Is Our Public Education System Crippling Society?

[rumborak]

I think it's a pretty obvious outcome, the only question is, is one fine with that rift?
Call me a hippie, but I for one think that one of the core responsibilities of a society is to provide a level ground for kids to start off. Whatever people do after that, i.e. when they grow up, that's their business. But if we're actively creating a dual-class society, that's just plain bad.

rumborak

[eric42434224]

I think it's a pretty obvious outcome, the only question is, is one fine with that rift?
Call me a hippie, but I for one think that one of the core responsibilities of a society is to provide a level ground for kids to start off. Whatever people do after that, i.e. when they grow out, that's their business. But if we're actively creating a dual-class society, that's just plain bad.

rumborak

Well their is an option for families that want a "better" private education for their kids.  I send my kids to private school (Elementary pre-K through 8th grade), and it is 6k a year each.  One private highschool is 17k a year.  The rift is already there.  But by making the entire education system free-market, you will create a LOWER set of schools than the base established in the public schools.  There will be a market for families that want to spend the bare minimum and get the bare minimum in education.  This is not something we should want or strive for when talking about the education of young children.

[Nigerius Rex]

So you pretty much just ignored my question in favor of repeating your favored caricature of free markets.

What part of my description was a "caricature"? Isn't the offering of different-quality products for different prices the exact wanted outcome of a free market? Every market segment I can think of right now has "high-end" vs. "low-end".
Or do you simply not want to apply this plain feature of a free market onto an education system because you know if would make it look as an unfavorable solution?

rumborak

Right, you are the one placing the free market and all of its solutions and results on either end of this giant spectrum and I am the one overlooking plain features.

The reason I call it a caricature is because you are phrasing it to be like markets produce good things at a high cost or bad things at a low cost and that is the only way. You are also trying to make it seem like high end products will always be great and low end products will always be bad with no way around it. To top all of that off, you're not even open to positive speculation. You have your idea of what the market is and how this system will work and how it will affect everyone and thats the way it is and blah bla blah.

You still have yet to even acknowledge that in a voucher system the government pays educational costs and sets a standard for education. Because of those things being poor is not even part of the equation.

There will be a market for families that want to spend the bare minimum and get the bare minimum in education.  This is not something we should want or strive for when talking about the education of young children.

In a voucher system there would be standards that need to be met, the same as with a public school. As long as those standards are met, it should be up to the parent and schools what other things they want to teach and specialize in if anything. Also notice that this dreaded free market for profit school system you two are working up to the bane of all existence is actually quite successful in Sweden as I pointed out above.

[rumborak]

However, the Swedish National Agency for Education has conceded that the system "has not led to better results", while international comparative studies have shown standards to have fallen since the voucher system was introduced

https://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/feb/09/swedish-style-schools-wont-raise-standards

rumborak

[emindead]

Birch Boy:

I'm reading this book called The Underground History of American Education that is available for free online. Maybe it will help with your project as it discusses the evolution of the educational system in USAmerica from its conception to now-a-days.

I would also recommend this 40 min episode of John Stossel's former ABC show 20/20 called "Stupid in America". It's really a well done episode, IMHO. Very informative and with a possible alternative to fix the current problem at the end of the episode.

As for what alternatives you could find to replace the actual broken system in the Kinder-Primary-Middle School years, here's one method I've found interesting and been researching for a while: The Montessori Method. Free complete book on what is The Montessori Method. The Inevitable Wikipedia Link. One of the most appealing thing about this, as you have noticed in the present debate in this thread, it's that, apparently, works well in both private and public institutions.

[Birch Boy]

Birch Boy:

I'm reading this book called The Underground History of American Education that is available for free online. Maybe it will help with your project as it discusses the evolution of the educational system in USAmerica to now-a-days.

I would also recommend this 40 min episode of John Stossel's former ABC show 20/20 called "Stupid in America". It's really a well done episode, IMHO. Very informative and with a possible alternative to fix the current problem at the end of the episode.

As for what alternatives you could find to replace the actual broken system in the Kinder-Primary-Middle School years, here's one method I've found interesting and been researching for a while: The Montessori Method. Free complete book on what is The Montessori Method. The Inevitable Wikipedia Link. One of the most appealing thing about this, as you have noticed in the present debate in this thread, it's that, apparently, works well in both private and public institutions.

