Should Public Education be abolished?

[ronburgundy]

In an ideal world we would have teachers A, B, and C in that order of teaching skill. The A teacher has to turn students away and raises tuition, the B teacher makes a living, and the C teacher finds a different job because he gets no students.

In an ideal world, teacher pay would be high enough to be able to attract sufficient numbers of high quality teachers and allow us to raise the standards of training, so that a huge % of students are not forced to be taught by any person willing to stand in front of the classroom. Attracting "A" quality teachers would also be helped if their benefits and retirement pensions that they were promised in lieu of decent pay were not criminally taken away.

Once teachers are in the classroom and teaching, there is nothing close to a reliable empirical method of discerning teacher quality based upon real world performance of their students. The confounding variables that impact student outcome are too numerous and many impossible to measure in order to control for them.
The best hope are measures that increase the quality of the teachers getting trained and the quality of the training. Both of these require greater financial incentives to attract smarter and more ambitious people and get them to agree to higher training and evaluation standards. It would also help if conservative stopped dehumanizing teachers and creating a culture in which teaching is viewed with such disdain. IF we could raise the bar during the recruiting and training phases, before they ever get into the classrooms, then their would be less variability in teacher quality and most would be "A" quality.

 

[nightwyrm]

This sounds like what Hong Kong and other Asian countries have in place for cram schools and private tutors. The most successful tutoring schools have giant billboards advertisements, teaches in big lecture halls with hundreds of students, have access to tips and tricks and other resources for passing tests and exams, and attracts the best (richest) students who probably have the least need for extra schooling. The less successful tutors get by on parental word-of-mouth and small ads posted on lamp posts and has to rush from private 1-on-1 sessions in one part of the city to another.

Do the bigger schools have better teachers, or just bigger billboards? It seems like if you can really tell which teachers are better through the market, you wouldn't need billboards.

Regardless of whether they have better teachers, they are certainly making more money. And that's what really matters, right, if you want to run a school as a business.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Exactly. I know intrinsically that Chevy trucks are better because they are built like a rock.

Heavy and just sit there?

 

[Ford]

The marketplace.

lol

Indeed.

The problem with turning education over to "the marketplace" is that the school ceases to be primarily about education, and becomes primarily about profit.

Take a look at the for-profit colleges like University of Phoenix, DeVry, etc. They're making money hand over fist - which makes them good businesses - but not preparing students for the career they've chosen, and certainly not providing them with a well rounded education. The degrees students get are barely worth the paper they're printed on, but the school has made a profit so that's the most important part.


Extrapolate that downwards, and apply the same "business" model to high school, middle school, and even elementary schools.

One of the ongoing arguments in education (at least in 'Murica) is whether it should be locally controlled or overseen by the federal government. Most people (IMO) would come down on the side of local control. Your district or city or state has a better handle on the needs of their students than some pencil-pusher in DC.

Well privatizing the schools would take everything out of the hands of local officials, out of the hands of policy makers in Washington, and put it in the hands of accountants on Wall Street. Private, for-profit elementary, middle, and high schools would - even if they started locally - eventually get acquired by larger and larger firms with no allegiance to the community where the schools are located, and instead would owe their loyalty to the quarterly stock report. Did little Jimmy get a good education? Who gives a fuck? The company has to show 5% growth every year or the CEO doesn't get a bonus.

 

[Bronzeage]

Exactly. I know intrinsically that Chevy trucks are better because they are built like a rock.

Heavy and just sit there?

They only roll down hill.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Heavy and just sit there?

They only roll down hill.

Wait. This sounds like crit'kal thinkin'. What have them skools ben learnin' ya'all?

 

[Bronzeage]

They only roll down hill.

Wait. This sounds like crit'kal thinkin'. What have them skools ben learnin' ya'all?

Truthfully, I have to say, 40 years of working on Chevy trucks.

 

[Achwienichtig]

Indeed.

The problem with turning education over to "the marketplace" is that the school ceases to be primarily about education, and becomes primarily about profit.

Take a look at the for-profit colleges like University of Phoenix, DeVry, etc. They're making money hand over fist - which makes them good businesses - but not preparing students for the career they've chosen, and certainly not providing them with a well rounded education. The degrees students get are barely worth the paper they're printed on, but the school has made a profit so that's the most important part.


Extrapolate that downwards, and apply the same "business" model to high school, middle school, and even elementary schools.

