17 Nov 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasCuba doesn't have people from all over the world in it does it?
If I am not mistaken, USA has a very high number of analphabetics, rather strange for anotherwise high developed country. Cuba has a reputation to have a quite low nomer of analphabetcs. Maybe USA should learn from the Cuban educational system?
.
Yes, the US has a fairly large % of illiterates for a developed country, but most of them speak a foreign language and can't read in it either.
Cuba doesn't have that problem.
17 Nov 10
Originally posted by no1marauderActually such a voucher system combined with government-mandated curricula and standardized testing is exactly the same as a single-payer public education system.
Because it's the middle and upper class who are presently sending their kids to private schools and this would just be another handout to people who are quite able to afford something already. In effect the public would be paying people who don't need it to buy something they would anyway.
17 Nov 10
2 edits
Originally posted by John W BoothI guess you didn't understand my suggestion, so I'll repeat myself.
Winners and loosers is the order of things And we gotta trust the market to deliver it fair. Private compotition aint gonna help people who got no money.
The people (especially low income people) are given VOUCHERS for tuition at the school of their choice.
Slower?
Okay.
Say we spend, right now, $15,000 per year per child on education (it's higher than that, at least in NY, but let's say).
Instead of wasting that money on a failing public school system, you give each parent a voucher for $15,000, to be used at the accredited school of their choice.
Most private schools will charge the amount of the voucher (perhaps some will charge more; but most - espcially those in poor neighborhoods - will seek the largest possible client base).
Therefore, the poor people get their choice of which private school is performing best in the area. The private schools need to innovate to improve their reputations and results or they will be out of business in short order.
Today, the rich get school choice because they can pay tuition. The poor do not because they have to send their kids to the local public school even if it is a failing free local public dump. Under this simple plan, the poor also get school choice. You also can sell off all public school buildings and assets to entrepreneurs and can probably keep the voucher amount under what is being paid now anyway. Where I live, the system spends well over $23,000 per year on each kid in the public school system. Are you telling me that the private sector can't build better schools when $23,000 in tuition is available for each student they draw? Please!
As KN said, this is a single payer system. Liberals should love it. The only reason I can fathom that some don't is that they're afraid that there will be a little less government control over what people think and are taught... Either that or a pathological fear of the free market.
This is not a new idea. Many districts have tried pilot programs of this sort. By and large, they have been successful (Google it; I have no time to find the links right now). I have never heard any good reason that the public school system is better than this system.
In any case, this is essentially how university education has worked for many decades.
17 Nov 10
Originally posted by sh76It's pretty much how it works here too, and I suspect in many European countries (though there are other things wrong with our education system but I won't bore you with that), with the exception that tuition is (almost) the same for all schools (i.e. schools get a set amount of money per student). Private schools are free to charge whatever they want, although most people (including the rich) opt for a public school since they tend to be good enough (there is only a single private university and it offers only business and economics related courses).
I guess you didn't understand my suggestion, so I'll repeat myself.
The people (especially low income people) are given VOUCHERS for tuition at the school of their choice.
Slower?
Okay.
Say we spend, right now, $15,000 per year per child on education (it's higher than that, at least in NY, but let's say).
Instead of wasting that money on a failin ...[text shortened]...
In any case, this is essentially how university education has worked for many decades.
17 Nov 10
1 edit
Edit, this is in response to sh76, not Kazet
While it would certainly be a step up when compared to the current system, there is still one problem with it. It fails to address the problem that for some groups of students (whether that be a physical/mental handicap or socio-economic status) the cost of an equal education is higher, though I guess it possible to include that in such a system somehow.
17 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76here's what would likely happen.
I guess you didn't understand my suggestion, so I'll repeat myself.
The people (especially low income people) are given VOUCHERS for tuition at the school of their choice.
Slower?
Okay.
Say we spend, right now, $15,000 per year per child on education (it's higher than that, at least in NY, but let's say).
Instead of wasting that money on a failin
In any case, this is essentially how university education has worked for many decades.
Certain private schools would give themselves a name like The Lawns of Linford and charge extremely high tuitions and-or require high scores on an admissions test. They'd be able to hire the most talented teachers and install the latest technology. Lots of rich people would gladly pay these high tuitions so that their kid can attend an "elite institution" that would provide an "inside track" to getting into an "elite college".
Other private schools would charge lower tuitions - but still high enough to minimize the amount of "riff-raff" that could afford it. Those parents who don't want their kid to associate with "riff-raff" would gladly pay this tuition.