I'll keep those in mind. Thanks

[Nigerius Rex]

However, the Swedish National Agency for Education has conceded that the system "has not led to better results", while international comparative studies have shown standards to have fallen since the voucher system was introduced

https://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/feb/09/swedish-style-schools-wont-raise-standards

rumborak

You know that news agencies/articles often draw their own conclusions from inconclusive scientific information. You might as well cite the onion. Just as an example, from the very same article:

Rachel Wolf, director of the New Schools Network, said that it was likely that Sweden's education standards had slipped because of its lack of school accountability and the fact that it had no externally-marked exams, rather than as a result of free schools. "If a school isn't doing well enough, there aren't the same measures to step in and improve it in Sweden," she said. "There are lots of other factors like this that may have meant standards have fallen. It is not about the free schools. Academic evidence shows that where there are more free schools in any area, the local authority does better."

So if you would like to claim that a free school system is not at least equal in quality or results to that of a public school then I ask you to find the actual study it came from and post it up.

It also raises an interesting point:

Is the only concern about test scores in science, english, and math? What about quality of general education for non gifted children? What about having the money to purchase paper and textbooks for every classroom? This is not strictly about scores. Its about fixing a huge problem.

[rumborak]

Lol. Whatever, dude. Choose the explanation that most pleases you, I don't really care. If you really feel you can judge the educational system of a country better than the National Agency of Education of said country, i can only shake my head.

rumborak

[Nigerius Rex]

If you were in my position you would be pointing out the exact things I am:

1. The national agency of education didn't take a stance. One man who just happens to be director general for that organization did and I suspect the quote was mined.

2. Its not the claim, its the evidence. You have an article that cites no sources.

3. The study they keep referring to was performed by the university of Gothenburg and cited several reasons for declining performance in Swedish schools and merely listed free schools as one of the possible causes. It did not identify private schools as a main cause. All it did was make a suggestion and news outlets like your cherished guardian ran with it and pointed to a conclusion as they pleased.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100215100519.htm

https://montrose42.wordpress.com/2010/02/22/the-swedish-school-model-under-attack-but-are-attacks-missing-the-point/

In fact the Gothenburg study on Sweden’s relative decline over twenty years, saw schools choice as just one, in basket of influencers  and certainly not the main one.  Other significant reasons identified included housing segregation, making schooling a ‘community matter’, (communities have not distributed resources efficiently-sounds familiar) special teaching groups, and what is termed ‘individualisation.’  The main explanation the report gives, for instance for the dwindling average performance in mathematics and natural science was ‘the increased use of independent learning and decreased teacher-led instruction’. Another key reason given was poor understanding and application of the National Curriculum. The report stated ‘  The current national curriculum, introduced in the 1990s, provides limited guidance on exactly what children need to learn and what methods teachers should use. While the original intention of this was to give teachers freedom to base their teaching entirely on what each unique situation calls for, it turns out that it has led to more time on their own for school children and less teacher-led instruction. The report shows that this has negatively affected children’s performance and has made support at home more critical to the children’s development.’  So the systems performance overall may have declined, relative to some other high achieving countries ,but not, of course, the performance of free schools within that system. There are plenty of evaluations that clearly demonstrate that schools in geographical areas where competition exists are performing better than schools in areas where there still is no competition. This hasn’t stopped Dr Sandra McNally and Dr Helena Holmlund from the London School of Economics’ Centre for Economic Performance (CEP) arguing otherwise.  In an article published last  week they said the most recent studies of Swedish reforms found evidence of “only small positive effects”.  They added: “Importing the Swedish model may not make very much difference to the UK’s status quo.” It is a claim that will be hotly contested.

What we have here is an immensely complicated issue and here you are trying to discredit the entire thing based on a mined quote from an online newspaper.

[hefdaddy42]

NR, everything that rumborak said about the spectrum caused by the market system (which you scoffed at) is the way the markets actually work.  We see it every day in every field where there is a market.  There are Mercedes and Hyundais.  There are name brand groceries and generic groceries.  There is high end fashion and there is Wal-Mart.  There are Cohibas and there are Swisher Sweets.  That is the reality of the market.  Any other possible outcome seems like theoretical guesswork.

