One Hundred Reasons to Abandon Public Education Now

[_Kevin Graham]

In Colombia the government pays until you're in 6th grade. Then it's up to the family. You'd be amazed how many otherwise poor people find the money it takes to educate their kids.

Have you ever lived in South America?

I have. Private education is limited to the richest 1-5% only. Period.

What you just said about Colombia is horse crap.http://www-db.in.tum.de/teaching/ws1112 ... cture.html

In LA a lot of people opt for private education, and these aren't rich people. It's just that the public schools are so bad that the demand is that high.

Hard to comment without any references. Care to provide? The fact is private education is expensive, and the supply doesn't even begin to meet demand.

[_ajax18]

What you just said about Colombia is horse****.http://www-db.in.tum.de/teaching/ws1112 ... cture.html

Where does that say what grade the state stops paying for education in Colombia? Granted I'm going by what people told me. There is a public university you can get into for college there but it's very limited and only for those who score very high on the entrance exams.

[Guest]

Without public education, schools would be only business/profit based entities that would provide only what sells. As we know from the success of McDonalds and reality TV, the public tends to choose trash. Donald Trump would open up paper mills and use advertising to convince the public that his schools and "universities" were providing real "classy" education (lol).

Well, most American parents want an excellent education for their children, and if this is the case, then education sells, and they'd be far more likely to receive just that, in an open, competitive market for educational services than in the present intellectually fluffy, academically debased, social promotion-based, union dominated government monopoly system. It could only get better (and would probably excel) as the present education system (as can be seen by the results of the last election, among a number of other clear empirical indicators) has been abysmal for decades,

Without public education, it would be only the exceptional and the few that would be educated while everywhere schools that teach children the things hick parents or ideologue parents want them to hear (creationism, fringe economic theories, fringe Bible based geography, and various forms of denialism) would pop up all over unchecked.

Pure pap. These are just the standard NEA and AFT class war tropes that have no rational or empirical support but sound nice in the ears of the average low-information American (uniquely products, it should be noted, of the very system you defend).

There's not the slightest reason to believe that any part of your scenario is even plausible, let alone likely. And in any case, the various superstitions presently being taught in the public schools as truth and even under the imprimatur of science (AGW, environmentalism/neo-pantheism, overpopulation mythology, sexual revolution ideology, left-wing revisionist American and world history; multiculturalism, "diversity," and various programs of behavior modification and thought/values reform (OBE, Transformational OBE, Systems Thinking, SEL, Soft Skills, School Climate, Quality Learning, Mastery Leaning, Positive School Climate, PBIS, IB Learner Profile, Deep Learning, Career Ready Practices (and within the Common Core standards) etc.) make almost any change desirable.

This exists in a climate of plummeting academic rigor and disdain for content. In point of fact, the only hope at all for America's public schools is an open, dynamic, competitive market for educational services. Nothing else could possibly break the power of the unions - the main impediment to educational reform - and actually promote a return to academic rigor, substance, and seriousness.

Worst of all we would have multitudes of people who think a good written argument is one that is filled with run on sentences and excessive use of a thesaurus.
Education would become like a spelling bee or a Bible chase.
History would be reduced to jingoism and pseudo-facts like George Washington and his cherry tree.

No intelligent adult could possible take any of this histrionic bleating seriously unless they had a heavy stake in the present system and felt deeply threatened by any alteration of the status quo.

You do realize, don't you, that the system you are defending is the worst educational system in the entire developed Western world, scoring on the virtual bottom in all key subjects for some thirty years now? The very fact that this is the system you feel the need to defend, and find the need to do so, not with calm, rational argument, but with hysterical wails of class-war based doom, is all one needs to see to see that you have nothing of philosophical substance to bring to this table.

The real problem is the culture of disrespect for the educated and for real knowledge. It is a culture where everyone has heard of Snooky, JayZ and Rush Limbaugh but almost no one has heard of Terrence Tao, Johan Pettersson, or even Gabriel García Márquez.

The vast majority of people who know who Snooky and JayZ are are probably only dimly aware of Rush Limbaugh (or Laura Ingram, or Carl Levin, or Sean Hannity) and, if they have heard of him, have never listened to him. Terrence Tao is a cutting-edge mathematician, and if public school students haven't heard of him, then you have just made much of my own free-market argument for me. Gabriel García Márquez is a socialist writer and journalist so far to the Left that he flirted with Latin American communism in his youth, pursued a personal friendship with Fidel Castro that continued throughout his life, and who considers American his personal "enemy." Yup, I can see why you think this guy is important for American public skool children, many of whom can't place WWII or the Civil War in the correct decade, have never heard of the Federalist Papers, have no idea who wrote the Gettysburg Address, have no idea what the Constitution actually says, are oblivious to the philosophy of Washington, Adams, Jay, Madison, Jefferson etc., have never heard of Hayek, Von Mises, Hazlitt, Chesterton, Nock, Kirk, Buckley, Friedman etc., and cannot defend their beliefs with a single coherent sentence or body of logically connected arguments in English.

