Religion versus philosophy?
Sam
was given as a subject at public schools. Many wrongly see philosophy
as a subject that's only fit for bearded old men, but my view is that
you cannot start young enouygh with it. Anyway, I asked more about it,
and the reply was that, in a secular system, it makes sense to treat
the various religions as philosophies and cover all of them, including
atheism and paganism, as well as the classical greek philosophies. As
you may know, I dislike school, but if we are to have public schools,
then secularism should be taken to the next logical step and instead of
religion, philosophy is a better subject. What do the others think?
Roy Burns
was no privileged religion but representatives from a wide variety of
faiths would give a talk once a week. We also had the opportunity to
attend classes on philosophy and logic but they weren't compulsory.
The broader peoples' knowledge of both held and archaic beliefs (be
they spiritual or scientific) the better a position they should be in
to a) understand the general philosophy, history and cultural practices
of others, and b) make educated decisions for themselves.
Unfortunately I think that the reason you have schools that follow a
single religion is so that the children of deeply religious families
will not be given the choice of defecting. I understand their
conviction, all that stuff about ending up in hell sounds nasty.
Deborah
It's a big issue. Also, can religion be regarded as a subset of
philosophy? I'm sure many religious people will object, just like many
philosophers will argue that philosophy comes with a minimal level of
logic that most religions seem to lack. Philosophy asks questions,
religion gives answers and philosophy in turn questions those answers.
Of course, the perceived need for logic is in itself questioned as a
philosophical question, more specifically by epistemology which looks
at science, logic, knowledge, faith, etc. But the question remains
whether philosophy can be regarded as a basket that fits everything.
Perhaps a more neutral word is more suitable, like belief or
convictions. Is science a belief? Is social science a science or a
social study? I guess to some extent, it's hard to separate subjects
like history, society and political studies, social science and so.
Humanities are quite broad and perhaps they shouldn't be regarded as
separate subjects given in isolation, but they could instead be spread
throughout the curriculum. That is in fact what religious schools like
to do, with the note that they of course focus on a single religion. I
agree that public schools should be secular, but that does leave the
question whether secularism or humanism should be spread throughout the
curriculum. Any further views?
Sarie
keep people from defecting is rather a general statement. Perhaps it
applys to certain religions, but I feel that this was aimed mostly at
Christianity. (perhaps I am taking this a LITTLE to far, because I do
know some other religions where this is actually the case) But why
expose your children to violence and stupid lies when you can train
them in what you believe/know to be right?
I think public schools chould not teach philosophy, because this means
that the government chooses what kids ought to believe. In fact it is
already so, in SCIENCE classe they teach the very unscientific theory
(science is observable and repeatable) of evolution. (not to mention
severely flawed)
Roy Burns
goes against all logical thought. An unquestioning fundamentalist
belief in anything is severely dangerous to impress on a child in the
formulating stages of his/her development. Education is about giving
a person a variety of information for them to process and work with,
not to force them to believe in one single version of a hypothesis.
Religions are important subjects to teach because of how they have
shaped the cultures of humanity, both for good and ill. But any
education system based on conjecture as opposed to rational thought is
damaging to society, let them get their holy kicks outside of this
institution.
Philosophy has vast and contrasting avenues of belief/thought. If the
government said that all kids were going to learn was Plato, then you
would have reason to be worried, however this is not likely to be the
case.
I would also be interested to hear you views on the unscientific
components of evolution, there are obvious flaws to a number of
scientific theories but then that's because we are not omniscient and
it's a human science as opposed to a divine one, there are even more
glaring flaws in religion as I'm sure you know.
Finally I'm not aiming this at Christianity directly but at all forms
of dictatorial religion.
jrichard
I don't write this to defend Roy's words, but having gone to a
religious school and worked in their student recruiting office, I can
testify that the number one reason parents said they sen their children
to our school was to make sure they had the best chance of deepening
their connection to their faith culture. The second reason was the hope
that their child would meet and marry someone of the same faith.
I don't think this is scandalous at all. It's quite natural for parents
to want their children to have the same experiences, meet the same
kinds of people and learn the same things that they did. And religious
schools are not the only ones who capitalize on these feelings.
However, I'm afraid I have to strongly object to your second paragraph.
Philosophy defines the way in which man asks questions and seeks to
answer them. Philosophy is not something to be "believed in," in fact
it's something that each one of us uses every day, whether we know all
the terminology or figures associated with it or not.
Christianity is full of philosophy, and how different people in
different times have combined their cultural understanding of the world
with their faith defines how religion works and why it looks different
in various environments.
I think it is far better for us to understand why we live the way we do
and consult the thinkers of both the present and the past to help us
understand each other better.
And, btw, I don't remember my own science classes very well, but I do
remember being taught the difference between a theory (an organizing
system of thought) and a method (the system of test and challenges).
Theories cannot be "unscientific." Only methods can. So, unless you are
objecting to how a teacher tries to offer evidence of a theory in
class, I think scientific rigor will help children discern what they
think and believe to be true.
If something is true, then why worry about testing it?
Sarah
You are starting with the assumption that religion is illogicala nd
working out from there. This kind of bias should be admitted to rather
than pretending that you have none. But anyway we can't escape our
prejudices, can we? I myself am a Christian and look at everything
starting that way, I can't help it. Niether can philosophers escape
their prejudices. That's why I think philosophy, the whole question why
and whether we really exist. (Descartes appeared to be concerned
anyway) Philosophy is dangerous ground because it's very difficult to
teach with out taking a point of view. In math you can teach the facts
without editorializing, but to teach philosophy is a difficult thing.
But of course me being the person I am I just would like government out
of education entirely. Also I fear government schools teaching religion
because liberals (who, unfortunately tend to be the people setting the
curiculum) like to dismiss all religions as foolish superstitions or
(much, much worse) say all religions are equal. I see no glaring flaws
in religion as a whole (but perhaps we should discuss this in another
thread as we could get a ways off topic) although many religions
(including the dreadful modernized Christianity) are totally
unreasonable. I can't quite understand how it is less likely that an
all-knowing, all-powerful God created the universe, than a random event
caused something to happen, creating among other things the laws of
physics.
Deborah
its roots in the church, as opposed to philosophy in ancient Greece. At
the early universities, philosophy was one of the main subjects, next
to religion, law and medicine. Masters and scholars at that time were
usually members of the clergy, who tried hard to prove that God
existed. The hood as an academic vestment originated from the cowl worn
by medieval monks, many of whom were solicitors in the King's Court.
Professions like law, medicine and education are still restricted today
and philosophy is still regarded with suspicion, reason why many don't
want children to be "exposed" to philosophy.
Doesn't this say a lot about our education system? Are there still
schools today that are teaching that it's evil to contemplate that
earth could evolve around the sun? Interestingly again, it was
Pythagoras who already said that it did. When we talk about progress,
computers and mobile phones spring to mind. But how much progress have
we really made in humanities over the centuries?
Roy Burns
religion should be taught in schools. However I also believe that
enforcing religious practice on pupils is wrong. Religion is a
personal thing that should be up to the individual, to collect an
entire school in one room and force them to pray to a specific god, in
assembly for example, is denying them their basic freedom of choice,
which, I gather, is central to the Adam and Eve plot. I understand
that religion teaches their followers to apply their rules and lessons
in every aspect of their life (i.e. in school also), however this
should be left up to their own religious conviction and not enforced
through the school program.
jrichard
faiths with our philosophies to produce religion (which is why so many
people who believe one faith can have so many different interpretations
and religious rites surrounding it).
Better that we understand why some of us emphasize pure faith or works,
why we see our holy scriptures as inerrant or as a piece of living
literature, why we think our prophet or savior would want us to help
the poor or force them to get a job first.
It's because we don't address our differences in philosophy and culture
that we have so much trouble communicating. We should work harder to
deveelop language to help us articulate more of the "WHY" questions, if
only to better state "WHY I believe my faith is true ..."
Deborah
>Christianity is full of philosophy
I'm getting confused, jrichard. Is religion a subset of philosophy, or
is it the other way around? Should we perhaps use a different word to
capture both philosophy and religion? Belief? Convictions? Views?
Opinions? Ideas? How should a subject be called that combines religion
and philosophy? Society studies?
>Philosophy is not something to be "believed in,"
So, I take it that belief isn't acceptable to you to as such a word.
So, what word should we use?
>in fact (philosophy) is something that each one of
>us uses every day, whether we know all the
>terminology or figures associated with it or not.
If both religion and philsophy are so common, then why is it so hard to
find a word that is both philosophy and religion? Or, do you suggest
that religion and philosophy shouldn't be combined, or that philosophy
shouldn't be taught at school at all, at least not as a separate
subject?
Sam
Convictions seems a good, broad term. Perhaps too broad, as it covers
all kinds of political and social ideas and ideologies. But the way
many people preach their belief, philosophy, faith and religion often
turns out to come with a lot of political preference. So, yes, let's
stick to convictions.
One problem is that, the moment schools start to teach "convictions" as
a subject, parents will fear that this will come with political
indoctrination. How can a teacher remain neutral or unbiased in this?
How much attention should environmentalism, capitalism, paganism or
devil worship get, when something like "convictions" is a subject at
school?
jrichard
Well, one of the problems in these contemporary discussion is that we
like to wrap up our structures into neat categories, which is not
always possible.
Any society in the Western tradition can separate its view of the world
into two categories: the logos and the mythos. The logos is the
rational attempt to apply rules of logic and consistency to the way we
think and develop. The mythos is the appeal to the truths we hold to be
self-evident.
The logos takes evidence, draws conclusions about what should be and
forms a view of reality that is rather orderly. The mythos draws upon
truths handed down through culture and organizes new thoughts around
those truths. (You could probably place in a stereotype here about logo
looking forward with predictions waiting to be tested and mythos
looking to the past to make our story fit into the stories of our
forefathers).
Most of our views cannot be categorized as one or the other, for they
are a combination of the two. And neither tool answers all questions:
the universe is not so orderly that the logos can devise enough rules
to explain it all (nor can we see all things well enough to devise such
rules), and we have certainly seen the advantage of not relying solely
on mythos since our emergence from the Dark Ages.
Throughout Western history, we have struggled to incorporate these two
forces of understanding into our lives. Different countries have used
different combinations of the two and have allowed different sets of
questions to be allowed into the domain of one or other at different
times. Which is why we have so many dramatically different cultures
despite the fact that we're based on some pretty closely related
cultural themes.
You ask whether religion is a subset of philosophy or vice versa? Well,
neither. Organized religion certainly came first, but we were using
logos well before it became an organized force in our civilization.
Even religion combines both mythos and logos together to regulate
belief. We believe in the stories of our faith, but those stories exist
in a climate of changing context as our knowledge of the logos changes.
For example, though many Americans Christians like to think their
beliefs are the same as the Christians who lived in the first Century,
their cultural differences with that group make that belief more myth
than reason. In a world where darker skin was favored and having
lighter skin was cause for discrimination, where the word was thought
of as a flattened square, where disease and famine were spiritual
statements from deities removed from this earth, people simply thought
and believed differently than we do today.
But even in the first century you see one faith (the fledgling
Christianity) that looks different when it comes into contact with
different philosophies. The beliefs of Paul and Peter were strikingly
different, leading to a confrontation which created a rift between the
men that never seems to be mended. And these were two men who believed
in the same mythos. It was too new to for them not to be able to agree
on the events of their own experiences. But Paul (a Hellenized Jew
trained as a scribe) and Peter (an uneducated Palestinian Jew) had
different logos about how things worked in the world and that meant
when they applied their common mythos to reality, they came up with
different conclusions. So different that they quarreled and never
worked together again.
And fast forwarding a few centuries to the adoption of Christianity as
the official religion of Rome, the different logos of the Western and
Eastern empire led to the development of two very different religious
traditions (one resembling Catholicism and the other resembling the
Greek Orthodox church) that eventually led to the splitting of the
empire because the two structures were incompatible.
