Do Parents Have a Right to Homeschool?

[Dittohead not!]

What we need is a truly rational society:

In a completely rational society, the best of us would be teachers and the rest of us would have to settle for something else.

Lee Iacocca

 

[imagep]

Less standardized testing - Some testing is good, if the data is used correctly. Testing data is great for letting teachers know, in general, how well information is being covered and how well students are comprehending information. Teachers know how to analyze testing data and them spend quite of bit of time doing that. What testing data is not good for is being used to evaluate individual teachers. Especially when the people using the data don't understand it.

So you think that teachers can analyze test data correctly, but administrators, most of whom were once teachers who went on to receive more advanced education in administration, can't correctly analyze test data? I seriously doubt that most teachers suddenly become morons the minute that they become a principle or a superintendent.

 

[Layla_Z]

What is wrong with profit?

When a company provides a good to consumers for a price lower than the cost of inputs, they earn a profit. In order to get consumers to spend their money within their own establishment, businesses must not only provide a good which has demand, but provide a good in such a way that satisfies demand and spurs additional demand in the future.

In other words, a business (or school in this case) which has no profit motive has no incentive to provide an adequate good. A for-profit business, on the other hand, must satisfactorily provide a good to consumers or face bankruptcy.

Every suggestion you gave for making schools better are not only possible, but plausible under free market for-profit education.

A desire for profit puts making money as the top priority. In schools, educating children should be the top priority.

 

[Layla_Z]

So you think that teachers can analyze test data correctly, but administrators, most of whom were once teachers who went on to receive more advanced education in administration, can't correctly analyze test data? I seriously doubt that most teachers suddenly become morons the minute that they become a principle or a superintendent.

Wow, not what I said at all. Of course administrators can analyze testing data. That still doesn't mean that data should be the sole or even primary method used to evaluate teachers. The problem that some administrators sometimes have is that they haven't been in the classroom for too long. They can also get so bogged down by paper work that they forget to observe their teachers. Frequent observation is an excellent method for evaluating teachers that is not used nearly enough.

 

[maquiscat]

More money - or I should say, more money well spent. Money spent on more teachers and aides so we have smaller class sizes and students get more individual attention. Money spent on better, more up-to-date texts and current technology. And yes, in some instances, more money for teachers' salaries'. While some states pay teachers fairly well, many do not. When you can make more as a manager at a fast food restaurant, it's hard to feel motivated to do a good job. When you add to that the insults from politicians, some in the media, and parents, teaching can become very unpleasant. No teacher went into teaching to get rich, but at some point a low salary becomes insulting.

This is more important than more money. We've been throwing more and more money after education and where does most of it go? Teachers' Unions and administration, not towards education. You won't find many arguing that teachers are, as a whole, underpaid, but we don't want any more money going to the system because it's not getting to the children that we're told we should be thinking about.

More schools - I think, and this is only my opinion, that smaller schools can be better for students. When the student population is several hundred or more, it is easy for a student to get lost and no one notices. In a smaller school there is more of a community and it is easier for teachers to work together to keep a child from failing.

With private schools and homeschooling this is exactly what you get. One of my friends home schools her kids and there is a very active and interactive community here in my area. When parents can't manage to get certain lessons through to their kids others step up to try teaching it in a different manner. Private schools can switch kids around more easily to better place them with teachers that will help them learn in a manner that gets the most learning into them.

More teacher control - Teachers are the people with the education and training on how to teach, yet they have the least amount of control over the choices made. The people making the big decisions ( legislators) either don't have that education or have not been in the classroom to see what is really going on.

And thus the argument for abolishing the Dept of Education.

More teacher support - Teachers should be supported by their administrators. If a child doesn't want to learn and makes that clear by his or her behavior then that child should be removed so that the teacher can teach those who want to learn.

Sadly the administrators are beholden to the politicians and have rules that make no sense to follow.

A desire for profit puts making money as the top priority. In schools, educating children should be the top priority.

But if the for profit school doesn't provide the quality education then they don't get paid and don't make money.

 

[Dittohead not!]

