Public Schools

  • Thread starter Danoff
  • 94 comments
  • 2,811 views
I think you're incorrect in your assertion that supply and demand factors will allow for the creation of private schools at low cost. Educating children is a social good, as they will be more productive members of society. As such, government provides access to all children, and requires them to attend school until some given age, in Ontarion it's 16. If you trust the market to provide goods like this you run the high risk of many people being unable to afford it, which places a further future burden on a population. Government necessarily provides many goods to people that the market is unable to provide equitably. Also don't confuse the monetary authority with government, in many states they operate independently, but at arms length of each other
 
dbartucci
I think you're incorrect in your assertion that supply and demand factors will allow for the creation of private schools at low cost. Educating children is a social good, as they will be more productive members of society. As such, government provides access to all children, and requires them to attend school until some given age, in Ontarion it's 16.

Exactly. Yet Libertarians can't see past that because they see the individual as more important than the society in which we live.

If you trust the market to provide goods like this you run the high risk of many people being unable to afford it, which places a further future burden on a population. Government necessarily provides many goods to people that the market is unable to provide equitably.

Exactly. And I mentioned equity in the Libertarian thread.

Also don't confuse the monetary authority with government, in many states they operate independently, but at arms length of each other

Exactly, just like the Federal Reserve.
 
I think you're incorrect in your assertion that supply and demand factors will allow for the creation of private schools at low cost. Educating children is a social good, as they will be more productive members of society.

Yawn... so is feeding children.

As such, government provides access to all children, and requires them to attend school until some given age, in Ontarion it's 16.

As such... what? How does it follow that because education is good government must provide it? How does this whole "as such" thing work? I'd like to learn how to make a point without actually supporting it.

If you trust the market to provide goods like this you run the high risk of many people being unable to afford it, which places a further future burden on a population.

High risk of high cost? Since when does the government reduce cost? Since when does the government operate efficiently? More so than industry?

It's a simple matter of incentive, people at the DMV have no incentive to move more people through because their bosses won't fire them because there is no customer incentive. If people HAVE to go there, the system will be inefficient and disorganized. However, if there is competition - if there are customers - price goes down and efficiency goes up.

Government necessarily provides many goods to people that the market is unable to provide equitably.

translation: government unnecessarily provides many goods that the free market refuses to provide inequitably.

Exactly, just like the Federal Reserve.

Not at all like the federal reserve.
 
As you posted somewhere, government provides the basic services to people that the market is unwilling or unable to efficiently provide. Education is one such service. If you allow the market to provide it I'm unconvinced it will do so at lower overall cost to the population it seeks to serve. There is no guarantee the number of educators will be able to meet the demand of schools, which may contribute to the problem of overcrowding mentioned by Sage in the Libertarian thread. The market may be unable to meet demand for rural students who reside in small communities. In instances such as these the government must intervene to ensure equitable access to all children. The government intervenes to provide a good, education, where the market cannot do so equitably.

Only if you discard the goverment's of redistributive equity can you make claims that it's unnecessary for the government to intervene. This argument boils down to what you and I believe the role of government is. I know you'll be unable to convince me that it has no role, likewise I'm sure I'll be unable to convince you there is a need for government provision of goods.

On the notion of feeding children, society has determined that to be the role of the legal guardians, and has codified this principle in neglect laws.

The line ups at the DMV have more to do with understaffing due to budget constraints than employee malaise because they have no incentive to work hard. Civil servants can be terminated as easily as any employee, you know that.
 
Dan
I'd like to learn how to make a point without actually supporting it.

Dan, if you're interested in seeing how to assert a point without backing it up see your points about how government is inherently inefficient and expensive. :sly:
 
Dan, if you're interested in seeing how to assert a point without backing it up see your points about how government is inherently inefficient and expensive

I've backed that up quite extensively by discussing free market forces and how competition lowers prices and enhances efficiency. I've discussed how government has no competition and how the generates inefficiency and added expense....

