Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!im4u!ut-sally!husc6!yale!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!rochester!ritcv!cci632!rb From: rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) Newsgroups: net.sci Subject: Re: privatization of education Message-ID: <243@cci632.UUCP> Date: Mon, 21-Jul-86 09:19:30 EDT Article-I.D.: cci632.243 Posted: Mon Jul 21 09:19:30 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 23-Jul-86 07:14:04 EDT References: <3176@jhunix.UUCP> <925@kontron.UUCP> Reply-To: rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) Organization: CCI, Rochester Development, Rochester, NY Lines: 127 In article <925@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >> I have real problems dealing with the idea of privatization of education. Let >> me explain my reasoning. >> >> 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.) They know what the difference is. Motivation, positive vs. negative reinforcement, availability of white collar role models, and a value system that puts "long term investment in self" ahead of "immediate gratification". In addition, self-image is an important factor as well. Remember that in discussing the underachievers, we are speaking of as much as ten generations of child-abuse, low self-esteem, psychological problems, addiction, alcholism, ingorance, illiteracy, and poverty. Notice also that the above symtoms are not restricted to the poor. Low self esteem, an about all of the problems but financial status can "pop up" in just about any class. >> 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.) Here is a key issue. In "upper class" school districts, the "cost per student" is much higher than in "inner city" districts. Parents are often fully aware of how their "benefits" compare to their "contributions". Most who support privitization of elementary and secondary schools are those who get less than they contribute. >> 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 [or] can't >> are being punished, since the money is no longer there for the public schools. > >False. Private schooling is less expensive than public schooling. It >appears that public schooling is cheaper because the money is collected >by taxation. If public schooling were as cheap as private schooling, >only the very poorest of the poor would be unable to send their kids >to private schools. Again, this varies from situation to situation. "Tuition" can range from as little as $1000/student/year to as much as five times that in private 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. > >This is just plain nonsense. *Real* unemployment is already near-nil. A >lot of places are having problems hiring unskilled labor at rates above >minimum wage because of the enormous shortage of unskilled labor looking >for jobs. (That's why we have to import Mexico's labor surplus to operate >restaurants in Southern California.) Perhaps work/study programs similar to those used in colleges would provide a better source of "unskilled labor" at reasonable rates. Unskilled labor at minimum wage is an option which requires that one have some other means of support. Currently, depending on the circumstances, it can actually be LESS benefit to work for minimum wage than to collect on the "benefit smorgasboard" of the "entitlements programs". >The correlation with crime rates is just plain nonsense also. Some people >are lazy, and refuse to seek regular employment. Instead, they become >free-lance socialists, stealing anything that's not protected. Consider the options available to a high school drop out. Especially a male. One can go to work at a minimum wage job, making less than subsistance, go into the military (just what we need, a force of drop-outs), or go into activities such as drug traffic, pimping, and various forms of organized crime. Remember, most of these drop-outs have low self-esteem and are seeking a way of getting "status" to compensate. The "respectable answer" to many who live among such role models is "respectable crime". It doesn't take long to get sucked into "less respectable" crimes. >> 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. There is a big problem here. In the "ideal" situation, underachievers could get the social and peer-pressure reinforcement to achieve academicly. Instead, overachievers are often separated through "advanced placement classes" from underachievers on every level but perhaps the Phys. Ed. classes. >> seismo!umcp-cs \ Pat Juola > >Yet you argue above that the poor are the ones who lose from private >education. Now you say the "middle ground" needs the help. Who are they? > >Clayton E. Cramer When discussing privatization of education, all one has to do is look at the college situation. One can go to a "community college", or if one is "poor enough", or "rich enough" go to a private college or university. If you are "poor enough" but still doing well in academics, it is possible to get a wide variety of financial aid programs. In some cases, one can actually get full tuition without work/study or loans. In the middle, one can work 40 hours/week, go into hock up to the eyeballs, and not do well enough to justify the investment. In addition, there are a number of schools that specialize in "collecting VA benifits" and giving education that might be more valuable coming from a college or university. The "voucher system" could work, IF the "magnet" approach were used, enabling schools to offer attractive strengths in business, science, technology, and trades. However the price/student/year would have to be "fixed" across the board to match the amount of the voucher. The main drawback here, is that the "upper-middle" taxpayer will know that he is putting $3000 into the system, but only getting $1500 out. I've been poor, I've been well-off. Well-off is much better, but I hope I don't forget what it was like to be poor. It makes me more grateful for what I have.