[rumborak]

And regarding the Swedish system, NR, you can discredit that study all you want, but if your supposed panacea (school vouchers), after having been in action for 8 years in Sweden, need a carefully crafted study to show the seemingly minuscule effect on the level of education (or for starters, at least not show a degradation), there's a problem. The way you were praising it, after 8 years there should be a clear improvement of education levels, but so far everything points in the opposite direction.

rumborak

[eric42434224]

And regarding the Swedish system, NR, you can discredit that study all you want, but if your supposed panacea (school vouchers), after having been in action for 8 years in Sweden, need a carefully crafted study to show the seemingly minuscule effect on the level of education (or for starters, at least not show a degradation), there's a problem. The way you were praising it, after 8 years there should be a clear improvement of education levels, but so far everything points in the opposite direction.

rumborak

Vouchers will not have any real effect on the quality of education in the country.  They do not effect the mechanics of the educational model/process at all.  They merely allow the families that already pay for private school, to use the money they pay in taxes to help pay for private school.  I pay 12k a year for private school for my 2 kids, and will get 2k from what I pay in taxes.  You wont see many families, if any at all in some areas, that all of a sudden will fork over the extra 10k for private school now that they can use the 2k.  Vouchers are about MONEY, not EDUCATION.

[rumborak]

I think there's also other issues that would prevent a free market system to work when it comes to schools.
First of all, schools on average gather so many students that, unless you live in a heavily populated area, the distance to the next school is prohibitively large because of that. Meaning, a voucher is next to useless because you can't send your kid on a 2 hour ride each way every day. And only a tiny fraction of people have the means to move to the school of their liking. Believing that there would be this hitherto-unseen mobility is delusional.
Meaning, a single school already saturates the market, prohibiting competition to even arise. I know the Loltarians don't subscribe to this view, but required curricula don't come from nowhere. Was there a possibility for effective competition, the gov't never would have gotten involved in the business of education. It's the fact that one area can essentially only have one school that required the establishment of curricula since there was no competition to raise the standards on their own.

And even if, the point about the spread of quality in a functioning market is still not something one would want.

rumborak

[eric42434224]

I think there's also other issues that would prevent a free market system to work when it comes to schools.
First of all, schools on average gather so many students that, unless you live in a heavily populated area, the distance to the next school is prohibitively large because of that. Meaning, a voucher is next to useless because you can't send your kid on a 2 hour ride each way every day. And only a tiny fraction of people have the means to move to the school of their liking. Believing that there would be this hitherto-unseen mobility is delusional.
Meaning, a single school already saturates the market, prohibiting competition to even arise. I know the Loltarians don't subscribe to this view, but required curricula don't come from nowhere. Was there a possibility for effective competition, the gov't never would have gotten involved in the business of education. It's the fact that one area can essentially only have one school that required the establishment of curricula since there was no competition to raise the standards on their own.

And even if, the point about the spread of quality in a functioning market is still not something one would want.

rumborak

Right.  I pointed that out earlier.  Geographic, population, and economic constraints for the majority of families make vouchers moot.

[Nigerius Rex]

NR, everything that rumborak said about the spectrum caused by the market system (which you scoffed at) is the way the markets actually work.

I am not trying to say that what he is saying isn't true, what I am saying is that chalking the entirety of every positive and negative affect into a single characteristic of markets like high end and low end which are immensely complex is not a neutral way to weigh the pros and cons. For example as I have repeated three times now: No matter what cuts or subjects schools choose to teach, they will be required by law to meet the minimum standards for education. This means regardless of what other funding the founding organization is willing to add to the school or their longterm goals or focus is, they will be required to teach the basic curriculum all schools currently teach.

The way you were praising it, after 8 years there should be a clear improvement of education levels, but so far everything points in the opposite direction.