So you think that teachers can analyze test data correctly, but administrators, most of whom were once teachers who went on to receive more advanced education in administration, can't correctly analyze test data? I seriously doubt that most teachers suddenly become morons the minute that they become a principle or a superintendent.

It's not the principals or superintendents who are analyzing the test data. It is the bureaucrats at the state department of education who do that job.

 

[liblady]

Yes, parents have a right to homeschool. I have seen many children out here cruising full time, and they are certainly at least as skilled as their peers back home, usually more skilled. Unfortunately, we allow just about anyone to homeschool, so these kids and parents have to be held to some standards for the child's sake.

 

[clownboy]

Yes, parents have a right to homeschool. I have seen many children out here cruising full time, and they are certainly at least as skilled as their peers back home, usually more skilled. Unfortunately, we allow just about anyone to homeschool, so these kids and parents have to be held to some standards for the child's sake.

Yes, they do, but it won't be forever. Once the feds have managed to fully take educational under federal control they'll do away with the "right" to homeschooling. Probably not right away, they'll work in phases. Start by raising the standards well above what the average parent can provide and then sooner or later move to an outright ban.

 

[liblady]

Yes, they do, but it won't be forever. Once the feds have managed to fully take educational under federal control they'll do away with the "right" to homeschooling. Probably not right away, they'll work in phases. Start by raising the standards well above what the average parent can provide and then sooner or later move to an outright ban.

perhaps average parents should not be homeschooling! I am not one who believes the gumming is out to get me.

 

[clownboy]

perhaps average parents should not be homeschooling! I am not one who believes the gumming is out to get me.

Nor am I. However, education, as it stands, is NOT part of our constitutional grant to the federal government. Yes, they have and continue to increase their control over it despite that. It is yet another area where the feds have walked all over their duty and taken power and responsibilities from the states.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, there are pros and cons to this federal presumption. But sooner of later we just need to drop that whole pesky "United States of" from our country's name and just call it America. Maybe "The Federally Controlled States of America".

Silly spelling don't help your point and the government is not "out to get me". The feds are however, out to take control where they have no grant.

 

[Ahlevah]

Is this judge right? What do you think?

Ask yourself this question: What's a "teacher's" function? To teach, right? So who does the best job of that, on average? If the home-schooled kid is a better "product," I think it would be a good idea to encourage rather than discourage it:

More than 2 million U.S. students in grades K-12 were home-schooled in 2010, accounting for nearly 4 percent of all school-aged children, according to the National Home Education Research Institute. Studies suggest that those who go on to college will outperform their peers.

Students coming from a home school graduated college at a higher rate than their peers*—66.7 percent compared to 57.5 percent—and earned higher grade point averages along the way, according to a study that compared students at one doctoral university from 2004-2009.

Home-Schooled Teens Ripe for College - US News and World Report

 

[TNAR]

A desire for profit puts making money as the top priority. In schools, educating children should be the top priority.

The whole point of a market price system is to allocate scarce resources to the uses in which they are most valuable. In this case, education provided on a for-fee basis would be forced to do a few very important things:

1) They must provide a demanded good. If consumers have no demand for the good provided, the company would receive no income and would go out of business.

2) The good provided must be produced efficiently. Competition between producers ensures the scarce inputs are directed towards the most important ends. Publicly funded entities have no incentive to economize. In fact, just the opposite is true because they can then request larger budgets.

3) They must produce a quality good. This is the kicker. If a for-fee school did not produce results - that is, if they did not adequately teach students in a logical and efficient manner - it would lose customers and ultimately go out of business. The best schools would not be successful because they kicked out the low performers as you allege. The best schools would effectively impart important sets of knowledge and skills on wide varieties of students at a low price. Absolutely no different than any other industry on the open market.

 

[Layla_Z]

This is more important than more money. We've been throwing more and more money after education and where does most of it go? Teachers' Unions and administration, not towards education. You won't find many arguing that teachers are, as a whole, underpaid, but we don't want any more money going to the system because it's not getting to the children that we're told we should be thinking about.



