3 ms·

Consider this. Money is directly related to the quality of education. New Trier is a school in the area where I grew up. It is one of the best high schools i

by tsally 17y ago

Consider this. Money is directly related to the quality of education. New Trier is a school in the area where I grew up. It is one of the best high schools in the nation. New Trier spends more than $15,000 yearly per student, compared the the state average of $8,786 [1]. Now in a private system we could just provide vouchers to everyone for $15,000 and everyone would have an excellent education. Except this would cost way more than the current system and no one is willing to pay it. Now, you would suggest that though free market forces, New Trier's figure of $15,000 could be brought down. But these free market forces are already operating on New Trier! New Trier already has all the characteristics of an elastic good! (1) Many substitutes - families are rich so they can move or send their kids to private school, (2) Low percentage of family income - families are rich, (3) Breadth of definition - there are public and private schools in the area with similar prestige, and (4) Necessity - the kids of rich and educated parents are the least likely to need a degree. To be honest, $15,000 per student is probably a pretty accurate figure for what it takes to give a kid a top notch education. A private system wont lower this figure. The cost of education wont be reduced. So my claim is that free market forces are already at work. Why then not just convert to a private system if the net effect would be the same? After all, the government is evil and the invisible hand is a force of good and prosperity for the human race. The answer to this question comes from wisty's comment [2]. It is the market failure I refer to several times. The underlying learning will take a back seat to the profit in a private system. Ever notice how some really expensive cloths aren't the ones that look the best? It's because prestige can trump quality. This is inevitable in the private system. It may happen in the public system as well, but the government has the power to try to stop it. No such body exists in the private system to look out for the quality of education. [1] http://sitemaker.umich.edu/dompierre.356/new_trier_high_school__il_ http://sitemaker.umich.edu/dompierre.356/new_trier_high_scho... [2] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1111503 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1111503

natrius 17y ago
Changing the education system will inevitably have a tiny effect on the people who can already throw as much money as they want at education. They have choices. Poor people don't. Giving them choices will likely improve their educations. My school district spends ~$7000 per student. I'd say I got a pretty good education. Vouchers would not have to be ridiculously high to provide a quality education as you imply. Not everyone is going to get a gold-plated education, but the minimum could be far higher than it currently is at the same price. It seems like you just don't like profit-seeking entities. This concern could be accommodated just fine in a voucher system: choose a non-profit school. Profit isn't necessary for privatization to improve quality. Competition is what creates the incentive to improve. I think the lack of direct incentives for public schools and their employees to improve is a greater negative than any corrupting influence of profit would be.
- tsally 17y ago
  My school district spends ~$7000 per student. I'd say I got a pretty good education. Vouchers would not have to be ridiculously high to provide a quality education as you imply. Not everyone is going to get a gold-plated education, but the minimum could be far higher than it currently is at the same price. So you are basically ignoring the market failure I point out then? Take your pick of any celebrity clothing line to see first hand evidence of this market failure. It seems like you just don't like profit-seeking entities. I love profit seeking entities, but different contexts require different definitions of profit. Your average business person lacks an investment in society and in the long term that is necessary to define profit in education. EDIT: Anyway... I've entertained the idea of education being delivered as a private good for long enough. Truly it's my belief that it's a public good, but I'm forced to argue as if it were a private one in order to make any progress. I'll read your next reply, but cramming education into the context of a private good has worn me out.
  - natrius 17y ago
    The vast majority of the benefits of an education accrue to the person who gets the education. That makes it a private good in the economic sense, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be provided privately. I had already replied to the "teaching to the test" issue in the thread you linked to. Public schools already do this, yet somehow that's what we should fear private schools doing? From the very beginning, I've stated that these schools should be certified by the government in some form, so if you're satisfied with the public schools the government deems acceptable, I don't see why you'd have an issue with similar private schools. I don't understand how you can think you're doing poor people a favor by forcing them to attend their crappy neighborhood schools instead of giving them choices.
    - tsally 17y ago
      Ugh, I had to reply. :-p First, that's an incorrect (or at least not complete) definition of a private good. A private good is rivalrous OR excludable. Education is non-excludable because raising the education level of economic actors benefits society, which benefits even the uneducated. Two reasons education is (largely) nonrival: (1) we can have more than one student in a classroom and/or host classes online and (2) there are not a finite number of diplomas a highschool can issue, they cannot be permanently consumed. Therefore, education is a public good. You'll be tempted to nitpick about the nonrival part. After all, diplomas can't be consumed but seats in a classroom can. However given enough seats and enough qualified teachers, education truly is nonrival. This would be a meaningless statement (after all, who cares about situations with unlimited resources) except that making education nonrival is actually fairly cheap compared to the benefit received by society. And because education is a public good it should be provided by the government, just like national defense. Private education disgusts me almost as much as the idea of private militias. But that's neither here nor there in the context of our current discussion. I don't understand how you can think you're doing poor people a favor by forcing them to attend their crappy neighborhood schools instead of giving them choices. They wont have choice. They are contained by geography in a public system. They are constrained by money in a private system. If they go to a poor school they go to an ineffective school, regardless of whether it is public/private. I fail to see why you think schools on average will have more money in a private system. I've already pointed out that free market forces are operating on the public system.
Empact 17y ago
For every student of New Trier (which I've never heard of) there are 1000 in DC or New Jersey, where charter school spend fully half that of the "fully public" i.e. "monopoly" schools.

