Alternative to Public Schools

[The True Scotsman]

This idea is mostly inspired by the section on education in John Steward Mill's "On Liberty", but I will probably add some of my own ideas and subtract some of his in the process.

It seems to me that public schooling is quite different from many of our other government programs in the United States. While public school is open to all, many other government programs simply provide subsidies to poorer citizens (examples: Medicaid (if that is still relevant), Food Stamps, Welfare, etc). I wonder if we could not provide education to the public in the same way we provide other government services. I believe we can and will elaborate on my vision of it in the paragraph below.

All schools are private. Citizens below a certain income level receive government subsidies to pay for their schooling. All citizens are required to attend school from the age of 6 to the age of 18. All students are required to take a state approved competency exam once per year that coincides with their grade level. All school teachers are required to obtain a state approved teacher's licence by passing a competency exam. All schools are subject to periodical inspections by state provided inspectors.

Those are the basics of how I envision it, but it is by no means complete. If anyone has anything to add, I'd love to hear it.

[blutoski]

This is not a new proposal. It's usually called '[school voucher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_voucher)] system'.

[IMST]

There's a lot of things I don't want to trust private (particularly for profit) companies to provide. Childhood education is a really major one of them.

[JWideman]

There's a lot of things I don't want to trust private (particularly for profit) companies to provide. Childhood education is a really major one of them.

Yeah, because public schools are doing so well at it and not at all influenced by money.

[The True Scotsman]

There's a lot of things I don't want to trust private (particularly for profit) companies to provide. Childhood education is a really major one of them.

Do you not trust a private college or university with education?

[The True Scotsman]

This is not a new proposal. It's usually called '[school voucher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_voucher)] system'.

I believe mine is a bit different (at least from what I know about school vouchers) as my system would only cover citizens who can't afford schooling (or I suppose their parents), instead of providing for all citizens.

[blutoski]

I believe mine is a bit different (at least from what I know about school vouchers) as my system would only cover citizens who can't afford schooling (or I suppose their parents), instead of providing for all citizens.

I didn't notice that the first time.

Basically a voucher with a means test?

I think realistically, the objections that are raised about voucher programs are independent of whether the voucher is witheld for those above a means threshold.

[IMST]

Yeah, because public schools are doing so well at it and not at all influenced by money.

And being influenced by money is the very definition of the job of a for profit business. I'd like the schools to at least have the goal of providing education first and work toward doing a better job, rather than turn it over to businesses who would be considered to be acting unethically toward their shareholders should they have a priority other than money.

Do you not trust a private college or university with education?

I went to a private university because it was cheaper after scholarship and financial aid money and they had a degree program I was interested in. I'm more willing to let adults make their own choices along these lines, but if it was less expensive to go to a public school I almost certainly would have.

[ponderingturtle]

Do you not trust a private college or university with education?

Sure, I also trust private schools. The thing is that who is going to open a private school in say Rural Wyoming? Why is a private school going to accept a special needs child who will cost several times as much to educate as a typical child?

[Twiler]

I think that schools should be, ideally, universally controlled by democratic governments, funded equally, and have even distributions of children from different backgrounds. I'd say that this is an important part of minimising segregation within society.

I don't know how to fix all the economic and logistical problems involved, and I don't know if anyone does. But I believe that's what should be aspired to. I don't think that privatising schools further is a step in the right direction.

[The True Scotsman]

Sure, I also trust private schools. The thing is that who is going to open a private school in say Rural Wyoming? Why is a private school going to accept a special needs child who will cost several times as much to educate as a typical child?

Sure, those are legitimate concerns. I suppose I would have to change my proposal to allow for some public schools in areas of low population. As far as special needs children, I suppose if the market can't find a good solution to the problem, it would be necessary to establish small public schools placed at distances which are appropriate for the population of special needs children in given areas or perhaps create an incentive program for private schools to maintain departments for special needs children, such as giving schools that have such departments a certain amount of tax write-off per special needs child.

[Piscivore]

Sure, those are legitimate concerns. I suppose I would have to change my proposal to allow for some public schools in areas of low population. As far as special needs children, I suppose if the market can't find a good solution to the problem, it would be necessary to establish small public schools placed at distances which are appropriate for the population of special needs children in given areas or perhaps create an incentive program for private schools to maintain departments for special needs children, such as giving schools that have such departments a certain amount of tax write-off per special needs child.

Then you get people asking why these kids get taxpayer funded schooling and the rest of us have to pay McDonald's or Nike.

Education is treated differently than income subsidies mainly because, while most people are able to provide for their own income, few people are capable of providing for their own education. Also, while income is primarily important specifically to the individual, education is important for the economic growth of the country.

[The True Scotsman]

Then you get people asking why these kids get taxpayer funded schooling and the rest of us have to pay McDonald's or Nike.

Well, first let me ask you how many private college you know of that are owned by McDonald's or Nike? Second, the problem of unfairness in some people getting government subsidies who don't fall under any poverty line can be easily solved by charging citizens in those areas who are above the state-approved minimum income line the going rate of schooling.

Education is treated differently than income subsidies mainly because, while most people are able to provide for their own income, few people are capable of providing for their own education. Also, while income is primarily important specifically to the individual, education is important for the economic growth of the country.

Can you rephrase this, because I don't feel like I understand you clearly? I'd rather not debate something you never said.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The problem with "school choice" is geography.

Morally, I disagree with privatizing because of the inherent inequality it will grow between classes (Yes, we have that problem now, but there are reforms we could do under the public system).

[Piscivore]

Well, first let me ask you how many private college you know of that are owned by McDonald's or Nike?
Well, not them specifically, but profit-driven corporations.

