Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!aplcen!jhunix!ins_apmj
From: ins_apmj@jhunix.UUCP (Patrick M Juola)
Newsgroups: net.sci
Subject: Re: privatization of education
Message-ID: <3176@jhunix.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 15-Jul-86 12:42:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: jhunix.3176
Posted: Tue Jul 15 12:42:10 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 16-Jul-86 06:04:55 EDT
References: <3719@decwrl.DEC.COM> <136@cci632.UUCP>
Reply-To: ins_apmj@jhunix.ARPA (Patrick M Juola)
Organization: Erisian Liberation Front
Lines: 46

I have real problems dealing with the idea of privatization of education.  Let
me explain my reasoning.  

All the arguments for privatization assume for a starting point that private
schools are somehow intrinsically "better" than public.  (I disagree, citing
my high school, Boise High, in Boise, Idaho, as the best high school in the
Boise Metropolitan area, but I will accept this axiom for the sake of argument.)

	In any area there are good students and bad students.  This should be
self-evident.  The good students will do well [almost] anywhere, the bad ones
will require a lot of special help to do "well."  Educators are still trying to
find out what separates the two groups, but they have shown strong correlations
with a students "intelligence" (*not* I.Q.), parents' attitude toward schooling,
and parents' educational level.  (which is why BHS is so good -- it draws the
college professors' kids.)  
	In other words, at least one of the reasons that private students do
so well is the attitude of their parents.  A parent who is willing to pay the
additional cost over and above property taxes probably has a good attitude about
school.  A parent who is *able* to pay is probably wealthy[-ier] and therefore
pays a disproportionate share of property taxes (which are the main income
source for public schools.)  
	Now, by "privatizing" the school system, the children of parents who
a) can't afford or b) don't want to pay for [expensive] private education can't
are being punished, since the money is no longer there for the public schools.
Yes, I admit, I'm talking about a subsidy.  I think education is a better reason
to pay the government than ICBMs or welfare.  In an ideal universe, if everyone
were well-enough educated, crime would drop to nil and unemployment would be
minimal.   If you don't want to have to pay to educate other people, I don't
want to pay to have the FBI protect your area.  There's a limit to how far we
can take property rights aka. selfishness.
	One other argument about privatization.  Students also do "better" in
a class/school where there are bright students.  If you skim off all the cream,
so to speak, to the private schools, the schools will tend to become stratified
(Everyone knows that A is a better school than B, which is better than C, which
is better than P.S. 109), and everyone except the children in the best school
will suffer for it.  The best teachers will tend to go to A rather than B, etc,
so the weaker students will miss out on the teachers they really *need* to have.
The best and the brightest will do well in any situation; it's the middle ground
that need the help.

-- 
  seismo!umcp-cs \                      	Pat Juola
    ihnp4!whuxcc  > !jhunix!ins_apmj		Hopkins Maths
 allegra!hopkins /                      

 "I'm kind of tired.  I was up all night trying to round off infinity."