My words that you were responding to were in turn a response to a
statement that we should remove philosophy from public schools. I was
merely pointing out that we cannot. All we can do (and have done) is
removed the teaching of our core tools and assumptions that would allow
the next generation to avoid the mistakes and errors of our past. We
teach history as a series of dated events without trying to understand
what the people involved in those events believed or knew about the
world and how those beliefs and that knowledge compelled them to act as
they did.
Philosophy is not something to be believed in or not, we use
philosophy. Science is a branch of philosophy (and it is only one
narrow branch). Math is a philosophical system.
What I was arguing is that our children use philosophy when they learn
math or science, but they don't know WHY we know what we know or WHY we
believe what we believe.
And the same goes for religion. Many of us are religious, but are not
seekers of mythos. We just believe what we believe without knowing why
or how those beliefs should lead us to interact with this world.
I think philosophy and religion are needed to make sense of our world.
And I think no two people really combine the two together in quite the
same way. I think our children would learn to appreciate these
different combinations and to respect those whose different logos and
mythos lead them to different beliefs and knowledge.
So, yes, I believe that philosophy should be taught. And I actually
believe religion should be taught as well. But both subjects should be
inclusive, and therein lies the rub with most people. Christians do not
want their children to have an understanding of Islam or Hinduism, etc.
And yet, they will be asking their children to live in a world where
people of different faiths are supposed to have equal access to freedom
and liberty.
I don't see how depriving children of knowledge and experience helps
them relate to people or society better.
Deborah
which simply choose a specific religion or (as some will argue in case
of, say, Rudolf Steiner schools) philosophy. But what should be done in
public schools? Should public schools be secular, and if so, isn't
secularism or humanism spread throughout the curriculum? Or, should
public schools be abolished altogether?
jrichard
feel strongly that our government cannot support religious instruction.
However, I think a closer reading of the First Amendment reminds us
that Congress is only prhobited from passing laws that respect the
establishment of a particular religion. So, I have always thought that
public schols could offer religious training, so long as they did not
offer only one religion as a topic.
But Americans fel uncomfortable with that. We want OUR religion taught
at the exclusion of others. And if ours can't be taught, then we want
to strike down any other system that seems to compete with our beliefs
(fair is fair).
But my argument is that philosophy is not religion. Yes, secular
humanism may spread among children who have no default religious system
of beliefs. But better such children get tools to ask complex moral
questions from somewhere rather than holding them int a void.
Education itself represents a particular philosophy stemming from the
enlightenment. We can no more remove philosophy from education than we
can theology from religion.
In an ideal world, I would hope our children would be exposed to as
many different systems of belief and understanding as possible. In
their lives, they will encounter thousands of people who do not think
like they do and the future of our civilization depends on our children
reaching out to one another, not erecting walls of bigotry.
Deborah
religion and teaching a religion? Many private schools will teach
religion not in isolation but throughout the curriculum, the dress
codes, their staff hiring policy, etc. They may well inform the
students that there are other religions, pointing at various aspects of
those other religions, but without actually teaching those religions.
Instead, they will present such religions from the perspective of their
own religion.
Similarly, public schools may also give students details about specific
religions, and they will also do so from a specific perspective.
Now my question is: Isn't this perspective a specific philosophy? Call
it humanism, objectivity, secularism or whatever, but isn't there a
philosophical framework within which students are taught details of
various religions? What is the name of this philosophy? Or, is it not a
philosophy?
jrichard
teach "Here's what first century Christians believed about Jesus
Christ. And here's what medieval Catholics believed. And here's
what the leaders of the Reformation believed. And here's what the
leaders of the Restoration movement believed. And here's what
contemporary evangelicals believe. And then we should be able to do the
same for Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, the Greek Pantheon and every other
religious system that has shaped the way we think about our world
today.
And such lessons could be taught from the sociological or
anthropological perspective, which tries to weigh evidence and trends
without making value judgments. But I feel this approach would not go
over well in most American communities. The irony of our current social
contract is that we believe we should be free to choose, but that we
should limit the number of choices available to make sure we maintain
our identity.
And yes, of course such an approach has its own philosophical and
ideological foundations. They are the same biases that form the public
sphere of American society and that undergird our philosophy of
science.
But we already push this philosophy in our math and science classes,
because we recognize that without math and basic science skills, our
children will not be able to cope with their world when they are
adults. And science and math have a revered place in our hearts because
of the leftover sentiments from the cold war and the space race (and
really from WW2, if you dig deep enough). But the humanities? Not so
special.
History, social studies, literature ... all these subjects are more
controversial because what we believe about where we've been, who
else is out there and what others have written defines our identity.
And many parents do not want their children to challenge their own
identity. They just want the children in question to retain their
initial identity and pick up more skills along the way.
So what we wind up producing are scores of children who can add and
subtract, but who cannot reason through issues well enough to
contemplate how they should vote.
I will be the first to admit that our scientific approach to education
is driven by ideology, but I will also immediately point out that
should that ideology be undermined to avoid troubling questions of
human identity, those with academic integrity should realize that we
are also losing our justifications for teaching math and the "hard"
sciences the way we do.
Sam
system. The answer is it is compulsion. Period. No pretensions that
school actually was good for anything or good at anything else but
imposing dictatorial rule and teaching this. The system just seeks to
impose itself upon children and families at large. It doesn't matter
what name you give to this underlying philosophy, call it an idelogy or
religion if you like, I call it what it is: dictatorship. It's forcing
kids to go to school for the sake of it. And that's why there is no
integrity behind the education system! How dare teachers claim to be
fit to teach our children!
jrichard
servants usually get the rap for the broken parts of our society, but
they are rarely the real problem.
I admire so many teachers for struggling in a system that does not
support or reward them for their effort. I agree that the system is
broken, but the problem is not with the people in the trenches. It's
that we don't have enough people in the trenches and that we can't make
it worth the while of those who are good at what they do.
Deborah
proposed vouchers in his article, "The Role of Government in
Education," in 1951.
http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/schoolchoice/
jrichard
some communities, but the overall net effect will be condemning the
majority of inner-city underprivileged students to even less of an
education than they currently receive.
And what teacher would want to teach at a school where all the good
students have been stripped out to attend the private sector? What
becomes of the students left behind in the "no child left behind"
philosophy?
Once again, we seek a solution which will subsidize the privileged and
make the underprivileged struggle against longer and longer odds.
I think turning education over to the marketplace places the future of
our children into the hands of private interests. And I think removing
any sense of standards and oversight from the curriculum will make
American education less even, not more so.
But I see education as a necessary public good for a democracy. And I
do not mind spending my tax dollars investing in the generations to
come.
Sam
an education, if "all the good
students have been stripped out"? Are students from richer families
automatically good and poor families bad? Would the remaining students
suddenly get a worse education, if richer kids left? Do poor kids get a
better education, if there's a rich kid in the classroom?
If you argue that education at private schools is better, then
shouldn't poor kids also go to private schools? In that case, it's just
a question of money, i.e. the size of the vouchers, isn't it?
On the one hand, you seem to argue that private schools are better, or
at least desirable in the eyes of most families. But one the other
hand, you seem to argue that private schools lacked "sense of
standards" and that government "oversight" would result in better
education.
You cannot have it both ways. Either you argue that public schools
provided superior education. If that was so, then there would not be
many students leaving the system and most families would be happy to
spend their educational vouchers on public schools. On the other hand,
if private schools were better, then why not allow more kids as
possible to get such an education?
Another thing is that vouchers typically must be spent on school fees,
i.e. it is a rather restricted choice. School is not necessarily the
best choice, and by restricting the use of vouchers to schools,
religious schools are likely to end up with most of the voucher
funding, which does bring up the question again whether government
funding should focus on secular education.
Alternatively, if tutors could be hired and educational resources could
also be bought with vouchers, more choice would be available. Many more
activities could be viable, if they could be partly funded with
educational vouchers. Or why not take one further step and reduce
government's involvement in education altogether. If you are happy to
fund schools, go ahead, but why should I be forced to pay for kids to
be indoctrinated with ideas that I oppose?
jrichard
linkages between my statements that you made that did not exist in the
original text.
First of all, you seemed to indicate the criterion for students is
wealth instead of performance. But this is not what school vouchers
value. Wealthy kids already go to private schools. Vouchers are to
reallocate tax dollars to allow academic achievers to apply their
educational allotment towards private schools instead of public
schools.
If we turn our schools over to the marketplace, then they will be
subject to the same market forces that private corporations are. Thus,
as the students who are achieving above the mean are given a way out of
schools that receive a failing grade, that school is doomed to fail
with no chance of recovery. And then what? Hope a private school
decided to lower its admissions standards to allow the other 98% of the
students in?
Schools, like any complex social system, are made up of those who push
boundaries and expectations, those who ride with the mean and those who
fall below the lower boundaries and expectations. When the
overachievers are removed from the environment (and particularly an
inner urban school environment), the remaining students have not just
lost fellow classmates: they have lost a layer of the social system
that provided examples of achievement. They've lost their reminder that
they can do better.
If I can insert a sports analogy here, vouchers model the way Major
League baseball works. If a player shows promise, he or she might get
an offer to go play for the New York Yankees. And that makes the
Yankees better each year. However, what does it do to the Kansas City
Royals, the Milwaukee Brewers or the Houston Astros is every time one
of their players shows promise, he is removed from the system to play
for another team competing for the same goal.
Similarly, what does it do to a school whenever one of its academic
stars (and like small market teams, inner city schools have only a few
such stars to begin with) leaves to go to a private school? When you
judge a school by the performance of its students and then you remove
the best students to add to an already superior school, you handicap
that school in an unfair competition. And soon, our school system will
be full of perennial Kansas City Royals organizations who have no hope
of ever providing the performance of the talent-glutted New York
Yankees teams. (And worse, now we've subsidized the Yankees payroll in
the process, which is the real goal of the vouchers program).
But the students aren't the only loss. With the loss of the star
students (few though there may be to begin with), teacher retention
will drop. The teachers that serve in the harshest systems often say
they do so for the sake of the few students who have the promise to
rise above their environment and make a life for themselves. Taking
those students out would be sentencing those teachers to struggling
only with those who do not show the aptitude to receive the private
school educational admission standards. I'm sure there will be some
saints who will stick it out, but I imagine the larger group will soon
abandon those environments to seek more rewarding environments or even
more rewarding professions.
<i>On the one hand, you seem to argue that private schools are better,
or
at least desirable in the eyes of most families. But one the other
hand, you seem to argue that private schools lacked "sense of
standards" and that government "oversight" would result in better
education. </i>
Actually read my words again. I said that a lack of standards would
eventually lead to a "less even" education. Because as more and more
public schools fail, more and more lower quality private schools would
be created to react to the market demand of those students without a
school. And like with healthcare, we would wind up with a lot of newer
schools in the same situation as the dying public schools, but without
any educational standards to meet. And thus, if all students wind up in
a privatized educational system, some students (who have more money)
will receive the same great private school education that is currently
available while the majority will be preyed upon by those who use the
market opportunity to provide the bare minimum education needed to
attract the government education allotment for tuition. So, we'd have
an even less even education system, with 10% of the students receiving
a superior education, perhaps 20-30% receiving and adequate education
and the vast majority resigned to meeting the bare minimum in a system
with no standards to even apply.
<i>You cannot have it both ways. Either you argue that public schools
provided superior education. If that was so, then there would not be
many students leaving the system and most families would be happy to
spend their educational vouchers on public schools. On the other hand,
if private schools were better, then why not allow more kids as
possible to get such an education? </i>
Because, as I said, while it will help those who can escape, it will
doom those who are left behind.
<i> If you are happy to
fund schools, go ahead, but why should I be forced to pay for kids to
be indoctrinated with ideas that I oppose? </i>
Because we live in a democracy, and democracies hold as their core
value the free exchange of ideas and the ability to reason between
competing claims and ideas. We should, for the sake of our future
survival, desire that our students become familiar with many modes of
thinking, if only to understand why they oppose the ideas that you do.