...but I guess you didn't read that part.


As you posted somewhere, government provides the basic services to people that the market is unwilling or unable to efficiently provide.

Well not in all cases. In some cases the governmnet provides services that the market is willing and able to efficiently provide, but is not given the chance because people deem the equitable distribution to be inequitable.

Education is one such service. If you allow the market to provide it I'm unconvinced it will do so at lower overall cost to the population it seeks to serve.

Ah. There's the key phrase - population it seeks to serve . That's right, it will cost less overall but it will be equitably distributed such that the people who are using the service will (gasp) have to actually pay for it. Which means that poor people will pay more then they currently do now and (gasp) rich people won't have to foot the bill.

There is no guarantee the number of educators will be able to meet the demand of schools, which may contribute to the problem of overcrowding mentioned by Sage in the Libertarian thread.

Sage mentioned that overcrowding is a problem NOW not that it would be if schools were not public. The free market does not cause overcrowding - government does. We had gas lines in the 70's, why? Free market? No. Government regulated the price. Supply and demand balances cost with the number of people so that overcrowding doesn't occur.

The market may be unable to meet demand for rural students who reside in small communities. In instances such as these the government must intervene to ensure equitable access to all children.

So people have a right to have their kids educated if they decide to move to the middle of nowhere now? The government must plunk down a school for a family that decides to live 600 miles from the nearest town no matter how inefficient - even if the student teacher ratio is 1? I disagree. If they live that far out the kid can be taught by the parents - as long as the kid keeps passing competency tests.

The government intervenes to provide a good, education, where the market cannot do so equitably.

The market does EVERYTHING equitably - that's your problem with it.

Only if you discard the goverment's of redistributive equity can you make claims that it's unnecessary for the government to intervene. This argument boils down to what you and I believe the role of government is. I know you'll be unable to convince me that it has no role,

...in education yes.

On the notion of feeding children, society has determined that to be the role of the legal guardians, and has codified this principle in neglect laws.

"society has determined". Like this is the authority here. How about what's right? It is right that the parents should provide children with food. It is right that it is the parents' duty to provide clothing and education.

The line ups at the DMV have more to do with understaffing due to budget constraints than employee malaise because they have no incentive to work hard. Civil servants can be terminated as easily as any employee, you know that.

The attractive things about civil servant jobs is that they have nice benefits and lots of job security. I know that very well.

The line ups at the DMV are a result of lack of incentive to work hard - it's so convenient to say that we don't spend enough money on them... If they were a business, they'd have no customers. It's only because the governmnet requires us to go there that they have any business.
 
Education: Depends on the district
Necessary: Yes
Cost Effective: No
Constitutional: Possibly, since it allows stupid people to at least try to get an education. It also allows those who can't do teach, and those who can't teach do gym class.
Are private schools competitive: Possibly, but I can't tell since I havent been there.

Our teachers suck at our school. I used to be able to get A's and B's. Now I barely have trouble getting B's and C's. It's NOT me, it's my teachers.
 
Nscale4
Education: Depends on the district
Necessary: Yes
Cost Effective: No
Constitutional: Possibly, since it allows stupid people to at least try to get an education. It also allows those who can't do teach, and those who can't teach do gym class.
Are private schools competitive: Possibly, but I can't tell since I havent been there.

Our teachers suck at our school. I used to be able to get A's and B's. Now I barely have trouble getting B's and C's. It's NOT me, it's my teachers.

The test of constitutionality is not necessarily what it allows people to do, but rather, whether it violates the constitution (or people's rights) in the process.
 
I came from a private school onto a public school upon graduating to high school. The only difference is the culture and different kinds of people. Not to mention the quantity of people in my class. I get better grades in public school then I did in private school...
 
danoff
The test of constitutionality is not necessarily what it allows people to do, but rather, whether it violates the constitution (or people's rights) in the process.

So the Land Ordinance of 1785 is in direct violation of the Constitution?
 
