, so as to make a profit so as to pay the king.  In some ways it is directly responsible in part for the expansion and development of the Colonies, and later the United States.  After the Revolution, as there was no King, the writers of the Articles and later the constitution replaced the King with the Federal Government, it now being in place of the King was the owner of the land in the end).

With that, if I have to pay property taxes anyways, and where I live, much of it is what supports the education, it might as well be for education rather than worse things.

[Grunt]

3 hours ago, Backroads said:

 

Back to my aforementioned conflict, who would pay for them as they would never be able to afford their own tuition? Would we declare it necessary all students be educated to X degree of schooling?

I wouldn't declare it necessary to educate children.   

[Grunt]

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

 

There is a great book "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat (link ---: https://www.sjsu.edu/people/john.estill/courses/158-s15/The Law - Bastiat.pdf) that can be read in a couple of hours. 

That's one of my favorite books.

[Backroads]

7 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I wouldn't declare it necessary to educate children.   

So what should be done with kids from lower-income households where, for whatever reason, the parents can't afford the time/money to homeschool?

Obviously, not educated them, yes, but is our society really ready to deal with them? 

Edited November 16, 2021 by Backroads

[Backroads]

On 11/14/2021 at 2:00 PM, Traveler said:

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).

So you're the one I heard this from before.

It's not a bad idea at all and would kind of help have a happy medium. The only issue I see is the special education laws, but those wouldn't necessarily get in the way of this: you could have anything from the simple concept of parents being able to apply for teachers who they feel would best suit their child's needs, some as anyone, there could be incentives for teachers/schools to take on certain students, there could simply be special education classes that just work as proposed, just outside the inclusion model. 

[Grunt]

1 hour ago, Backroads said:

So what should be done with kids from lower-income households where, for whatever reason, the parents can't afford the time/money to homeschool?

Obviously, not educated them, yes, but is our society really ready to deal with them? 

Deal with them how?  I don't pretend to have all the solutions, but neither do I assert that a society is responsible for the care livelihood of all.   If I don't feel strongly enough to knock on your door, ask for money, then beat you up and take it to give to someone else, then I don't feel I have the right to hire someone else to do it.

[Just_A_Guy]

4 hours ago, Grunt said:

Deal with them how?  I don't pretend to have all the solutions, but neither do I assert that a society is responsible for the care livelihood of all.   If I don't feel strongly enough to knock on your door, ask for money, then beat you up and take it to give to someone else, then I don't feel I have the right to hire someone else to do it.

The other facet to this, of course (and I don’t say it’s right; only that it’s a reality that needs to be confronted) is the long-term costs on broader society that are imposed by a critical mass of uneducated folk in terms of crime, government doles, etc.  In a very real sense, educational spending represents a form of “protection money”.  Is it better to have a tax man claiming some of my money, than an illiterate gangbanger turning up on my doorstep and demanding all of it?

That said:  I think in society we’ve sort of lost sight of the difference between getting kids educated versus getting them credentialed; and I’m not sure we have a clear idea about which of the two we want to provide or why we want to provide it.  

[Grunt]

9 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The other facet to this, of course (and I don’t say it’s right; only that it’s a reality that needs to be confronted) is the long-term costs on broader society that are imposed by a critical mass of uneducated folk in terms of crime, government doles, etc.  In a very real sense, educational spending represents a form of “protection money”.  Is it better to have a tax man claiming some of my money, than an illiterate gangbanger turning up on my doorstep and demanding all of it?

That said:  I think in society we’ve sort of lost sight of the difference between getting kids educated versus getting them credentialed; and I’m not sure we have a clear idea about which of the two we want to provide or why we want to provide it.  

I'm not sure there will be a critical mass of uneducated folks.   I think most parents would continue to ensure their children are educated.   In my area we have pods for kids who don't attend school for whatever reason.  These are started and run by parents, organizations, and community members, mostly due to issues with the public school system.   

I think the exception would be, to your point, the parents who currently don't care about their children's education.   These children probably fall into the credentialed category you mentioned.  The earn a diploma, but have no real application for it.   I wonder how many of these children would receive an actual education if they weren't forced to be in school?   

Edited November 17, 2021 by Grunt

[Backroads]

37 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I'm not sure there will be a critical mass of uneducated folks.   I think most parents would continue to ensure their children are educated.   In my area we have pods for kids who don't attend school for whatever reason.  These are started and run by parents, organizations, and community members, mostly due to issues with the public school system.   

 I think the exception would be, to your point, the parents who currently don't care about their children's education.   These children probably fall into the credentialed category you mentioned.  The earn a diploma, but have not real application for it.   I wonder how many of these children would receive an actual education if they weren't forced to be in school?  

This is a true point. I think, in general, our societies value education enough a majority of parents will seek it one way or another.

And I ask that no one mistake my musings on this subject as a condemnation of more independent learning. Rather, I think we live in a golden age of learning opportunities where, at the very least, a desired skill or bit of information is often but a YouTube video or ten away. My school, which is a virtual charter, is still looking for teachers to handle the numbers (anyone in Utah wanting a job?) because so much of the learning is independent. 

My concern does again go to those families who can't afford the local pods, or the private schools, or the homeschool materials, or the internet bill, etc.--and may very well want to educate their kids regardless. 

