Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Montague]

How is non-participation not a problem? Or just incompetent or abusive cooperation?

Is this sort of a transhumanist/ Venus Project type deal? I'm not sure how modern communications is enough to make a society or industrialized economy without ownership a viable thing.

[SalmonGod]

Non-participation is only the non-participant's problem.  If the community is prosperous, it likely isn't a problem at all.  If not, then a community will likely reserve its fruits for those who contribute, and someone would at least need to be well-liked so that others will share.  Pinky Pie would do fine.  Compare to property-based systems where the owning class can refuse goods even if the community is prosperous and those goods will simply go to waste.  Participation can even be refused to those who offer no profit to the owning class.  Pinkie Pie might subsist from couch to couch, but likely not forever.

As for incompetent or abusive cooperation - that's a matter of basic social problem solving, and it's not like those aren't problems which excessively plague society already, so what's your point?  I would argue that incompetence is more of a problem today because a person must have a "job" in order to justify their survival, so people end up in roles where they don't fit, because the need for a job is immediate and desperate and there's little opportunity to switch once one is had.  There would also be little incentive to cooperate abusively in a society without property, where individual prosperity and community prosperity are directly linked... as opposed to property-based systems where individual prosperity is directly linked to one's ability to appeal to the owning class.

And what I'm arguing is my own ideal that I've developed on my own, but I've since found to be very similar to libertarian socialism.

Also, it looks like infoshop.org has a pretty good read on opposition to property and how it's differentiated from personal possession.

[Leafsnail]

Trying to kill of private education seems kinda silly to me. What is our hypothetical parent still allowed to do? Can they hire a private tutor to teach their children off of school hours? Can they send them to low level college classes outside of school? Take a week off of work to teach their children themselves?

I mean, last time I checked, parents kinda should have a right to, you know, parent?

They can do all those things, that's why I'm suggesting that being rich already gives your children enough of an advantage in life without slapping on a ridiculously expensive school.  And at least those other measures aren't actively damaging to surrounding schools.

That's a bit of a wonky problem to solve, though. I mean, government monopoly on the labor market for teachers? If we're looking at the high-speed, super-motivated individual who is considering being an educator, and who could make it as a highly-paid, highly effective private teacher, how much of a detriment is this going to have on them going into teaching in the first place?

Reread my proposal.  You are not responding to it since I did not advocate a government monopoly - merely that private institutions would have to offer better efficiency rather than just more cash.

To your second question: little to none.  That imaginary uberteacher would go into banking if they were motivated by money rather than a desire to teach.

I'd exactly agree with that. Education's paid out of whatever tax it's normally paid out of (your jurisdiction determinate, I'm pretty sure it's property based in Fargo, at least), then let the parent do whatever the bloody hell they want with educating their kids. Killing upper class education isn't going to improve the lower class ones, it'll just make parents seek other ways for their children to get ahead (and, to be honest, I don't see why this is always a bedeviled human habit).

I explained how allowing the children of rich people to have ridiculously expensive education directly harms others - it sucks the teaching talent out of the state sector and means that poor kids are at an even greater disadvantage when it comes to getting university places.  It is absolute poison to social mobility and equality.

I dunno, it may be because I'm from Fargo, North Dakota, the nicest city in the world. But, I know for a fact that it was doable for very low class families to, with effort, send their children to the hated private school. Also, I can say from my own family's straight middle class experience, one can send someone to world-class primary education (namely my little sister, I'm publicly edumacated through and through)

Please qualify "with effort".  In particular explain how someone earning £18,500 a year (the average income) might be expected to send their kids to a £33,000 a year institution (an institution renowned for blasting its students into the top universities at the expense of children from state schools).

[Wayward Device]

Just thought I'd throw in a little anecdote relevant to the whole "education-equality-private schools-state school funding levels" thing.

When a neighbor of mine, a Swedish woman, first moved to the UK in the 90's she was making new friends, as you do, and started to get friendly with a woman similar to herself, with kids the same age etc. They were talking one day about their kids and Prospective Friend Lady mentions that her daughter is at such and such private school, and in the manner that will be familiar to anyone who has ever been to a dinner party, managed to mention the exorbitant cost without overtly looking like she was waving a "Look how rich I am!" sign over her head.

My Swedish neighbor was a little embarrassed and told the nice lady that her daughter had seemed normal to her, not retarded at all, and that the school must be doing a great job. An awkward silence ensued and Prospective Friend Lady became Awkward Eye Contact Acquaintance. Apparently, at least according to my neighbor, the Swedish state school system is so good that the only real reasons you send your kids to private school are because they have special needs, are a cat burning proto-psychopath or you're oil tycoon rich, and hence her social confusion as a new migrant. 

Anyway, take all that with a pinch of salt, this discussion just reminded me of this story.   

[Zrk2]

I just had an idea! Why not institute a sales tax that's just high enough to make stock market manipulation not worth it?