With private schools and homeschooling this is exactly what you get. One of my friends home schools her kids and there is a very active and interactive community here in my area. When parents can't manage to get certain lessons through to their kids others step up to try teaching it in a different manner. Private schools can switch kids around more easily to better place them with teachers that will help them learn in a manner that gets the most learning into them.


And thus the argument for abolishing the Dept of Education.



Sadly the administrators are beholden to the politicians and have rules that make no sense to follow.




But if the for profit school doesn't provide the quality education then they don't get paid and don't make money.

I'm not in a union, never have been. I don't know many teachers who are in a union. A few years ago, our salary was cut. Salary varies so much state to state. Here, teachers are not overpaid. But that aside, I never mentioned teacher salary. I listed several places money would be well spent.

I don't really know what your point is here but you don't need a private school or to home school to create a community. I know many small schools that do exactly that. Comparing good home schooling(it is not all good) and private schools to public schools is not a good comparison. Private schools have the luxury of choosing their students and kicking out problem students.

A for profit school is going to do the least it can get away with for the least amount of money. Shouldn't schools be doing as much as possible for students? Shouldn't their top priority be the students education and not making money?

 

[Paratrooper]

I think this is ridiculous. What next can't raise children at all unless you have a psychology degree?

If parents want to homeschool then let them. I have no problem with a yearly exam to ensure they are progressing at an appropriate rate. I personally feel that home schooling can be successful because you have a smaller class (which gives the teacher more one on one time with the students) this allows you to focus on a specific child's strengths and weaknesses. Sure they may miss out on the social aspects but they can still get that from organized sports, summer camps, church, and etc.

I attended both public schools until 9th grade and then went to a private school. From my personal experience I was happier in the private school and felt I got a better education there.

 

[maquiscat]

I'm not in a union, never have been. I don't know many teachers who are in a union. A few years ago, our salary was cut. Salary varies so much state to state. Here, teachers are not overpaid. But that aside, I never mentioned teacher salary. I listed several places money would be well spent.

From your comments here I am guessing that your a teacher. If you mentioned that in an earlier post, sorry I missed it. I would consider yourself lucky if you are in a state that doesn't require teachers to be part of the union or at the least pay the union dues regardless of if they want to join or not. Many state employee unions are getting those laws passed. My wife just had to start paying union dues even though she doesn't like the union, nor wants any part of it. I believe our teacher union is the same here. I know some of my teacher friends have made that complaint. At no point have I ever mentioned overpaid teachers. Not sure where that line came from. Overpaid unions and administrators yes, especially those higher than the school level. And actually yes you did mention teachers' salaries:

More money - or I should say, more money well spent. Money spent on more teachers and aides so we have smaller class sizes and students get more individual attention. Money spent on better, more up-to-date texts and current technology. And yes, in some instances, more money for teachers' salaries'. While some states pay teachers fairly well, many do not. When you can make more as a manager at a fast food restaurant, it's hard to feel motivated to do a good job. When you add to that the insults from politicians, some in the media, and parents, teaching can become very unpleasant. No teacher went into teaching to get rich, but at some point a low salary becomes insulting.

I don't really know what your point is here but you don't need a private school or to home school to create a community. I know many small schools that do exactly that. Comparing good home schooling(it is not all good) and private schools to public schools is not a good comparison. Private schools have the luxury of choosing their students and kicking out problem students.

And I'm not saying that they can't. I'm just noting that the things that you are arguing for are also achievable with both private schools and homeschooling thus noting that noting that the argument for the two are very strong.

A for profit school is going to do the least it can get away with for the least amount of money. Shouldn't schools be doing as much as possible for students? Shouldn't their top priority be the students education and not making money?

Actually no, that top priority should rest solely on the shoulders of the parents. Remember that profit means taking in more than you spend. The amount of money spend does not automatically result in a better product. Thus the incentive in a profit model school is to produce the product at a higher quality and lower cost than your competitor so that people come to you for the product not them. In the government model school, there is no such incentive to produce a better product because your income is already guaranteed. Not only that but you can then claim that your lack of quality is due to not enough money and ask for more. Thus the money is not used as efficiently. Or more to point that is how it is currently working here in the US as a rule. Other countries have school system where the money follows the student. The student and parents choose where the child goes to school. Thus the schools have the incentive to produce better educated children. If they don't perform well and within their budget they go under, even though those school systems are government run.

