Ending Public Schools [W:961]

[MoSurveyor]

Re: Ending Public Schools

Yes, exactly like the public schools used to be. It kept the trouble-makers out, or forced them to become civil in the classroom. That is one of the problems our public schools now face. The kids act like little animals, and the teachers just have to let them. That is completely ridiculous. If you want good behavior and excellence, sometimes you must demand it.

I don't disagree with that sentiment but as ttwtt78640 was doing earlier - what you're promoting here is a change in how schools are run, not in who is running them.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Re: Ending Public Schools

The answer my friend is blowing in the wind, but not without some good old fashioned union trimming (busting?). If you divide that $5.5 billion amount by the number of living postal retirees (500,000?) that is only $1,100 per year in per person benefit expenses.

Can USPS Eliminate $5.5B Annual Prefunding Retiree Obligation?

See post #524.

 

[MaggieD]

Re: Ending Public Schools

That $25 million per day is less than one tenth of one cent per parcel/letter. USPS performance: productivity

I don't call it antiquated at all. The USPS does a great job and is pretty efficient by any standard you'd care to name. Rates from other country's mail delivery are in the link above and all of it's a good read.


Ed:
Tell Congress it's OK to approve a 42 cent stamp or drop to weekday only service and the USPS would be good to go. Congress won't do it because of elections but next year USPS will more than make up for it's shortfall this year - as do many private corporations who borrow money instead, which the USPS cannot do.

/I know, it's derailed and I'm partially at fault.

I don't think you've derailed the thread. It's fair to discuss public vs private schools using the post office as a benchmark. (We'll never take public schools private, so that discussion is a bit like masterbating.)

The fact that Congress won't approve these things is exactly the point.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Ending Public Schools

I don't disagree with that sentiment but as ttwtt78640 was doing earlier - what you're promoting here is a change in how schools are run, not in who is running them.

Actually BOTH, as one will likely NEVER happen without the other. If you leave the situation unchanged then parents have little or no say in the situation, as we see today. Once you allow the parents (and their children) to "vote with their feet" via a voucher program, then the change will be DRASTIC and IMMEDIATE as these "public/union" teachers realize that the gravy train is OVER. In order to get their cushy guaranteed "job for life" status and super benefits packages they must actually convince parents that they are better off using the public schools. This is the FIRST obstacle to getting any changes AT ALL.

If there is NO private competition (vouchers) then there is no CRISIS to cause any action. As things stand now, you get what the gov't offers you, and not a bit more, BY LAW; it is take it or leave it (but pay taxes anyway). If vouchers can be given, at say 80% of current per pupil costs, that leaves effectively a 20% "bonus" to public education for each student that opts out (takes the voucher). This SHOULD enable the creation of separate "reform schools" to deal with the "rejects" and thus help starighten out the remaining students. It is also possible to TRY to give the private market a voucher of say 120% of current per pupil costs for a "reject" student to see if there are ANY private takers for those "problem" students. At any rate, until we start an HONEST voucher program things will NEVER really change.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Re: Ending Public Schools

I don't think you've derailed the thread. It's fair to discuss public vs private schools using the post office as a benchmark. (We'll never take public schools private, so that discussion is a bit like masterbating.)

The fact that Congress won't approve these things is exactly the point.

The USPS doesn't borrow money from banks, it uses the government (that may have changed but I don't think so). The $5.6 billion it "owes" Uncle Sam is no different than IBM taking out a $5B loan with Goldman. UPS and FedEx simply can't compete because of the huge volume USPS processes each year.

To me that does not make it the same financial model as school districts. If anything school districts seem to work the opposite. Smaller districts often do as good or better than larger ones - but I don't have much knowledge of how districts are divided in other parts of the country so that may not hold everywhere.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Re: Ending Public Schools

Actually BOTH, as one will likely NEVER happen without the other. If you leave the situation unchanged then parents have little or no say in the situation, as we see today. Once you allow the parents (and their children) to "vote with their feet" via a voucher program, then the change will be DRASTIC and IMMEDIATE as these "public/union" teachers realize that the gravy train is OVER. In order to get their cushy guaranteed "job for life" status and super benefits packages they must actually convince parents that they are better off using the public schools. This is the FIRST obstacle to getting any changes AT ALL.