by tsally 17y ago

natrius 17y ago

Changing the education system will inevitably have a tiny effect on the people who can already throw as much money as they want at education. They have choices. Poor people don't. Giving them choices will likely improve their educations. My school district spends ~$7000 per student. I'd say I got a pretty good education. Vouchers would not have to be ridiculously high to provide a quality education as you imply. Not everyone is going to get a gold-plated education, but the minimum could be far higher than it currently is at the same price. It seems like you just don't like profit-seeking entities. This concern could be accommodated just fine in a voucher system: choose a non-profit school. Profit isn't necessary for privatization to improve quality. Competition is what creates the incentive to improve. I think the lack of direct incentives for public schools and their employees to improve is a greater negative than any corrupting influence of profit would be.

tsally 17y ago
My school district spends ~$7000 per student. I'd say I got a pretty good education. Vouchers would not have to be ridiculously high to provide a quality education as you imply. Not everyone is going to get a gold-plated education, but the minimum could be far higher than it currently is at the same price. So you are basically ignoring the market failure I point out then? Take your pick of any celebrity clothing line to see first hand evidence of this market failure. It seems like you just don't like profit-seeking entities. I love profit seeking entities, but different contexts require different definitions of profit. Your average business person lacks an investment in society and in the long term that is necessary to define profit in education. EDIT: Anyway... I've entertained the idea of education being delivered as a private good for long enough. Truly it's my belief that it's a public good, but I'm forced to argue as if it were a private one in order to make any progress. I'll read your next reply, but cramming education into the context of a private good has worn me out.
- natrius 17y ago
  The vast majority of the benefits of an education accrue to the person who gets the education. That makes it a private good in the economic sense, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be provided privately. I had already replied to the "teaching to the test" issue in the thread you linked to. Public schools already do this, yet somehow that's what we should fear private schools doing? From the very beginning, I've stated that these schools should be certified by the government in some form, so if you're satisfied with the public schools the government deems acceptable, I don't see why you'd have an issue with similar private schools. I don't understand how you can think you're doing poor people a favor by forcing them to attend their crappy neighborhood schools instead of giving them choices.
  - tsally 17y ago
    Ugh, I had to reply. :-p First, that's an incorrect (or at least not complete) definition of a private good. A private good is rivalrous OR excludable. Education is non-excludable because raising the education level of economic actors benefits society, which benefits even the uneducated. Two reasons education is (largely) nonrival: (1) we can have more than one student in a classroom and/or host classes online and (2) there are not a finite number of diplomas a highschool can issue, they cannot be permanently consumed. Therefore, education is a public good. You'll be tempted to nitpick about the nonrival part. After all, diplomas can't be consumed but seats in a classroom can. However given enough seats and enough qualified teachers, education truly is nonrival. This would be a meaningless statement (after all, who cares about situations with unlimited resources) except that making education nonrival is actually fairly cheap compared to the benefit received by society. And because education is a public good it should be provided by the government, just like national defense. Private education disgusts me almost as much as the idea of private militias. But that's neither here nor there in the context of our current discussion. I don't understand how you can think you're doing poor people a favor by forcing them to attend their crappy neighborhood schools instead of giving them choices. They wont have choice. They are contained by geography in a public system. They are constrained by money in a private system. If they go to a poor school they go to an ineffective school, regardless of whether it is public/private. I fail to see why you think schools on average will have more money in a private system. I've already pointed out that free market forces are operating on the public system.

Empact 17y ago

For every student of New Trier (which I've never heard of) there are 1000 in DC or New Jersey, where charter school spend fully half that of the "fully public" i.e. "monopoly" schools.