Then there'd be the hucksters who would cut every imaginable corner and provide the cheapest possible education - and anyone sending their kid to these schools would get exactly what they paid for. The schools in Arizona might even brag about the oceanfront view.
And there'd be other schools making a legitimate effort to offer low cost education to people unable to afford to pay high tuitions, but they'd have to make do with third-rate teachers, third-rate facilities, and aging buildings and equipment.
At the end of the day, you'd still end up with pretty much the same class-segregated school system that we already have now -- with the richer parents able to afford to send their kid to the most desirable schools -- while the poorer parents would be stuck with cheap third-rate, if not fraudulent, schools.
17 Nov 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesThere would be no need for anyone to provide a "low cost" education. Every school would be able to charge the amount of the voucher or higher, which inherently makes them mid-level spenders (assuming they can draw people). The hucksters would soon find themselves either losing accreditation or being frozen out by more successful schools. The schools making the honest effort would find that there are plenty of former public school teachers who cannot get jobs in the big time schools because there are so few of them. These teachers will gladly take jobs at these honest hard working schools, with the knowledge that they have to perform to stick around (no tenure or any of that nonsense).
here's what would likely happen.
Certain private schools would give themselves a name like The Lawns of Linford and charge extremely high tuitions and-or require high scores on an admissions test. They'd be able to hire the most talented teachers and install the latest technology. Lots of rich people would gladly pay these high tuitions so that their k ...[text shortened]... oorer parents would be stuck with cheap third-rate, if not fraudulent, schools.
In the poor areas, every school would charge the amount of the voucher. The best schools would win out and the hucksters would fall by the wayside, eventually. There's a reason pets.com fell apart and Apple is still motoring on... and it's not because of government control.
17 Nov 10
Originally posted by Sam The ShamI don't understand, do you mean that Cuba is more homogenous than USA? And that would be easier for them to eliminate analfabetism of that very reason? Seems strange in my eyes.
Cuba doesn't have people from all over the world in it does it?
Yes, the US has a fairly large % of illiterates for a developed country, but most of them speak a foreign language and can't read in it either.
Cuba doesn't have that problem.
Castro did a great job to eliminate analfabetism, better than any other country in the region. USA has much to learn from Cuba in this respect. The future prosperity for a rich country depends of how many can read and write. Their mother tongue doesn't matter. As the ability to read is the basis for further education, this is the area it is worth while to invest in.
17 Nov 10
Originally posted by sh76Assuming that the supply of teachers and equipment remains about the same -- those schools offering higher tuitions would be able to attract the best teachers and afford the best equipment and the schools offering the lowest tuitions would be stuck with the worst -- no matter how much the voucher was. Higher voucher amounts would simply mean higher salaries for all teachers and higher prices for all equipment.
There would be no need for anyone to provide a "low cost" education. Every school would be able to charge the amount of the voucher or higher, which inherently makes them mid-level spenders (assuming they can draw people). The hucksters would soon find themselves either losing accreditation or being frozen out by more successful schools. The schools making the ...[text shortened]... com fell apart and Apple is still motoring on... and it's not because of government control.
In theory, the hucksters would lose their accreditation -- but it might take awhile for the authorities to catch on to what's going on -- and meanwhile, new hucksters would be starting new schools (only this time being less obvious about their deceptive practices).
If you look elsewhere at the free marketplace, you can see that products and services fall into different tiers -- you have the luxury tier aimed at the affluent, you have a middle class tier, and you have the bargain tier aimed mainly at the poor. And there's a very clear difference in product quality (or at least desirability) between each of these tiers.
It would be impossible for every school to compete in the top tier -- the affluent parents would favor certain schools and the rest would be forced to reduce their tuition (and their quality) to appeal to the middle tier -- and once the competition became too heavy in this tier, the losers would have to reduce their tuition & quality further and appeal to the bottom tier.
17 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by MelanerpesThe bit about the better teachers being attracted to the better schools applies under today's system anyway. Of course there would still be better and worse schools. No system can ever prevent that (unless you outlawed school tuition or something). The difference is that, under my system, the truly bad schools would founder under the competition, whereas today they continue to plod along and drain public resources while failing generations of children, maintaining their existence by public fiat and under bureaucratic intertia.
Assuming that the supply of teachers and equipment remains about the same -- those schools offering higher tuitions would be able to attract the best teachers and afford the best equipment and the schools offering the lowest tuitions would be stuck with the worst -- no matter how much the voucher was. Higher voucher amounts would simply mean higher salari the losers would have to reduce their tuition & quality further and appeal to the bottom tier.