Its not a carefully crafted study about private schools or their negative or positive effects, its a study about why swedish school performance is not as good in direct comparison to other countries scores. Strangely enough though, the United States is not even part of that discussion because our current scores are lower than the top 10. Another interesting thing is that in spite of all this, more and more public schools in Sweden are closing due to the Swedish people choosing voucher schools instead of government run ones and surveys say they are more happier with private schools.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_Student_Assessment

Its not like I am drafting a voucher system to be the savior, but look at what we have now. Our entire government is in the hole how many trillions of dollars? Our school system is incredibly low quality across the board with scores steadily declining as the years go on. And to top it off, funding is being cut everywhere to make money for healthcare and other government spending projects.

You also for the second time ignore my other point which is that the main reason for vouchers is not to improve scores. Its to force schools to compete with each other and offer a wide range of personal freedom when it comes to school and subject choice.

I think there's also other issues that would prevent a free market system to work when it comes to schools.

https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pss/privateschoolsearch/school_list.asp?Search=1&SchoolName=&SchoolID=&Address=&City=&State=06&Zip=95762&Miles=15&County=&PhoneAreaCode=&Phone=&Religion=&Association=&SchoolType=&Coed=&NumOfStudents=&NumOfStudentsRange=more&IncGrade=-1&LoGrade=-1&HiGrade=-1

That is just an example of schools within 15 miles of my address. That is 6 pages and excludes public schools and very few of them are religiously affiliated. Not to mention that if regulation surrounding the creation of new private schools was removed, it would be much, much easier to create one. As of now, it costs a boatload in fees and liscenses, there are constant new regulations being passed, and constant union lobbying trying to outlaw the creation of new schools.

https://privateschool.about.com/cs/startingaschool/ht/startaschool.htm

Was there a possibility for effective competition, the gov't never would have gotten involved in the business of education.

That is not true at all. The US government is involved everywhere where competition flourishes regularly.

[Birch Boy]

El Dorado County?

[rumborak]

You also for the second time ignore my other point which is that the main reason for vouchers is not to improve scores. Its to force schools to compete with each other and offer a wide range of personal freedom when it comes to school and subject choice.

I'm sorry, but who needs that in the US? The main concern about the education system is the low quality. Any suggestion about a schooling system reform needs to measure itself against score improvements. And that's of course also waht Sweden was hoping for, only that it didn't materialize.

That is just an example of schools within 15 miles of my address.

What use is a school that is 15 miles away from your home? Anything above 5 miles I would consider not being an option.

rumborak

[Birch Boy]

I live four houses down from my school district

[Nigerius Rex]

Any suggestion about a schooling system reform needs to measure itself against score improvements. And that's of course also waht Sweden was hoping for, only that it didn't materialize.

Scores have nothing to do with either public schooling or a voucher system. The idea is that the increased efficiency and better materials would naturally help encourage better schooling and as a result of that, better scores. But like any complicated system, a single factor rarely drives the end result up or down and as the Gothenburg study and numerous surveys indicate, a private school system is not a significant enough factor to cause failure or lowered test scores. What they do conclusively prove however is that locally students perform better, parents are happier with them than public schools, and the cost per student and cost of materials decreases as each school is forced to compete and offer incentives.

Right now California is bankrupt. The postal service, unemployment, utility services etc are on the brink of collapse because of their inefficiency and instability. Public schooling is no different from any of these programs, so why would we not seek alternatives even if it is not a voucher system? It seems to come back to any free market solution to any problem we have seen over the years on these forums is never good enough or not practical meanwhile the entire structure of every government run program is collapsing.

What use is a school that is 15 miles away from your home? Anything above 5 miles I would consider not being an option.

Maybe its about perspective, I have never in my life lived within 5 miles of a public school. For me it was always a 20 minute bus ride or a 15 minute drive with the parents. I suspect for my children it will be the same. As far as being realistic, most mini vans and suvs get 15-20mpg.

[rumborak]

It seems to come back to any free market solution to any problem we have seen over the years on these forums is never good enough or not practical meanwhile the entire structure of every government run program is collapsing.

I am convinced that that is your impression of this forum's participants. The problem is that you seem to always champion free-market solutions where they don't work well, resulting from an overly idealized view of what markets can achieve. I would say most people here (including myself) like to see market dynamics being applied in every situation it makes sense. But we also realize that certain things suffer under a market approach.
BTW, I actually think vouchers aren't necessarily a bad thing, since as you say it increases some students' (not a lot though) ability to choose from more schools. But as somebody else pointed out, private schools are magnitudes more expensive, so a voucher is really a drop in the bucket.

rumborak

[hefdaddy42]

I think that, on the whole, elementary or high schools competing against each other is a pretty bad idea.  That guarantees a lot of "loser" schools, with a bunch of students that don't have a good shot at successful lives.