Young_Warrior
I would ove to be in a public school full of rich girls. Id walk around topless all day and swoon em.

Wait I got this mixed up I go to a public school. I wanna go to a private school full of rich girls. Why is there a thread about public school anyway 99% of us go to public.
 
MrktMkr1986
So the Land Ordinance of 1785 is in direct violation of the Constitution?

Not per se. Setting aside land that belonged to the state for public schools is not in violation of the constitution. To the best of my knowledge, the land ordinance does not actually require public education, simply that land be set aside for it.

I maintain, though, that public education is not the right way to go. How many of us go to college even though it costs quite a bit of money and isn't even required for many jobs?
 
Young_Warrior
Wait I got this mixed up I go to a public school. I wanna go to a private school full of rich girls. Why is there a thread about public school anyway 99% of us go to public.

Most classic liberals believe that public schools are best managed by the free market (privatization) and not the government.

Most modern liberals believe that public schools are a public good and thus best managed by the government.

Dan
Not per se. Setting aside land that belonged to the state for public schools is not in violation of the constitution. To the best of my knowledge, the land ordinance does not actually require public education, simply that land be set aside for it.

I maintain, though, that public education is not the right way to go. How many of us go to college even though it costs quite a bit of money and isn't even required for many jobs?

I do! I need my MBA.

So an education is what type of good then? Public, private, common, natural monopoly?
 
If you want everyone to go to private schools then you better make them cheaper. And get rid of uniforms.
 
MrktMkr1986
So an education is what type of good then? Public, private, common, natural monopoly?

It's a service, and it should be a private one (like food). I don't know what is meant by "common" here.
 
danoff
It's a service, and it should be a private one (like food). I don't know what is meant by "common" here.

Private = excludable; competitive
public = non excludable; non competitive
natural monopoly = excludable; non competitive
common = non excludable; competitive

I believe an education is a common good. People should not be prevented from getting an education for any reason (hence non excludable -- but that's my opinion), yet education is competitive because my use diminishes someone else's ability to use it (one less seat available in a classroom).

As I said in an earlier PM, all public and common goods and natural monopolies are better managed under democratic government.
 
MrktMkr1986
I believe an education is a common good. People should not be prevented from getting an education for any reason (hence non excludable -- but that's my opinion)

People should not be prevented from getting an education for any reason...

What an interesting phrase.

Do you mean to say, "people must be given a basic education"?
Do you mean to say, "no one must be prevented from purchasing a basic education"?

I agree with the phrase in the first instance but not the second.

In the second instance, we place restrictions on the businesses offering an education. We say, "you, the business, may not prevent anyone from obtaining your services". This robs educators of the freedom to do business with clients of their choice.

In the first instance, we place restrictions on someone. It's ambiguous who. In the first case we say someone is required by law to provide an education to others. It robs that person of the freedom to choose not to educate anyone. Who are we placing this requirement on? Who can be required to educate others?

Let's take a hypothetical child. Our child is 5 years old and is in need of some basic education. Obviously the child cannot be required to provide this education to himself. Obviously the child cannot be allowed to grow up without an education - to do so would be to mentally cripple him for the rest of his life. So who do we make responsible for this child's education? Do we make everyone responsible? Or do we pick someone?

Let's take the first scenario.

If we make everyone responsible, we make lots of people who had nothing to do with that child responsible for his education. We make people who hate children responsible, we make people whose children are grown and gone responsible. We make retried persons and 18 year olds responsible. We make single people, people who don't want to have kids, or people who aren't able to have kids responsible. Making everyone responsible might seem like an easy answer, but it clearly leads to some inequity in the process.

But what other option do we have? We'd need to pick someone to be responsible for this child. But is there anyone who is more responsible for this child than others?

What else does the child need to survive. Food, water, shelter, clothing. Who provides those things? The child's parent. Why do we require the parent to provide these things? Because the parent chose to have the child. The parent brought the child into existance and can bring more... and so it makes perfect sense to make the parent responsible for all of the necessities for this child - the things the child cannot provide for itself.