Second, the problem of unfairness in some people getting government subsidies who don't fall under any poverty line...
That's not the problem I'm talking about. Our culture has decided every kid needs, deserves, and should get basic education. Why should a few of those get a free ride and others be forced to pay for it?

Can you rephrase this, because I don't feel like I understand you clearly? I'd rather not debate something you never said.
Sure. Continuing from what I just said, public education is not the same as welfare. Our culture has decided every kid needs, deserves, and should get basic education- not because of basic altruism, but because an advanced economy such as ours requires it. In conrast, welfare benefits are primarily motivated by altruism. Our economy does not require a safety net for people unable or unwilling to earn enough to support themselves.

This is why basic education is important enough to not be left to the private sector.

[TFian]

Do you not trust a private college or university with education?

Well, private universities don't hold a monopoly on higher education, there's plenty of public alternatives that plenty of people go to, and trust. I am going to a local city college, and if I later on advance my education to the university level, it will more than likely be at an in state public university geared towards my vocation.

I agree that many things should be left to the market place (though not always a for profit market place), but education I don't think is one of those things. Especially not k-12 education.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Actually, the universities I know of have a big contradiction between research (funding) and teaching (with actual professors and not aids) that they try to resolve.

Also there is the fact that tuition is ballooning out of control...

[TFian]

Actually, the universities I know of have a big contradiction between research (funding) and teaching (with actual professors and not aids) that they try to resolve.

Also there is the fact that tuition is ballooning out of control...

Yeah, that's a problem in most (if not all) big name universities, both public and private. The professors don't actually teach! They're their to do research. Community colleges and local state affiliate universities and small private universities though, have a much more teaching oriented atmosphere, largely because of the more technical aspects most of those schools take. (Two good examples would be the California community college system (very technical oriented) and the CSU (California State University, not to be confused with the University of California campuses) system (largely technical oriented)

About tuition, yeah, that's becoming a problem very quickly, and hopefully there can be some political will to solve that problem. There's massive protests here in the UCs (University of California branches, not to be confused with CSU campuses) and CCCs (California Community Colleges). Calls around also the CCC protesting crowd to organize around ballot initiatives and political campaigns to secure new funding for our public colleges/universities. We'll see if anything becomes of it...

[The True Scotsman]

That's not the problem I'm talking about. Our culture has decided every kid needs, deserves, and should get basic education. Why should a few of those get a free ride and others be forced to pay for it?

Well, if it is a problem based upon culture, then I suppose there is little to be done about that. If the majority vehemently disapprove of a system of education, then it has little chance of coming about.

Sure. Continuing from what I just said, public education is not the same as welfare. Our culture has decided every kid needs, deserves, and should get basic education- not because of basic altruism, but because an advanced economy such as ours requires it. In conrast, welfare benefits are primarily motivated by altruism. Our economy does not require a safety net for people unable or unwilling to earn enough to support themselves.

This is why basic education is important enough to not be left to the private sector.

I agree that education is a cornerstone of infrastructure, but in my plan, parents are required to send their children to school from ages 6-18, so the parent wouldn't have the choice of not sending their children through schooling. As far as it not being something which should be trusted to the private sector, I agree that purely unsupervised the outcome who probably not be for the best, but under the right government regulations, I believe it could work well and perhaps better than our current system.

[The True Scotsman]

The problem with "school choice" is geography.

Morally, I disagree with privatizing because of the inherent inequality it will grow between classes (Yes, we have that problem now, but there are reforms we could do under the public system).

Hmmm...that is a legitimate concern and may be the thing that brings this whole plan down. Certainly, one could make the argument that income would determine the quality of schooling children receive (although that happens already with the private k-12 schools that already exist, the problem may be exacerbated by my proposal). There is one factor that would have to be considered in determining if the problem would be exacerbated, which is the question of whether, in the long-run, people decide the location of their home based upon income, which would cause clumping of earners of general income levels, and that public schools in higher income areas may be better than lower income areas for various reasons or if parents, in the long-run, decide on the location of their homes based upon the public schools in the area and that this drives up the demand for homes in certain school districts, thus causing a rise in housing in that school district, thus allowing only more well-off citizens to enroll their children in those better schools. You do bring up a legitimate concern, but I don't believe I'm entirely convinced yet.

[The True Scotsman]

Well, private universities don't hold a monopoly on higher education, there's plenty of public alternatives that plenty of people go to, and trust. I am going to a local city college, and if I later on advance my education to the university level, it will more than likely be at an in state public university geared towards my vocation.

I agree that many things should be left to the market place (though not always a for profit market place), but education I don't think is one of those things. Especially not k-12 education.

I don't know that "monopoly" would be the right word to call it if all higher education were entirely allocated to the private sector, but I understand that some people do prefer, for any number of reasons, public educations as opposed to private education and I figure even if my plan would be the best outcome, it would probably not be implementable in its entirety, since many would be vehemently against it.

[Arisia]

I take it the poor would get subsidized only to the most basic level, to send their kids to the least expensive school in the area, and if they wanted a more expensive (possibly better) school, they'd have to get financial aid from the school itself.

Personally, I think we should work on making every public elementary/secondary school worth fighting to get into, whether in an affluent suburb of Boston or in the poorest neighborhood of Boston (or the poor rural areas of New England).

[JWideman]

And being influenced by money is the very definition of the job of a for profit business. I'd like the schools to at least have the goal of providing education first and work toward doing a better job, rather than turn it over to businesses who would be considered to be acting unethically toward their shareholders should they have a priority other than money.