If there is NO priavte competition (vouchers) then there is no CRISIS to cause any action. As things stand now, you get what the gov't offers you and not a bit more BY LAW it is take it or leave it (but pay taxes anyway). If vouchers can be given, at say 80% of current per pupil costs, that leaves effectively a 20% "bonus" to public education for each student that opts out (takes the voucher). This SHOULD enable the creation of separate "reform schools" to deal with the "rejects" and thus help starighten out the remaining students. It is also possible to TRY to give the private market a voucher of say 120% of current per pupil costs for a "reject" student to see if there are ANY private takers for those "problem" students. At any rate, until we start an HONEST voucher program things will NEVER really change.

There's not a damn thing wrong with the school district where I am so your whole idea is based on crap as far as I'm concerned.

The inner-city systems have a problem and it's going to take some major work - and not just on the school system - to solve that problem. Vouchers won't do anything to solve it and neither will private schools. Many inner-city systems already have a Great! HS and a Delinquent's HS. If yours doesn't I suggest you try to change things because I think they should all have them.


Ed, As for the "pay taxes anyway" comment:
Education benefits all of society, not just those who use it. In MO everyone with property pays taxes for education, even businesses and those without children.

 

[Cephus]

Re: Ending Public Schools

The students are better educated, relative to the public school population. Private schools can solve some of the problems of public schools, simply because they aren't barred from expecting excellence and applying disclipine where needed.

That's not it at all. Public schools play by different rules than private schools, rules that are going to remain in place no matter which side ultimately takes over. The only thing private schools have going for them is that they get to hand-pick their students. If private schools took over the system, they would no longer be able to ignore the drug-addicted, gang-member, single-mother hooligans that they do today. The question is, given those inevitable circumstances, could private schools still be superior and how would they do it?

Nobody seems to be able to answer that last part, which is hardly a surprise.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Ending Public Schools

There's not a damn thing wrong with the school district where I am so your whole idea is based on crap as far as I'm concerned.

The inner-city systems have a problem and it's going to take some major work - and not just on the school system - to solve that problem. Vouchers won't do anything to solve it and neither will private schools. Many inner-city systems already have a Great! HS and a Delinquent's HS. If yours doesn't I suggest you try to change things because I think they should all have them.


Ed, As for the "pay taxes anyway" comment:
Education benefits all of society, not just those who use it. In MO everyone with property pays taxes for education, even businesses and those without children.

LOL. That is simply being SELFISH. Other systems have problems, but not yours, so YOU don't care. LOL

 

[Cephus]

Re: Ending Public Schools

I don't disagree with that sentiment but as ttwtt78640 was doing earlier - what you're promoting here is a change in how schools are run, not in who is running them.

Exactly the case. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way, the rules that we have are in place because the people wanted them there. Chances are excellent that these rules aren't going anywhere so whoever happens to end up in charge is going to have to deal with the same rules and the same kids. The question is, which side is actually, demonstrably better under the exact same conditions. Libertarians assert that it's private schools, but they simply cannot explain why without hiding behind their exclusionary policies, policies that they just won't be able to maintain in the real world.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Re: Ending Public Schools

LOL. That is simply being SELFISH. Other systems have problems, but not yours, so YOU don't care. LOL

I work and pay to keep my school system good - do you? Since you were whining earlier about paying taxes my bet is you vote against every tax increase or bond whether it benefits the school or not. I don't play that way and neither do my neighbors.


Since you didn't comment on the rest of my post I take it you agree the inner-city schools need more than just an adjustment of the school system itself?

 

[Guy Incognito]

Re: Ending Public Schools

I don't think you've derailed the thread. It's fair to discuss public vs private schools using the post office as a benchmark. (We'll never take public schools private, so that discussion is a bit like masterbating.)

