privatization of education
tim...@bnrmtv.uucp
> > a) can't afford or b) don't want to pay for [expensive] private education can't
> > are being punished, since the money is no longer there for the public schools.
>
> False. Private schooling is less expensive than public schooling. It
> appears that public schooling is cheaper because the money is collected
> by taxation. If public schooling were as cheap as private schooling,
> only the very poorest of the poor would be unable to send their kids
> to private schools.
Private schools may have lower costs per student from the school's point of
view, but from the student/family point of view it is more expensive. A
student attending public school has his education paid for by his family's
taxes. One who attends private school pays tuition IN ADDITION to taxes
which support public schools. (Note, though that the public schools don't
get the extra subsidy since school funding is by student; the governments
keep the taxes not used by schools).
Summary: a student who attends private school:
a. adds money and population to private school s/he attends
b. subtracts money and population to public school s/he would have attended
c. adds money to the state and local goverments (unused school subsidy)
Note that the money the public school loses is constant, so from the school's
point of view it does not matter (in an economic sense) whether the student's
family was rich or poor. Whether the public school loses or gains (in an
economic sense) depends on whether the marginal cost of educating one more
student is less or more than the lost subsidy.
John Pantone
Perhaps a, partial at least, justification of public funding of education
is that the governmental system itself requires an education. Democracy
can't last long when the voting public becomes illiterate.
When I say illiterate, I mean to include lack of knowlege/understanding
of science, literature, history, etc. not just "can't read".
--
These opinions are solely mine and in no way reflect those of my employer.
...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jnp John M. Pantone @ GE/Calma San Diego
David Fox
Lines: 15
Xref: clyde net.sci:1414 net.politics:18019
In article <24...@brl-smoke.ARPA> gw...@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes:
> It is unfair for a person
>to be forced to pay for somebody else's child's education; the idea
>that someone's hard work is going to pay for what are properly others'
>responsibilities can hardly be considered just, unless one adopts
>socialist notions or a spurious appeal to pragmatism.
A spurious appeal to pragmatism? Heaven Forefend! The economy
of our country, or any post-industrial economy, cannot function
unless most of the population are literate. If this country
eliminates its free public education system, its economy will
collapse. This seems somewhat more unfair to me than subsidizing
the educations of "those less fortunate".
David Fox
Greg Busby
Organization: NEC Electronics Inc. Natick, MA 01760
Lines: 84
Xref: clyde net.sci:1420 net.politics:18055
In article <24...@brl-smoke.ARPA> gw...@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes:
>In article <4...@bnrmtv.UUCP> tim...@bnrmtv.UUCP (Timothy Lee) writes:
>>A student attending public school has his education paid for by his family's
>>taxes. One who attends private school pays tuition IN ADDITION to taxes ...
>
>One thing I forgot to mention in my original response to Tedrick's
>request for my opinion: I consider tax credits or vouchers for
>education as merely an interim measure to be followed by complete
>removal of the tax burden for education. It is unfair for a person
>to be forced to pay for somebody else's child's education; the idea
>that someone's hard work is going to pay for what are properly others'
>responsibilities can hardly be considered just, unless one adopts
>socialist notions or a spurious appeal to pragmatism.
Before I launch into my response, I would like to say that IN PRINCIPLE
I am not opposed to many of the things that Objectivists, Libertarians,
et al. believe in, such as those who work harder deserve to do better
than those that don't, and that paople should be free to choose (and
live with the results of) their own actions. I am, however, opposed to
the apparently calluos disregard that many of them show for those who
have not been given the opportunity to acquire a status in life that
allows them to see the fruits of their own labors and the results of
their own actions. I also think that they assume most of America is
middle-class and educated, and that they are therefore prepared to make
and accept the consequences of informed, reasoned decisions.
Unfortunately, this is not the case, and thosewho aren't as far along
the in their [social, psychological, economic, etc.] development should
be helped along a little by those who are. Anyway, on to my
response...