Well, oddly enough, despite have that profit motive, private schools are better at educating kids than public ones. Why do you think that is? Could it be that they are motivated, by competition over profits, to choose methods that best educate?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Well, oddly enough, despite have that profit motive, private schools are better at educating kids than public ones. Why do you think that is? Could it be that they are motivated, by competition over profits, to choose methods that best educate?

Actually it is because the have a biased sample of students. Balanced for socio-economic factors, they are the same as public schools (How to Think Straight About Psychology). They are also free to reject the "undesirables" that public schools must teach.

[blutoski]

Actually it is because the have a biased sample of students. Balanced for socio-economic factors, they are the same as public schools (How to Think Straight About Psychology). They are also free to reject the "undesirables" that public schools must teach.

This is one of several challenges to comparing private vs public schools in terms of outcomes. As you point out, the private schools reserve the right to refuse under-performing students and usually do: they're expensive and don't fit into the standardized assembly-line.

As an example, my friends and I all applied to Vancouver College (a Catholic private school here in Vancouver that is the boys' counterpart to Little Flower Academy), but I was the only one who was accepted. They outperform many of the public schools here in Vancouver academically, but that doesn't tell us anything about the quality of their teachers - it is obviously a result of their right to cherry-pick better performing students in the first place.

Another complication is that private schools that are not academically oriented are often removed from the comparison database. For example, the IDEAL school here in Vancouver is for parents who *don't* want their kids to do well on 'standardized testing' but want them to develop their spiritual side instead. I can't help but notice that the comparisons produced by the interested private-enterprise advocacy think tanks rationalize excluding these private schools for the sake of statistical comparison. And they also ignore the crackpot schools, such as those run out of church basements like New Life Christian School in Lynn Valley or King's Centre in Abbotsford. The private schools average a little better if you exclude the bad ones. Well... yeah... obviously.

In any case, the biggest concern I have about subsidizing private education is that is legitimizes segregation.

[fuelair]

Hmmm...that is a legitimate concern and may be the thing that brings this whole plan down. Certainly, one could make the argument that income would determine the quality of schooling children receive (although that happens already with the private k-12 schools that already exist, the problem may be exacerbated by my proposal). There is one factor that would have to be considered in determining if the problem would be exacerbated, which is the question of whether, in the long-run, people decide the location of their home based upon income, which would cause clumping of earners of general income levels, and that public schools in higher income areas may be better than lower income areas for various reasons or if parents, in the long-run, decide on the location of their homes based upon the public schools in the area and that this drives up the demand for homes in certain school districts, thus causing a rise in housing in that school district, thus allowing only more well-off citizens to enroll their children in those better schools. You do bring up a legitimate concern, but I don't believe I'm entirely convinced yet.

Parents with children of school age and appropriate disposable income tend to find ways (absent quality private schools) to get their children into better public schools - primarily by moving to the boundary area of schools they want. There are studies of this - the ones with which I am most familiar have to do more specifically with rates of passage of the AP test in the various available high schools - though my interest was more specifically with hiring of AP teachers based on the number of their students taking and passing the AP test [my school pushes AP but works hard to put a lot of students with FCAT 1 and 2 (barely functional) in reading and/or math into the classes. Teachers teaching AP at my school would have no chance of getting AP teaching jobs in parts of the country, or even parts of/schools in Florida where AP is not simply used as a way to "give the kids a feel for college level work" because so many kids pushed into AP CANNOT possibly do AP work and/or pass the AP test. "sigh" It's also why I would not get AP certified.

[WildCat]

There's a lot of things I don't want to trust private (particularly for profit) companies to provide. Childhood education is a really major one of them.
I bet you wouldn't trust your kid to a public school if you lived in Chicago. You'd send them to a private school or you'd move to the suburbs.

Assuming you actually wanted your kids to get an education of course.

[JWideman]

Actually it is because the have a biased sample of students. Balanced for socio-economic factors, they are the same as public schools (How to Think Straight About Psychology). They are also free to reject the "undesirables" that public schools must teach.

True, true. So... to fix the public school system, we have to abolish it. It's full of nothing but stupid kids and thugs. After all, the smart kids with parents that care about education are rich enough for private school anyway.

[fuelair]

True, true. So... to fix the public school system, we have to abolish it. It's full of nothing but stupid kids and thugs. After all, the smart kids with parents that care about education are rich enough for private school anyway.

Sarcasm with a hint of truth: The public schools are not full of stupid (I prefer "not competent for full system schooling" as more accurate since many are perfectly capable of functioning with meaningful jobs and lives with a minimal requirement high school degree and training in any number of semi-professional fields that pay quite well) kids or thugs (I prefer "persons in school but in need of a radically different education system that teaches them with absolute clarity and precision that their bad decisions are just that and they will no longer be tolerated in civil society" which is way long but quite descriptive of them). On average the first group make up 40 + % of high school students and the second group makes up no more than 10% in most schools. The rest of the students may choose to do poorly, but are capable of work through normal college level (ultimately) and a lower proportion of post college (Masters +).

The point really is that private schools have some advantages that public schools do not- definitely in Florida: they can choose who they take as long as they do not accept Fed or State funding. They can kick out who they want (public schools have lots of hoops needed to do this, private say "bye,bye" at will). Their students do not have to pass FCAT to graduate. That latter means they can actually teach the subject as opposed to teaching picked parts of subjects because only those will be tested.

[ponderingturtle]

I bet you wouldn't trust your kid to a public school if you lived in Chicago. You'd send them to a private school or you'd move to the suburbs.