Deborah
scholarship is a financial aid granted to students with excellent
academic records who come from a poor family and are unable to pay the
fees demanded by the private educational institution of their
preference. Instead of leaving the whole system as it is and granting
scholarships as an exception, vouchers constitute a fundamentally
different approach.
jrichard
admission requirements of the private institution. (After all, if too
many students entered with lower level of performance, the private
school could itself be in danger of failing, and that would not be in
their best interest. Exclusivity becomes the name of the game in the
private sector). Which means the escaping students will be meeting a
more rigorous entry standard than the nonexistent standards of public
education.
Vouchers allow some students who can cut the more rigorous standards of
privatized schooling to escape and environment that may hold them back.
And I am not disputing that this will help some students. It's the
students left behind in the failing school that concern me. What
becomes of them?
And I find it awfully inconvenient that the wealthy students currently
attending private schools will suddenly have a government subsidy for
their education. Just as we're forcing public education to compete
directly with private schooling, we handicap the public institutions
further by ensuring they will have even less resources available to
pull up their failing grades. And so, we doom the remaining kids to be
a part of a school which will be closed and then where do those kids
go? Where do the majority of students currently in poorer school
systems go?
The answer will be new private schools, but not like the ones currently
in existence. It'll be the Wal-mart version of schooling: bare
essential skills that are the cheapest to produce and that would never
be able to compete in quality with those who could afford more
expensive (department store?) educations.
For me, education is something too important to entrust to the free
market obsessed only with the bottom line (how to get the most money
out of the student allotment while spending the least on educational
resources).
Sam Carana
that each students gets as much as the other, so that families choose
how they spend that money. In comparison, students from wealthy
families aren't better off with vouchers, because they could already
afford the more expensive private schools. Vouchers mainly benefit the
poor.
Vouchers merely put more choice regarding education in the hands of
(especially poor) families. But the real problem with vouchers is that
government still decides in many ways how the money is to be spent,
e.g. by restricting the use of vouchers to specific schools. If there
are only two applicable schools and the vouchers are insufficient to
pay the fees of one of them, then indeed the vouchers don't result in
more choice, but that is because the choice is limited. It's not an
inherent problem of vouchers. Widening this choice to include more
resources and services (such as tutors, online courses and local
activities) could help.
But an even more radical (and better) move would be to reduce
government involvement in education altogether, preferably down to
zero. Of course, such a move should not come in isolation, but as part
of a comprehensive policy reform package that re-allocates activities
throughout society.
jrichard
promoted through the authors and supporters of the program. But the
reality is that having available funds doesn't guarrantee one a spot in
a private school. Are you familiar with the private school system? The
interviews? The codes of conduct? The ever-exclusionary academic
standards?
The fact is that most children who are not receiving a quality
education would not be able to enter an existing private school even if
it were completely free of charge. The money is not what makes the
private school system exclusive.
And vouchers DO help the wealthy. The kids go to exactly the same
schools, but now the parents pay less for that education. Just one more
financial benefit for the upper class, courtesy of the current
administration.
I do agree with you on your point about the disparity of private school
cost and public school cost. But that again is a design of the voucher
system: if a parent is able to take out loans to make up the difference
between the public and private education this serves as a financial
boon to the private school sector and a political win for the
administration (they begin to solve the political education problem by
killing public edcuation and removing themselves from liability).
Finally, you and I simply disagree on your radical aproach. I simply
feel that public education was the right choice in the first place,
that our society has a vested interest in ensuring our students receive
at least a minimum education and that money should not be a factor.
Yes, funding public school is and will always be a problem, but I
cannot see how throwing the majority of our children out with the dirty
bathwater is an acceptable solution.
Sam Carana
>"idea" promoted through the authors and supporters of the
> program. But the reality is that having available funds doesn't
> guarrantee one a spot in a private school. Are you familiar with
> the private school system? The interviews? The codes of
> conduct? The ever-exclusionary academic standards?
> The fact is that most children who are not receiving a quality
> education would not be able to enter an existing private school
> even if it were completely free of charge. The money is not what
> makes the private school system exclusive.
again that they're not. You cannot have it both ways. If you say that
private schools are commercial and that they take students on the
basis of fees, then vouchers would overcome the financial barriers
that are there for children from poor families. If there are few
acceptable schools in an area where large amounts of children are
waiving their vouchers, then those schools will be built there, or
more likely new management will take over an existing school that is
loosing students. But as said, I personally actually favor removal of
government from education altogether.
> And vouchers DO help the wealthy. The kids go to exactly the
> same schools, but now the parents pay less for that education.
> Just one more financial benefit for the upper class, courtesy of
> the current administration.
(or worse) off rich families will be, is just a matter of how vouchers
are implemented politically and how it all relates to tax.
> I do agree with you on your point about the disparity of private
> school cost and public school cost. But that again is a design
> of the voucher system: if a parent is able to take out loans to
> make up the difference between the public and private
> education this serves as a financial boon to the private school
> sector and a political win for the administration (they begin to
> solve the political education problem by killing public edcuation
> and removing themselves from liability).
persist with providing inferior education, then it only deserves to be
abolished! This only adds practical reality to morally and logically
superior policy.
> Finally, you and I simply disagree on your radical aproach. I
> simply feel that public education was the right choice in the first
> place, that our society has a vested interest in ensuring our
> students receive at least a minimum education and that money
> should not be a factor.
any argument other than that it's a political view.
> Yes, funding public school is and will always be a problem, but I
> cannot see how throwing the majority of our children out with
> the dirty bathwater is an acceptable solution.
the dirty bathwater, i.e. children being indoctrinated, especially
with values that are opposed to what the respective family believes
in. But this is not an argument in favor of public school, because
public school also imposes certain values. Denying that only adds
hypocrisy to the list of false values I don't like to see imposed on
children.
jrichard
again that they're not. You cannot have it both ways. If you say that
private schools are commercial and that they take students on the
basis of fees, then vouchers would overcome the financial barriers
that are there for children from poor families. If there are few
acceptable schools in an area where large amounts of children are
waiving their vouchers, then those schools will be built there, or
more likely new management will take over an existing school that is
loosing students. But as said, I personally actually favor removal of
I've said that privatizing education turns schooling over to commercial
forces. That doesn't mean the elite schools will stop being exclusive.
Why do you feel commercial entities must be non-exclusive? My desire to
have things both ways is only based on your false dichotomies.
And yes, I agree on your analysis about new schools being built or new
management teams taking over public schools (and I've made this point
twice now). When private firms, not held to public standards, take over
public schools or form new schools, the level of education administered
will be driven by market interests, resulting in the lowest possible
acceptable education possible to ensure a healthy profit margin for the
managing firm (a la my Wal-mart analogy).
You seem to understand what I'm saying without understanding the
business implications.
<i>The rich may get the same education and pay less. But how much
better
(or worse) off rich families will be, is just a matter of how vouchers
are implemented politically and how it all relates to tax. </i>
Let's see, less tuition AND less taxes for the wealthy under this
administration ... NOW you're starting to see why I stated earlier that
this plan has more to do with wealthy families than poor ones. The
poorest among us have only their education to lose and quite possibly
the cost of it (should the firm taking over a public school in a local
area charge more tuition than the government allotment, who will pay
the difference?)
<i>Well, if so many families desert public school, and if public school
persist with providing inferior education, then it only deserves to be
abolished! This only adds practical reality to morally and logically
superior policy. </i>
The democratic ideal is to protect the needs of the weak. Just because
the wealthy would prefer to get more bang for their buck does not mean
we should abandon the majority of the remaining kids to an inferior
education. Particularly not in an information economy.
> Finally, you and I simply disagree on your radical aproach. I
> simply feel that public education was the right choice in the first
> place, that our society has a vested interest in ensuring our
> students receive at least a minimum education and that money
> should not be a factor.
<i>Well, you may feel that, but you don't seem to be able to articulate
any argument other than that it's a political view. </i>
How about the cradle of democracy depending on an even flow of
information and education in order to have the critical debates to
sustain it? How about looking ahead to the next few generations and
realizing that as the majority of Americans receive less of an
education, it will not matter what improvements are made among the
upper classes because our democracy will implode.
What about the view that in an information economy, education is the
fuel that empowers people to function and move in our society?
And why can't you see that privatizing education ENSURES that money
will ALWAYS be a factor for the lower classes? And that this additional
burden will make it less likely that members of the lower class can
have the tools to contribute to society in meaningful ways?
> Yes, funding public school is and will always be a problem, but I
> cannot see how throwing the majority of our children out with
> the dirty bathwater is an acceptable solution.
<i>Of course, that's not what should be done. We should only throw out
the dirty bathwater, i.e. children being indoctrinated, especially
with values that are opposed to what the respective family believes
in. But this is not an argument in favor of public school, because
public school also imposes certain values. Denying that only adds
hypocrisy to the list of false values I don't like to see imposed on
children. </i>
Well, on indoctrination, it is our ability to reason between the truths
that we hold to be evident and resist ideas that we find morally
repugnant that makes us free men and women. Reducing the quantity and
quality of information and viewpoints flowing into our school does not
benefit the next generation, but handicaps them against knowing
themselves or knowing why they believe what their parents believe.
Knowledge and belief should be empowering tools, not sources of fear or
contempt.
My own children (should any ever arrive on the scene) will be raised to
believe as I do BECAUSE of the way their faith interlocks with the rest
of the way the world thinks, not by removing them from all exposure to
it. How else can I be assured that they will be able to cope with the
world when i am not around or even that they will have the intellectual
and moral tools to improve on their understanding past the limits of my
own?
Deborah
acceptable education"??? Why then would (and currently do) so many
families send their kids to private schools?
"abandon the majority of the remaining kids to an inferior
education"??? Do you mean publuc school?
This doesn't seem to make sense. You talk about your faith. What faith
do you have?
Sam Carana
mix of socialism and "faith" that I hate to see any children exposed
to... "morally repugnant" indeed!
However, let's look at the wider picture, rather than trying to follow
this nonsense. Let's look at the philosophy behind the education
system in general. Government's involvement in education represents a
level of coercion, compulsion and monoism that teaches the wrong
values. The more choice is taken out of people's hands, the more the
policy becomes - in one word - dictatorial. If that policy is applied
to education, then dictatorial values will inevitably be taught by
such education. Educationally and morally, it's wrong! From a narrow,
specific political view, some may be (mistakenly, IMO) perceived to
benefit, but take a bit wider perspective and it's a logistical
nighmare that is full of economically wasteful and ineffective
indoctrination! Vouchers would be a vast improvement, they benefit
poorer families who couldn't otherwise afford the education they want
for their children. But even better would be to remove government from
education altogether. There is no evidence that government is a better
teacher, in fact, families vote with their feet when given a choice!
Without government involvement in education, children would learn more
and better, AND there would be greater prosperity for all. Money that
is now wasted by government on inferior education could be spent much
more prudently, resulting in a stronger economy with more
opportunities for young people to learn and work.
jrichard
I was explaining the systems approach, what private vouchers will most
likely do to private schooling, not what exists today. The private
schools that exist today are (for the most part) superior to public
schools. But my point is that as private schools suck the talent from
the failing public schools through vouchers, the NEW private schools
that take over for these failing schools (which I labeled "Wal-mart
schools") will certainly be worse than today's private schoools and
even today's public schools.
That's what unregulated market forces do: raise the bar for the top 20%
and reduce the bottom half to the lowest common denominator.
And my faith comment was simply an observation that I view untested
faith in my children as worthless. How can I expect them to improve on
my understanding if I shelter them from the world they will have to
live in when they are no longer under my roof.
Deborah
schools be worse than other schools? Are schools necessarily bad if
they charge fees, instead of obtaining funding from government? If new
schools provided bad education, then surely parents would send their
children to other schools, won't they? That's the whole idea of
vouchers, isn't it?
jrichard
There would be no other place to send your students. If a public school
fails and a new private school were created (or a private firm stepped
in to manage a failed public school), that school would be in the same
position as the public school that failed except that the managing firm
would not be held to the same standards and regulations. That's what
you give up with private schooling: public oversight of standards and
curriculum.
Once a school becomes privitized, then the bottom line becomes the
focus for the administrators. The eternal question becomes "How can we
do this cheaper"? Because in the end, private schools are seeking to
make money.