The fact that Congress won't approve these things is exactly the point.

Why don't you just quit derailing the thread.

 

[Andalublue]

Re: Ending Public Schools

Of course they can't. The private sector has to, ummmm, pay their bills.

So, perhaps this is an industry in which public sector enterprise is preferable. The private sector, because of the profit motive, is incapable of providing as efficient a service to the customer as is a public sector enterprise.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Re: Ending Public Schools

The mechanism has been explained ad nauseum. If you choose to ignore that, you're just being intellectually dishonest.

I note your conspicuous lack of anything substantive to add to the discussion.

Your mechanism consists of "free choice" and "market pressure" but nothing substantive.

 

[Andalublue]

Re: Ending Public Schools

That's not it at all. Public schools play by different rules than private schools, rules that are going to remain in place no matter which side ultimately takes over. The only thing private schools have going for them is that they get to hand-pick their students. If private schools took over the system, they would no longer be able to ignore the drug-addicted, gang-member, single-mother hooligans that they do today. The question is, given those inevitable circumstances, could private schools still be superior and how would they do it?

Nobody seems to be able to answer that last part, which is hardly a surprise.

Well, that's the point Guy and friends are brutally clear about. They are saying that privately-run schools would not be forced to take the drug-addicted, gang-member, single-mother hooligans. For them universal, compulsory education would not be a requirement. They have no ideas about what to do with those that the private sector would reject. In their ideology education for all is not seen as a societal benefit.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Re: Ending Public Schools

So, perhaps this is an industry in which public sector enterprise is preferable. The private sector, because of the profit motive, is incapable of providing as efficient a service to the customer as is a public sector enterprise.

The public sector tends to provide the worst customer service, of all industries.
They aren't reliant on making the customer happy, they have a monopoly.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Re: Ending Public Schools

Well, that's the point Guy and friends are brutally clear about. They are saying that privately-run schools would not be forced to take the drug-addicted, gang-member, single-mother hooligans. For them universal, compulsory education would not be a requirement. They have no ideas about what to do with those that the private sector would reject. In their ideology education for all is not seen as a societal benefit.

You're assuming that because a school has to take a drug addict, gang member, single mother hooligan, that they're actually being educated.
Just because it's law, doesn't mean it's happening.

 

[Chiefgator]

Re: Ending Public Schools

The public sector tends to provide the worst customer service, of all industries.
They aren't reliant on making the customer happy, they have a monopoly.

A parent can opt out and put their child in A private school. Therefore, not a monopoly.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Re: Ending Public Schools

A parent can opt out and put their child in A private school. Therefore, not a monopoly.

It's still a monopoly.
Regardless of your attendance, you have to pay for it.
Incurring a greater cost, even if the service is lousy.

 

[Andalublue]

Re: Ending Public Schools

You're assuming that because a school has to take a drug addict, gang member, single mother hooligan, that they're actually being educated.
Just because it's law, doesn't mean it's happening.

No, I'm not assuming that at all. I'm posing the question, "If certain elements cannot function within the education system, who is responsible for what happens to them during those years of childhood and maturation, when the rest of society is being educated?" If you're passing over to private enterprise the potentially successful and profitable sectors of the education industry, what are you doing with the parts that will never be profitable? Currently public education (in the States and elsewhere) is not run from the profit motive but according to social objectives. Take that away and what incentive is there for the most difficult elements of society not to be consigned to the scrap-heap even before they have the chance to fail at school?

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Re: Ending Public Schools

No, I'm not assuming that at all. I'm posing the question, "If certain elements cannot function within the education system, who is responsible for what happens to them during those years of childhood and maturation, when the rest of society is being educated?" If you're passing over to private enterprise the potentially successful and profitable sectors of the education industry, what are you doing with the parts that will never be profitable? Currently public education (in the States and elsewhere) is not run from the profit motive but according to social objectives. Take that away and what incentive is there for the most difficult elements of society not to be consigned to the scrap-heap even before they have the chance to fail at school?