[GreatJustice]

I feel like private schools being so heavily funded is in fact directly damaging to neighboring schools and the students in those schools, though.  Since a) it means they can horde all the best teaching talent that might otherwise have been spread around more equally and b) a student who is getting £33,000 a year spent on their education (not to mention the extra support they'll receive from having a richer family in the first place) is inevitably going to have a large advantage over a student who had a £4000 a year education when it comes to getting into a top university.  And thus the children of rich people will go on to become tomorrow's rich people in the majority of cases, at the expense of those in lower income families.

You can say the solution is to raise the standard of education, and I kindof agree but... we can't afford to spend £33,000 per student per year (I presume there are schools in America which charge similar fees).

At least in America, the average cost of private schools is actually generally less than the average cost of public school. It only is "expensive" because you're paying for education twice: first for public school education, and then for private school education. Inversely, some private schools are actually targeted at the extremely poor (esp. in places like Chicago), and yet provide a fairly good education. Throwing money at the problem doesn't necessarily work.

[genmac]

I feel like private schools being so heavily funded is in fact directly damaging to neighboring schools and the students in those schools, though.  Since a) it means they can horde all the best teaching talent that might otherwise have been spread around more equally and b) a student who is getting £33,000 a year spent on their education (not to mention the extra support they'll receive from having a richer family in the first place) is inevitably going to have a large advantage over a student who had a £4000 a year education when it comes to getting into a top university.  And thus the children of rich people will go on to become tomorrow's rich people in the majority of cases, at the expense of those in lower income families.

You can say the solution is to raise the standard of education, and I kindof agree but... we can't afford to spend £33,000 per student per year (I presume there are schools in America which charge similar fees).

At least in America, the average cost of private schools is actually generally less than the average cost of public school. It only is "expensive" because you're paying for education twice: first for public school education, and then for private school education. Inversely, some private schools are actually targeted at the extremely poor (esp. in places like Chicago), and yet provide a fairly good education. Throwing money at the problem doesn't necessarily work.

This is a good point - parents who send their kids to private schools are still paying for public school, even though they can't use any of the facilities or take classes there.

[Darvi]

Then again, so are people who don't have kids, so meh.

[Leafsnail]

At least in America, the average cost of private schools is actually generally less than the average cost of public school. It only is "expensive" because you're paying for education twice: first for public school education, and then for private school education. Inversely, some private schools are actually targeted at the extremely poor (esp. in places like Chicago), and yet provide a fairly good education. Throwing money at the problem doesn't necessarily work.

Great!  Those schools wouldn't be affected by the law I'm suggesting at all (well, their students might benefit from not having to compete with other students with incredibly expensive educations), including the three or four that target poor people.  If they can genuinely be more efficient with the same funding than state schools then that works fine - genuine competition.

This is a good point - parents who send their kids to private schools are still paying for public school, even though they can't use any of the facilities or take classes there.

Outrage as essential public services are paid for by the public

[genmac]

At least in America, the average cost of private schools is actually generally less than the average cost of public school. It only is "expensive" because you're paying for education twice: first for public school education, and then for private school education. Inversely, some private schools are actually targeted at the extremely poor (esp. in places like Chicago), and yet provide a fairly good education. Throwing money at the problem doesn't necessarily work.

Great!  Those schools wouldn't be affected by the law I'm suggesting at all (well, their students might benefit from not having to compete with other students with incredibly expensive educations), including the three or four that target poor people.  If they can genuinely be more efficient with the same funding than state schools then that works fine - genuine competition.

This is a good point - parents who send their kids to private schools are still paying for public school, even though they can't use any of the facilities or take classes there.

Outrage as essential public services are paid for by the public

So what's the suggestion based on?  If people paying for private schools are also still paying for public school, how is the existence of the private schools damaging to the public schools?  It's hard not to be sarcastic here because the whole thing is so backwards - one mention of improving public schools in the whole thread, the rest mostly talking about how to make sure people don't get a good education.  We spend a huge amount per student (in America at least) for the terrible quality of public schools already, and when people escape from that by paying extra to send their kids to another school, they should be prevented from doing so. 

What about getting rid of incompetent or pedophile teachers that work for years in the public schools, shuffled from district to district?  Or doing something about the insane amount public administrators get paid for overseeing the lousy public schools?  There are a bunch of actual steps that could be taken to address real problems but instead ... well, this thread.

[Leafsnail]

If people paying for private schools are also still paying for public school, how is the existence of the private schools damaging to the public schools?

I think I've answered this question at least 3 times and I'm not answering it again.

Also you aren't actually addressing the proposal.  Although I admit the part where I said that allowing paedophiles to continue teaching was an essential component of my proposal is pretty damning.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

As someone who has attended a private school, I can say with certainty that they are not generally cheaper then public school, taxes or no taxes. They're also worse than public school in at least some cases, both of the private schools I attended had no business being accredited and both shut down after I left them. I was ecstatic to re-enter public school.

I agree that private schools shouldn't really be allowed. They're something where capitalism has no place.

[genmac]

I agree that private schools shouldn't really be allowed. They're something where capitalism has no place.

Then you might not want to look into independent teaching or things like One Day Academy 

I think I've answered this question at least 3 times and I'm not answering it again.