Although it is true that the education of children is primarily the
responsibility of the parents, and that good parents will take on this
responsibility willingly and (hopefully) well, it should be remembered
that there are many parents who are unwilling (or unable) to spend a
lot of time (or MONEY) on their children's education. BUT, this does
not really hurt the parents, who are (usually) adults and should be
able to live their own lives, but rather hurts the children by denying
them the oportunity and training to better themselves and build the
kind of life that they may want to lead. Since it is so important to
have a good education in this country in order to get a good job in
order to get a good salary in order to make a good life, etc., ALL
children should be given the opportunity, as I said. Now, if you say
that there should be no publice education, and that all education should
be paid for by the parents, you either beleive that
A) all parents are financially responsible enough that they can sed
their children to a private institution (a notion which, by the way, I
am sure very few people are naive enough to believe) or
B) that children whose parents are not financially able to sen them to a
private school should not be given the same advantages as those who were
lucky enough to be born to more affluent parents. This seems, at least
to me, to be a case of 'them that has, gets, and them that hasn't, gets
screwed'. Revolutions have been fought over less.
>(At least,
>I've never heard any other justifications for this. It's similar
>to the complaint one often hears about being forced to support the
>children of a welfare family, while the parents irresponsibly
>continue to produce more children for others to support.)
This last statement is more of the same -- it is penalizing children for
the transgressions of their parents. This has been part of the
Judeo-Christian teachings for some time, but I can't honestly believe
that anyone who romotes Rational solutions to problems can feel that the
children, who had no voice in choosing their parents, should be made to
pay for thier parents' mistakes. The alternative, forced sterilization,
is repugnant.
>In summary, fully privatized education would not require that the
>government handle educational funding at all, although since it
>does at present it would have to be involved in the conversion to
>completely private education.
In order to pay for the education of children with poor parents, the
government will have to be involved, either through a "school stamps"
program or through direct establishment and control of educational
facilities. In either case, the only way to pay for this is through
taxes, whether they be on the amount of income you earn or on the amount
of property you own or on the amount you pay in tuition for your
children to attend a private institution. In any case, you are probably
no better off than you are now, a lot of extra red tape and hassle has
been created for everyone, and very little, if anything, has been done
about the vicious cycle of the more affluent person (ie the one who
needs it least) getting the larger sare of the pie.
Timothy Lee
> get the social and peer-pressure reinforcement to achieve academicly. Instead
> overachievers are often separated through "advanced placement classes" from
> underachievers on every level but perhaps the Phys. Ed. classes.
Actually, the underachievers are often separated through "remedial" or
"general" classes from overachievers on every level. Many high school
overachievers find themselves unchallenged by even by the most rigorous
courses the school offers. Those classes would be challenging for mid
and under achievers, but high schools will let them breeze through
"general" or "remedial" classes.
In PE classes, the overachievers (in PE, anyway) ARE separated out
(by athletic programs) !
Doug Gwyn
> ... I can't honestly believe that anyone who romotes Rational
> solutions to problems can feel that the children, who had no
> voice in choosing their parents, should be made to pay for
> thier parents' mistakes.
I don't think Tedrick or I claimed that they should.
> The alternative, forced sterilization, is repugnant.
It's repugnant, all right, but it's not "the alternative".
I'm sure if you really think about it, you could come up
with better solutions. For example, how about holding
parents legally responsible for their children's well-being?
It could be required that the children be given a certain
amount of schooling at licensed schools. This is much the
same as the current mandatory schooling requirement, which
was not the topic of discussion.
Clayton Cramer
>
> Perhaps a, partial at least, justification of public funding of education
> is that the governmental system itself requires an education. Democracy
> can't last long when the voting public becomes illiterate.
>
> When I say illiterate, I mean to include lack of knowlege/understanding
> of science, literature, history, etc. not just "can't read".
>
True indeed. I guess it's time for the government to start funding
education then, because the population is already to this point...
oh, they DO operate schools already? What went wrong then?
Clayton E. Cramer