Social objectives are rarely met, at least like this.
Compulsory education can exist, while having the providers remain privately owned.

Having a poor kid subsidy or some kind of tax incentive, could eliminate most of this problem.

 

[Andalublue]

Re: Ending Public Schools

Social objectives are rarely met, at least like this.
Compulsory education can exist, while having the providers remain privately owned.

How?

Having a poor kid subsidy or some kind of tax incentive, could eliminate most of this problem.

A one-line suggestion does very little to allay fears that the most difficult elements of society will be simply jettisoned by the private sector.

 

[Cephus]

Re: Ending Public Schools

Well, that's the point Guy and friends are brutally clear about. They are saying that privately-run schools would not be forced to take the drug-addicted, gang-member, single-mother hooligans. For them universal, compulsory education would not be a requirement. They have no ideas about what to do with those that the private sector would reject. In their ideology education for all is not seen as a societal benefit.

They're just not dealing with reality, which is no surprise for Libertarians. It's like saying "my system is better because I just don't have to follow any of the laws that everyone else has to follow!" That's just not reality. Or better yet, "my system is better because my factories are filled with magical elves that I don't have to pay!"

I keep pointing out that they have to live in the real world, but hey, they're Libertarians, why should they start now?

 

[Fiddytree]

I have, and if you choose to ignore my response more fool you.

I will respond again. Low income and special needs students also represent a profit to be made. The reason that is not obvious today is because government is in the way, which stymies the free market for private educational services for all but he wealthiest. He government out of the picture and it is a watershed, all that demand for low cost educational services that is currently being met by government will be there, and entrepreneurs will be there to meet the demand in a way that will be far superior to the public education being offered these groups today.

Could you be any more oblivious?

Special education students are a minority. Indeed they are a potential market to be utilized, but everything you have stated thus far confirms it would be a system of failure. First off, because you start from a nearly clean slate with regard to disability rights and schools, parents have to take whatever it is the schools give them. Suppose some schools try to keep the models we already have in the public schools. While there is nothing to enforce their quality standards but the marketplace, schools being set up have little incentive, let alone mandates, to keep the standards where they remain today. A school could almost do whatever it wants with regard to special education with the weakened laws. Frequently, history of special education has taught all of us that you need strict accountability standards mandated from the top and enforced on all levels to prevent disastrous results.

Suppose we have schools which do not keep a model like we have today. They create a school in a town for all the special education students. Without the mandates there, parents have little choice but to accept what the school has to offer. There would be little reason to ask the start of the school to maintain high standards and practices, because those are costly and they are exhaustive in paperwork and man hours. Well, the marketplace should be able to address parent's needs for their disabled children, right? So they create another school which may make minimal improvement in some aspects but maybe not in others. Why suspect that the changes will be great where there is so little reason to try to do half of the stuff the Feds used to make districts do? Public institutions fought those mandates frequently early on, but those laws that we have, which you aren't interested in keeping, were interpreted by the courts to move in the favor of the parents and students with disabilities. They did it for the same reason most did: too much work, too much cost. Do you think somehow your magical private sector will be immune from the desire to cut costs rather than focus on the well-being of these kids? Please.

If a school option is not likable, what choice do the parents have other than to move away? The private sector wouldn't replicate FAPE though they may have to keep LRE. These are families that are dramatically strapped for cash,Tired of fighting for everything, and here we are operating under the assumption that your system will work itself out to be favorable for these families and their kids.

I forgot, the magical market God will make it all better. No one has ever systematically abused these kids or made them into bodies without potential.

 

[Boo Radley]

Re: Ending Public Schools

This is an old link, but pertinent to the issue (a couple of excerpts included):

U.S. Public Schools and Private Schools: Performance and Spending Compared

Because they weed out low perfomers. :shrug:

 

[Boo Radley]

Re: Ending Public Schools

Public education has morphed into liberal indoctrination so yes, it's time for the public school system to be abolished.

Yes, reality has a liberla bias. :coffeepap