Public vs private education in societies

[Egeides]

EdricO: I lurned more out of school and as someone who vent in public, alternative-public (independantly directed by a group with special goals) and private school, let me say you that public schools and the way the government sees education aren't the best forms of education... The public school didn't seemed the best solution, even if there certainly are some good ones. I don't believe in a monopoly over education and education's goal/philosophy. Education isn't only a way to get somewhere in life, it's also your mind.

Yet, education is the art of answering what you are asked to answer (= getting good grades and teachers/others saying you're doing good) a lot more than really understanding and EDUCATE yourself. In this case, it's not that much about how much MORE money is invested into education but HOW it is invested, what is asked from children and how it is done.

So I think I would promote a system where everyone has an amount of money X given for education and everyone can use this money to get in any given school, private or public.

[Edric O]

First of all, one thing needs to be made clear: Arguments such as "X system of education gave Y person a bad education, therefore X system is bad" are completely irrelevant and meaningless. Any education system involves hundreds of schools and thousands of teachers. Just because a given number of teachers are good/bad at a given time, that doesn't mean that the whole system is good/bad. You cannot turn a particular truth into a universal one.

The only way to judge an education system is by the way the system works, not by the kind of teachers that it happens to have at a particular moment in a particular place.

Having said that, the main reason why education should be public (= free) is a matter of common sense: All people deserve an equal education so that they will start out in life with equal chances.

As I said in the other Education topic, privatization kills education in two ways:

1. Rich kids will get the best education, poor kids won't get any education at all. This way, your society will turn into a sort of caste system in which the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor, having no opportunity to get a better job due to their lack of a proper education. You would be rewarding or punishing children for the achievements or mistakes of their parents.

2. Schools will be guided by profit, not quality of education. You will not solve the problems of your education system - you will only make them worse. That's because schools will teach children what their parents are willing to pay for, not what the children actually need.

Remember, the true results of education can only be seen many years later, when the kids grow up and get jobs. That is why the idea that the market can ensure a high quality of education is ridiculous.

If you look at international contests of maths, science, etc. for children and teenagers, you will see that the highest scores are achieved by those who come from countries with strong public education, especially Russia, Eastern Europe and China.

[Egeides]

Edric, you didn't read what I wrote completely! I didn't say that we shouldn't pay children's education, I said that we should pay their private education. It's completely different: it adds the right for someone to chose which TYPE of education he wants. It has nothing to do with bad teachers and good teachers, it has to do with the education system and its general methodology.

[Acriku]

Why should the government pay for children to go to schools that do not abide by governmental regulations? And don't forget, just because you can afford to go, does not mean that the private schools will let you in, it is up to them ultimately.

[Egeides]

This is the whole point: I don't believe that the state should say me how to think and how to be educated how to think!!

And of course schools can put some limits on which students they accept, but I believe it is already the case. But it's not the subject of the conversation I wanted to bring here, since it could be that some private schools would be obliged to accept all or soemthing. But RIGHT NOW, there are already some limits to be accepted in any school. You're just not going to pass to the next step or you'll have to take a course with another number (easier) or soemthing.

My point here is that government shouldn't chose for me or parents about what kind of influence on my mind I get (which I can accept or not, but still tends to affect most people).

[Acriku]

This is the whole point: I don't believe that the state should say me how to think and how to be educated how to think!!

If you want free education, then you have no choice.

And of course schools can put some limits on which students they accept, but I believe it is already the case. But it's not the subject of the conversation I wanted to bring here, since it could be that some private schools would be obliged to accept all or soemthing. But RIGHT NOW, there are already some limits to be accepted in any school. You're just not going to pass to the next step or you'll have to take a course with another number (easier) or soemthing.

No public school can deny a student. It is against the law. If you want to be successful, of course there are guidelines, but to be enrolled is not a problem at all. "Special" kids get enrolled, blacks, poor people, rich people, whites, etc.

