Public vs private education in societies

[Acriku]

Again, you're assuming a whole lot for your argument.

[Egeides]

No, just assuming that private schools are doing what they always did: adapting to how many and what kind of students they have.

[Acriku]

First off, you're assuming that private schools will take anyone in for the money, which is simply not the case. You're also assuming that private schools are subject to supply and demand, when in fact they are well off to begin with. Well off enough to be picky on who to enroll. What good can a voucher do if the private schools won't even let the person in? Also, for any government funding, the receiver must follow government guidelines, like public schools do. Otherwise, it'd be a public school because it is publicly funded.

[Caid Ivik]

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.

It was many times abused. We are all equal - especially when state tries to control us. In fact, as all schools take money and every family just must find some for it, I still don't see a difference between "elitist" private ones, which just use resources more effectively, and state schools.

[Egeides]

Acriku:

Are you saying that if there is a demand for 10 000 more students, no one will think about creating a school for those people?

There already exists some schools that aren't only for the ones with the best grades, so it's no different.

[Caid Ivik]

As there are schools for students with excellent results, we can say that all with lower limits are fulfilling this demand, don't you think?

[Acriku]

First off, let's be realistic. 10,000 kids are not going to need a private school because their parents suddenly want to "choose" their kid's education. Even so, I was going at this with private schools made now in mind.

[nemafakei]

"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."

Egeides, who is making the decision process, the child, its parents or who?

Secondly, would there be any restriction on the use of this - for example, paying for a cheaper school than the state system?

[Egeides]

Nema:

I think that there is no need to change the laws about who is chosing the school. Presently, I guess it's the parents until you're 18 years old.

About getting in a cheaper school, well you'd obviously wouldn't get the rest of the check since the check is stritly for education purpose. It's the state that pays "up to x$".

Caid, can you explain yourself? I guess I have a grammatical ununderstanding or soemthing...

Acriku:

If there is only 200 parents that wish to put their kids in another system, it's up to them. Anyway, it's very simple: IF they wish to do so, they are allowed. That's it. So if you see a school that pleases you and your kids are able to go to that school (it's adapted to them and so on), then you can send them there. It's just an added possibility for parents.

[Edric O]

It was many times abused. We are all equal - especially when state tries to control us. In fact, as all schools take money and every family just must find some for it, I still don't see a difference between "elitist" private ones, which just use resources more effectively, and state schools.

First of all, keep in mind that we're talking about a democratic state here. The people control the state, not the other way around.

Second of all, even if "all schools require money" (I assume you're talking about the money needed for buying books, paper, etc.), that's not an excuse to make them demand a hundred times MORE money. Everyone except the poorest of the poor can afford to buy a few textbooks and some paper. But few people can afford to pay the fees to get their children into a good private school.

If there are parents who can't afford to buy their children the school materials they need, then the state should provide those materials to them. But this would mean that there is a frightening level of poverty in the country, and school books are the least of our worries.

As for using resources, I don't see how profit-driven private schools are "inherently" more effective at it than achievement-driven state schools.

[Acriku]

Acriku:

If there is only 200 parents that wish to put their kids in another system, it's up to them. Anyway, it's very simple: IF they wish to do so, they are allowed. That's it. So if you see a school that pleases you and your kids are able to go to that school (it's adapted to them and so on), then you can send them there. It's just an added possibility for parents.

It's not up to them. They can't tell the government what to do with tax money. It's not mine or their's to have a say. If they see an appealing school, they can try and enroll. If they cannot afford it, too bad for them. The government must not give school vouchers to students for a school system that does not abide by government regulations. There is no reason to want to have vouchers so parents can have a choice (and they don't really have the choice, which I addressed many times earlier). What is bad about public education? The curriculum? Join the board of education and try to change it.

[Egeides]

Acriku, I don't think that I'm gonna be accepted to change the schooling system... But I know that some different way of lurning were more appropriate for me and many others. Public schools are NOT supposed to exist to conform people to what we want them to be. And you already get money for your education in the public system, so basically it's simply to have this same money if you go in a different lurning model.

[Acriku]

Egeides, it's not like *I* get money and then it's spent towards public education. The school gets enough money to hold however many amount of students, and I fill one seat in that quota. You never will know if you can make a difference or not until you try. You're concerned with the method of learning, then you can always try homeschooling.

[nemafakei]

"Public schools are NOT supposed to exist to conform people to what we want them to be."