And the real problem will be when one of these private schools "provide
bad education" (as you put it). Where are parents supposed to send them
when schooling is privitized and the only game in town is a poorer
choice than the public school that failed? We're talking about people
who couldn't afford high quality private education to begin with.
I mean, take a poor family now. If Wal-mart doesn't offer the quality
of goods and services necessary for life, what recourse do they have?
One could say "well, then they'll just shop at Dillards," but that
ignores the economics of the reason Wal-Mart has become the lower class
force that it has.
Choice is only an option for those who already have resources.
The whole idea of vouchers is to subsidize private education, not to
better educate our children. The benefots of the few would pale in
comparison to the losses of the many.
I explained all this in muych greater detail in the posts above.
Perhaps you should skim through my comments to sam.
Deborah
schools? If this was the case, then why do so many families send their
children to private schools? If a private school provided bad
education, then wouldn't it go broke and be taken over by new
management who would provide better education?
If vouchers didn't sufficiently cover the cost of education, then isn't
this just a question of the hight of funding, rather than an argument
for or against vouchers in general?
jrichard
I do feel like I'm explaining most of this for at least the second
time. I don't mind, but do read back over the previous posts, because I
answered all these questions in earlier posts.
Of course private schools have different tandards than public schools.
Public schools now have a federally regulated report card and private
schools don't.
And again, most of the private schools that exist now ARE better, but
also more exclusive. It's the private schools that will be created from
the failing public schools that are destiend to be terrible.
Vochers encourage the students who are attarctive to elite schools to
leave the publlic school system, dooming schools with the failing grade
to have no way to recover. Which means they fail and will be replaced
by private entities that are not graded or regulated by the same
standards.
And if that provate school provided bad education, by what standard
would we compare it? The government has much less say over curriculum
and standards in the private sector. There is greater opportunity for
bad private schools to exist unscathed, since the government is not
able to move in an push them around the way it can public schools.
And if vouchers don't cover the cost of education (and in a free market
system, they won't for long), then what have we done? We've created
schools that offer the lowest quality education possible that cost
parents more than they were paying in taxes in the first place.
My point is that this is a lose/lose program for the underprivileged
and those with low income to begin with. Not only will we be forcing
many Americans to pay more for less education, but the lower education
that low-income private schools will offer will not give the the tools
and opportunities to better themmselves or offer their children better
choices.
rajan Gmail
than private schools.
MoreSense
> And again, most of the private schools that exist now ARE
> better, but also more exclusive. It's the private schools that will
> be terrible. Vouchers encourage the students who are attractive
> schools with the failing grade to have no way to recover. Which
> means they fail and will be replaced by private entities that are
> not graded or regulated by the same standards.
don't want them? Is that what you are saying? Because if they have the
vouchers, why wouldn't schools take them, if they were - as you say -
only led by profits?
> And if that provate school provided bad education, by what
> standard would we compare it? The government has much less
> say over curriculum and standards in the private sector.
> There is greater opportunity for bad private schools to exist
> unscathed, since the government is not able to move in an push
> them around the way it can public schools.
held in higher esteem than public schools? Isn't this what Adam Smith
called the invisible hand of the market? If there's competiton and if
the name and reputation of the school is at stake, then would the
school not endeavor to provide good education? And what makes you
think that private schools only look at making profits? What is the
economic theory behind your assumption? Perhaps some rip-off online
scheme would offer low-quality education with the intention of getting
rich quickly, but a school isn't something that can be built up
overnight. It seems to me that rather than profits, the asset value of
investments will matter most. In the case of a school, much of the
investment is tied up for years in buildings, school grounds, the good
name and reputation of the school as an institution, having attracted
good-quality treachers and having established good relations between
staff and good relations with parents and the community at large. All
that doesn't happen overnight, but is the result of many years of hard
work. Families often have more children and will send the next kid to
the same school if it's a good school. Also, the character and
reputation of the school can influence the career and social
relationships of students for their entire life. To me, it seems that
a school is of the last places that speculators who only seek
short-term profits would invest money in.
> And if vouchers don't cover the cost of education
doesn't seem like something that's an inherent problem with vouchers
or private schools, or not?
> (and in a free market system, they won't for long),
hand ensure that prices will fall? If there's sufficient competition,
there's all the likelyhood that prices will come down. And if there's
insufficient competition, isn't competition policy in the hands of
government? It looks to me that it's up to government to implement
things well and this doesn't seem like something that's an inherent
problem with vouchers or private schools, or not?
> then what have we done? We've created schools that offer the
> lowest quality education possible that cost parents more than
> they were paying in taxes in the first place.
they will continue to do so, don't we have a better system? Aren't
these two things up to government to decide? It doesn't seem like
things that can be held against vouchers as a method, because it's
government that decides this.
> My point is that this is a lose/lose program for the
> underprivileged and those with low income to begin with. Not
> only will we be forcing many Americans to pay more for less
> education, but the lower education that low-income private
> schools will offer will not give the the tools and opportunities to
Are you saying that kids who go to private schools don't have enough
money to pay for private schools? Isn't that precisily what vouchers
are meant for, i.e. to give those who could not otherwise afford it
more choice in education? Or, are you saying that kids who go to
public schools are stupid and therefore unacceptable for private
schools? I must admit that I still don't follow your reasoning. What
economic theories are behind your reasoning?
jrichard
Then I suggest you read through the earlier postings with my name on
them. I don't mean to be rude, but I feel like I'm stating the same
points over and over whenever a new person enters the discussion.
<i>Are public school students more stupid and is that why private
schools
don't want them? Is that what you are saying? Because if they have the
vouchers, why wouldn't schools take them, if they were - as you say -
only led by profits? </i>
You are missing the division I was making between high-end and low-end
private schools. If you have ever attended a private school, you know
that each student is screened for performance and "value-added"
factors before being admitted. Exclusive schools are not going to
become less exclusive because of vouchers.
However, public schools are certainly good enough that the top 10% of
their students will likely have a good shot at getting into an elite
school. It's the remaining students who will not be able to escape
who I've been talking about when I discuss the formation of the
low-end private schools (which do not exist yet).
That's why this is such a divisive issue. Most people who want
vouchers are thinking about <i>their</i> kids, assuming that they will
be the ones to escape to a better education. But if vouchers destroys
the system, many more will be left behind to an inferior education.
But if you think your kids are the ones escaping, why do you care what
happens to the system?
<i>Well, if that was the case, then why are private schools generally
held in higher esteem than public schools?</i>
Because, as I keep having to state over and over, there is a difference
between the elite exclusive schools of today and the "Wal-mart"
low-end schools of tomorrow. Try to understand the distinction.
<i> Isn't this what Adam Smith called the invisible hand of the
market? If there's competiton and if the name and reputation of the
school is at stake, then would the school not endeavor to provide good
education? </i>
Well, critics of Adam Smith point to the roots of the Great Depression
as evidence that the market is not completely self-correcting. Private
industry must have a healthy financial line to survive and that will be
it's primary compelling interest.
Since that moment in our history, we have lived with the assumption
that markets, personal finance and education must be regulated to some
degree to keep the market from collapsing due to irresponsible
behavior.
We've moved beyond Adam Smith, though I understand why libertarians
and social conservatives see the freedom in his views to be attractive.
<i>And what makes you think that private schools only look at making
profits? </i>
Having received a private education at the university level (and having
been a part of the administration and recruiting effort), I simply know
the pressures that non-government funded school face.
<i>What is the economic theory behind your assumption? Perhaps some
rip-off online
scheme would offer low-quality education with the intention of getting
rich quickly, but a school isn't something that can be built up
overnight.</i>
Actually they can and will. Since not everyone has the same
transportation resources, not everyone has the same choices. Which
means at least some will be forced to attend local schools regardless
of their quality. And that will be too tempting an opportunity for some
forms to create HMO or Wal-mart type schooling.
<i> It seems to me that rather than profits, the asset value of
investments will matter most.</i>
For some, yes. For some, just getting access to those tuition dollars
will be incentive enough to hold costs down and make an immediate
profit.
<i> In the case of a school, much of the
investment is tied up for years in buildings, school grounds, the good
name and reputation of the school as an institution, having attracted
good-quality treachers and having established good relations between
staff and good relations with parents and the community at large. </i>
Which sounds good, but most private high schools (with the exception of
elite prep schools and high-dollar schools) invest mainly in capital
investments and grounds, since there are obvious tax incentives to do
so. I have more friends making less money teaching at private schools
than at public schools.
And vouchers will be creating more of these lower-end schools, not the
higher ed schools.
<i>All
that doesn't happen overnight, but is the result of many years of hard
work. Families often have more children and will send the next kid to
the same school if it's a good school. </i>
Unless they have no choice? For most urban families, the choice will be
whatever is within range. PERIOD.
Freedom of choice is a freedom reserved for those who can afford that
freedom.
<i>Also, the character and
reputation of the school can influence the career and social
relationships of students for their entire life. To me, it seems that
a school is of the last places that speculators who only seek
short-term profits would invest money in. </i>
Spoken like someone who doesn't follow education politics. Are you
kidding? Private industry is CONSTANTLY trying to extract short-term
profit from education though technology, administrative infrastructure
and services and textbooks.
Private industry is one of the reasons why public education continues
to become more and more expensive every year.
<i>That's just a question of the hight of the vouchers, isn't it? This
doesn't seem like something that's an inherent problem with vouchers
or private schools, or not? </i>
But for many Americans who cannot afford to squeeze one more item in
their monthly budget, public school is the only option to ensure their
children receive any kind of education at all. Giving them the current
allotment and sending their kids to more expensive schools
(particularly schools that will likely be inferior to the public
schools in the first place) seems to be a rather cruel thing to do to
the lower classes.
<i>Why would the price of education go up. </i>
Because private schooling is more expensive. Do yourself a favor and
survey the cost of current private schools. Private schools are more
directly tied to the competitive marketplace and so go through the same
operating expenditure increases that private firms in other industries
do.
So even if vouchers somehow miraculously covered private schooling in
the early years, inflation and rising operating costs would soon send
tuition rates up much higher than the current tax allotment given to
public schools.
Unless you are suggesting that our government is somehow going to
increase that allotment to keep pace with demand? This would be
impossible, because if not, they could simply give more to public
schools in the first place.
<i>Doesn't Adam Smith's invisible
hand ensure that prices will fall?</i>
Yes, assuming fair competition, low cost of entry and a stable rate of
confidence. But the future of our childrens' education is a lot to
risk on all these variables remaining constant.
<i> If there's sufficient competition,
there's all the likelyhood that prices will come down.</i>
That's a big "if." And I would remind you that the only way two
schools competing in a cost war could reduce prices would be to reduce
overhead by reducing the quality of services.
Which sounds fine for consumer goods, but when you're talking about a
child's education ....
<i> And if there's
insufficient competition, isn't competition policy in the hands of
government? It looks to me that it's up to government to implement
things well and this doesn't seem like something that's an inherent
problem with vouchers or private schools, or not? </i>
By turning the system over to private industry, the government is
taking LESS responsibility, not more. Why would you think the
government would dismantle public education and then become a staunch
administrator of private schooling?
<i>But, on the other hand, if vouchers sufficiently cover costs and if
they will continue to do so, don't we have a better system? </i>
Actually, no. Public schools are held to government regulations.
Private schools are not. Since the market determines the income of the
private school, the market forces drive more of the decision-making. So
we will have regulated the classroom to a series of cost/benefit
analyses.
Should we spend twice as much on the latest book or technology or save
millions by using older books. Public schools are required to upgrade
periodically, private schools are not. If managing the cost of
schooling were easy, then we wouldn't be having this debate.
<i>Aren't
these two things up to government to decide? It doesn't seem like
things that can be held against vouchers as a method, because it's
government that decides this. </i>
Except vouchers turn over the regulation to the market.
Read your Adam Smith. The reason he believed in free markets is because
of the non-interference of political or social institutions.