Assuming you actually wanted your kids to get an education of course.

Of course moving to a better district is one of the reasons housing costs correlate so well with school district quality. This is why even people with no kids can be interested in improving the quality of local schools, it will increase the value of their home.

[Arisia]

True, true. So... to fix the public school system, we have to abolish it. It's full of nothing but stupid kids and thugs. After all, the smart kids with parents that care about education are rich enough for private school anyway.

Actually I take it to mean that if you find that you live in a fairly affluent public school district (outer suburbs of major cities, quite often), you probably won't need to worry about whether you can afford a private school. We were thinking of sending our daughter to private school (the one where her dad went, actually), but looked at our town's public school resources and realized she would do just fine without our having to pay a tuition bill on top of our property taxes. I just wish all public school districts, not just the affluent ones, could have the resources to do the best teaching they can to all the children living in the district.

[Piscivore]

I agree that education is a cornerstone of infrastructure, but in my plan, parents are required to send their children to school from ages 6-18, so the parent wouldn't have the choice of not sending their children through schooling. As far as it not being something which should be trusted to the private sector, I agree that purely unsupervised the outcome who probably not be for the best, but under the right government regulations, I believe it could work well and perhaps better than our current system.

Maybe I missed it, but what do you see as the failings of the current system this plan is meant to address?

I really don't see very many problems in public schools that wouldn't be signifigantly improved with better funding.

[JWideman]

Actually I take it to mean that if you find that you live in a fairly affluent public school district (outer suburbs of major cities, quite often), you probably won't need to worry about whether you can afford a private school. We were thinking of sending our daughter to private school (the one where her dad went, actually), but looked at our town's public school resources and realized she would do just fine without our having to pay a tuition bill on top of our property taxes. I just wish all public school districts, not just the affluent ones, could have the resources to do the best teaching they can to all the children living in the district.

Indeed, the problem with public schooling is funding. Thing is, schools are paid for by the local taxpayers. So schools in poor neighborhoods are going to be, surprise, poor.

[The True Scotsman]

Maybe I missed it, but what do you see as the failings of the current system this plan is meant to address?

I really don't see very many problems in public schools that wouldn't be signifigantly improved with better funding.

Well, I don't see public schooling as having any large amounts of problems. Mostly I am simply exploring the option of a more market based approach to education. The main improvement I would expect to see in moving to a more market based system of education is maximization of utility, or more aptly, the voting of parents' dollars for the schools that offer the best services at the lowest prices. As well, another improvement I believe would be in giving parents more options for their children's schools.

[Cainkane1]

This idea is mostly inspired by the section on education in John Steward Mill's "On Liberty", but I will probably add some of my own ideas and subtract some of his in the process.

It seems to me that public schooling is quite different from many of our other government programs in the United States. While public school is open to all, many other government programs simply provide subsidies to poorer citizens (examples: Medicaid (if that is still relevant), Food Stamps, Welfare, etc). I wonder if we could not provide education to the public in the same way we provide other government services. I believe we can and will elaborate on my vision of it in the paragraph below.

All schools are private. Citizens below a certain income level receive government subsidies to pay for their schooling. All citizens are required to attend school from the age of 6 to the age of 18. All students are required to take a state approved competency exam once per year that coincides with their grade level. All school teachers are required to obtain a state approved teacher's licence by passing a competency exam. All schools are subject to periodical inspections by state provided inspectors.

Those are the basics of how I envision it, but it is by no means complete. If anyone has anything to add, I'd love to hear it.
I've know people who work two jobs to keep their children out of Public schools.

[blutoski]

Well, I don't see public schooling as having any large amounts of problems. Mostly I am simply exploring the option of a more market based approach to education. The main improvement I would expect to see in moving to a more market based system of education is maximization of utility, or more aptly, the voting of parents' dollars for the schools that offer the best services at the lowest prices. As well, another improvement I believe would be in giving parents more options for their children's schools.

It remains to be seen whether utility is maximized. This has been explored from many angles for a long time. Healthcare experiences the same debate, although there are important relevant differences between these services to make the comparison incomplete.

The primary concerns are:

since there are a limited number of good teachers, without an increase in overall budget to attract and train more good teachers, any change is merely shuffling them around; 'good' schools will be defined as shifting budget to teacher salaries and act as attractors of good teachers, rather than producers of good teachers; they will be poaching from other schools, which we can expect to see decreased performance;
given a fixed budget, the profit motive means that some of the budget will be allocated to shareowners instead of service provision; it's hard to imagine how this will improve service - evidence suggests that vouchers are associated with lower service levels, and this is likely the main reason


These are largely learnings that countries have taken away from PPP in education and similar industries such as healthcare whose features can be arguably analogous.

[Arisia]

Well, I don't see public schooling as having any large amounts of problems. Mostly I am simply exploring the option of a more market based approach to education. The main improvement I would expect to see in moving to a more market based system of education is maximization of utility, or more aptly, the voting of parents' dollars for the schools that offer the best services at the lowest prices. As well, another improvement I believe would be in giving parents more options for their children's schools.

The very expensive private schools are seen as status symbols, so they're not going to go lower their prices to compete with the parochial school down the road for being the best value.

[blutoski]

The very expensive private schools are seen as status symbols, so they're not going to go lower their prices to compete with the parochial school down the road for being the best value.

This is another unintended consequence of the voucher system: it actually seems to distort the private offerings by effectively setting prices.

In other words, many private schools creep their tuitions up or down to the exact price of the voucher, which is suspicious to say the least. I think it's reasonable to assume that the increase in tuition to the voucher pricepoint represents money going into the shareowners' pockets, instead of increased services. That's the mandate of a business.