That said, I like to think charity would try to handle at least some of this. Perhaps neighbors would pool or stretch funding to include in the pod the Anderson kids down the street who happened to fall on hard times. Scholarships still exist. I even recently saw a post elsewhere on the downright trashiest and cheapest ways to homeschool when flat broke (it included stuff like begging the neighbors for pencils and writing on the back of other pieces of paper and contacting schools about their supply scrap piles). 

There's also the possibility that some funds would exist, be it public or private, for general education. One of my students lives in a certain housing development, and part of the standards for living there is school attendance (I know this because it has been something of an odyssey with this family). In similar situations, I could see those making the demands also holding some responsibility for helping out. 

 

 

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, Grunt said:

I'm not sure there will be a critical mass of uneducated folks.   I think most parents would continue to ensure their children are educated.   In my area we have pods for kids who don't attend school for whatever reason.  These are started and run by parents, organizations, and community members, mostly due to issues with the public school system.   

I think the exception would be, to your point, the parents who currently don't care about their children's education.   These children probably fall into the credentialed category you mentioned.  The earn a diploma, but have no real application for it.   I wonder how many of these children would receive an actual education if they weren't forced to be in school?   

I’m inclined to think that most parents would at least ensure that their children could read and do basic arithmetic.  Beyond that, I’m not sure how much “education” a critical mass of parents would deem necessary for their children (“necessary”, here, being defined as “important enough to sacrifice/significantly inconvenience themselves for”).  Then again, I’m not sure how much of it I deem “necessary” for someone who doesn’t want to go into one of the professions or a STEM-related field.

[Grunt]

1 hour ago, Backroads said:

This is a true point. I think, in general, our societies value education enough a majority of parents will seek it one way or another.

And I ask that no one mistake my musings on this subject as a condemnation of more independent learning. Rather, I think we live in a golden age of learning opportunities where, at the very least, a desired skill or bit of information is often but a YouTube video or ten away. My school, which is a virtual charter, is still looking for teachers to handle the numbers (anyone in Utah wanting a job?) because so much of the learning is independent. 

My concern does again go to those families who can't afford the local pods, or the private schools, or the homeschool materials, or the internet bill, etc.--and may very well want to educate their kids regardless. 

That said, I like to think charity would try to handle at least some of this. Perhaps neighbors would pool or stretch funding to include in the pod the Anderson kids down the street who happened to fall on hard times. Scholarships still exist. I even recently saw a post elsewhere on the downright trashiest and cheapest ways to homeschool when flat broke (it included stuff like begging the neighbors for pencils and writing on the back of other pieces of paper and contacting schools about their supply scrap piles). 

There's also the possibility that some funds would exist, be it public or private, for general education. One of my students lives in a certain housing development, and part of the standards for living there is school attendance (I know this because it has been something of an odyssey with this family). In similar situations, I could see those making the demands also holding some responsibility for helping out. 

 

 

 

I don't think anyone mistakes your musings as a condemnation.  We're having a discussion.  I don't even have a firm opinion, it's just a thought exercise.  I do these with my team at work regularly.  It's how some of our best ideas are shaped.

There is no cost to most of the local pods in my area.  

I'm considering leaving my current job next year and relocating.  I've considered relocating and entering education.   I've also considered BYU Law.

[Backroads]

11 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I’m inclined to think that most parents would at least ensure that their children could read and do basic arithmetic.  Beyond that, I’m not sure how much “education” a critical mass of parents would deem necessary for their children (“necessary”, here, being defined as “important enough to sacrifice/significantly inconvenience themselves for”).  Then again, I’m not sure how much of it I deem “necessary” for someone who doesn’t want to go into one of the professions or a STEM-related field.

Perhaps it's my elementary education background, but while I fight for a strong reading, basic math, and ability to navigate logic base, I honestly think after that you can really learn (or not learn) whatever you choose, to a certain extent. 

[Traveler]

19 hours ago, Backroads said:

So you're the one I heard this from before.

It's not a bad idea at all and would kind of help have a happy medium. The only issue I see is the special education laws, but those wouldn't necessarily get in the way of this: you could have anything from the simple concept of parents being able to apply for teachers who they feel would best suit their child's needs, some as anyone, there could be incentives for teachers/schools to take on certain students, there could simply be special education classes that just work as proposed, just outside the inclusion model. 

It very much looks like we are on the same page.  I am sure that there are teachers that would love to specialize in teaching those with various "learning needs" and they could be compensated for various achievements with that demographic.  I believe every person is a genius in their own element (with some very rare exceptions - and even then I am not so sure that something might have been missed).   I am a strong believer that every person should learn to capitalize (maximize) their unique skills. 

I sometimes wonder if the world is trying to make everyone as mediocre  as possible.  It seems to me that even the movies about high school kids; tries to classify achievers as evil cruds that look down on everybody else.   That the true heroes are kids that do not do well in school because they dislike rigidus study and would rather goof off and waist their talents. 

I do not think the problem with education is just the problems with education - a lot of the problems are imbedded in our popular culture.

 

The Traveler

[estradling75]

1 hour ago, Backroads said:

Perhaps it's my elementary education background, but while I fight for a strong reading, basic math, and ability to navigate logic base, I honestly think after that you can really learn (or not learn) whatever you choose, to a certain extent. 

Which raises the question?  What do we consider the 'basics'   We live in a very complex society, and adults are expected to navigate lots of different things.   I consider my job as a parent is to turn my kid into a functional adult...  That can look like a lot of different things to different people.