<i>Are you saying that kids who go to private schools don't have enough
money to pay for private schools? Isn't that precisily what vouchers
are meant for, i.e. to give those who could not otherwise afford it
more choice in education? </i>
My point was that the reason why so many go to public school is because
they cannot afford private schooling. Private schooling is more
expensive, because it is more expensive to run and maintain. Vouchers
may cover the equivalent of public school tuition, but private
schooling is simply more expensive than public schooling.
So, while vouchers will greatly subsidize private education, they will
not cover it. And the gap created will still be a problem for
lower-class Americans.
<i>Or, are you saying that kids who go to
public schools are stupid and therefore unacceptable for private
schools?</i>
Actually, this is appoint I was making to suggest that only the top
public school students will be competitive candidates for exclusive
private schools (the ones everyone agrees offer a better education than
public schools). The remainder will be stuck without public schooling
as an option (since their school will not be able to improve upon its
failed status without its best students), and will be going to less
strenuous, less exclusive schools.
So, once again, for a few, vouchers will be a ticket to a better
education. But for most, it will diminish both the education they
receive and the available money they have to spend on that education.
<i> I must admit that I still don't follow your reasoning. What
economic theories are behind your reasoning? </i>
Have you read George A. Akerlof or Joseph E. Stiglitz? Their theories
on the analysis of markets with asymmetrical information? I think these
theories apply directly to education, since the educators (those who
understand how education works) are not the ones making the choices on
vouchers.
Or maybe Kenneth Arrow's work on economies of choice and welfare?
Any of these would be more informative for this issue than Adam Smith.
MoreSense
were cheaper. Surely, if this was the case, the logical result of this
assumption was that entire sectors like retail and tourism (to give
but two examples) should be run by government, along communist lines.
But in fact, I see no support for such a view among economists nor
among politicians. Even the old communists in Russia and China agree
that private enterprise can provide services cheaper than government.
I can only conclude that you have no argument.
Sam
jrichard
exchanges and no answer to the points I raised? I find that rather
problematic.
And maybe this is a matter of grammar. Even a conspiracy theorist with
no evidence has an argument. It may not be respected or accepted, but
it is still an argument.
Regardless, my view does not "come down to the assumption that public
services were cheaper." This has never been about cost. My point was
that private schooling for the lower classes will be of poorer quality,
not that it will be more expensive. I do think it will COST more to
the poor members of society, but that doesn't mean the operational
costs of private schooling will be more expensive than public
schooling.
I'm beginning to wonder how many economics and/or management classes
you've had.
Comparing industries in our market to a closed closed communist system
is worse than apples and oranges. In every capitalist society, there
are some social goods and services that are supported at the commercial
layer, some at the infrastructure layer and some at the governmental
layer. In a communist system, you strip away the commerce later,
pushing all of the goods and services into the infrastructure and
governmental layers. This has a systemic effect of making none of the
layers or individual industries comparable to the corresponding layers
in a capitalistic system. Systems need to be judged as a whole, or else
you are ignoring a lot of internal variables.
And besides, I never made the argument that all of education should be
run by the government. I only suggested that it is a good thing that
the government continue to ensure that the lower classes have access to
a basic standard of education supported by tax dollars.
Forgive me, but now I'm beginning to wonder how many classes you've had
in philosophy, logic, forensics, speech or debate. You seem to be
wildly applying the limited statements I have made to broader concepts
and arguments that I have not. Nor have you addressed the points I have
raised nor explained why you think differently. Instead you boiled up
my position into a straw man position, one not even supported by a few
of my arguments or positions, and have knocked it down with an
unrelated sweeping generalization.
And further, saying "I see no support for such a view among economists
nor among politicians" is unhelpful at best without stating what
education you've had, what information resources you have at your
disposal or what critical expertise you are bringing to bear that gives
you the authority to make what you see a significant body of evidence
for me to consider. And just for the sake of argument, let me point out
that there remain to this day economists and politicians who believe in
the communist ideal. They aren't OUR ELECTED politicians and we
certainly don't employ many such economists, but that doesn't mean they
don't exist. And again, it might help if the position you were
attributing to me were consistent with the statements and positions
I've made, rather than the ones you wished I'd made.
If you don't want to discuss this topic further that is fine. Simply
telling someone they have no argument when you've neglected to address
their positions and statements is approaching intellectual dishonesty.
MoreSense
cost vouchers more to the poor?
> And besides, I never made the argument that all of education
> should be run by the government. I only suggested that it is a
> good thing that the government continue to ensure that the
> lower classes have access to a basic standard of education
> supported by tax dollars.
education should be supported by tax dollars isn't an argument against
vouchers. It's those kind of comments that make me conclude that you
haven;'t got an argument. You may have a view, but it's empty, it's
based on circular rhetoric. You assume that government was better in
providing that service and when you're asked to come up with arguments
why it was better, you come up with financial concerns. So, I can only
conclude that you insist that government could somehow provide
education for the poor cheaper than private enterprise, yet you fail
to come up with any reason why this would be the case. Hence, you have
no argument.
All you seem to have is a political view. Of course, you're entitled
to have a political view and express it. But why I ask you to argument
your case, you seem to go round in circles. Surely, that doesn't help
the case of public education, it merely seems to confirm that only
advocates of vouchers seem able to come up with arguments, research
and statisctics, as you can find at:
http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/schoolchoice
jrichard
How can you not understand the difference between cost and expense and
complain about the way I discuss economics? In our society we pay far
more for everything than the actual expense. My argument has been that
as social services are privatized, the expenditures of the system
decrease while the costs to the consumer, after an initial decrease,
will soar for the lower classes. We have seen this play out in
healthcare. We have seen this in research. We have seen it in the
deregulation of banking and creditors. We are about to see it in social
security and in schooling.
Private corporations are always easier and cheaper to manage than
public ones. But they have greater earning power and since they have
the right to make a profit, the costs to consumers will always be
higher than public services.
Here's what will happen: when a school fails, the parents of the
students will receive their share of the tax allotment for education to
apply towards private tuition (and these students will receive better
education, though it will cost more for the parents, since the private
schools that now exists are more expensive than public school). Some
will use this money to escape to better private schools, but not many.
Many will simply not be able to meet the admission requirements of the
private schools.
Whenever a market for unused resources appear, we see a new class of
services emerge, in this case, lower-cost private schooling run by
networks of business firms (much like the HMO services in our
healthcare system). At first, this might actually be an improvement
over the failed school environment (and there will probably be
government grants and tax breaks to allow some of these firms to get up
and running). However, as the costs of maintaining technology,
educational resources and facilities increases (as it has for public
schooling, to say nothing of simple inflation and changes to the cost
of operation indexes), the healthy bottom line that was originally so
easy to achieve will be threatened and the firms will be forced to
either reduce their services or increase their tuition, and most will
probably be forced to do both.
So, yes, I use financial models to argue that private schools tend to
offer less of a quality education (per dollar spent) because if it's
more expensive to maintain the educational resources and the company is
seeking a profit, the program quality will be the natural area of
sacrifice. Those forms would not be honoring their shareholders if they
failed to maximize profits.
This is economics 101.
It will certainly be less expensive for private firms to hold down
costs than it is for public schools (after all, they would have fewer
government standards to meet, freedom from standardized curriculum and
the market would set the pay of teachers instead of an officiating
district board). But these savings are at the cost of the quality of
resources and educational programming.
Additionally, it will cost the poor more to go to school (they were
paying nothing). As tuition rates are raised and the allotment from the
government does not change, they will have to bridge the gap.
There was a interesting piece in the New York Times this morning about
privatized healthcare in prisons. It delves into many of the same
forces that private services face.
When public services begin to drain on our economy there is always a
desire by some to reduce the amount of tax support for these programs.
But it rarely can be done without a cost to the quality of the program
in question and private firms always charge more from the lower classes
than the government does.
And BTW, since you love to demand more sourced material from me before
considering my arguments, do you possess any information that DOESN'T
come from the Friedman Society's Web site? That was where we began this
discussion several posts ago.
You asked me for economic sources and theory and I provided you with
sources from George A. Akerlof, Joseph E. Stiglitz, and Kenneth Arrow.
And have you read them? Why are all of these views wrong?
And why exactly don't these views count as argument that you don't
consider "empty"? You've certainly not offered this much in support of
your own views ...
MoreSense
bad service. But you cannot be seriously suggesting that private
enterprise therefore was bad. You may hold this as a political view,
but I don't know any serious economist who suggested that. Any basic
introduction into economics will tell you that, if one firm fails,
then it's good practice that another firm takes over. There's nothing
intrinsically bad with that, in fact, that's how things work and
should work.
The very idea of vouchers is that poor families can get exactly the
same vouchers as richer families. Nevertheless, who receives vouchers
can be decided politically (e.g. means-tested). If a family cannot
find adequate education in their area, then government may further
differentiate funding levels, e.g. according to geographics. The level
of funding and all this is up to government to decide and this can be
varied in accordance with the chosen implementation policy of
vouchers.
But how the vouchers should be spent, that should be up to the family.
If what you seem to be suggesting was true, i.e. that government
provided services cheaper than private enterprise, then surely public
schools would be far more popular than private schools. After all, why
spend your vouchers at a private school, if you can get better
education for the same price at a public school? Conversily, why spend
more of your allocated voucher at a private school, if you could get a
better education at public school for a lower price? That would still
leave some of your voucher to get additional tutoring as well! Even if
we did take your unsubstantiated view serious, it still was no
argument not to go ahead with vouchers.
jrichard
It still amuses me how my view is "unsubstantiated" when yours is built
around less evidence, less argument and more ideological opinion.
So, let me pause and simply critique this response for a moment:
<i>Sure, there are anecdotal incidences where some private firms
deliver
bad service. </i>
Wait, so there's anecdotal evidence? So you're admitting that there's
more than just "a political opinion" behind my views?
<i>But you cannot be seriously suggesting that private
enterprise therefore was bad.</i>
Again with the "bad." Half the time, I don't even understand what it is
that you think I'm saying. I give you some examples of how services
have declined after being privatized, which supports my view that
privatizing the public school system will likely lead to a reduction in
standards, quality and consistency.
So if I'm arguing that this is what I mean by "bad," then isn't it
possible that I AM seriously suggesting that like these other
privatized public goods, education will undergo a similar
transformation? And that this transformation will be due to the
introduction of market forces into our schools?
Why is this an invalid view in your eyes?
And just so you don't arbitrarily throw in a "you have no evidence or
support" claim again, how about you review some of the literature
posted in Google's own directory of view opposing vouchers:
http://directory.google.com/Top/Society/Issues/Education/School_Choice/Opposing_Views/
Maybe if you spend some time trying to understand better why so many
people oppose vouchers, you may at least be more open to considering
their views before writing them off as merely "political."
<i> You may hold this as a political view,
but I don't know any serious economist who suggested that. </i>
Other than the three NOBEL WINNING economists I've mentioned? You still
haven't told me why they've been discounted.
Part of the problem is the way you phrase the conclusions, which make
them sound more like dismissive judgments than thoughtful conclusions.
"I don't know any serious economist that supports that"? Which makes me
think you may simply not know any economists. Or that you simply think
the economists that disagree with your view are not "serious" for some
reason.
Regardless of your specific meaning, you still have not explained why
you are in a position to judge what exists in the field of economics,
why you should be the authority on which economists are "serious" and
which are not and why your vision of the evidence is superior to my
own.
If you are a "serious" economist yourself, I wish you'd reveal that, so
that I can begin to understand what it takes to be considered a
"serious" economist (although, your misunderstanding the differences
between costs and expenditures earlier might damage my confidence in
your judgment of the field of economics).
Why do you sweep my arguments and positions aside (and worse calling
them "political," when you know nothing of my politics) without
addressing them or taking issue with their merits?
I suggest you go to wikipedia.org and search for education vouchers.
Wikipedia is non-partisan and is typically very good at portraying both
sides of an argument. You will probably find references to many of the
economists who have spoken against vouchers.
In fact, just do a Google search of the term "cream skimming," the
economic term coined to describe the problem of removing the brightest
students from a failing school.