Oh wait, that's what we have now.

The idea should be for communities to take a serious look at the ways that successful schools operate, and translate those ways to underperforming schools. 

[Nigerius Rex]

But as somebody else pointed out, private schools are magnitudes more expensive, so a voucher is really a drop in the bucket.

https://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-025.html

In fact, Education Department figures show that the average private elementary school tuition in America is less than $2,500. The average tuition for all private schools, elementary and secondary, is $3,116, or less than half of the cost per pupil in the average public school, $6,857. A survey of private schools in Indianapolis, Jersey City, San Francisco, and Atlanta shows that there are many options available to families with $3,000 to spend on a child's education. Even more options would no doubt appear if all parents were armed with $3,000 vouchers.

[Nigerius Rex]

I didn't realize the article I just linked too was so old. But apparently the cost of private schools changed just as much as those for public schools:

https://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/html/pa662/pa662index.html

Spending per pupil ranges from a low of nearly $12,000 in the Phoenix area schools to a high of nearly $27,000 in the New York metro area. The gap between real and reported per-pupil spending ranges from a low of 23 percent in the Chicago area to a high of 90 percent in the Los Angeles metro region.

edit: I just found the finance report for 2007-2008 per pupil cost in the actual government report here:
https://www2.census.gov/govs/school/08f33pub.pdf

Page 14

[eric42434224]

What you pay in taxes for public school, and therefore what your voucher would be, are VERY different things than what is spent on education per child or what tuition is.  The expenses in public schools are subsidized by all the other taxpayers that have no children.
So your comparison is off point.  The vouchers are indeed just a drop in the bucket.  There is no disputing that

[Nigerius Rex]

So because its tax money, vouchers would be far less than what is currently spent per child...in tax money? I sort of understand what you are saying, but if we just take the money spent per child and issue that amount or even slightly lower as a voucher why does where the money come from enter the equation? Whether the government creates the school or whether the school is privately owned and government funded, what changes that means the private school/parent should receive less money per child?

Regardless, the question is not whether childless adults are subsidizing other children's schooling via taxes with public schooling, or with charity events, donations, and fundraising in the case of a private school, the issue is strictly cost vs cost and private schooling is not more expensive.

[eric42434224]

So because its tax money, vouchers would be far less than what is currently spent per child...in tax money? I sort of understand what you are saying, but if we just take the money spent per child and issue that amount or even slightly lower as a voucher why does where the money come from enter the equation? Whether the government creates the school or whether the school is privately owned and government funded, what changes that means the private school/parent should receive less money per child?

I will use arbitrary numbers as an example.  I live in state X, and in city Y, and the schools in the area spend an average 15k per year per year per student.  I only pay 2k in taxes that are earmarked for public schools.  The reason I only spend 2k is because the entire ciity and or county and or state pays taxes too, regardless if the have 10 kids in school, or if they are 80yr old retirees.  You dont get a voucher for 15k...you get a voucher for 2k because that is all you contributed.  Your neighbors shouldnt have to subsidize your personal choice.

Regardless, the question is not whether childless adults are subsidizing other children's schooling via taxes with public schooling, or with charity events, donations, and fundraising in the case of a private school, the issue is strictly cost vs cost and private schooling is not more expensive.

No, the question/issue is neither.  It isnt about families without kids subsidizing public schools....it is about the families without kids subsidizing vouchers.
It also isnt about the cost of education per child.  Private schools DO cost more because the family only pays a fraction to go to a public school, as it is subsidized...but pays FULL to go to a private school.  In may cases, if the family doesnt own property, the cost to go to a public school can be ZERO.    It is about improving the educational process / model to improve the educational experience for the kids.  Vouchers have little effect on this.  They dont increase spending in a school, they dont change the educational model, and dont help much in the abilitly for families to change schools.  

