Quote: Original post by Naurava kulkuri
The private schools are mostly foreign language schools for, say, Russian, German or French origin children, who are perhaps immigrants or whose parents are from those cultures and are perhaps planning to move back to those countries at some point in the future (they are taught Finnish as a second language there). The other major group is schools using specialised teaching methods like those of Steiner's or Montessori's.

Would these children be better off in a standard public school, or the private school that is tailored for their needs? Would these students be able to attend these private schools without public funding? Is the existence of these private schools and the public funds that are going to them, a detriment to the public education system in Finland?

Quote: Original post by tstrimp

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
It'd be simple to mention that Chile has had a voucher system that would fit your description for ~30 years, and their education certainly isn't kicking any butts.

Once again, you're the only one talking about public funding for private education guaranteeing results. In a lot of cases it DOES provide positive results as shown by many European countries.

....and in other results, education systems which are publicly funding private schools are still crap.

In any case, AFAIK countries like Norway do NOT use a system that resembles a cash-value voucher system. So, continually referring to the EU doesn't really help make a convincing point regarding such vouchers.



If you want a more accurate analogy, it might go like this. Instead of the analogy where everyone gets $1500 and can choose to buy whatever computer they want; in Norway, everyone gets to choose their computer provider, and gets whatever computer that provider offers for "free."

The two work quite differently, although they would both achieve the goal you mentioned ["people choosing where their money goes"].

This method still can have some of the same problems as the cash-value system, but smart implementations can curtail them. Specifically, the biggest potential issue with private schools is that allowing them wide discretion in regards to rejecting applicants would effectively subsidize their cream-skimming -- a problem which is already bad enough.


As for cream-skimming in the US:

Quote: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_2_59/ai_54099137
The report found that most nonpublic schools use admission procedures not permitted in public schools:

* 74 percent require "ability to perform at grade level."

...Furthermore, 68 percent of nonpublic schools are either "definitely" (41 percent) or "probably" (27 percent) "not interested" in accepting "special needs" children--children with physical or mental problems or disabilities, who must be accepted by public schools.

Quote: Original post by tstrimp Chile also doubled teacher salaries and dumped a lot of money into their education system without much effect. So as I said, simply throwing money at the problem isn't the answer.

Switching to the voucher system that was proposed earlier isn't necessarily the answer, either. (Which was my actual point.)

[Edited by - HostileExpanse on July 22, 2009 1:38:19 AM]

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
....and in other results, education systems publicly funding private schools are still crap.

And in some cases, public school teachers commit statutory rape against their students. Lets close all public schools!

Quote: Switching to the voucher system that was proposed earlier isn't necessarily the answer, either. (Which was my actual point.)

Of course it isn't THE answer, it's an answer. I'd also support open enrollment so you can send your child to whatever public school you want regardless of your zip code. This would have the same effect as vouchers though. Bad schools would get less and less money while the better schools are well funded.

I really don't understand some people's irrational fear of private industry and whole hearted trust of everything with a government stamp on it. Both sides are run by people, and people are corruptible. I believe government enterprises are MORE corruptible then their private counterparts for a number of reasons. Primarily, government programs don't have to be successful to survive and they aren't nearly as regulated or restricted as private industries (Who watches the watchmen?). For example, monopolies are illegal, unless it is run by the government (like the US Postal Service).

Quote: Original post by tstrimp

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
....and in other results, education systems publicly funding private schools are still crap.

And in some cases, public school teachers commit statutory rape against their students. Lets close all public schools!

Actually it was YOU who saying [paraphrased], "LET'S DO VOUCHERS, THE EU IS PROOF THAT USING PUBLIC FUNDS IS GOOD!"

The actual quote being:

Quote: Original post by tstrimp
......If a voucher system were put into place, demand would go up. This has been shown in states / cities that have tried voucher programs.

Furthermore, most of the schools that are kicking our ass in student performance are subsidizing private education. This includes most countries in the European Union.

Merely telling you that such an attempt at justification is poor doesn't mean that *I* am the one committing fallacies.

Quote: Original post by tstrimp

Quote: Switching to the voucher system that was proposed earlier isn't necessarily the answer, either. (Which was my actual point.)

Of course it isn't THE answer, it's an answer.

TBH, I find the earlier voucher proposal to be a pretty crappy answer. It would almost certainly end up doing little other than force tax increases and boost the profit margins of private schools, even if they contributed no educational value, innovations, or benefits. (Due to cream-skimming as described in my previous post.)

Quote: I'd also support open enrollment so you can send your child to whatever public school you want regardless of your zip code. This would have the same effect as vouchers though. Bad schools would get less and less money while the better schools are well funded.

I've suggested something similar, as well. Any school that accepts applicants on a random lottery system would avoid the huge problems of school choice, and I have no problems with them.

Quote: I really don't understand some people's irrational fear of private industry and whole hearted trust of everything with a government stamp on it.

I don't understand how people are presumptuous enough to assume that someone disagreeing with their privatization proposal is indicating their irrational fear of private industry and/or a whole-hearted trust in the government.

Bad solutions are bad solutions ... plain and simple, and the voucher system proposed (by analogy) on the previous page of this thread is a bad solution.





And, for the record, with a system where schools accept applicants on a random lottery system, I wouldn't have a problem with private schools participating, either. So, you can stow any that "irrational fear of private industry" crap.