Now you're going to have to start maing some sense with this. Granted there is a connection between eucation and the way you think, but surely the responsibility of the state extends to educating people in academic matters, and also educating them sufficiently in social matters as a means of crime prevention - schools should ensure that those children who did not enter with a sense of discipline (perhaps due to negligence on the part of parents) leave with one.

Furthermore, I suspect that your idea will create an effect of prvatisation of education - there will pop up 'alternative' schools competing with the state, and more and more teachers will begin to be drawn out of the state secor into the private sector, to the detriment of children whose parents can't or won't afford the expense of private education.

Furthermore, now you have vastly increased the a competitive market for education, how do you ensure that standards of education in a school remain constant for long enough to ensure that no-one's education suffers by having to move schools as they are closed down, or because they are failing due to competition.

[Caid Ivik]

It was many times abused. We are all equal - especially when state tries to control us. In fact, as all schools take money and every family just must find some for it, I still don't see a difference between "elitist" private ones, which just use resources more effectively, and state schools.

First of all, keep in mind that we're talking about a democratic state here. The people control the state, not the other way around.

Second of all, even if "all schools require money" (I assume you're talking about the money needed for buying books, paper, etc.), that's not an excuse to make them demand a hundred times MORE money. Everyone except the poorest of the poor can afford to buy a few textbooks and some paper. But few people can afford to pay the fees to get their children into a good private school.

If there are parents who can't afford to buy their children the school materials they need, then the state should provide those materials to them. But this would mean that there is a frightening level of poverty in the country, and school books are the least of our worries.

As for using resources, I don't see how profit-driven private schools are "inherently" more effective at it than achievement-driven state schools.

It's a thing of look on education. You can look at it as commodity, which is sold as i.e.bread or anything else. Then you must live in a market. State isn't best economist, that is well known and proven. So let the schools manage themselves. Other view on education is calling it a simple need: so as state must ensure your security, it must also give you education you want, or better, you are worthy of. But then state must raise taxes, material is needed from something. When there is a rich state, ok. But in state in permanent deficite, it is very hard because of bureaucracy. So better is market system, we simply can't afford else.

And also, we are NOW democratic. Read one russian schoolbook, where they admire Putin, and you'll see that i.e.Russia won't be too long.

[Edric O]

Caid, you completely missed the point. Education CANNOT be compared with material commodities, because education is immaterial and because the entire course of your life depends on your education. Simply put, education is far too important to be treated like a bag of chips. In order to ensure that everyone starts with equal chances in life, state-funded public education is absolutely VITAL. And in order to ensure that children are not rewarded or punished for the successes or failures of their parents, no school should be allowed to charge money for its courses (in other words, the private education system should be outlawed). Discrimination based on wealth is no different than discrimination based on race or religion.

But this doesn't mean that all schools should be controlled by the state. As I said before, there should be a large number of schools (aka community schools) who are left to manage themselves and teach whatever the people who attend them want to learn.

As for the state "not being the best economist", I think history proves otherwise. In their entire history, planned economies have only experienced ONE crisis (the one of the 1980's, which lead to the fall of stalinism), while the crises of market economies are too many to count.

If your state is not rich and your economy is in trouble, then cutting back on education spending is the WORST thing you could possibly do. Cut back on everything else, but leave education intact, because without a well-educated population your economy will slump even further, and your state will get even poorer.

[Caid Ivik]

So you take the second view on education. Very well, I would choose it too. But still, there must be money to ensure it. I think the best compromise would be, if schools will be treated like foundations, with direct dotations from parents or also state, if it has enough resources. I agree the education is a strategical process, worth to be a priority, but still, less bureaucracy means more effectivity. Comparing it to your "community school", I would say there is no difference, just I don't know where you would get teachers for it...

First crisis of planned economy came in 1924. Starvation along whole Russia. Next ones came in 1925, 1930 and 1931. Then were no reported. In the war, whole Russia was starvating for five years. Then, as part of support project countering western Marshall's plan, in 1946 was starvation again, due to crop export to comrade countries. In 1950 were vast currency changes, also destructively effecting personal life level. Revolution in DDR two years later was an effect of it as well. In late 60s economies find a new export ground in muslim countries, what stabilises the economy. That gives a small profit for a decade, but then USSR illogically attacks Afghanistan and only few socialist countries remain (Iraq, Syria, India) to trade with the East. So 80s are a new age of decay, when is again showed impossibility of regulated economy to survive and yet ensure adequate progress of life level.