My point here is that government shouldn't chose for me or parents about what kind of influence on my mind I get (which I can accept or not, but still tends to affect most people).

The government isn't preventing you from going to a private school. So, it is not choosing for you.

[nemafakei]

It seems the essential problem is between state and parent. Should we allow parents to choose how their children think, or should it be entrusted to the community? Should we condone segregation by social background or encourage intermixture - if not within classes (personally, I'm all for streaming/setting/banding or whatever you want it to be called), then at least within a school environment? Should we measure out the education received by a child in proportion to its parent's wealth?

For the present system, I have an intermediate answer: ensure that potential is always catered for. Anyone intelligent enough deserves the best education you can get - and if that means that they should go to private schools: the state should ensure that this happens. Private schools will be retained until the level of education at state schools can be raised significantly enough for the conversion to totally-state schools to be almost entirely inconspicuous.

[Acriku]

If private schools are to be given as an option to intelligent students through vouchers, shouldn't there be a screening of the education there to insure that everything is accurate and constitutional?

[nemafakei]

"shouldn't there be a screening of the education there to insure that everything is accurate and constitutional"

If you are suggesting a regulatory body of sorts to check that the system is doing its job, then yes; here, we would simply extend OfSted's responsibility, but elsewhere regulators may require creation.

By "constitutional", what do you mean in general terms?

[Acriku]

Well, in general terms that which a government endorsement does not occur, such as catholic teaching.

[nemafakei]

"Well, in general terms that which a government endorsement does not occur, such as catholic teaching"

Certainly, the money should not be used for purposes other than the education of the child - likewise, an academic scholar's government funding would not cover costs of, say, lots of sports equipment that they wouldn't use anyway.

The schools would probably be expected to supply some of the money as a sort of 'scholarship' anyway.

[Acriku]

That sounds reasonable.

[SurlyPIG]

Well, the whole argument for the abolishment of private education and forcing everyone to attend the same programs, up to a certain point, comes from the idea that each indivual should receive the exact same opportunities, and while a good ethical ideal in principle, not a good idea in practicality. You would literally have to strip kids away from their families and put them in identical group homes and regulate every aspect of their time in order to give them an equal education. That's just plain sick, and it kind of reminds me of the society in the novel The Giver. The notion that all people have the same potential and the same drive is essentially saying that there is no diversity. I've tutored more than two dozen kids at different times and the differences I've seen just in them are enough to make me realize that cookie-cutter, beaurocraticalliy-driven education just doesn't work. Public education needs to be varied. Students need to be streamed into different programs. Outrightly banning private schools is essentially mind control, but the recent downfall of public education in many places is because the programs aren'd diversified enough.

[Edric O]

In case you haven't noticed, Ace, the loudest and most rabid voice in politics these days is the one of the people who want to ban public education and privatize everything, not the voice of the ones who want to ban private education and give everyone equal opportunities. So if you want to take the moderate stance and defend a mixed system, it's the ultra-capitalists you should be worried about, not us.

[Caid Ivik]

Education monopoly is the easiest way to dominate the population. Why should we waste so much money on secret police, censorship, border guards etc., when all we need is just small change in learning books? Private and Church's schools will have to obey our regulations, and if they won't, inspection can say one word and they are closed!

Magnificient plan, EdricO, you are making progress in marxism!

[Edric O]

Oh yes, how DARE we brainwash those poor children with our evil public education! We should let them stay illiterate and uneducated! ::)

For your information, Caid, there is only one problem with private schools from the communist point of view: They are elitist and only the wealthy can get in. Marxism advocates freedom of speech. There should be a wide range of curricula for children and parents to choose from. But there should NOT be any schools that discriminate based on race, nationality, religion, or wealth.

Just as schools don't have the right to reject students based on the colour of their skin, they also don't have the right to reject students based on their wealth (or, to be more exact, their parents' wealth). That is why ALL education should be free.