One of the ongoing arguments in education (at least in 'Murica) is whether it should be locally controlled or overseen by the federal government. Most people (IMO) would come down on the side of local control. Your district or city or state has a better handle on the needs of their students than some pencil-pusher in DC.

Well privatizing the schools would take everything out of the hands of local officials, out of the hands of policy makers in Washington, and put it in the hands of accountants on Wall Street. Private, for-profit elementary, middle, and high schools would - even if they started locally - eventually get acquired by larger and larger firms with no allegiance to the community where the schools are located, and instead would owe their loyalty to the quarterly stock report. Did little Jimmy get a good education? Who gives a fuck? The company has to show 5% growth every year or the CEO doesn't get a bonus.

We have to be very careful about throwing the term "privatization" around in the area of education. "Private" is not synonymous with "for-profit". Boston College is a private College. ITT Tech is a for-profit college. There's a big difference. Your education at Boston College will probably be worth-while compared to ITT Tech.

Likewise with elementary school. Private schools are not-for-profit. They are highly regulated, and many people consider their education to be superior to public schools.

The problem is, the current "market value" of private schools is based on their juxtaposition to public schools. The current model for private schooling simply would not work as a model for the complete overhaul of the schooling system. Without a viable model for such an overhaul, the public school system, I think rightly, is very cautious of making any concessions to private schooling, e.g. vouchers. This is not to say there are no systems permitting of such an overhaul. The current experimentation with charter schooling is one such possible system, though maybe still not the best.

 

[ksen]

The current experimentation with charter schooling is one such possible system, though maybe still not the best.

^^the current DeVry-ing of american public education

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Indeed.

The problem with turning education over to "the marketplace" is that the school ceases to be primarily about education, and becomes primarily about profit.

Take a look at the for-profit colleges like University of Phoenix, DeVry, etc. They're making money hand over fist - which makes them good businesses - but not preparing students for the career they've chosen, and certainly not providing them with a well rounded education. The degrees students get are barely worth the paper they're printed on, but the school has made a profit so that's the most important part.


Extrapolate that downwards, and apply the same "business" model to high school, middle school, and even elementary schools.

One of the ongoing arguments in education (at least in 'Murica) is whether it should be locally controlled or overseen by the federal government. Most people (IMO) would come down on the side of local control. Your district or city or state has a better handle on the needs of their students than some pencil-pusher in DC.

Well privatizing the schools would take everything out of the hands of local officials, out of the hands of policy makers in Washington, and put it in the hands of accountants on Wall Street. Private, for-profit elementary, middle, and high schools would - even if they started locally - eventually get acquired by larger and larger firms with no allegiance to the community where the schools are located, and instead would owe their loyalty to the quarterly stock report. Did little Jimmy get a good education? Who gives a fuck? The company has to show 5% growth every year or the CEO doesn't get a bonus.

We have to be very careful about throwing the term "privatization" around in the area of education. "Private" is not synonymous with "for-profit". Boston College is a private College. ITT Tech is a for-profit college. There's a big difference. Your education at Boston College will probably be worth-while compared to ITT Tech.

Likewise with elementary school. Private schools are not-for-profit. They are highly regulated, and many people consider their education to be superior to public schools.

The problem is, the current "market value" of private schools is based on their juxtaposition to public schools. The current model for private schooling simply would not work as a model for the complete overhaul of the schooling system. Without a viable model for such an overhaul, the public school system, I think rightly, is very cautious of making any concessions to private schooling, e.g. vouchers. This is not to say there are no systems permitting of such an overhaul. The current experimentation with charter schooling is one such possible system, though maybe still not the best.

Serious reply:
One of the problems with measuring private v. public is that the private schools can select the best students where the public has to take everyone. Mainstreaming does not exist in private schools.

 

[Achwienichtig]

The current experimentation with charter schooling is one such possible system, though maybe still not the best.

^^the current DeVry-ing of american public education

It is quite possible. Though, it is hard to say. I think America is still in it's flirting stage with charter schools. They're more of a novelty, and people are willing to give them a chance because it's a fascinating experiment.

My feelings about charter schools is that they are very busy right now trying to prove they are successful, but they don't have a plan beyond that. I had one friend get hired by one only to quit before the school-year even began. She said there was just too much pressure on the teachers to work themselves to death for the school. She thought they were making school harder, not smarter. In short, it was more of the same-old-same-old, only in larger quantities.

 

[Achwienichtig]

Serious reply:
One of the problems with measuring private v. public is that the private schools can select the best students where the public has to take everyone. Mainstreaming does not exist in private schools.