I know very well why leftists such as yourself are in such love with such a failed system: its your system, people like you created it, and it serves your purposes very well. Altering it would pose the very real danger of taking the minds of America's youth out of the reach of your clutches and liberating them from your ideological influence, making it very possible that your dominance of the news media, higher education, the entertainment industry, and the foundations (from which many present leftist academic fashions have and continue to emanate) would no longer be supported, in the earliest years, by continual indoctrination within the government schools.

I hear your wails and I understand them. A free, competitive, dynamic educational marketplace poses the same lethal threat to both your power and your world view as does free economic markets.

And are parents likely to choose schools that teach about people and ideas they aren't already familiar with?

A few probably won't but that's not your or my problem. The substantial majority of parents, of all races and colors, will flock to the school that presents the best results for the best price. What's the real danger here? Well, its not to America's children, who will finally, after decades of educational decline, begin to thrive. The danger is to the Left, who will, through the competitive dynamics of the marketplace, lose their ability to mold, shape, and condition the minds of further generations of children, shackle their imaginations, subvert any chance of becoming truly literate, challenge them intellectually, and wreck any chance for many of them of ever learning to think for themselves. You will still have the mainstream media, Hollywood, and the universities, but without continual, standardized indoctrination from pre-school onwards, you would, at some point in time, be facing a much more skeptical, intellectually mature and critical generation of Americans who had a substantial background of both fact, theory, and critical thinking (not in the way that term is used now in the teacher's colleges) and who would not suffer what passes for K-12 now easily, nor what passes for the social sciences and humanities in higher ed.

In any case, All the government schools are doing now anyway - teaching old, hoary, threadbare leftist shibboleths, ideological can't, "communitarian" ideals and values modification, in an environment of thin academic content, can hardly be defended - unless you're a big fan of John Dewey and his present disciples.

Nah, they want the Bible, jingoism and maybe plain old arithmetic and some spelling bees.

Yeah, show me a speck of evidence that this argument is even plausible, and then we can talk. But look at the present system. Your classic left-wing elitist snobbery and haughty, powdered wig disdain for what you clearly see as the great, unwashed hoi polloi below you, is sickening.

Ideas become mere commodities and like the food currently in the grocery store would slowly loose the germ of sustenance.

Even if this was remotely serious as an argument (so yes, Tarski, bring the old, disheveled Marxian nostrum of"commodification" into the discussion, never mind that it has no historical, rational, or empirical support), the present system is, overwhelmingly, without educational sustenance. Your only answer is to further nationalize and monopolize the system in the hands of special interests who's only real motive is their own power, influence, and permanent sinecures within the educational system.

And what's wrong with the food at the supermarket? Capitalism has provided more of it, in endless variety, and at a lower cost, than at any time in the history of the planet. You have a problem with that? Well, of course. Food should be "free," shouldn't it, Tarski?

[_Droopy]

Are you actually trying to come across as an even bigger idiot than in previous posts? There is no "hissing" or "wailing" or "moaning" or "gnashing of teeth" needed. Just pointing out the simple fact that your precious article is full of idiotic nonsense. The fact that it quotes historical figures in ways that do not support their case, though they obviously think they do, is just icing on the cake here. You never fail to disappoint when we need a moment of comic relief.

And again, the least knowledgeable, least educated, least read, least capable of rational, critical thought, least intellectually and psychological mature, and the loudest, most boorish, reddest-faced demagogue in any room passes more polemical gas. This is why I've always termed you "the Father Coughlin of anti-Mormonism."

The reason for the tiny percentage of rich people in the private schools in third world, Latin American countries is that these countries are, for the most part, abysmally poor, and they are abysmally poor because they have traditionally and continually lacked open, competitive capitalistic markets, the rule of law, representative, deliberative democratic governmental institutions, and respect for property rights. They have traditionally been run by socialist, communist, or autocratic caudillos, none of which have been economically literate, and none of which would have cared if they had been.

There is no reason to believe -none - that the same thing that has happened to consumer electronics and many other goods and services, left to compete with each other for customers - in this case for educational services - would not happen to education in America and other similar democratic nations.

What you just cannot hide is the fact that your and Tarski's entire argument here is all just a big, wriggling red herring, and has nothing to do with your real paralyzing fear, which is, as with all leftists, the ideological loss of control over education per se.

Private ed today is expensive because it is competing against a government monopoly system that provides "free" education to all. Create a dynamic, thriving, private competitive market for education, and let the laws of the marketplace work. Some schools, with better teachers and programs, would charge more, others less. But competition, creativity, and innovation would, as in every other aspect of the unhampered (relatively) market, tend to drive prices down over time.