Maybe when you find economists that oppose vouchers who you can judge
"serious" we can actually talk about the issue intelligently.
<i>Any basic
introduction into economics will tell you that, if one firm fails,
then it's good practice that another firm takes over. There's nothing
intrinsically bad with that, in fact, that's how things work and
should work. </i>
Well, we could argue all day about all the "shoulds" of a system.
"Should" is ideology.
But, I am not disagreeing that in the open market if one firm fails
another will emerge. What I've been saying is that in this process
there is always value lost to the consumer. The way new firms survive
the pitfalls of previous failures is to reduce the expenditures of the
operations while finding a way to charge more to their consumers.
Which is fine when we're talking about the quality of beef in a
hamburger (well, that's not actually fine, but it has nothing to do
with our discussion) or the workmanship in an automobile, but when we
are talking about the future ability of our children to reason and
contribute to our democracy, it's a different picture. Loss of value
for the sake of saving a few bucks in this case has the potential to
pay back horrible dividends to our civilization. To say nothing of
being of being unduly harsh to those at the bottom of society by
reducing their potential to better themselves.
My argument has been that market forces will not make education
"better" for most people. I define "better" as less expensive and
higher quality. For most people, education will become more expensive
and they will see a reduction in the quality of programming.
<i>The very idea of vouchers is that poor families can get exactly the
same vouchers as richer families. <i>
And yet, poor people have less of an ability to spend beyond that
allotment than rich people. So most of them will be forced to spend
that same amount, for if they had more money they would not be poor.
<i>Nevertheless, who receives vouchers
can be decided politically (e.g. means-tested). If a family cannot
find adequate education in their area, then government may further
differentiate funding levels, e.g. according to geographics. The level
of funding and all this is up to government to decide and this can be
varied in accordance with the chosen implementation policy of
vouchers. </i>
This is the pipe dream of the vouchers model that I find most
fantastic. Do you really think that as costs to the consumer raise over
the years that the government is going to increase the educational
allotment to track with market forces? Do you think if the government
agreed to do this that the private school supply market wouldn't
continue to raise the costs of program delivery to increase their
profits as the government increases the allotment?
And if you are willing to put the funding burden back onto the
government, why destroy public education in the first place? Why not
ensure that there is a basic minimum of education available to those
who cannot afford private education directly?
<i>But how the vouchers should be spent, that should be up to the
family.
If what you seem to be suggesting was true, i.e. that government
provided services cheaper than private enterprise, then surely public
schools would be far more popular than private schools. </i>
Take a look around. There are more children in public schools than
private schools. My argument is that once you cripple a public school
by forcing it into a non-competitive state, there will no longer be a
choice. Those with the fewest choices already will no longer have a
public schooling option to choose.
<i>After all, why
spend your vouchers at a private school, if you can get better
education for the same price at a public school? <i>
Because by definition, if you qualify for vouchers, it means you have
been in a school that has been deemed "failing," and now is pretty much
guaranteed to fail as the elite students bail out for the private
sector. Which will lead to a teacher exodus from the school, which will
reduce programming and eventually resources ... why do you act like
this is a matter for an open marketplace? That would only be true if
students themselves all had the same financial resources and ability to
travel to wherever the best "deal" was located.
For the majority of public school families, these choices will not be
available.
<i>Conversily, why spend
more of your allocated voucher at a private school, if you could get a
better education at public school for a lower price?</i>
If they had a choice by then, they wouldn't. But the effect of the
vouchers on a public school will cripple it, ensuring that it will not
survive as a valid competitive option.
<i>That would still
leave some of your voucher to get additional tutoring as well! </i>
So you still think that giving a family a voucher representing what
their current tax allotment is and sending their child to a more
expensive (to the consumer) school will leave money left over for
tutoring?
<i>Even if
we did take your unsubstantiated view serious, it still was no
argument not to go ahead with vouchers. </i>
You mean even if you did listen to opposing views rather than
prejudging them as irrelevant you still think the argument would not
affect your decision? Wouldn't you have to engage the argument before
you can determine that?
Or is it your habit of proceeding with dramatic economic and social
change without considering the view of those who oppose them?
I think this example of double-talk encapsulates exactly what I find
irritating about your posts on vouchers: "I won't consider your view
valid, but if I did, it would not change my mind." Hardly a logical
position to start the inquiry into one's one views.
Sam Carana
making it rather awkward for them to discuss other political views
(e.g. those contained in specific religions, philosophies and
ideologies). It's a textbook case of conflict of interests. Just like
we cannot expect a catholic school to give a good pagan education. Of
course, the apologists for the, such as jrichards, will argue that
there was no good pagan education to start with, they will argue that
paganism is inherently bad. But anyone who really thinks matters
through will recognize the problem. Just like catholic schools cannot
be expected to give a pagan education, public schools are unable to
adequately cover the wide range of religions, philosophies and
ideologies, because they themselves have a very specific political
agenda.
The worst thing in this discussion is that there are some people (yes,
like jrichard) who seek to fool others by cloaking their obviously
biased views in pseudo-science and by administering their
indoctrination by stealth. This basic dishonesty is just another
reason why public schools are inherently more expensive than private
schools, i.e. there's the added cost of deprogramming these poor
children who have been forced to subject themselves to indoctrination
from a young and impressionable age. It can take many years before
school-leavers can become employable, but that still means they have
been denied the education they could have had, while society as a
whole has been impregnated with bad moral values. If we also take the
latter two into account, public schools do immeasurable damage.
jrichard
You are full of the personal attacks today. And thanks for offering yet
another post that doesn't address my arguments but sweeps them away
indiscriminantly.
<Public schools do represent and reflect a specific political view,
making it rather awkward for them to discuss other political views
(e.g. those contained in specific religions, philosophies and
ideologies). >
Actually, public school represents the ideals from several specific
political views, just as positions that school should be privatized
represent several specific political views. I have never claimed that
politics is not a part of this discussion. What I was pointing out is
that my views were not "simply political" in the way that
Moresense/Deborah was charging.
Her claim was that my view was ONLY ideological and political, that I
had no logic and no reason behind my position. And I was explaining how
such a declaration was an overgeneralization and a double-standard.
Particularly since I have provided many more sources and many more
justifications for my position than Moresense/Deborah had.
I'm not claiming that you or that person must agree with me. I'm just
claiming that you should respect my position and arguments enough to
argue on their merits and not simply brush them aside as "political."
Or worse, "unsubstantiated" in the face of all the logical arguments
and sources that I provided to support my position.
In terms of your assessment that public schools do represent a
political agenda, I agree to a point (and we actually agreed on this
point earlier in this thread if you recall). In our quest to make
public school de-politicized, we have scrubbed much of the critical
knowledge-building subjects from it. Students in public school are not
given the tools they need to understand religion, culture, ideology or
even history. And this is a real problem.
Where I dissent with you and Deborah/Moresense is that I do not believe
using tax dollars to fund privatized education will improve this
situation. There are many private schools that are just as bad as
public schools at not preparing students to think critically about our
world. And while it is true that students who have attended elite
private high schools seem better prepared to address these needs in
college, there are plenty of students from non-elite high schools who
seem to be worse off than the publicly educated students. And (as I've
stated again and again), I do not believe that the majority of students
you and Deborah/Moresense wish to remove from public education will
escape to elite private schools. They simply won't have the money
needed to pay for the higher tuition and most of them will not meet the
entry standards.
<It's a textbook case of conflict of interests. Just like
we cannot expect a catholic school to give a good pagan education. Of
course, the apologists for the, such as jrichards, will argue that
there was no good pagan education to start with, they will argue that
paganism is inherently bad. >
Actually, I'm not sure you know me or my arguments well enough to put
words into my mouth. As I have said before, I have NO PROBLEM with
religious or ideologically driven education. Most of us prefer that
those forces be relegated to the private sphere (the home), but I do
not share this view.
I think students can receive a religious education or a secularized
education and be prepared to function in our world. What they need are
the critical tools needed to understand what our society believes and
why they should believe what they've been raised with. They need
communication skills, thinking skills and reasoning skills.
<But anyone who really thinks matters
through will recognize the problem. Just like catholic schools cannot
be expected to give a pagan education, public schools are unable to
adequately cover the wide range of religions, philosophies and
ideologies, because they themselves have a very specific political
agenda. >
Amen, and I agree. My recent arguments have been about the QUALITY of
our education, not the topics. I think in this day and age we should
realize that understanding religion and ideology are extremely
important for everyone. I think the problem with public schooling has
been the obsessions with a superficial political correctness that is
itself incorrect.
I just don't think private schools are the somehow the garden of Eden
by comparison.
<The worst thing in this discussion is that there are some people (yes,
like jrichard) who seek to fool others by cloaking their obviously
biased views in pseudo-science and by administering their
indoctrination by stealth. >
And why are my views biased while yours are not? This is the
intellectual dishonesty I find so irritating. You guys (and I'm
generalizing from both your behavior and Deborah/Moresense, forgive me
if I fail to distinguish between you) ask for evidence, I provide
sources and arguments. Then you claim I have no argument without
addressing the arguments I offer or even explaining why you refuse to
address them. You both build up ridiculous positions that I do not hold
so that you can strike them down with ease.
I have sensed that I agree much closer to Sam than Deborah/Moresense,
but then Sam will rush to defend that person's bad behavior (and on
points that don't seem to mesh on what I thought he had said earlier)
and I wonder if I haven't been mistaken.
Deborah, why are the economists that I have cited not "serious"?
Sam, why is my evidence "pseudo-science"?
<This basic dishonesty is just another
reason why public schools are inherently more expensive than private
schools, i.e. there's the added cost of deprogramming these poor
children who have been forced to subject themselves to indoctrination
from a young and impressionable age. It can take many years before
school-leavers can become employable, but that still means they have
been denied the education they could have had, while society as a
whole has been impregnated with bad moral values. If we also take the
latter two into account, public schools do immeasurable damage. >
Well, I have seen no evidence presented to support the claim that
public schooling produced more immoral students than private schools.
Perhaps you'd care to explain why you think this?
My critiques have been that cramming kids from a bad public school into
a bad private school actually makes the situation worse, since there
are fewer regulations on the private schools and less that can be done
to measure or correct for failings in the system.
In my view, there are good public schools and good private schools and
the students who attend these are receiving the best chance to
contribute to the future of our society.
I do not believe (as Sam does) that ideology is a problem only for
public schooling. Yes, I think that we hold public schooling to a
different standard in the hope of de-politicizing and not challenging
the values and beliefs of out students (and I think we fail at that
effort). And I think that effort has a tremendous cost to the
curriculum and the skills offered to our students.
But I interact with students from both private and public backgrounds
on a daily basis. Few of them have been prepared to think through
complex issues, and the ones who have seem to have done so on their own
or with help from their families.
Private schooling will not save American education. Teaching how to
cope with competing ideals and views without becoming hysterical or
attacking the person holding an oppositional view is what we need for
democracy.
Deborah
> do represent a political agenda, I agree to a point
> (and we actually agreed on this point earlier in
> this thread if you recall). In our quest to make
> public school de-politicized, we have scrubbed
> much of the critical knowledge-building subjects
> from it. Students in public school are not given
> the tools they need to understand religion,
> culture, ideology or even history. And this is a
> real problem.
Your use of the word "we" is disturbing. Is this a royal "We" to add
more volume to your personal view? Or, are you implying that advocates
of vouchers co-wrote the public school curriculum? Or, are you saying
that, if a decision is taken by majority vote, it was therefore above
politics and was suddenly an economic truth? Isn't this another example
of intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy towards your self-declared
advocacy of critical thinking? Why advocate critical thinking, yet stop
with criticism if it's a public service?
> Where I dissent with you and
> Deborah/Moresense is that I do not believe using
> tax dollars to fund privatized education will
> improve this situation.
Vouchers do, because they allow parents to choose the school they want,
which inherently comes with critical thinking. Public school, on the
other hand, inherently discourages critical thinking.
> They simply won't have the money needed to pay
> for the higher tuition and most of them will not
> meet the entry standards.