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
In any case, AFAIK countries like Norway do NOT use a system that resembles a cash-value voucher system. So, continually referring to the EU doesn't really help make a convincing point regarding such vouchers.

Whereas countries like the Netherlands does receive public funds for every student that they enroll. So continually denouncing the EU as a valid example of public funds for private education in a fashion similar to a voucher system doesn't really make a convincing point.

Quote: The two work quite differently, although they would both achieve the goal you mentioned ["people choosing where their money goes"].

Then why the fuck are you nitpicking?

Quote: Specifically, the biggest potential issue with private schools is that allowing them wide discretion in regards to rejecting applicants would effectively subsidize their cream-skimming -- a problem which is already bad enough.

Of course publicly funded private institutions could have regulations applied to admittance. Then again, I don't see a problem with requiring certain levels of achievement for a private institution. There is no reason to try to educate the idiots with the advanced students. Forest Gump does not belong in Harvard. The amount of public funding could be tied to the amount of regulations the private school is willing to adhere to. For instance, a private school which couldn't turn anyone away would receive more money per child then a school that only accepted Mensa members.

Quote: * 74 percent require "ability to perform at grade level."

...Furthermore, 68 percent of nonpublic schools are either "definitely" (41 percent) or "probably" (27 percent) "not interested" in accepting "special needs" children--children with physical or mental problems or disabilities, who must be accepted by public schools.

So what? Putting everyone into the same class based simply on their age is an extremely poor way to education our children. Students of different abilities should be taught to their level. This provides a better education for everyone involved.

Quote: Original post by tstrimp

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
In any case, AFAIK countries like Norway do NOT use a system that resembles a cash-value voucher system. So, continually referring to the EU doesn't really help make a convincing point regarding such vouchers.

Whereas countries like the Netherlands does receive public funds for every student that they enroll. So continually denouncing the EU as a valid example of public funds for private education in a fashion similar to a voucher system doesn't really make a convincing point.

Uhhh..... THAT IS <font size=GINORMOUS>NOT THE SAME as the system you described with your $1500 example.

Quote: Original post by tstrimp

Quote: The two work quite differently, although they would both achieve the goal you mentioned ["people choosing where their money goes"].

Then why the fuck are you nitpicking?

Because one implementation is pretty bad, and the other is decent. I suppose that could be viewed as nit-picky, but a lot of politicos are proposing the crappy implementation, as opposed to the decent one.

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote: Original post by tstrimp
......If a voucher system were put into place, demand would go up. This has been shown in states / cities that have tried voucher programs.

Furthermore, most of the schools that are kicking our ass in student performance are subsidizing private education. This includes most countries in the European Union.

Merely telling you that such an attempt at justification is poor doesn't mean that *I* am the one committing fallacies.

You never showed how it was a poor justification, you just said it was. Forgive me if I don't take your word on it.

Quote: TBH, I find the earlier voucher proposal to be a pretty crappy answer. It would almost certainly end up doing little other than force tax increases and boost the profit margins of private schools, even if they contributed no educational value, innovations, or benefits. (Due to cream-skimming as described in my previous post.)

Funny, I never outlined any actual implementation details. So your assumption I propose giving public funds to private schools without any sort of reciprocity is completely unfounded.

Quote: Bad solutions are bad solutions ... plain and simple, and the voucher system proposed (by analogy) on the previous page of this thread is a bad solution.

You have yet to provide any evidence that publicly funding private schools is an inherently bad solution. You haven't even provided any intelligent thoughts on the matter, just blindly claimed that private schools are bad.

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
Uhhh..... THAT IS <font size=GINORMOUS>NOT THE SAME as the system you described with your $1500 example.

I think I see your confusion. My $1,500 computer analogy wasn't a proposal for how the public funding would actually work. It's an example of how a subsidy could increase demand for something, especially something that has a government monopoly on it.

If everyone is given a $1,500 computer for free, not many people will pay for a $2,000 computer even if it is better.

Quote: Original post by tstrimp
Of course it isn't THE answer, it's an answer. I'd also support open enrollment so you can send your child to whatever public school you want regardless of your zip code. This would have the same effect as vouchers though. Bad schools would get less and less money while the better schools are well funded.

Open enrollment is a pretty crappy idea, unless you want to drive all the way out to drop off and pick up your kids every day. There certainly wouldn't be any money for all the extra buses and logistics required to handle something like that. I went to a school like that, and the only reason the busing system worked is because the school was a conglomeration of 2 elementary schools, a middle school, a high school, and a magnet school, so they could effectively put students from 5 schools on a single bus (which still wouldn't even be half full). That was 1 school serving a county, now imagine you have every school in a county like that?

Quote: Original post by HelplessFool

Quote: Original post by tstrimp
Of course it isn't THE answer, it's an answer. I'd also support open enrollment so you can send your child to whatever public school you want regardless of your zip code. This would have the same effect as vouchers though. Bad schools would get less and less money while the better schools are well funded.

Open enrollment is a pretty crappy idea, unless you want to drive all the way out to drop off and pick up your kids every day.

Yep ... transportation issues are the biggest hurdles that I thought of when I described such a system, but it's a manageable issue. Likely parents would have to pay (at least a portion of) the transportation differential for taking their child to a "non-zoned" school. Likely, the entire bus system would still need to be significantly expanded, and redesigned with various hubs.