The other really good thing about a fundamentally private system is that the teachers hired to teach in them would, unlike the majority of certified public ed teachers, actually have degrees in the subjects they taught, not just degrees in academic pedagogy.

[_krose]

If this kind of piece is what passes as conservative thought nowadays, I can imagine people walking past William Buckley's grave can hear him groaning.

[_Kevin Graham]

And again, the least knowledgeable, least educated, least read, least capable of rational, critical thought, least intellectually and psychological mature, and the loudest, most boorish, reddest-faced demagogue in any room passes more polemical gas. This is why I've always termed you "the Father Coughlin of anti-Mormonism."

Droops, I've read more and have a broader knowledge base on a wider variety of issues than you ever will. Though, that's not really boasting considering your background and history on these forums.

The reason for the tiny percentage of rich people in the private schools in third world, Latin American countries is that these countries are, for the most part, abysmally poor, and they are abysmally poor because they have traditionally and continually lacked open, competitive capitalistic markets, the rule of law, representative, deliberative democratic governmental institutions, and respect for property rights

Again, the guy who has never left backwoods South Carolina is going to tell me what its like in South America, though I lived there more than six years? That's just priceless Droopy. Keep it coming. The fact is private education is South America is outrageously expensive even for American residents. Most of the US citizens I knew working at the American Embassy couldn't afford to send their kids there. The only reason they went is because the US taxpayer was footing the bill. They were not just getting tuition paid for, but they were the only kids in the school who had a private security and taxi services to and from school.

They have traditionally been run by socialist, communist, or autocratic caudillos, none of which have been economically literate, and none of which would have cared if they had been.

"They"? Which ones Droopy? Brazil is in many ways just as free and capitalistic as the US ever was.

There is no reason to believe -none - that the same thing that has happened to consumer electronics and many other goods and services, left to compete with each other for customers - in this case for educational services - would not happen to education in America and other similar democratic nations.

Crazy run on sentence aside, you simply don't have any experience in education. The fact is we could drop public education tomorrow and we'd have tens of millions of students no longer learning because 1. they cannot afford private education and 2. there simply isn't enough of it to go around. You keep ignoring this point because it completrely decimates your Right Wing talking point. This is simple mathematics Droopy. I know you hate education, but you should have at least some access to a calculator. In fact, try clicking Start --> Programs --> Accessories --> Calculator.

What you just cannot hide is the fact that your and Tarski's entire argument here is all just a big, wriggling red herring, and has nothing to do with your real paralyzing fear, which is, as with all leftists, the ideological loss of control over education per se.

You're pandering to whom with this fear mongering? Ajax? Subgenius? Bcspace? I mean who else do you really expect to buy into your stupdiity on this issue. You have to experts in education schooling you on this subject, and you are reduced to the usual Glenn Beckish assertions about the evil Left wanting control, bla bla bla.

Private ed today is expensive because it is competing against a government monopoly system that provides "free" education to all.

Nothing is free idiot. It is paid for by the taxpayers, which means these kids' parents. It provides the same education you could get at a private school, with few exceptions . For example, wealthy families living in poor school districts should probably send their kids to private schools. It all depends on how the schools have been districted. Here in Atlanta, it is common to find millionaire homes on the edge of really poor school districts. But the difference in education has nothing to do with public vs. private. It is all about geography and environment.
Anyone who has ever shoipped for a home using one of the many interactive homefinding websites, knows that local schools are included on the maps with a rating from 1 to 10. Without exception, the wealthiest neighborhoods reside in public school districts rated a 9 or 10. And without exception, the poorest districts find themselves with a rating of 6 or lower. As someone who engages in real estate speculation, I know this better than most. It is a fact that some public schools outperform private schools. The funny thing is my best friend thinks like you do, and yet we both attended the highest rated public school in Georgia. And he is a doctor. Our school had four students with perfect SAT scores our graduation year. So how exactly did the evil "state" screw up education at Lassiter High School in 1989?

Create a dynamic, thriving, private competitive market for education, and let the laws of the marketplace work.

Yes, and the problem with private education will run amuk. Schools will be careful to keep rejecting students who fail to pass their stricter entrance exams, as each school will continue to market itself against the competition, claiming to produce smarter kids, when in fact they never accepted any of those with lower IQs. Privatizing education has the same problem as privatizing prisons. The longer you keep someone in jail, the more money you make. So you bribe local judges to keep sending you business.

Some schools, with better teachers and programs, would charge more, others less

Yes, depending on demand.

But competition, creativity, and innovation would, as in every other aspect of the unhampered (relatively) market, tend to drive prices down over time.