There we go again. Vouchers are precisely meant to do that, to allow
parents who couldn't otherwise afford this to send their children to
the school of their choice. You may argue that there were some kids
that could still not afford it, but this is effectively saying that
public services are cheaper than private enterprise. If you are saying
that government was inherently cheaper than private enterprise, then I
can only conclude that this was nonsense as an argument, but perhaps
valid as a political view. And even politically, the staunchiest
communist will admit that private enterprise can deliver at lower
prices! Even the most machiavellian dictator will privately admit to
seek power for his own gratification.
The problem with your rhetoric is that you're playing one non-argument
out against the other. When I explain that private enterprise is
cheaper, you switch to another non-argument by saying it's not price
but quality that mattered. Instead of money you switch to entry
standards. So, what are you saying? That public school students were
stupid or badly-educated? If the latter is the case, then this would
just be another argument against public school. In any case, you are
not adding argument in favor of public school.
Then, as discussed, you switch to yet another non-argument, i.e. that
the private schools weren't there. Of course, it will not happen
overnight. If there weren't enough schools, but there was sufficient
demand, then those schools will come. That's how the market works.
Again, you have no argument. You may insist that market forces are bad,
but that's just a (weird) political view.
jrichard
> In terms of your assessment that public schools
> do represent a political agenda, I agree to a point
> (and we actually agreed on this point earlier in
> this thread if you recall). In our quest to make
> public school de-politicized, we have scrubbed
> much of the critical knowledge-building subjects
> from it. Students in public school are not given
> the tools they need to understand religion,
> culture, ideology or even history. And this is a
> real problem.
<Your use of the word "we" is disturbing. Is this a royal "We" to add
more volume to your personal view?>
The "we" simply means that I accept responsibility for the society in
which I pay taxes and vote. Nothing more.
<Or, are you implying that advocates
of vouchers co-wrote the public school curriculum?>
Actually, it would be more logical to conclude that I was saying that
the opponents of vouchers co-wrote the school curriculum, but I wasn't
saying that either. We are all responsible for what is decided in the
public sphere. That's democracy.
<Or, are you saying
that, if a decision is taken by majority vote, it was therefore above
politics and was suddenly an economic truth?>
Not at all, nor would such a position be reasonable. If we took a
majority vote, I think the issue would by definition be about politics.
My irritation with your charges of "mere politics" was that you were
refusing to acknowledge the sources I presented (which you asked for,
as I recall).
By the way, how's that reading coming?
< Isn't this another example
of intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy towards your self-declared
advocacy of critical thinking?>
Hmmn. I'm trying to make sense of this, but as I read my own words I
read only that I have said Sam's frustration with public schools has
some grounds and is based upon a "real problem."
I don't think Sam is wrong for being unhappy with public schooling, I
just think we disagree about what should be done about the problem.
< Why advocate critical thinking, yet stop
with criticism if it's a public service? >
Actually I haven't. In fact, in the paragraph above, I criticized it.
I'm beginning to wonder if we're reading the same words.
I absolutely believe that public education should be subject to
critique and judged by standards. That's actually why I prefer that
public education continue to exist: because it CAN be critiqued and
held to a public standard. If you look back over my previous posts, I
think you'll find I've said this more than once before.
> Where I dissent with you and
> Deborah/Moresense is that I do not believe using
> tax dollars to fund privatized education will
> improve this situation.
<Vouchers do, because they allow parents to choose the school they
want,
which inherently comes with critical thinking. >
Wait, are you suggesting that private schools encourages critical
thinking among PARENTS? Well, forgive me if I see our educational duty
to our children as more important than the one to their parents.
Parents today can choose to send their kids to a private school. Many
do. I'm not sure this issue has any bearing on the critical thinking
opportunities for parents.
<Public school, on the
other hand, inherently discourages critical thinking. >
Actually, since I get students from both environments, let me assure
you that BOTH private schooling and public schooling do not do a good
job teaching our children how to think. The sharp kids are those who
made do with what they had and decided to explore further than their
peers on their own.
Having resources does provide more opportunity. And that's why I would
prefer to provide the most basic resources for the greatest number over
better equipping the few fortunate. I think this is the point we differ
on.
> They simply won't have the money needed to pay
> for the higher tuition and most of them will not
> meet the entry standards.
<There we go again.>
Is that a ROYAL we? ;-)
< Vouchers are precisely meant to do that, to allow
parents who couldn't otherwise afford this to send their children to
the school of their choice.>
To apply towards the tuition at the school of their choice. Have you
financed a private education? Do you understand how much money we're
talking? Vouchers will subsidize private school selection, but they
will never cover the whole cost of quality private schooling for the
masses.
<You may argue that there were some kids
that could still not afford it, but this is effectively saying that
public services are cheaper than private enterprise.>
I see how you keep falling to this conclusion, but I think the
difference is having a great deal of experience with academic
politics. Privatized schooling still will operate on the principles of
supply and demand, so I don't see the good schools becoming more open
or cheaper as a likely consequence of school vouchers. In fact, I think
the logical outcome is that tuition at those schools will increase, now
that the competition to get into those exclusive spots is more fierce.
To fill the void left by those who cannot get into the good schools,
the market forces seem to present the opportunity for firms to come
along and offer lower-cost education for the masses. But just like the
difference between Foley's and Wal-Mart, these two classes of schools
will not be offering the same quality of service.
And I don't think that Wal-Mart schools will be able to provide the
service as the government-supported public schools. Profit will drive
the Wal-Mart schools to be as unpleasant as ... well, Wal-Mart. No one
will want to work there unless they have to and the programming and
services will be of the lowest quality possible to ensure a healthy
return for the stakeholders.
<If you are saying
that government was inherently cheaper than private enterprise, then I
can only conclude that this was nonsense as an argument, but perhaps
valid as a political view.>
Well, I wasn't saying this. I was saying that the desires for profit
will likely drive private firms to charge more if they can, while the
government is pretty stable in the way it negotiates contracts.
Public schooling is a problem, but I just don't think the rising costs
of education are going to disappear because we let private firms set
the standards instead of the government.
< And even politically, the staunchiest
communist will admit that private enterprise can deliver at lower
prices! >
Who is the staunchest communist you know? I'm not disagreeing with you,
I'm just asking you to support your statement.
<Even the most machiavellian dictator will privately admit to
seek power for his own gratification. >
Well, I'm not sure why you wrote this line. Machiavellian dictators by
definition seek their own ends. That's like saying "the kid who likes
lollipops will secretly admit he likes lollipops." What does this add?
<The problem with your rhetoric is that you're playing one non-argument
out against the other.>
Actually, the "problem" with my rhetoric is that I have several levels
of critique of the merits of vouchers.
I think that people who like vouchers look at private schools as they
exist today and think they would be a good option. Part of my critique
is that if public education is abolished or even diminished, it will
change the face and nature of private schooling for most people.
Private schools as they exist today would not be the private schools we
would have if public education were suddenly abolished.
<When I explain that private enterprise is
cheaper, you switch to another non-argument by saying it's not price
but quality that mattered. >
Well, private enterprise CAN be cheaper, but in any industry or market
there are entrants who market for high quality and performance for a
few willing to spend a lot (BMW, Mercedes-Benz), those who shoot for
low quality for the majority who will spend much less (Yugo, Honda) and
those who will try to fill the gaps at various price points to give
consumers the level of cost/quality tradeoff they seek.
But should our children be shopping for such a tradeoff? If the
currently have a Ford or a Chevy that is not as reliable as the
European models, should we risk many of them deciding to trade them in
for a cheaper car? Doesn't quality become a central issue when you're
talking about education and the ability to contribute to society?
<Instead of money you switch to entry
standards.>
Only to point out that there are not enough existing slots in the
current exclusive private schools for the majority of American students
to win a berth. Which means that we are, by definition, talking about a
different class of schools than the current private schools we're
ogling over.
<So, what are you saying? That public school students were
stupid or badly-educated?>
No, but not everyone meets the qualifications of exclusive private
schools. So what will become of those who do not have this option?
< If the latter is the case, then this would
just be another argument against public school. In any case, you are
not adding argument in favor of public school. >
Actually, I am. Because for many, public schooling with all its flaws
seems to ensure more opportunity for most rather than turning over
their fate to the profit-driven marketplace.
<Then, as discussed, you switch to yet another non-argument, i.e. that
the private schools weren't there. >
They aren't now. And yes, I think part of our disagreement is that you
hold assumptions about the future of private schooling in a free market
that I do not. Which is why I point out not only the specific arguments
of yours that I disagree with, but also the core assumptions you hold
that I disagree with that lead you to those specific arguments that I
disagree with.
<Of course, it will not happen
overnight. If there weren't enough schools, but there was sufficient
demand, then those schools will come. That's how the market works.>
Yes, and most of our children will have fast-food educations, and will
likely have the same effect on their minds that be an exclusive diet of
fast food would have on their bodies.
<Again, you have no argument. You may insist that market forces are
bad,
but that's just a (weird) political view. >
Or I may insist nothing of the kind. I don't think market forces are
"bad." You're the one that keeps interjecting value judgments like
"bad."
I just think that the forces of the market are not suited to protect
certain public goods. I don't want our highways turned over to private
enterprise. I've seen how our landline phone network has fallen into
obsolescence in many markets because of the private firms that own
them and refuse to upgrade them to support quality data service.
When it comes to food or jewelry or automobiles or consumer goods, I
think the market is very "good" (as you would put it, I would probably
say "efficient") at setting prices and determining value.
I just don't think education should be a commodity. And I don't think
that's "(weird)" political view.
MoreSense
> that the opponents of vouchers co-wrote the school curriculum,
> but I wasn't saying that either. We are all responsible for what
> is decided in the public sphere. That's democracy.
curriculum? Nonsense, they are more likely to reject public school
altogether. This is exactly how students at public schools are being
indoctrinated with a very specific political view that is portrayed as
if it was some kind of truth. It is exactly how you portray your
personal political view as if it was more than that. You may get away
with deceiving young students, but don't think I'm going to let to
portray a deceptive political truth as some kind of economic argument.
You have no argument and your efforts to prop up your political view
with deceptive rhetoric are obvious. Just look at the world around you
and accept that communism is dead and that government departments are
unlikely to deliver services any cheaper than private enterprise.
Where are you teaching, by the way, in Cuba or North Korea or so?
> My irritation with your charges of "mere politics" was that you
> were refusing to acknowledge the sources I presented (which
> you asked for, as I recall).
Cuba, Fidel Castro, Stalin and North Korea and I haven't been able to
find anyone arguing that government departments can deliver services
cheaper than private enterprise. I did find articles saying that
people weren't allowed to say this, e.g. it's hard to criticize the
Party in China, but I haven't even been able to find political
propaganda arguing this. You seem to be in a league of your own.
> I don't think Sam is wrong for being unhappy with public
> schooling, I just think we disagree about what should be done
> about the problem.
problem. What kind of critical thinking is that? Hypocritical
thinking? You accept there are problems, yet you refuse to even
consider that public school had inherent problems? That's just a
political view. It's a weird and hypocritical political view, but your
entitled to have it - just don't try and portray it as an argument.
> > Why advocate critical thinking, yet stop
> > with criticism if it's a public service?
>
> Actually I haven't. In fact, in the paragraph above, I criticized it.
> I'm beginning to wonder if we're reading the same words.
> I absolutely believe that public education should be subject to
> critique and judged by standards. That's actually why I prefer
> that public education continue to exist: because it CAN be
> critiqued and held to a public standard. If you look back over my
> previous posts, I think you'll find I've said this more than once
> before.
when I argue that your view was only a political view, if that is
exactly how ytou want the system to function? And what's wrong with
the choice preferred by parents? Do parents have lower standards than
politicians? Why deny parents choice and force them to live by a
standard set by politics. Worst, why portray this as anything else but
a political view?
jrichard
> society in which I pay taxes and vote. Nothing more....
> Actually, it would be more logical to conclude that I was saying
> that the opponents of vouchers co-wrote the school curriculum,
> but I wasn't saying that either. We are all responsible for what
> is decided in the public sphere. That's democracy.