Having said that, some schools offer enhanced services and augment the voucher subsidy with an additional private tuition. Parents who can offord it go to that school; parents who cannot offord it simply don't have the choice. The end learning: paradoxically, some voucher structures have resulted in considerably reduced choice compared to open boundary public education regions.

[dudalb]

I think that schools should be, ideally, universally controlled by democratic governments, funded equally, and have even distributions of children from different backgrounds. I'd say that this is an important part of minimising segregation within society.

I don't know how to fix all the economic and logistical problems involved, and I don't know if anyone does. But I believe that's what should be aspired to. I don't think that privatising schools further is a step in the right direction.


And I don't think mandating that parents have to send their kids to a public instead of a private school is a step in the right direction.
I am very skeptical of anything that sacrifices basic individual rights in pursuit of some ill defined "common good". And the right of a parent to make decisions(within certain limits) about his or her kids education in such a right.

[The True Scotsman]

since there are a limited number of good teachers, without an increase in overall budget to attract and train more good teachers, any change is merely shuffling them around; 'good' schools will be defined as shifting budget to teacher salaries and act as attractors of good teachers, rather than producers of good teachers; they will be poaching from other schools, which we can expect to see decreased performance;

Well, if my statements in post #20 are true and if I were to assume that teacher in public schools would rather work in schools in wealthier areas than in schools in less wealthy areas (other things being equal), then I might conclude that those differences already exist under the current system. Now, whether my solution would exacerbate the problem or help it is something which would probably require a study.

given a fixed budget, the profit motive means that some of the budget will be allocated to shareowners instead of service provision; it's hard to imagine how this will improve service - evidence suggests that vouchers are associated with lower service levels, and this is likely the main reason

Why is a fixed budget a given? Wealth isn't fixed. (Unless this is simply to create an abstract model, in which case you can ignore this question). Also, wouldn't a profit motive give a firm greater incentive to cut costs and thus save money?

These are largely learnings that countries have taken away from PPP in education and similar industries such as healthcare whose features can be arguably analogous.

Do you have a particular source or set of sources in mind?

[The True Scotsman]

And I don't think mandating that parents have to send their kids to a public instead of a private school is a step in the right direction.
I am very skeptical of anything that sacrifices basic individual rights in pursuit of some ill defined "common good". And the right of a parent to make decisions(within certain limits) about his or her kids education in such a right.

How do you feel about mandating that parents send their kids to any qualified school? (I have a good idea of what you're opinion is, but I don't want to assume it).

[The True Scotsman]

The very expensive private schools are seen as status symbols, so they're not going to go lower their prices to compete with the parochial school down the road for being the best value.

These very expensive private schools exist in both systems so I think they can be largely ignored, unless they are noticeably more numerous in one system versus the other. When I speak of private schools being utility maximizers I am mainly speaking of private schools with patrons who are concerned about costs.

[blutoski]

Well, if my statements in post #20 are true and if I were to assume that teacher in public schools would rather work in schools in wealthier areas than in schools in less wealthy areas (other things being equal), then I might conclude that those differences already exist under the current system. Now, whether my solution would exacerbate the problem or help it is something which would probably require a study.

It's not that simple: many regions do not allow teachers to retain their seniority when they move districts. There is obviously also cost issues: a teacher with a master's degree may have been hired when he had a batchelor's. The new district will not hire him fresh now that he has a master's because of the payscale increase.

The other obvious point is that the teacher's salary won't increase, but the real estate or commute will. Many teachers simply prefer to teach near their home, which is the home they chose based on income.

The difference between the teaching experience in schools within driving distance is not really all that much. Teachers see more occupational improvement by switching subjects than by switching school districts.



Why is a fixed budget a given? Wealth isn't fixed. (Unless this is simply to create an abstract model, in which case you can ignore this question).

My impression is that your model was to offer vouchers to pay for private education. Every example I have ever seen offers vouchers based on the current cost of educating a child for a year. It comes out of the ministry's coffers and if you want more expensive vouchers, you can do it easily: ask the taxpayers for more money.




Also, wouldn't a profit motive give a firm greater incentive to cut costs and thus save money?

Absolutely, which is what I said in an above post. Cutting costs = reducing value to the consumer. Call your local phone company with a billing inquiry to see how cutting the cost of call centres saved money at the expense of the value proposition to the customer.

This is what the healthcare analogy showed: government programs are actually much more efficient than pretty much any private offering in a similar sector. I appreciate that idealogues will not buy this, but that's what makes them idealogues. Reducing costs is almost guaranteed to be associated with pulling services off the menu. As is diversion of revenue to profits. A 10% profit in a new PPP typically means 10% reduction in service offered to the citizen for no particularly obvious reason that I can think of (that's why they're so popular with business entrepreneurs - it's nice to be able to legally pocket 10% of the taxpayer-funded education budget by taking a contract - just convince the taxpayer that the reduction in service and pocketing the difference is 'cutting the fat')

Important point: businesses are not motivated to reduce prices - they are motivated to maximize profits to the shareowner, which can be best achieved by a combination of reducing costs (this does not necessarily mean getting the same service for less cost - it can mean reducing service levels instead) and increasing prices. What may or may not motivate price shifts is new entrants. However, if the PPP is bidding on school contracts, there is great value in bidding for a monopoly or duopoly endpoint.

Disclosure: I work for a telco.





Do you have a particular source or set of sources in mind?

Healthcare and economic analogues notwithstanding, even education science is a current discipline that produces hundreds of research titles a year, so I'd recommend hitting the local university to answer specific inquiries.