Not with education. Customers who think like you do will obviously want to send their kids to the school that can claim to be the best in innovation, creativity, etc. But their primary selling point will be the same thing that it is today: the average test scores by their students. And since this is decided by a school carefully cherry picking its own students while dismissing the rest, your market fantasy turns out to be a sham. And you still can't seem to get it in your head that prices will never go down far enough that would encourage a single mother in a poor neighborhood to pay for it. Even at ten bucks a month, I know there are plenty of families that wouldn't do it. And who suffers for it? The child, of course. But since when do you give a flying damn about anyone like that. They're probably just lazy. And black. No matter how you try to sugar coat this issue, the fact is a completely privatized system would mean millions more falling out of school altogether. To deny this is to further demonstrate your ignorance of reality.

The other really good thing about a fundamentally private system is that the teachers hired to teach in them would, unlike the majority of certified public ed teachers, actually have degrees in the subjects they taught, not just degrees in academic pedagogy.

Again, what in the hell would you know about this? Nothing. You keep trying to make your fantasy seem like a viable option, but it simply isn't. There is no way it could work in a way that would benefit the country. Yours is a path to further ignorance, leading the country into an even worse state it is now. But maybe that's your overall plan. To create as many uneducated adults as possible by denying them basic tax funded education. I mean you're sure to get more Republican voters out of the process.

[_Kevin Graham]

Where does that say what grade the state stops paying for education in Colombia? Granted I'm going by what people told me. There is a public university you can get into for college there but it's very limited and only for those who score very high on the entrance exams.

In a section talking about both public and private education we get the following (notice that it nowhere says public education ends for sixth graders!):

The education in Colombia is segmented into two sectors, the public and the private. On one hand the public schools are financed with resources of the state and have a high demand of students. In the primary and secondary school the places are guaranteed, nevertheless is not the case for the higher education and the admission depends on the state exam for higher education (ICFES) and in particular cases additional exams from the university. Given the high demand of students the public schools have divided the schedules into morning and afternoon, that way allowing the access of all kids to the education system.

The private schools on the other hand are more expensive, some are much more expensive than anothers. They have a longer daily schedule and provide extra curricular activities at school. The quality is assumed to be higher due to the fact that they have a more variety of activities, groups are smaller, students have more resources available at school and at home, the education level of the family is typically high where learning is continuously fostered, and there is a broader exchange of experiences and talents with other the classmates. For instance the bilingual schools can only be found here, the number of students in the classes is smaller, the pace of instruction is frequently faster and these students probably dedicate more time to learn at home where they have access to more resources, like books or personal computers, what is not always the case of the students in the public sector.

In general the quality of the public education until secondary school is perceived as lower than the private education, given there are less opportunities and resources available, and learning is sometimes not sufficiently motivated from the family core. However this is not a rule, and very good students can assist to public schools which in turn access the public education system. In this sector we can find very good universities, and currently 2 public universities are at the top 3 universities in the world ranking.

In order to provide education to more students the public sector has two schedules, the morning and afternoon schedule. That means some a group of students attend classes and scholar activities from 7am until noon, and the second group from 1pm until 6pm.

[_EAllusion]

I'm somewhat friendly to the idea of school privatization and I found the article to be head-smackingly ridiculous. Double-facepalm worthy. I tried to offer Friedman as a more reasonable, thoughtful advocate for the same idea.

[_Kevin Graham]

I'm somewhat friendly to the idea of school privatization and I found the article to be head-smackingly ridiculous. Double-facepalm worthy. I tried to offer Friedman as a more reasonable, thoughtful advocate for the same idea.

Friedman is not practical and too extreme. His view is government should stay out of everything no matter what. He was the same guy who said the cure to rising health care is to abolish the AMA and allow anyone who wants to practice medicine, do so. Yes, I can see how that would easily drive down health care costs, when every Tom, Dick and Harry is competing with one another. I can also see how thousands of people could die overnight due to malpractice.

I still haven't seen a viable model for the complete privatization of education that would accommodate the millions of impoverished children who would be left out in the cold. I can't think of a single business model, without government subsidy, that would see incentive in taking in poor children whose parents cannot pay. Does Friedman? I doubt it.

[_EAllusion]

And who suffers for it? The child, of course. But since when do you give a flying damn about anyone like that. They're probably just lazy. And black. No matter how you try to sugar coat this issue, the fact is a completely privatized system would mean millions more falling out of school altogether. To deny this is to further demonstrate your ignorance of reality.

That isn't at all obvious. The city of Detroit barely graduates half of its students. And that doesn't count the functionally illiterate it does graduate. It is not a given that private schools would do worse than that. When acknowledging real problems that will happen with private schools with equality of opportunity and stratified outcomes, you have to pay attention to the fact that this is a a structural reality of the public school system that currently exists. Politically weak minority groups from depressed tax bases already get the shaft in public schooling and that is readily apparent in the numbers as it is.