But education is a necessity.

Yes, Brian, people must be given an education. As minors, they cannot be expected to provide one to themselves. They must be given an education, and they must be given it by the same person who provides them with all of the necessities of life - their parents.

That's fair.
 
danoff
What's everyone's take on public schools?

Good education/weak education?
Necessary?
Cost Effective?
Constitutional? (at the federal level)
Would private schools be more competetive?
Propaganda. 👎
 
Melaneimoon
Propaganda. 👎

Actually, I saw it as a question. Now you might consider Danoff's justifications propoganda(of course in a republic EVERYTHING is propoganda) but I wouldn't say that his questions were.
 
As many of you may know already, I'm home educated. I'll get to why later.

Right, first of all, I'll say my overall opinion about the system. I think subjects that you learn in class just aren't learnt for long enough. For example, doing fractions in Maths, you'll do it for a certain amount of weeks then move on. Some people may have not even learnt that subject properly in that time, resulting in having no idea, when the test questions, come what the answer is. I think this only includes with English, Science (this to me) and Maths, as I find these important subjects. For ICT classes (getting more and more important now as this is a more computerized world than ever before) at my old school we didn't even do at all for year 8, as there was no teachers whatsoever to teach the subject. If not that, a teacher teaches the subject that they hardly know about themselves!

I also found that some lessons in Seconday school were completely unessacary, like R.E and Drama for example. OK, people may like the subject and you can drop it in year 9 (to a degree) but I feel that the subject should be dropped altogether from the beginning if you totaly dont like it. People should focus on what they want to do and learn the more important subjects like Maths and English, as they are an everyday thing (ok, Maths isnt, but you will do it sometime in your life.) You should have the option to forget the lessons you dont want to do at all and get more time to do the the subjects you like. You learn much more easily if you do a subject you like. Being taught at home is like this, I have the freedom to do the subjects I'm really interested in instead of doing something I'll never do. It's just a waste of time.

Now, getting onto the main point. I've found over the years that behavior in classes have been declining, and because of this educational quality in classes have been dropping. Shouting, throwing things across the class, not listening to the teacher whatsoever resulting in the teacher telling them off all the time, wasing more educational time. Sometimes there were even random fist fights in class, and two cases of chairs being thrown across the room because he didnt want to do what the teacher told him to. All this really did disrupt me and affected my education. OK, the teachers most of the time do give out detentions, but the students dont care. They get the detention, stay in at breaktime or whatever they do, then just go back to the same behavior again afterwards. Also, the teachers do shout but they are just not disiplined enough. They shout, but most of the time students dont notice. Because of this I was picked on in class, rude things said to me, things throw at me and I couldn't tell the teacher they were doing so, because they would just do it to me more for "telling the teacher". I had to put up with it all day then tell my Tutor at the end of the day what had happened. OK, the tutor would help and I did get special help for handling situations, but that didnt really help. I was called names, blamed for doing things that I didnt do etc, no help would sort that out. Later I was told just to ignore them. OK, I tried my best, but because of the damage that had happened to me years before that was quite impossible as nearly every little thing upset me.

Breaktimes it was a different thing. It was more physical than anything. I was the type of person to walk around on my own or with a few friends because everyone were such idiots. But once I was cornered, told to say horrible things, then they would let me go. This was about a group of 6. In the end I done what they told, I couldnt ignore that. I was headbutted once, a piece of wood whacked on me, a piece of ice was thown at me and a teacher did see it, and she said that wasnt bullying and never told him off. I WAS SO PISSED AT THAT! This just shows that the teachers sometimes dont even care.

In the end, all this just made me ill. I have that type of mind to blow things out of proportion, but this really made me ill. The lack of education, the physical and mental bullying. I must admit, the school did try to help me and my parents with what was going on and what meetings will be happening to sort out my future, but the system just isnt strict enough. When we did consider homeducation to them, the headteacher was very for the idea, which made everyone think that the head just wanted to get rid of me! I'm not surprised at all that this has been on the news, and that people are complaining like me.