 

[Layla_Z]

From your comments here I am guessing that your a teacher. If you mentioned that in an earlier post, sorry I missed it. I would consider yourself lucky if you are in a state that doesn't require teachers to be part of the union or at the least pay the union dues regardless of if they want to join or not. Many state employee unions are getting those laws passed. My wife just had to start paying union dues even though she doesn't like the union, nor wants any part of it. I believe our teacher union is the same here. I know some of my teacher friends have made that complaint. At no point have I ever mentioned overpaid teachers. Not sure where that line came from. Overpaid unions and administrators yes, especially those higher than the school level. And actually yes you did mention teachers' salaries:






And I'm not saying that they can't. I'm just noting that the things that you are arguing for are also achievable with both private schools and homeschooling thus noting that noting that the argument for the two are very strong.



Actually no, that top priority should rest solely on the shoulders of the parents. Remember that profit means taking in more than you spend. The amount of money spend does not automatically result in a better product. Thus the incentive in a profit model school is to produce the product at a higher quality and lower cost than your competitor so that people come to you for the product not them. In the government model school, there is no such incentive to produce a better product because your income is already guaranteed. Not only that but you can then claim that your lack of quality is due to not enough money and ask for more. Thus the money is not used as efficiently. Or more to point that is how it is currently working here in the US as a rule. Other countries have school system where the money follows the student. The student and parents choose where the child goes to school. Thus the schools have the incentive to produce better educated children. If they don't perform well and within their budget they go under, even though those school systems are government run.

I am a teacher. Next year will be my 20th year. I don't always agree with the union but teachers do need someone advocating for them. Here we have an organization that works with the politicians and fights legislation that is bad for schools. It also helps teachers know their rights if they are wrongfully terminated. They can really only help tenured teachers because probationary teachers can be fired for nearly any reason. However, we do not have collective bargaining.

I had forgotten that I did mention salaries. That's what I get for being too lazy to go back and look at 11:00 p.m. I don't see low salaries as a big problem for education as a whole. Salaries here are low but other states pay much better. Higher salaries would attract more people to teaching but I think there are other more pressing reasons that teachers leave the profession.

Private schools and homeschooling are fine for people who can afford it and for parents who have the time, knowledge, and skill to homeschool. In my experience, that last part is rare. As I said, neither is a guarantee of a good education.

I absolutely agree that parents should have their child's education as a top priority. In my experience that is not always the case. If fact, it is becoming more and more rare. All of this "choice" might work with involved parents. Of course, a child of involved parents is going to get a good education regardless, or perhaps in spite of, any school. So few parents are involved today. Someone/something has to have the students' education as a top priority. If not the school and if not the parents, then who? Let's say you have a school that doesn't produce good results and therefore goes under. What happens to those students? How do they get to another school? Are the bussed all over town? Are the parents responsible for transportation? If so, what if they can't or won't transport their child? I can guarantee that no matter how "bad" a school is there will be kids left in it because their parents can't be bothered to make other arrangements. What happens to those kids?

 

[maquiscat]

I am a teacher. Next year will be my 20th year. I don't always agree with the union but teachers do need someone advocating for them. Here we have an organization that works with the politicians and fights legislation that is bad for schools. It also helps teachers know their rights if they are wrongfully terminated. They can really only help tenured teachers because probationary teachers can be fired for nearly any reason. However, we do not have collective bargaining.

Congrats. I'm glad you've made it so long. And given what little I've seen of your post, I'm sure you're an actual teacher and not someone with a teaching job, if you can appreciate the difference. I have seen many of both in my years of my kids' educational careers. On unions, let me say that I have always agreed upon the principle by which they came into being, but I find many today, especially the larger national and international one, to not be in line with those principles. And even in the bad one, there are those who truly try to help against the real problems.