Very true. In that regard, their success might simply be a correlation with the students they have entering. The same happens with elite colleges. I will say, however, that many private schools begin even in pre-K. (Where I live, the only school with a pre-K class is a local Catholic school. The four or five elementary public schools here begin at K.) The differences between students' abilities at this point is very little. And if the school has good funding, it can even take in students who might not otherwise be able to go to private school. So, under ideal circumstances, they can work. Of course, that is under ideal circumstances.

This is where charter schooling is different. I'm not sure if it's a requirement, but all the charter schools I know of have a lottery system for placement. I should look into that a little.

 

[George S]

The marketplace. Teacher A becomes known as a good teacher. He can charge a lot. Teacher C just gets no students who want to pay tuition to that teacher.

Sounds good in theory, but how do we know Teacher C is not worth the money and Teacher A is worth the most? "Becomes known" is a vague term. Is it possible for a student to evaluate their teacher's performance?

Would it be like the way people evaluate their doctor? They like their doctor and give him a high rating because he is friendly and listens to them. They don't actually have anyway to judge his medical expertise, just his people skills.

In an ideal world where no one tries to cheat... then and only then would a pure marketplace work. Good doctors do better if they respect their patients. Good teachers do better if they respect their students. Who has access to the best doctors, even today? Bill Gates can see the very best. And he can discuss education with Sal Khan.

Sal does free education and does it well. People, not the government, give him money voluntarily. That is free market liberalism, the best kind.

 

[Bronzeage]

Sounds good in theory, but how do we know Teacher C is not worth the money and Teacher A is worth the most? "Becomes known" is a vague term. Is it possible for a student to evaluate their teacher's performance?

Would it be like the way people evaluate their doctor? They like their doctor and give him a high rating because he is friendly and listens to them. They don't actually have anyway to judge his medical expertise, just his people skills.

In an ideal world where no one tries to cheat... then and only then would a pure marketplace work. Good doctors do better if they respect their patients. Good teachers do better if they respect their students. Who has access to the best doctors, even today? Bill Gates can see the very best. And he can discuss education with Sal Khan.

Sal does free education and does it well. People, not the government, give him money voluntarily. That is free market liberalism, the best kind.

In an ideal world, we would all be idealists.

Does it really help if a doctor is friendly and respectful, but doesn't know which drug to prescribe, or misses a critical symptom? Bad doctors can do very well by being friendly and respectful, but patients will suffer, all the while recommending him to friends, because he listens.

Is it really a market place if we depend upon altruistic billionaires to fill in where society has failed?

 

[ksen]

Is it really a market place if we depend upon altruistic billionaires to fill in where society has failed?

Noblesse Oblige is a thing for a reason!

 

[arkirk]

I have seen some idiotic proposals but this just about rates at the very bottom. Take education away from society and you have cultivated ignorance. Actually that is not a very safe thing to do.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Wait. This sounds like crit'kal thinkin'. What have them skools ben learnin' ya'all?

Truthfully, I have to say, 40 years of working on Chevy trucks.

They sure take a lot of fixing, don't they?

 

[Bronzeage]

Truthfully, I have to say, 40 years of working on Chevy trucks.

They sure take a lot of fixing, don't they?

There is not a machine that doesn't.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

There are currently, to my knowledge, no good for-profit schools in this country

Many private and for-profit schools actually do a pretty good job of educating their students. They're actually no worse than your average public school in terms of outcomes.

The problem is, they're also no better, which means you get the downside that the community has no say over how the school operates in exchange for the upside that investors make a lot of money off them.

Ultimately, the privatization of public schools is an anti-democracy move. The Republican platform basically boils down to that: the crippling of democracy and the centralization of power and money in the hands of the elite. Which, actually, should be totally obvious considering that the political party they oppose most violently is the Democratic party.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There are currently, to my knowledge, no good for-profit schools in this country

Many private and for-profit schools actually do a pretty good job of educating their students. They're actually no worse than your average public school in terms of outcomes.

The problem is, they're also no better, which means you get the downside that the community has no say over how the school operates in exchange for the upside that investors make a lot of money off them.

Ultimately, the privatization of public schools is an anti-democracy move. The Republican platform basically boils down to that: the crippling of democracy and the centralization of power and money in the hands of the elite. Which, actually, should be totally obvious considering that the political party they oppose most violently is the Democratic party.

What schools are you thinking of? We are talking about the likes of University of Phoenix or even worse.