[Nigerius Rex]

So why then because we switch to vouchers are other childless adults not suppose to subsidize public schooling by allowing the government to allocate what they were already allocating per child in the form of a voucher? If I read your argument right, you are trying to claim there is some economic difference between the 12k allocated between private school and government school, but then claim that because other people subsidize your child's education that the voucher would be less because you are only paying for your child's education. With your tax money you subsidize other children and their parents subsidize yours, there is no difference between the two systems in terms of cost except that a voucher system would allow the market mechanism to reduce the price and increase efficiency on a per school basis.

Aside from that, it only contributes to the idea that public schools are unsustainable. The actual cost of a childs education via public schooling is 12k. No matter who is paying for it or how they do it, it costs 12k per kid. If we spend 12k per child in public school and only get a fraction of that per child from the budget allocated to public schooling by the state and federal government then you create a running deficit and an unsustainable schooling system. You can see the affects of that budget crises happening in California now along with the steady decline in test scores and school quality.

[rumborak]

I don't see really how the voucher system would reduce a budget crisis. The government still pays the same money. And that the marginal competition would significantly drive down schooling costs is delusional. There's a lot of fixed costs in schooling that won't change. Essentially, the only direction schooling costs have is up.
That is, as long as you still want to enforce quality in schools. I'm sure somebody would put up a wooden shack with a wax candle in it and a sign saying "school" that would be marvelously cheap to go to.

rumborak

[Nigerius Rex]

The key is not to fix the entire budget crisis, its to fix a single huge problem that by itself consumes the majority of most state budgets and usually more than that. It is a huge problem, there is no denying it.

Public schools spend more than private schools and are grossly inefficient and mismanaged.

A major example:

They don't account for actual costs, and when they do the figure is underestimated by 44% on average.

That cato report (specifically on pages 3-14) I linked you to earlier details how accurate and up to date financial reports are few and far between and that in some cases public schools were spending 90% more than what was stated. The information was obtained from the NCES, and district and state budget reports.



So yes there are fixed costs however the actual cost is often misrepresented and the result of extreme resource mismanagement and also does not take into account what changes will result from competition.

And to play on your example of a wooden shack with a candle on it, why couldn't a certified teacher decide to turn their home into a small school and use the voucher money to purchase the licenses, materials, and equipment he/she needs and still turn a profit and meet the educational standards with a smaller size class? Currently that is nearly impossible to accomplish.

[rumborak]

Because it would be impossible to do quality control on that.

rumborak

[Nigerius Rex]

I assume you are talking about my example with a teacher and a house? Why would she not be inspected like every other private and public school by the state?

[rumborak]

How do you do a reasonable evaluation of teaching levels when you have hundreds of "mini-schools" that pop in and out of existence? The governmental resources necessary to ensure quality in a zoo of "educational entrepreneurs" would probably offset quite a bit of the supposed savings.

rumborak

[Nigerius Rex]

I think it would be easier to audit mini schools with accurate record keeping then it would be to audit the smaller number of larger public schools that are a complete unaccountable mess. Besides, private schools now have regular state inspections and there are several hundred of them per state that range from very small to very large.

[rumborak]

I think it would be easier to audit mini schools with accurate record keeping then it would be to audit the smaller number of larger public schools that are a complete unaccountable mess.

That makes no sense to me at all. How can it be easier to monitor and evaluate a multitude of independently operating entities that all try to do their own thing, as opposed to a large public body that works within established operational standards?

One way or the other, you are making up arguments on the fly right now, which somewhat shows the voucher idea isn't based on some grand, convincing new system, but just based on free-market ideology.

rumborak

[Nigerius Rex]

Right. So you completely ignored my post with the cato report and the numbers from the NCES which show that public schools inaccurately report expenditures which leads to incredibly inefficient financial planning and a host of other problems directly connected to that. And then you say my opinion on an issue I just started speculating about (small schools run by teachers/parents) which don't necessarily reflect the causes or goals of the voucher system or libertarians as a whole somehow proves the voucher system is ineffective?

All that is, is a fallacy. Discredit my actual argument which is that public schools are low quality and unsustainable and that vouchers can bring some stability and competition which will bring improvement to the school system and state budget, or don't even bother posting things like that. It doesn't bring the discussion anywhere.