I had forgotten that I did mention salaries. That's what I get for being too lazy to go back and look at 11:00 p.m. I don't see low salaries as a big problem for education as a whole. Salaries here are low but other states pay much better. Higher salaries would attract more people to teaching but I think there are other more pressing reasons that teachers leave the profession.

No worries. It happens to all of us. And I agree that in the end when you are passionate about something that you can do as your job as well, as long as you are getting paid enough (by your standards) then it doesn't matter what you are getting paid.

Private schools and homeschooling are fine for people who can afford it and for parents who have the time, knowledge, and skill to homeschool. In my experience, that last part is rare. As I said, neither is a guarantee of a good education.

I hope you mean that line as in neither public, private nor home schooling is a guarantee of a good education.

I absolutely agree that parents should have their child's education as a top priority. In my experience that is not always the case. If fact, it is becoming more and more rare. All of this "choice" might work with involved parents. Of course, a child of involved parents is going to get a good education regardless, or perhaps in spite of, any school. So few parents are involved today. Someone/something has to have the students' education as a top priority. If not the school and if not the parents, then who? Let's say you have a school that doesn't produce good results and therefore goes under. What happens to those students? How do they get to another school? Are the bussed all over town? Are the parents responsible for transportation? If so, what if they can't or won't transport their child? I can guarantee that no matter how "bad" a school is there will be kids left in it because their parents can't be bothered to make other arrangements. What happens to those kids?

What happens to those kids now? They fail to get an education because they are in a school where the teachers don't get much real educating in because of all the other students making trouble? Are they any worse off now than they were before? Then there is the potential, especially if we're setting up the system for the money to follow the child, for someone to build a better school right in that area to attract those good students so that they can make money as well as produce well educated kinds. Why do you think magnet and charter schools do so well? The ones that are truly motivated to do better would probably be trying to get to a better school now, if not for the restrictions of districting. As to other issues, when we, as a people, really want to do something we don't wait for the government to do it. We have scholarships now for all kinds of things, so why wouldn't charities pop up to provide transportation to kids who are trying and want/need to go to a good school?

 

[TNAR]

A for profit school is going to do the least it can get away with for the least amount of money. Shouldn't schools be doing as much as possible for students? Shouldn't their top priority be the students education and not making money?

You have that backwards. For profit companies try to do the very best with the least amount of money. As you said yourself, they are trying to attract dollars. How do they do this? By providing the best possible good (education) for the lowest price. Those companies which do as you suggested and pass off crappy goods do nothing but lose customers and either make virtually no profit or go out of business. Thus are the effects of competition.

From a completely different angle, I have been studying for my Flight Instructor renewal and came across an interesting passage. The underlying assumption of what it means to be an educator appears in stark contrast from my experiences with "typical" public/private school teachers.

Professional flight instructors are highly trained individuals. They hold vast amounts of knowledge acquired through their own training and their own experiences. Having a well-founded basis of knowledge is critical to being an effective instructor. However, if that highly trained and knowledgeable instructor is unable to convey that knowledge to a student, then he or she is ineffective as a flight instructor, regardless of knowledge and expertise.

Teaching is an art. It requires not just an understanding of the subject, but also an understanding of how people think and learn; it requires a certain amount of psychological understanding. Virtually all instructors took coursework in the Fundamentals of Instruction, which offers a basic theoretical framework for the teaching and learning process. In addition, it is important to understand that flight instruction is fundamentally a "people skill." Flight instructors should present themselves in a professional manner. Nothing will destroy a student's dream of becoming a pilot quicker than an unprofessional instructor. They should be friendly, not bossy, should treat their students as equals not as subordinates, be able to recognize the signs of boredom and frustration and know how to deal with them. Instructors should be able to quickly recognize when they themselves become frustrated with students who may not be progressing as they think they should and know how to deal with it.