Here's something from today: [Teachers, Performance Pay, and Accountability - What Education Should Learn From Other Sectors (http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/books-teachers_performance_pay_and_accountability/)]

[blutoski]

Do you have a particular source or set of sources in mind?

In context of healthcare, simple national statistics are probably sufficient. Cost and outcomes.

[blutoski]

I just want to point out that in this 21st century world, there is a collective benefit to education, rather than just the student himself.

As a concrete example, I worked for a software company in the 1980s whose president simultaneously complained about his business' property taxes going toward education, but also that there was a shortage of educated applicants, so his business could not grow.

He was unable to see that he personally benefitted from an overall educated public. As far as I could tell, he was looking for the free lunch he claimed did not exist.

[The True Scotsman]

It's not that simple: many regions do not allow teachers to retain their seniority when they move districts. There is obviously also cost issues: a teacher with a master's degree may have been hired when he had a batchelor's. The new district will not hire him fresh now that he has a master's because of the payscale increase.

The other obvious point is that the teacher's salary won't increase, but the real estate or commute will. Many teachers simply prefer to teach near their home, which is the home they chose based on income.

The difference between the teaching experience in schools within driving distance is not really all that much. Teachers see more occupational improvement by switching subjects than by switching school districts.

My impression is that your model was to offer vouchers to pay for private education. Every example I have ever seen offers vouchers based on the current cost of educating a child for a year. It comes out of the ministry's coffers and if you want more expensive vouchers, you can do it easily: ask the taxpayers for more money.

Absolutely, which is what I said in an above post. Cutting costs = reducing value to the consumer. Call your local phone company with a billing inquiry to see how cutting the cost of call centres saved money at the expense of the value proposition to the customer.

This is what the healthcare analogy showed: government programs are actually much more efficient than pretty much any private offering in a similar sector. I appreciate that idealogues will not buy this, but that's what makes them idealogues. Reducing costs is almost guaranteed to be associated with pulling services off the menu. As is diversion of revenue to profits. A 10% profit in a new PPP typically means 10% reduction in service offered to the citizen for no particularly obvious reason that I can think of (that's why they're so popular with business entrepreneurs - it's nice to be able to legally pocket 10% of the taxpayer-funded education budget by taking a contract - just convince the taxpayer that the reduction in service and pocketing the difference is 'cutting the fat')

Important point: businesses are not motivated to reduce prices - they are motivated to maximize profits to the shareowner, which can be best achieved by a combination of reducing costs (this does not necessarily mean getting the same service for less cost - it can mean reducing service levels instead) and increasing prices. What may or may not motivate price shifts is new entrants. However, if the PPP is bidding on school contracts, there is great value in bidding for a monopoly or duopoly endpoint.

Disclosure: I work for a telco.

Healthcare and economic analogues notwithstanding, even education science is a current discipline that produces hundreds of research titles a year, so I'd recommend hitting the local university to answer specific inquiries.

Here's something from today: [Teachers, Performance Pay, and Accountability - What Education Should Learn From Other Sectors (http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/books-teachers_performance_pay_and_accountability/)]

Hmmm...although I might disagree with some of your points, I have come to the conclusion that this topic may be a bit beyond my rudimentary knowledge of the inner workings of public education. I fear the task of deciding which education system is better would require a laborious amount of knowledge to come to a solid conclusion and that this task is only made more difficult by, from my view, there being good arguments to be made on both sides. I have by no means come to a conclusion on this topic, but feel it would be best for me to put this topic aside for the time being.

[The True Scotsman]

I just want to point out that in this 21st century world, there is a collective benefit to education, rather than just the student himself.

As a concrete example, I worked for a software company in the 1980s whose president simultaneously complained about his business' property taxes going toward education, but also that there was a shortage of educated applicants, so his business could not grow.

He was unable to see that he personally benefitted from an overall educated public. As far as I could tell, he was looking for the free lunch he claimed did not exist.

Well, I would say that there has always been a collective benefit to education, but certainly education is more necessary now due to jobs requiring more technical knowledge (as opposed to farming, glass blowing, etc).

[weblet]

Indeed, the problem with public schooling is funding. Thing is, schools are paid for by the local taxpayers. So schools in poor neighborhoods are going to be, surprise, poor.

In the US, funding for public schools is mainly controlled by the state. Yes, in most states a family's local taxes go to support the local school district. But not in all...

[dudalb]

How do you feel about mandating that parents send their kids to any qualified school? (I have a good idea of what you're opinion is, but I don't want to assume it).

I would not be against that, since I am sketpical about how well Home Schooling works.
Of course, if a Parent wants to hire qualfied tutors to teach their kids at home I would consider that a form of school.

[Beth]

Storming the School Barricades
A new documentary by a 27-year-old filmmaker could change the national debate about public education.

This sound really interesting. I hope to see it soon. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704635204575242123324855474.html?m od=WSJ_newsreel_opinion



This idea is mostly inspired by the section on education in John Steward Mill's "On Liberty", but I will probably add some of my own ideas and subtract some of his in the process.

It seems to me that public schooling is quite different from many of our other government programs in the United States. While public school is open to all, many other government programs simply provide subsidies to poorer citizens (examples: Medicaid (if that is still relevant), Food Stamps, Welfare, etc). I wonder if we could not provide education to the public in the same way we provide other government services. I believe we can and will elaborate on my vision of it in the paragraph below.

All schools are private. Citizens below a certain income level receive government subsidies to pay for their schooling. All citizens are required to attend school from the age of 6 to the age of 18. All students are required to take a state approved competency exam once per year that coincides with their grade level. All school teachers are required to obtain a state approved teacher's licence by passing a competency exam. All schools are subject to periodical inspections by state provided inspectors.