If you look elsewhere at the free marketplace, the one common theme is that the free marketplace is more efficient than having the government run the whole industry.
Originally posted by sh76Its easy to assume that competition will be based on providing the best actual education -- but here's what competition is likely to produce:
The bit about the better teachers being attracted to the better schools applies under today's system anyway. Of course there would still be better and worse schools. No system can ever prevent that (unless you outlawed school tuition or something). The difference is that, under my system, the truly bad schools would founder under the competition, whereas today ...[text shortened]... that the free marketplace is more efficient than having the government run the whole industry.
1. One of the best ways to be a competitive school is to just devise ways to keep out students who are likely to perform poorly -- such as extremely rigorous admissions standards, tests or interviews. This is what the top universities do. So the school can then brag about the "superior" performance of its students - and can brag about how "not everyone is able to get into our fine institution".
2. A school can offer some sort of exotic "new method" that has never been tested. Call it something like "Transcendental Organic Learning." Lots of parents will eagerly sign up. (The success of the alternative medicine & supplements industries shows there's a big market for this sort of thing).
3. Hire a drill sergeant to be the principal who will ensure that there is going to be discipline!! And spend lots of time doing military drills. This will appeal to parents whose children have behavior problems. It will take awhile before they notice how mediocre the teachers are.
4. A school can give almost everyone an A. There's a reason why grade inflation runs rampant. Parents like it when their kid gets an A. Not so much when they get a D. Some parents might notice that kids from this school don't fare any better than anyone else after they graduate. Most parents won't.
5. Appeal to liberal parents by offering lots of courses in multicultural basket-weaving, anti-imperialist algebra, and racially conscious volleyball. Appeal to conservative parents by offering courses in laissez-faire art, family values physics, and constitutionally conscious volleyball.
There's so many ways in which schools can compete without necessarily doing anything to actually improve learning. Because this would actually cost real money to do, and most parents wouldn't notice the extra benefits anyway. It's very difficult to eliminate all the confounding variables and measure how much a school is actually promoting "learning". Free markets work best when all relevant information about a product is readily available and easy to understand by all consumers.
17 Nov 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesAll of those things can improve learning. There's nothing wrong with attracting parents with extra-curriculars or alternative learning methods. I do not think parents are such ignorant dolts as you imply.
Its easy to assume that competition will be based on providing the best actual education -- but here's what competition is likely to produce:
1. One of the best ways to be a competitive school is to just devise ways to keep out students who are likely to perform poorly -- such as extremely rigorous admissions standards, tests or interviews. This is wha ...[text shortened]... about a product is readily available and easy to understand by all consumers.
The system works fine with higher education schools. Our elementary schools may be behind those of other countries, but our universities most decidedly are not.
17 Nov 10
3 edits
Originally posted by sh76One of the things that make universities strong is that the weakest students usually don't attend them. Or they drop out quickly. But we do require that everyone has to get a K-12 education.
All of those things can improve learning. There's nothing wrong with attracting parents with extra-curriculars or alternative learning methods. I do not think parents are such ignorant dolts as you imply.
The system works fine with higher education schools. Our elementary schools may be behind those of other countries, but our universities most decidedly are not.
Actually - your free market plan would solve this. If you're setting up a free market K-12 school, you'll have to avoid the students who are poor, have learning disabilities, have drug problems, have behavior issues, have a criminal record, come from dysfunctional homes, have trouble understanding English, or any other challenging condition that would involve spending a large amount of money to overcome. Any school that admitted too many of these kids would either go bankrupt or would have to be shut down for poor performance.
So at the end of the day, most of this "riff-raff" would end up not getting any education at all. But once they've been eliminated, the average test scores of the remaining students would jump to a much higher level and everyone could remark about how much better the system has become.
17 Nov 10
It may seem obvious but the number one factor of success in school is the student. It is easier to blame teachers and unions then it is blame the people who refuse to do homework, listen in class. Where I taught students simply did not care enough about learning and as a result their score lagged. Certainly some teachers are better than others. But social factors like pregancy, gangs, fighting have a far greater effect on outcome. The refusal to put in sufficient amount of work, talking and texting in class had far greater effects. Extra problems like fire alarms being pulled or real fires being set don't help either.
If a kid is pregnant or in a gang or spent time in jail during the semester or is suspended for a few days is it the school's fault when he/ she fails? If a child sends six thousand text messages a day or falls asleep in class, instead of listening is it the school's fault? If teachers are forced to spend a good percentage of their time trying to get kids to focus it probably isn't their fault that the kids learn less either.