[Edric O]

To make things clear, I support a system in which all education is state-funded (in other words, a completely public education system), but not all of it is state-controlled. The reason why private education should be banned is because it is inherently discriminatory, as I said in the post above.

But letting the state control ALL education is not exactly a very good idea either. That is why a reasonably large fraction of the total number of schools should be under some form of community control. In these "community schools", the children will be given the kind of education that their parents want for them (for example, religious education).

So all schools will be public and free, but some will be state-controlled and some will be community-controlled. Community schools will carry all the advantages of the current private system without its disadvantages.

[Acriku]

One thing that I fear is what the private schools teach, and if they do not have to abide by government regulations, then our children will not necessarily be learning what is required in college, or the teachers teaching to their preference, such as evolution is wrong, lutheranism is right, jews are the blame for Jesus, etc.

[Egeides]

It is false to believe that everyone is free to go in a private school if he doesn't like the public one since not everyone has the money. So here's what I proposed:

Someone prefering a private school could simply get the money he normally would have had for public school and use it to pay private school. This way, there's:

1- No monopoly on education

2- Free education

[Acriku]

Egeides, the government is not directly prohibiting you from going to any private school. Now, you say some can't because they cannot afford it. Well, even if they can afford it, they still aren't guaranteed in, because private schools can not enroll someone because they stutter, or have freckles. But public schools cannot for any reason.

Also, a student does not "get" money to go to public schools. The school receives money based off of how many students are present, etc. To iterate, even if you have money does not mean you can go to the private school.

And there is no monopoly on education, as I recall there being thousands and thousands of schools, each with slightly different methods of doing things and curriculums. You go into 5 biology classes and you'll learn new things each time. And education is already free. What's the problem?

[Edric O]

Egeides, what do you think about the education system I proposed? (see my previous post)

It also ensures that there is no monopoly on education, and that all education is free, while being a lot more feasible than your idea. And my education system can work perfectly in socialism, too. (in fact, I designed it with socialism in mind ;) )

[Egeides]

Edric:

Communities do not always have a specific vision of education. How many places do we know are really visionnaires? If you banish private schools, you banish just the ones that would have brang something different since few communities really have a different and efficient vision. Private schools are the ones bringing something with a real difference. I am not totally discrediting the idea though, but since an education program is a complicated thing, I think that most communities will do pretty much the same as the public school.

I do not believe that giving a fix sum of money to those who want to get out of public school would be hard. Of course, many private schools would be harder to enter in, but it's like this for many public programs. I believe it'd work in a mix system too (social democratic).

Acriku:

I am giving no garantee to anyone that he WILL enter a given private school, but all those who are able will get in. And if some funds are given to get in private schools, some private schools will soon cover the demand by specializing in less "high education" for more "normal" people.

[Acriku]

I am giving no garantee to anyone that he WILL enter a given private school, but all those who are able will get in. And if some funds are given to get in private schools, some private schools will soon cover the demand by specializing in less "high education" for more "normal" people.

What makes you think that they will? Private schools have no obligation to do so, and you're assuming that they will. They don't have to.

[Edric O]

Egeides, the whole point of having a private education system in the first place is that people should have the opportunity to choose a different kind of education than the one offered by the state. And what better way to ensure that they get the education they want than letting them decide for themselves?

As a matter of fact, state-funded community schools will be a better alternative than private schools currently are, because they will allow the local people to be actively involved in deciding the school curriculum. Private schools don't let you do that.

[Egeides]

Acriku: When there is a demand, the market comes to make an offer. There's no difference with all the rest of the economy.

EdricO: It is false to believe that within a community you necessarily have a vision of what should be education. If you let the exterior people also propose stuff, you have more chances of getting something the community will like: the community will simply have more choice. If you let everyone bring their models instead of only permitting the community, the community may have more possibilities (her own ideas included). Why letting only communities build their stuff when you can have some everyone trying to build?