Those are the basics of how I envision it, but it is by no means complete. If anyone has anything to add, I'd love to hear it.

[Beth]

I would not be against that, since I am skeptical about how well Home Schooling works.
Of course, if a Parent wants to hire qualfied tutors to teach their kids at home I would consider that a form of school.

Why are you skeptical? All the available evidence indicates that it works quite well.

[kittynh]

I work at a private school. I sent my older daughter to private schools all the way through high school. One reason I worked at a private school was to get a tuition discount for my kids. My younger daughter is learning disabled. When it came time for high school, no private school would accept her. So we went public school route, and it worked well as since they could not educate her at the public high school (except for art and a few courses that would not require her to write), they paid for her tutors. At $95 an hour for a private tutor for her disability (and we are lucky there is a local college that trains teachers for this disability... so college profs were hired) we could never have afforded to pay for her high school education. She just graduated though and got an excellent education (if a horribly expensive one).

As long as private schools can turn down kids, you will need public education.

Also that "every year testing" is one reason the private school I work at does so well. A lot of parents don't want schools that "teach the test". They want schools that teach kids how to think and take time to explore topics that interest the students. This is one reason the school where I work does not give grades. Mind you, the school gives out written detailed reports on each child, but no grades.

The school would never agree to yearly testing. There is also a waiting list to go to this school. I imagine with a voucher type program, schools would spring up to accept the vouchers. Really good private schools would remain expensive and exclusive. Though I have to say that the school I work out gives out a lot of scholarships.

[ponderingturtle]

Why are you skeptical? All the available evidence indicates that it works quite well.

And it is great for getting rid of corrupting subjects like science that flagrantly are in error. Just compare them to the bible.

See the thread about home school science textbooks in religion and philosophy.

Thread on the high quality of home school textbooks (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=177442)

[Cainkane1]

If I had a child I'd work two jobs to keep them out of public school.

[ponderingturtle]

If I had a child I'd work two jobs to keep them out of public school.

It all depends on your district. That is why people want to move to good school districts, and school district quality can effect home prices so dramatically.

Most people seem to do it so that they work two jobs to afford a house in a good school district.

[drkitten]

If I had a child I'd work two jobs to keep them out of public school.

It might be easier to move to a good public school district.

I went to the best high school in my state, as documented by almost every metric except for sports performance. For some reason, all the little nerdlings with a higher IQ than their weight didn't do really well as defensive tackles. :D But in terms of things like college acceptance rates, SAT scores, GPA, number of national merit scholarship, and whatnot, we tended to blow the doors off the entire rest of the state.

And, yes, it was a public school.

Why did it work? Several reasons. The principal was exceptional and ran the high school like an extension of his own wallet; he was able to recruit and retain truly phenomenal teachers by making sure they could focus on what they wanted to do -- teach their subjects. He had the luxury of having the university in his recruitment area, and had established good relationships with the local faculty to come in and "help out." He also had the local PTA eating out of the palm of his hand and fighting to see who could be the most helpful.

If the various people who hate public schools worked as hard to improve their schools as they do to undercut them, the United States would have the best school system in the world, by leaps and bounds.

But I guess the idea of volunteering to improve your children's school isn't as much fun as the idea of writing a check to solve the problem, huh?

[Malerin]

If I had a child I'd work two jobs to keep them out of public school.

I would do anything to keep my kid out of the zoo school I teach at. The public school he actually goes to is quite nice. What a difference 25 miles makes.

[Beth]

And it is great for getting rid of corrupting subjects like science that flagrantly are in error. Just compare them to the bible.

See the thread about home school science textbooks in religion and philosophy.

Thread on the high quality of home school textbooks (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=177442)

Yes, I've read the thread. I wasn't surprized by the info in it either. Sure, evolution is a sticking point for some homeschoolers, but evolution isn't really crucial to an elementary school or high school education. Homeschoolers, overall (including the religious fundamentist ones), are able to produce children that test substantially higher academically and, in the few studies that have examined it, with better social skills than the average public school does. The one-on-one attention and flexibility to tailor the pace to the child seems to more than compensate for the various shortcomings of individual parents.

May I ask you to reconsider your opinion of the practice. In my experience, the main reason parents choose to homeschool simply because they feel it is the best education they can provide for their children. Sometimes, the choice is related to their religious beliefs, but often it is not. There's no reason to condemn all homeschooling just because it's a popular choice with fundamentalists and you don't approve of their approach to science education.

[blutoski]

Yes, I've read the thread. I wasn't surprized by the info in it either. Sure, evolution is a sticking point for some homeschoolers, but evolution isn't really crucial to an elementary school or high school education. Homeschoolers, overall (including the religious fundamentist ones), are able to produce children that test substantially higher academically and, in the few studies that have examined it, with better social skills than the average public school does. The one-on-one attention and flexibility to tailor the pace to the child seems to more than compensate for the various shortcomings of individual parents.

I have had trouble making sense of a lot of these comparisons, and usually have to reject the findings as apples and orange problems.

Just an example... I am basing my analysis specifically on BC's homeschooling platform, which requires registration with the local school district. In principle, we know who is being homeschooled.

When I did a random check on the students registered as homeschoolers, a noticeable chunk were actually attending classes fulltime. IIRC, less than a quarter of the registered homeschoolers were not attending at least one day per week on average in BC districts 44 and 45. Over 80% were using other features of the public school system, such as being involved in the organized sports teams or using the Outdoor School facility out near Harrison Hot Springs.