My brother is still at school, and has his own problems but he is a little different to me, so he's just coping at the moment. He has special needs, so he does get extra help that he needs which is a great thing (for once!).

So overall, I dont detest the ability of the teachers (apart from ICT), but their abilities are put back because of the disruptive students. I dont think seperate subjects are learnt for long enough, unessacary lessons are taught, schools arent strict enough and bullying should be taken more seriously. People may like the school envorment (if you dont like to learn), but homeducation is better overall and is for me.
 
G.T
As many of you may know already, I'm home educated. I'll get to why later.

Right, first of all, I'll say my overall opinion about the system. I think subjects that you learn in class just aren't learnt for long enough. For example, doing fractions in Maths, you'll do it for a certain amount of weeks then move on. Some people may have not even learnt that subject properly in that time, resulting in having no idea, when the test questions, come what the answer is. I think this only includes with English, Science (this to me) and Maths, as I find these important subjects. For ICT classes (getting more and more important now as this is a more computerized world than ever before) at my old school we didn't even do at all for year 8, as there was no teachers whatsoever to teach the subject. If not that, a teacher teaches the subject that they hardly know about themselves!

I also found that some lessons in Seconday school were completely unessacary, like R.E and Drama for example. OK, people may like the subject and you can drop it in year 9 (to a degree) but I feel that the subject should be dropped altogether from the beginning if you totaly dont like it. People should focus on what they want to do and learn the more important subjects like Maths and English, as they are an everyday thing (ok, Maths isnt, but you will do it sometime in your life.) You should have the option to forget the lessons you dont want to do at all and get more time to do the the subjects you like. You learn much more easily if you do a subject you like. Being taught at home is like this, I have the freedom to do the subjects I'm really interested in instead of doing something I'll never do. It's just a waste of time.

Now, getting onto the main point. I've found over the years that behavior in classes have been declining, and because of this educational quality in classes have been dropping. Shouting, throwing things across the class, not listening to the teacher whatsoever resulting in the teacher telling them off all the time, wasing more educational time. Sometimes there were even random fist fights in class, and two cases of chairs being thrown across the room because he didnt want to do what the teacher told him to. All this really did disrupt me and affected my education. OK, the teachers most of the time do give out detentions, but the students dont care. They get the detention, stay in at breaktime or whatever they do, then just go back to the same behavior again afterwards. Also, the teachers do shout but they are just not disiplined enough. They shout, but most of the time students dont notice. Because of this I was picked on in class, rude things said to me, things throw at me and I couldn't tell the teacher they were doing so, because they would just do it to me more for "telling the teacher". I had to put up with it all day then tell my Tutor at the end of the day what had happened. OK, the tutor would help and I did get special help for handling situations, but that didnt really help. I was called names, blamed for doing things that I didnt do etc, no help would sort that out. Later I was told just to ignore them. OK, I tried my best, but because of the damage that had happened to me years before that was quite impossible as nearly every little thing upset me.

Breaktimes it was a different thing. It was more physical than anything. I was the type of person to walk around on my own or with a few friends because everyone were such idiots. But once I was cornered, told to say horrible things, then they would let me go. This was about a group of 6. In the end I done what they told, I couldnt ignore that. I was headbutted once, a piece of wood whacked on me, a piece of ice was thown at me and a teacher did see it, and she said that wasnt bullying and never told him off. I WAS SO PISSED AT THAT! This just shows that the teachers sometimes dont even care.

In the end, all this just made me ill. I have that type of mind to blow things out of proportion, but this really made me ill. The lack of education, the physical and mental bullying. I must admit, the school did try to help me and my parents with what was going on and what meetings will be happening to sort out my future, but the system just isnt strict enough. When we did consider homeducation to them, the headteacher was very for the idea, which made everyone think that the head just wanted to get rid of me! I'm not surprised at all that this has been on the news, and that people are complaining like me.