Wait - you meant for your 'feeling' that private schools suck all the talent from the state sector to be taken seriously?  In the same post you then said real teachers wouldn't be interested in the money anyway, and if they were they'd go into banking.  My bad, I've obviously misinterpreted this logical and completely serious proposal.  I guess those numbers you quoted were also sourced from somewhere too, but just in case they weren't, here is a salary breakdown for US teachers, and here is the average amount spent by public schools per student. 

And in case you're hungry for more knowledge, unlike most high school graduates, here is a very nice comparison of the US school spending (highest per pupil in the world), and (here comes the bad news) our math and science scores.

Finally, here is a scientific study on student performance vs school resources.  Please correct me if I'm wrong, but reading the thread it looks like your proposal was based on a feeling that private schools diverted student/school resources, when in fact those same resources are not only, in the US, the highest in the world, but also not linked to good outcomes.

[Leafsnail]

That was a pretty bad mangling of what I said.  You made a point that superteachers would be turned away from the profession altogether if you reduced the budget of private schools - I responded that teachers are unlikely to be attracted to the profession in the first place purely by the slight chance of landing a highly paid job at an elite school, considering that other professions with similar qualification requirements pay more.  This is not the same thing as saying that, once they actually get into the profession, they would not be attracted by higher paying jobs within that profession, nor that increased average pay would not be a motivating factor.

I'm... not sure what any of those sources are supposed to demonstrate.  They all seem perfectly legitimate but I don't see how they are relevant to the discussion at all.  Yes, it's possible to mismanage resources, as the US education system clearly is.  No, that doesn't imply that having your resources drained is a good thing, or that somehow state schools can magically keep their students competitive in spite of having less cash to work with.

There is one rather salient point in those sources though: the top performer in your third source (Finland) eliminated private schooling as we know it completely in 1970* (note their system did not actually perform very well before then).  I found a nice article from an expert (he has many published academic papers, but this blogpost seems more accessible) on this system.

http://www.pasisahlberg.com/blog/?p=84

First of all, although Finland can show the United States what equal opportunity looks like, Americans cannot achieve equity without first implementing fundamental changes in their school system. The following three issues require particular attention.

Funding of schools: Finnish schools are funded based on a formula guaranteeing equal allocation of resources to each school regardless of location or wealth of its community.

This is pretty similar to what I'm advocating (although the Finnish system goes a step further and eliminates fee paying schools entirely).  He has a lot of other neat suggestions, but note that he's effectively saying they're all meaningless unless the three major points at the start (one of which is related to equity) are dealt with.

Note that it includes a part on how to motivate teachers to enter the profession without having to have massive inequity in school funding.

I think Finland's huge improvement after increasing the equity of their system helps demonstrate what I'm getting at: that an inequitable education allows a few students to do well at the expense of the majority.

* There are still some "private", ie non-government administered schools, but they receive the same amount of funding as state schools and are not allowed to charge tuition fees.  This is quite in line with what I am proposing (only more radical still).

[genmac]

I think you'd need to demonstrate a reason that teachers are being drained in the first place, wouldn't you?  The sources indicate that the funding is in place, but we still have poor results.  And you did literally say that if a teacher was in it for the money, they'd be a banker, so it's hard to imagine I mangled that part too hard.

Regarding Finland, the author of that blog should be aware that many states already equalize funding between schools (in Texas this is known as 'Robin Hood').  The statewide school taxes are pooled and distributed between all the schools in the state, "guaranteeing equal allocation of resources to each school regardless of location or wealth of its community".  In 1933.

A more modest set of proposals, along these lines, would do more to fix education than closing down the schools with good outcomes, or restricting what parents can do with their wealth:

1.  Implement something similar to disbarring for tenured teachers.  There's no reason someone just showing a video in class should be collecting 60k+ a year.  The method of disbarring in the legal profession would suit this well - it's an evidence based process, with a judgement made by professionals in your own field.  As it stands, removing a tenured teacher, no matter how bad, means the school will have to fight a lawsuit at very expensive rates.  Which is why the preferred method of getting rid of a lousy teacher is to transfer them to an unlucky school in a different district.
2.  Tie administration/principal salary to some percentage above teacher salary.  You can google around for this, I don't see why a district administrator should be paid 300k when the schools in his district are turning out students that can't do multiplication or read properly.  This would have to be done on a state by state basis.
3.  Require senior level math, english and writing, and a teaching period senior project for Education majors in colleges.  Currently the requirements consist of 'showing up', and math and writing is conspicuously absent from the degree meant to qualify you to teach.  This I believe is on the states as well, since they, or some board elected/appointed by the state sets the requirements for degrees.
4.  Independent teachers, home/unschooling, and private schools should be left alone, as they don't get money from the state in the first place.  All of these students are required, as is, to take the same qualifying tests like the ACT, SAT that public school students do, and while their parents pay taxes to support the public schools, they are no burden on the school and consume no resources.

None of this will ever happen because it might actually fix something though, so I guess I was just feeling optimistic for a bit there.  Don't let me distract from the discussion about non participation in social communities and group ownership of the neighborhood lawnmower.