Unfortunately, it was not possible to get a breakdown of their grades. On average, the homeschooling cohort had worse overall grades on the standardized testing over a 5-year period, but I suspect subgroup analysis would produce insight.

One of the major complications for doing this type of research is selection bias: the parents of students that are cratering are not interested in talking about it. The students who are completely AWOL are omitted from the analysis because they can't be found.

As a result, the comparisons tend to be the "parent-identified successful" homeschoolers vs the district's unbiased averages.





May I ask you to reconsider your opinion of the practice. In my experience, the main reason parents choose to homeschool simply because they feel it is the best education they can provide for their children. Sometimes, the choice is related to their religious beliefs, but often it is not. There's no reason to condemn all homeschooling just because it's a popular choice with fundamentalists and you don't approve of their approach to science education.

This is consistent with my observations.

I would add that another driver here in BC is parents who travel and want their kids to go with them. I can identify this segment pretty easily: they're enrolled as IB.

[Beth]

I have had trouble making sense of a lot of these comparisons, and usually have to reject the findings as apples and orange problems.

Just an example... I am basing my analysis specifically on BC's homeschooling platform, which requires registration with the local school district. In principle, we know who is being homeschooled.

When I did a random check on the students registered as homeschoolers, a noticeable chunk were actually attending classes fulltime. IIRC, less than a quarter of the registered homeschoolers were not attending at least one day per week on average in BC districts 44 and 45. Over 80% were using other features of the public school system, such as being involved in the organized sports teams or using the Outdoor School facility out near Harrison Hot Springs.

This is becoming more and more common here. While it does make research more difficult, I see it as a win-win situation for the schools and the students. The schools get more funding because they get more students but don't have to provide as many resources to educate the homeschoolers. In some cases, the school districts work with the parents and provide educational materials and lesson plans, but the parents are providing the majority of the instruction. The homeschoolers get the advantage of additional educational and socialization opportunities but they still get the one-on-one attention and individual pacing for all the other subjects they aren't taking in classroom situations.
Unfortunately, it was not possible to get a breakdown of their grades. On average, the homeschooling cohort had worse overall grades on the standardized testing over a 5-year period, but I suspect subgroup analysis would produce insight.One of the major complications for doing this type of research is selection bias: the parents of students that are cratering are not interested in talking about it. The students who are completely AWOL are omitted from the analysis because they can't be found.




As a result, the comparisons tend to be the "parent-identified successful" homeschoolers vs the district's unbiased averages.

It's been a few years since I looked at the research, but some states in the U.S. require homeschoolers take standardized tests. The average for homeschoolers overall was the 80th percentile compared to students of public schools. Data on states that didn't require homeschoolers to take the standardized tests scored slightly higher, but the difference between the types of states was not large (IIRC 82nd% versus 78th%), which implies that the self-selection bias in regard to testing was not sufficient to account for the disparity between the public schools and homeschoolers.

However, homeschoolers are a self-selected group. Parents who choose to do so are committed to their child's education and actively involved in it. I suspect that children fortunate enough to have such parents that attend public schools might do equally well in standardized tests. This,however, is not a measurable quality that can be evaluated and taken into consideration when making comparisons.

[blutoski]

It's been a few years since I looked at the research, but some states in the U.S. require homeschoolers take standardized tests. The average for homeschoolers overall was the 80th percentile compared to students of public schools. Data on states that didn't require homeschoolers to take the standardized tests scored slightly higher, but the difference between the types of states was not large (IIRC 82nd% versus 78th%), which implies that the self-selection bias in regard to testing was not sufficient to account for the disparity between the public schools and homeschoolers.

BC requires the same: all students who want credit for a course have to achieve a passing score in stanardized testing, whether homeschooled or otherwise.

The complication with the comparison comes in when we deal with the parents who are clearly not concerned about the conventional educational comparisons. These are the ones who are homeschooling Abrahamic religions or isolated sects like Dukhobours or Hutterites, Scientology, or New Agey stuff like Mormonism or Anthroposophy (aka: "Extreme Waldorf").

These parents probably make up the %age in BC who register for homeschooling, but probably aren't actually doing anything we'd recognize as school. They're often not even being taught English, for example. Just the parents' native tongue.

The often don't even sit exams, and once they're registered in homeschooling, they're essentially dropouts by another name. Homeschool registration has been a way for parents to evade truancy laws and retain their kids as free farm labour. For example: Bountiful BC.

The point is that when I read comparisons of exam results, the students who are homeschooled but either do not sit for the exams - or do sit but do not participate (to avoid truancy warrants) - are omitted from the comparison - they are not counted as 0% scores.

This is similar to my complaint above regarding comparisons bewteen public and private schools: homeschoolers' scores average higher, if you exclude the really bad scores. Nice work if you can get it.

The other problem is a comparison of students who do different things in different years. I have a friend who has done very well academically and describes himself as a product of homeschooling. But it was 6 months in grade 6 when they went sailing around the world (and he almost had to repeat that year). After that he was never homeschooled again.





However, homeschoolers are a self-selected group. Parents who choose to do so are committed to their child's education and actively involved in it. I suspect that children fortunate enough to have such parents that attend public schools might do equally well in standardized tests. This,however, is not a measurable quality that can be evaluated and taken into consideration when making comparisons.

This is part of the problem, for sure.

While most of the current set of homeschoolers appear to benefit from the extra committment, this does not mean that it will extrapolate to many more students.

Among other things: the number of families with an unemployed parent who can dedicate the time is very small. This should probably be a seperate thread.