My brother is still at school, and has his own problems but he is a little different to me, so he's just coping at the moment. He has special needs, so he does get extra help that he needs which is a great thing (for once!).

So overall, I dont detest the ability of the teachers (apart from ICT), but their abilities are put back because of the disruptive students. I dont think seperate subjects are learnt for long enough, unessacary lessons are taught, schools arent strict enough and bullying should be taken more seriously. People may like the school envorment (if you dont like to learn), but homeducation is better overall and is for me.


...and home education is much cheaper. 👍

Yes the public school system sucks. I know, I went through it. Now the question is WHY does it suck? It sucks because there is little incentive for it to do well. Government programs don't get money by doing well (if they do that, people figure they don't need more money). Government programs get money by doing a poor job and then claiming they needed more funding. The stuff that's going on with NASA right now is a prime example of this.

So what do we do? We give the public system the boot... much like GT did. But it isn't enough to simply not go - because they still get funded if you don't go.
 
G.T, I go to a boy's public school, and I think there is a HUGE behaviour problem at your old school. Down here we hardly get into any fights at all and everyone is generally well behaved. Ok, we have one or two jackasses once and again but they get thrown into the LSU (learning support unit), basically it's a locked room that's monitored and you're just given the work and you HAVE to get on with it, no one talks to you, it's like a prison there.
 
danoff
...and home education is much cheaper. 👍

Yes the public school system sucks. I know, I went through it. Now the question is WHY does it suck? It sucks because there is little incentive for it to do well. Government programs don't get money by doing well (if they do that, people figure they don't need more money). Government programs get money by doing a poor job and then claiming they needed more funding. The stuff that's going on with NASA right now is a prime example of this.

So what do we do? We give the public system the boot... much like GT did. But it isn't enough to simply not go - because they still get funded if you don't go.
Yes, it is much cheaper, but the disadvantage is that my parents have to pay for the books, paper etc themselves. This isn't so bad, because the extent of the internet is AMAZING. Almost anything you want to know is on there, and at school you hardly use it.

Of course, not everything is on the internet, and reading things isn't always the best way to learn, so I go to College. College is so different to school, it is so much more mature and I CAN LEARN! We have to pay the fees though, but we have been told under special circumstances (me being homeducated) the College can fund me, but that is still being sorted out. I'm only going part time because I have to get used to being around a working enviorment, but it's great to get some qualifications early. 👍
 
danoff
That's discrimination and probably unconstitutional.

Not over here.

Though you don't get any new Boys/Girls school a few of the older schools are divided. How is it discrimination when both get the same opurtunities?

There was a boys and a girls school in my area untill recentley, not it is amalgamated onto a single site.
 
ExigeExcel
Not over here.

Though you don't get any new Boys/Girls school a few of the older schools are divided. How is it discrimination when both get the same opurtunities?

There was a boys and a girls school in my area untill recentley, not it is amalgamated onto a single site.


Ah yes. Didn't notice the location. I figured it was a typo and you meant to say private.

Anyway, that's discrimination by the government. What if parents want their children to learn how to interact with the opposite sex. I'd say that may be a duty of the public education system (if you must rely on public funding) and so should be part of the curriculum.

^^ This is the problem with public education. You can't do it right for everyone.
 
danoff
^^ This is the problem with public education. You can't do it right for everyone.

And this is the main issue with public education. My fiancee got A's in almost all subjects but had incredible trouble in math. Most of her Teachers thought she was stupid or lazy. Until she got to high school and a teacher had enough sense to take a look at what she was doing in other classes and realized that it wasn't a laziness problem.

Public education is constantly trying to fit the oversized square peg in the round hole. The problem with that is, you have to shave off a lot of the square peg to get it to work. What happens to the shavings left on the ground?
 
Back