<So, advocates of vouchers are responsible for the public school
curriculum?>
We all are. We all pay taxes and we all vote. We bear responsibility
for what our officials do on our behalf.
<Nonsense, they are more likely to reject public school
altogether. >
Which also would have an impact on the curriculum.
<This is exactly how students at public schools are being
indoctrinated with a very specific political view that is portrayed as
if it was some kind of truth. It is exactly how you portray your
personal political view as if it was more than that.>
So you've never answered me when I've asked why you think your position
is not "mere politics."
Why is your position something greater, while mine is invalid?
< You may get away
with deceiving young students, but don't think I'm going to let to
portray a deceptive political truth as some kind of economic argument.
>
Well, let me remind you that you have neither consulted the economic
texts you asked for nor presented any of your own (other than invoking
Adam Smith). Pot, Kettle, Black?
<You have no argument and your efforts to prop up your political view
with deceptive rhetoric are obvious. Just look at the world around you
and accept that communism is dead and that government departments are
unlikely to deliver services any cheaper than private enterprise. >
I am no lover of communism. And your repeated claims to the contrary
display your judgmental assumptions about those you don't know and an
arrogance that you have as of yet been unable to justify with evidence
or logic.
< Where are you teaching, by the way, in Cuba or North Korea or so? >
The United States of America, where I interact with the educational
system every day. Where do YOU teach Deborah? What makes you an such an
expert on all these topics?
> My irritation with your charges of "mere politics" was that you
> were refusing to acknowledge the sources I presented (which
> you asked for, as I recall).
<I've checked the web for keywords like ultra-conservative communists,
Cuba, Fidel Castro, Stalin and North Korea and I haven't been able to
find anyone arguing that government departments can deliver services
cheaper than private enterprise.>
Did you read any of the works of the authors I gave you?
< I did find articles saying that
people weren't allowed to say this, e.g. it's hard to criticize the
Party in China, but I haven't even been able to find political
propaganda arguing this. You seem to be in a league of your own. >
Well, sadly, your refusal to read primary sources is not inspiring
confidence in my judgement of your ability to classify people or their
arguments.
> I don't think Sam is wrong for being unhappy with public
> schooling, I just think we disagree about what should be done
> about the problem.
<Yet, you refuse to accept that public schooling itself was the
problem.>
No, I refuse to jump to the conclusion that the problem is somehow the
publicness of our schooling. I find serious flaws in both your
assumptions and your logic which lead me to disagree with your
conclusions. I've stated them. Please address them.
<What kind of critical thinking is that? Hypocritical
thinking?>
Honesty logic. You should try it some day.
< You accept there are problems, yet you refuse to even
consider that public school had inherent problems?>
Education has inherent problems. It is more expensive every year to
educate our children. But I don't think abolishing public schooling
solves these problems, nor do I think abolishing public school would be
worth abolishing just for the sake of making a few students' lives
better at the cost of many more.
<That's just a
political view. It's a weird and hypocritical political view, but your
entitled to have it - just don't try and portray it as an argument. >
I seriously think you should consider taking a class in forensics or
debate.
> > Why advocate critical thinking, yet stop
> > with criticism if it's a public service?
> Actually I haven't. In fact, in the paragraph above, I criticized it.
> I'm beginning to wonder if we're reading the same words.
<Yes, do try and read things again! >
I read many things more than once.
I wish you'd read from the authors I suggested to you at least once.
> I absolutely believe that public education should be subject to
> critique and judged by standards. That's actually why I prefer
> that public education continue to exist: because it CAN be
> critiqued and held to a public standard. If you look back over my
> previous posts, I think you'll find I've said this more than once
> before.
<So, it's just a political vote after all?>
You are unbelievable. Does it hurt your head to twist your own
standards so much and so often?
< So, why do you have problems
when I argue that your view was only a political view, if that is
exactly how ytou want the system to function?>
Because you have not told me why my position is only a political view
while yours is something more.
Because I find your dismissal of anything you disagree with as "merely
political and not valid" to be quite arrogant and disrespectful.
Because you asked me for information and continue to ignore it,
claiming that it doesn't change anything or isn't "serious" (and
without explaining why you think that).
Because you are not behaving honestly or fairly in this discussion.
<And what's wrong with
the choice preferred by parents? Do parents have lower standards than
politicians? Why deny parents choice and force them to live by a
standard set by politics.>
Parents have choices right now. No one has taken away their choices.
Feel free to send your kids to private school, no one's stopping you.
But if you want money for our government for this private endeavor, you
have obtain the consent of those who pay for it, and that means we must
have public debate and discussion about this decision.
< Worst, why portray this as anything else but
a political view? >
Define for me in one paragraph what your view and what my view is. Then
please defend why it is that you think my position is political while
yours is something more.
MoreSense
> view is. Then please defend why it is that you think my position
> is political while yours is something more.
Your problem? That you have no arguments! You seem to hold a grunge
against Wal-Mart, but they actually provide an excellent service. You
appear to have little idea how much logistical and management
innovations have been introduced by Wal-Mart. Why should I be forced
to go to a more expensive shop and buy the same item for a higher
price? How can you have the adacity to portray such defamatory
rhetoric as an argument? Or, are you perhaps suggesting that
government should buy up all Wal-Mart shops, as if government could
provide a better-quality service? It's just no argument, it's plain
libel!
> Parents have choices right now. No one has taken away their
> choices. Feel free to send your kids to private school, no one's
> stopping you.
schools operating in the low-fee market. This is because public
schools constitute unfair competition against private schools that
would offer a lower-cost education. The solution is to get rid of
public schools altogether, so private enterprise can offer such
services at higher quality levels than public school.
> But if you want money for our government for this
> private endeavor,
> you have obtain the consent of those who pay
> for it,
of public schools. Everyone will be happy to pay less tax, while the
poor will be extra happy if on top of that their children can have the
education they want for them to have.
> and that means we must have public debate and
> discussion about this decision.
way to go! In future, why not sell all public schools to the highest
bidder and stop funding the ongoing cost of public schools? Vouchers
for the poor could be paid from the revenues and cost-savings, as well
as in the form of rebates for part of the taxes they (also) pay. In
the end, we all pay less tax and there is better education!
jrichard
I am really weary of your high-handed judgmental and nonresponsive
approach to debate. You make the same claims again and again while
offering no support or evidence. You ignore my arguments, you ignore
the source materials I provide and you ignore the merits of my
positions.
And though you do not know me, you continue to launch personal attacks
rather than address the arguments I present on their merits.
The public debate surrounding the future of American education is far
from over. There are many voices competing from many different
ideological viewpoints. Your intolerance of those who see the world
different from you (claiming someone who disagrees with you has no
argument) appears to be elitist at best and not conducive to honest
discourse and debate.
I look back over the dozens of posting between you and I and I see
question after question I've asked you that you snipped from your
responses without acknowledgement. If you are not going to address my
views or answer any of my questions then what are we really doing here?
Logic is a system that dictates that if one can understand another's
beginning assumptions and then understand the processes and the
reasoning that person uses, then one should be able to see how that
person arrived at a given conclusion regardless of whether the person
shares the cores assumptions or uses the processes or reasoning in
question.
I try not to judge people on their positions or their conclusions.
However, in my opinion, one's behavior does represent one's character,
and your refusal to answer questions or address concerns or sources
that disagree with your claims in these posts does not reflect very
well of yours.
You chose to leave large gaps in the explanation of your reasoning and
processes, and you certainly seem to have made little effort to try and
understand my core assumptions, processes or reasoning before you
condemned my conclusions.
If I respond further, it will likely be with a list of questions you've
ignored and discussion points you have refused to address.
Sam
public schools need to be forced down our throats, even when this was
against the will of the parents. Yes, they do compete unfairly with
private enterprise. Yes, they are wasteful and cannot possibly match
the quality level that would be offered by private enterprise for the
same cost. And yes, the nonsense about Wal-Mart is sheer libel.
Essentially, this kind of rhetoric violates the fundamental rights of
parents to choose the kind of education they want for their children.
Even contemplating such a view would constitute a denial of our rights,
which means it isn't even acceptable as a political view. So, there's
no argument, it's just defamatory rhetoric. But also, this position
doesn't even constitute an acceptable political view. It's a position
that is wrong - logically, economically, morally, principally and
fundamentally.
jrichard
those who wish to attend them.
Jrichard was pointing out that parents have the right to choose between
private and public education right now, and killing public education
seems to take away the choice.
Jrichard also thinks neither Sam nor Deborah/Moresense knows the
meaning of the word "libel." None of the burdens of proof appear in any
of our postings that I've read.
And jrichard is just amazed at how closed-minded these two participants
in the humanities board seem to be. Humanities board= debate,
philosophy, discussion, questioning?
Deborah
Choice is in the hands of the parents who decide what education they
want for their children. It shouldn't be up to you to decide that the
children of other parents should be forced into public schools. The
first one is choice, the latter one isn't choice, it's the very
opposite!
Sam Carana
> for those who wish to attend them.
> Jrichard was pointing out that parents have the right to choose
> between private and public education right now, and killing public
> education seems to take away the choice.
public school charges no fees, making it hard for private enterprise
to compete. By default, private schools have to focus on the
higher-fee market and on niche markets, such as specific religions or
schools for children with special needs and talents. So, there
currently is little choice! Families can hardly choose between two or
more schools that each offer a similar service in their area.
Typically, there is only one school that has monopolized a specific
market in an area.
Public school thus forms part of an education system that stands for
the very opposite of choice. This education system teaches that
monopoly was the only game in town. It takes choice out of the hands
of people, as if families shouldn't have choice as to how they wanted
their children to be educated. More than any other school, public
school constitues a straitjacket that fits nobody, yet claims to be
the "standard" and "model" for all.
Education is a convenient instrument in the hands of politicians with
dictatorial inclination. Dictators seek to make anything into an
instrument to grab control over society. They first seek to control
the military, the media, the police and many more areas, typically in
that order. But public school certainly doesn't come last - in many
respects it constitutes the biggest prize for dictators who seek to
cement their position. They will seek to mould young people into the
robot that believes that individuality is bad and should be destroyed.
Most sadly, we parents are then forced to pay the system that imposes
this indoctrination on our own children. Public school enforces itself
at the threat of disciplinary action, but - even more insidiously - at
the threat of public humiliation. And jrichard is a good example of
efforts to ridicule anyone who dares to question public school.
Indeed, the moment anyone curiously wonders why things have to be this
way, the system will seek to attack and ridicule such "disobedience",
acting as if nobody had ever protested and as if there was no specific
political message associated with public school. Thus, public school
teaches this obvious lie as a truth, making a lie into the cornerstone
of a method that was furthermore founded in dictatorial aspirations,
but that has rarely been exposed as such because it has managed to
indoctrinate so many people from a young and impressionable age.
Yes, the reality is that public school seeks to create robots that
walk in line with the deceptive rhetoric and outright dictatorial
values that have been forced down the throats of our children for
generations. Politically, it is the opposite of choice. Vouchers, by
contrast, do create choice.
Do vouchers take away any choice? Well, jrichard, only in the mind of
someone who doesn't recognize what choice is or, more likley, in the
mind of someone who seek to deceive people and who has until now
managed to get away with such deceptive rhetoric. But I'm not letting
you off the hook so easily! Vouchers clearly reduce some of the more
dictatorial aspects from the education system and if it's your
preference to keep the sytem dictatorial, then good riddance! Such an
interpretation of choice is only a perversion of its meaning. Choice
should be in the hands of the parents. Parents have and should have
the choice as to what education their children should get. And someone
like jrichard should not be given the choice whether or not parents
should be denied this choice!
Sam Carana
> meaning of the word "libel." None of the burdens of proof appear in
> any of our postings that I've read.
>
slander. Discussion? Yes, I welcome discussion! Defamation, slander
and libel? No, that's nopt welcome here! Look what the terms:
6. Appropriate Conduct
"defame..."
http://www.google.com/googlegroups/terms_of_service.html
So, did or did you not say that Wal-Mart was providing inferior service?