Aside from being a teacher, an instructor must also be a coach. A coach, beyond anything else, is a motivator and mentor. An instructor can demonstrate their coaching skills by supporting their students in all aspects of their training. From ground school to flight training, to solo flight and beyond, an instructor must do everything possible to keep their students striving to attain their dreams. As a coach, an instructor sets the goals and standards, identifies areas of improvement, develops a plan that will achieve the goal, and then observes and guides the student as they practice. In coaching their students, an instructor does not allow bad habits to form, and is quick to reward their students for good performance and recognize the hazards and risks associated with poor performance. (emphasis added)

 

[maquiscat]

You have that backwards. For profit companies try to do the very best with the least amount of money. As you said yourself, they are trying to attract dollars. How do they do this? By providing the best possible good (education) for the lowest price. Those companies which do as you suggested and pass off crappy goods do nothing but lose customers and either make virtually no profit or go out of business. Thus are the effects of competition.

I am going to make a slight disagreement here, just to cover the bases, so to speak. There is indeed a market for "crappy goods". Look at all the cheep crappy toys that you get from dollar stores and carnivals/fairs.

 

[TNAR]

There is indeed a market for "crappy goods". Look at all the cheep crappy toys that you get from dollar stores and carnivals/fairs.

You are correct. For brevity I was implying that companies which attempt to pass off low quality goods which have been advertised as high quality goods will quickly become nonexistent. Labeling cheap goods as inherently "crappy" is not necessarily fair either though. Customers who shop at stores such as Dollar General and Walmart expect low prices and the quality to match and, therefore, do not consider the goods they purchase as "crappy." Low quality to be sure, but not crappy.

Take, for instance, the Hummer. When it was first released in H1 flavor a number of years ago, perhaps one of the biggest complaints was the "cheap" plastic interior. This was virtually the same interior as GM installed in some of its other vehicles (which was why they used it), but the customers who were dropping $60,000 (or however much they were) did not expect to have a low quality interior used in the $30,000 models.

Same goes for education and every other industry. If you expect "grade A" quality/results and only obtain "grade B" quality/results, you will take your business elsewhere.

 

[Layla_Z]

You have that backwards. For profit companies try to do the very best with the least amount of money. As you said yourself, they are trying to attract dollars. How do they do this? By providing the best possible good (education) for the lowest price. Those companies which do as you suggested and pass off crappy goods do nothing but lose customers and either make virtually no profit or go out of business. Thus are the effects of competition.

From a completely different angle, I have been studying for my Flight Instructor renewal and came across an interesting passage. The underlying assumption of what it means to be an educator appears in stark contrast from my experiences with "typical" public/private school teachers.

That has not been my experience. Most companies try to make as much money as possible while spending as little as possible. Few companies really try for quality beyond profit. Look at the success of Wal-Mart and McDonalds. They make a great deal of money and are considered quite successful but they have little to do with quality.

 

[TNAR]

I specifically mentioned Walmart. It is known for low prices and quality to match. A person does not attend MIT and expect the same education they would get at a small community college, nor do they expect to pay the same price. This sort of variety exists throughout the entire market with exception to those areas in which the government has interfered and restricted competition. In this case, education.

But let's go with your examples anyway. Does McDonalds provide a desired good? It must or else it would go out of business. Simply because you may not like their products does not mean that their products are bad. Contrast that with public education. Parents who choose not to send their children to public schools still have to pay for public education. I don't even have kids and I have to pay for it. It doesn't take a genius to realize that there is absolutely zero market incentive structure to encourage efficiency or success in situations such as this.

I have yet to hear a logical explanation of why profit motive is so healthy for virtually every other sector of the economy, but when it comes to things like education profit suddenly becomes evil. I would love to hear your reasons.

 

[Carjosse]

I specifically mentioned Walmart. It is known for low prices and quality to match. A person does not attend MIT and expect the same education they would get at a small community college, nor do they expect to pay the same price. This sort of variety exists throughout the entire market with exception to those areas in which the government has interfered and restricted competition. In this case, education.

But let's go with your examples anyway. Does McDonalds provide a desired good? It must or else it would go out of business. Simply because you may not like their products does not mean that their products are bad. Contrast that with public education. Parents who choose not to send their children to public schools still have to pay for public education. I don't even have kids and I have to pay for it. It doesn't take a genius to realize that there is absolutely zero market incentive structure to encourage efficiency or success in situations such as this.