[Edric O]

Less bureaucracy is one thing, less money is another. How about you cut down on the bureaucracy but increase funding? You seem to have a very narrow-minded view that the amount of state funding is somehow connected with the level of bureaucracy. Does a $100 bill require more bureaucrats than a $50 bill? ::)

Education must always be a priority, through good times and bad. As I said before, cutting back on education to save money in the short run will cause you even greater economic problems in the long run. And I think I made it clear why all education should be state-funded and public (while at the same time allowing some schools to choose their own separate curricula). All people have the right to a free education. And discrimination of any kind, whether it is based on race, religion or wealth, should not be allowed in the education system.

----------------

There was no planned economy in Russia in 1924. The Soviet economic system until the early 1930's was the New Economic Plan (NEP), a form of "market socialism". Learn your history.

The "crises" of 1929-1931 in the Soviet Union and the late 1940's in Eastern Europe were caused by the sudden and brutal transition from one economic system to another. They weren't crises, they were economic shock therapy.

As for WW2, the fact that the Soviet economy could still function and turn the tide of the war under nearly impossible odds is a huge point in its favour. Could Britain or the USA have defeated the nazi war machine under the conditions suffered by the Russians? I don't think so. As for the fact that people starved... well, you think maybe that huge INVADING ARMY had something to do with it? ::)

Don't get me wrong, though. The stalinist planned economy had many flaws, caused by the constant interference of the Party into the economy and by the fact that vast amounts of resources were spent on the technology race with the West rather than on the needs of the people. Eventually, these things lead to the great economic collapse of the 1980's.

Now how about we get back on topic? This discussion is supposed to be about EDUCATION, not economic models...

[Caid Ivik]

No, but you may know these bureaucrats must live from something as well, and so they take a part of state resources as well. And resources are made of taxes - so better cut down bureaucracy and taxes, let people pay to school directly! This is a system of parasiting state. We all pay same taxes to state, so why not pay them directly to user? Simply, I don't want to donate bureaus, I want to donate the school itself!

Dotation can be taken percentually from wage, like any other taxes. But it will go directly to school's fund. There is no discrimination phantom, which you must see on every corner in my opinion.

First five-year plan of restoring industry and agriculture was started already in 1919. And please, don't try to make Stalin a capitalist, just because he had an other view on marxistic theory than you. You were not first. And you won't be the last... By the way, happy 7th november! ;D

[Egeides]

Egeides, it's not like *I* get money and then it's spent towards public education. The school gets enough money to hold however many amount of students, and I fill one seat in that quota. You never will know if you can make a difference or not until you try. You're concerned with the method of learning, then you can always try homeschooling.

No I can't. But my mother did it to me. It meant one job less and it costs as much as a PRIVATE TEACHER: it means a salary less to pay someone's salary. I'm concerned about people not being able to chose THEIR education. Public school, whattever the way, are funded. The fund can be used for someone's education in any other school.

Happy 7th November you too Caid! ;D

[Caid Ivik]

Home education would even lower resources, that's true. Building, personell, equipment, administration... But it would also erase that romantic factor of school, all those break jokes, friendship, cooperations in tests and such. Simply, it won't be that fun, don't you think? Not saying that it is better for a student, if he can discuss learned things with same-age comrades. Like talmudist must always have a "chaver", both can share their views on information.

[Edric O]

Caid, I think you should start by explaining what kind of education system you support. From what you've said so far, it's not even clear if your system is private or public, much less how it actually works... so tell me, does it guarantee every person's right to a free education?

As for the first Soviet five-year plan, it was introduced in 1928. Check with your history books and you'll see I'm right.

[Caid Ivik]

I think yes. But say me what level of education do you mean? I think higher levels should be for those capable.

Sorry, first soviet plan was only for four years. Postrevolutionar manifest by someone. Included erarisation of industry and agriculture and returning to full production equal to year 1914 until 1923.

[Sardauker-Kirov]

Education isn't a privilege in my view, it is a RIGHT.

And why should 'higher' education be for 'different' people?

I can understand that a mentally retarded person have difficulty having advanced education.

But alot of people can become a rocket scientist if they receive the proper education.

"Learn, play, laugh, pay." -The Capitalists- ::)

[Caid Ivik]

Simply every person should find own talent or at least an interest and specialise in it. Encyclopedical all-round education is useless, everyone will forget 90% of it in a year. For example if I would be a lawyer, why do I need to know how to create a simple radio?