I have yet to hear a logical explanation of why profit motive is so healthy for virtually every other sector of the economy, but when it comes to things like education profit suddenly becomes evil. I would love to hear your reasons.

Well turns out it's good for everyone to have a well educated population no matter how much money their parents have than having only those that can afford private school being educated at a high standard.

 

[Layla_Z]

I specifically mentioned Walmart. It is known for low prices and quality to match. A person does not attend MIT and expect the same education they would get at a small community college, nor do they expect to pay the same price. This sort of variety exists throughout the entire market with exception to those areas in which the government has interfered and restricted competition. In this case, education.

But let's go with your examples anyway. Does McDonalds provide a desired good? It must or else it would go out of business. Simply because you may not like their products does not mean that their products are bad. Contrast that with public education. Parents who choose not to send their children to public schools still have to pay for public education. I don't even have kids and I have to pay for it. It doesn't take a genius to realize that there is absolutely zero market incentive structure to encourage efficiency or success in situations such as this.

I have yet to hear a logical explanation of why profit motive is so healthy for virtually every other sector of the economy, but when it comes to things like education profit suddenly becomes evil. I would love to hear your reasons.

Just because you refuse to see that profit does not equal quality doesn't make it not true. McDonalds does make a profit but no one can think of it as "quality" food. Wal-Mart makes a profit but selling cheap, poorly made products. They make a profit because people continue to buy their products. That is not how I want education to be.

I worked at a day care center/pre-school that was attached to the university I attended. The center was supposed to be non-profit but the director wanted to make a profit. She gave the students the smallest amount of food possible. She wouldn't hire full time teachers because she would have to pay them more and give them benefits. They worked 36 hours a week for little more than minimum wage. Teachers didn't stay because as soon as they could find any other job the took it. Some of the teachers were terrific but they didn't last long. Sadly, I some cases the teachers that did last were the ones who couldn't get another job. This is not how education should be.

 

[maquiscat]

Just because you refuse to see that profit does not equal quality doesn't make it not true. McDonalds does make a profit but no one can think of it as "quality" food. Wal-Mart makes a profit but selling cheap, poorly made products. They make a profit because people continue to buy their products. That is not how I want education to be.

The first problem with this is that quality, in this context, is relative to the individual and also ties in with value, also a relative term. Sure I think we can agree that Applebee's makes a product that is of higher quality than McDondald's, but it also cost more. How much value am I getting for that cost. Is the increase in price worth the increase in quality? Let's take it a little more extreme. The quality of a Ruth's Chris meal is no doubt higher than either of the previous two. But the price! Is that price really worth the quality of the meal? Quality can also vary between stores within a chain (parallel to different schools within the education system). There is one Burger King in my city that I refuse to go to anymore because the quality of their product and service is far below that of the others in the area. However, there are others who say the same thing about the one BK that I feel has the highest quality in food and service.

As far as the cheap poorly made products go, I hope that you do your shopping very carefully so that you don't buy any product that Wal-Mart carries. Otherwise then you are just buying your "cheap, poorly made" product at a different store. Products are what they are and are almost always sold in multiple stores, and I don't mean with in the same chain.

I worked at a day care center/pre-school that was attached to the university I attended. The center was supposed to be non-profit but the director wanted to make a profit. She gave the students the smallest amount of food possible. She wouldn't hire full time teachers because she would have to pay them more and give them benefits. They worked 36 hours a week for little more than minimum wage. Teachers didn't stay because as soon as they could find any other job the took it. Some of the teachers were terrific but they didn't last long. Sadly, I some cases the teachers that did last were the ones who couldn't get another job. This is not how education should be.

What kind of enrollment turnover does this center have? Are parents pulling the kids out before they are beyond the age they are allowed to attend? Are the lots of complaints? You know there is a difference between being cheap and being efficient when it come to making a product. Government school systems certainly aren't efficient, nor have any incentive to be.