8 ms·

It's important to differentiate between public funding and public provisioning of public education. Public funding might mean that a kid from a less wealthy fa

It's important to differentiate between public funding and public provisioning of public education. Public funding might mean that a kid from a less wealthy family could afford to attend a private school via a grant from the state. Public provisioning means that schools ultimately have more in common with the DMV than with elite educational institutions. Public schools are intended to be daycare centers for the poor and middle class, so that women can join the work force without having to care for their children during the day. The goal of public schools is to teach children to conform to the expectations of the work force, so depending on where the school is located the students may end up barely literate but sufficient to fill the local factory jobs, etc. It's important to keep this in mind when thinking about public education. Public schools have not failed, they are succeeding quite well at what they are actually intended to accomplish. Some public schools (those in rich suburbs) actually provide a good education (chances are someone who attended one of those schools will object to this comment). Those are an exception and exist in areas where residents could afford to send their kids to private school if necessary.

pw0ncakes 17y ago
Some public schools (those in rich suburbs) actually provide a good education (chances are someone who attended one of those schools will object to this comment). Those are an exception and exist in areas where residents could afford to send their kids to private school if necessary. I think a few things are worth pointing out here: The best 10-20% of teachers are really good, because teaching is (although not as admired as medicine or law) admired enough that some seriously talented people enter it. Those teachers are highly desired and usually end up at the most reputable schools teaching honors and AP classes. So if you're lucky enough to have such teachers, you're going to get a good education. Good schools have no problem getting a satisfactory percentage of students to pass the assessment tests and therefore actually teach. Mediocre schools that are on the bubble begin "teaching to the test" (which means a focus of attention and resources onto the worst students, to the detriment of average and good students) and therefore the quality of education declines even further.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  Focusing attention/resources onto the worst students will raise the median/mean quality of education at the expense of the quality of the 90'th percentile. For an egalitarian [1], this should probably be a good thing. [1] I use the word "egalitarian" in the liberal sense of favoring equal outcomes for all people/groups.
- grandalf 17y ago
  I think you make an accurate point that people who teach (who are capable enough to have other options) are probably not motivated solely by the financial rewards. But there is nothing about teaching that would prevent a top teacher from earning $250K per year. The reason that doesn't happen (and the reason we don't see more luxury cars in the teachers' parking long) is because unions have forced wages to be based on seniority and not based on merit. This means that rather than one teacher (a good one) making $70K and another (not so good one) making $30K, they both make $50K. This gives the bad teacher every incentive to continue being a mediocre teacher for decades rather than moving on and finding a career he/she is good at.
SamAtt 17y ago
So by your logic it's OK for the government to use education to relegate poor kids to dead end jobs because they live in a bad neighborhood? Very enlightened. Edit: For anyone who downvotes this answer me one question: How is this not exactly what he's saying when he says: The goal of public schools is to teach children to conform to the expectations of the work force, so depending on where the school is located the students may end up barely
- sp332 17y ago
  It's not grandalf's logic, it's an accurate observation.
  - SamAtt 17y ago
    His claim was, and I quote, "The goal of public schools is...". That's attributing a set of values to society (and his tone implied that he agreed with those values). Not making an observation as to what is happening. If he had said "logically this outcome is the end result of [insert economic factors here]" I'd have no problem with his statement. But when he says this is what we as a society intend and that there's nothing wrong with that I have a problem.
    - jerf 17y ago
      Nonsense. Observing that someone else has a goal does not mean you agree with it, by implication or otherwise. Besides, anyone who seriously accepted that "the goal of public schools is to teach children to conform to the expectations of the work force, so depending on where the school is located the students may end up barely literate but sufficient to fill the local factory jobs, etc." is a good thing is probably not posting here. And I think phrases like "barely literate" would tend to indicate disapproval, not approval.
      - grandalf 17y ago
        Jerf and sp332: Correct, I strongly disapprove of the way public schools function. You correctly interpreted my opinion.
btilly 17y ago
Some of what you say is obviously true. John Taylor Gatto has written very eloquently on the historical roots of the public education system in the USA. But when you look internationally, there are plenty of publicly provisioned education systems that deliver a far better education than the USA. (I am the product of one. I went to school in Canada, in a not particularly good neighbourhood.) How do you explain that? Within the USA, once you control for parents' socio-economic status, measured educational outcomes are better in public schools than private. (Controlling for that factor is important because private schools have a different of wealth than public schools.) How do you explain that? Public provisioning is not, a priori, an obviously bad thing to do.
- grandalf 17y ago
  To your first point: There are certainly rare exceptions. But the broader effect of public schools is to remove competition and choice, so the natural tendency of humans to compare various options and make a choice (as a projection of individual identity) is suppressed. People value things because they chose them and because they realized that "wait a second, I have to pick which one I want, so which one is better?" (I experienced this phenomenon first hand when asked about my preferences on china patterns, and it's visible even in poor communities with things like mobile phones and athletic shoes). To your second point: In a rich community (Greenwich CT, the Chicago suburbs, etc.) the public schools are exceptionally well funded and well supported. I know people who attended public schools where most of the faculty had masters degrees and some had doctorates. This does not represent the success of public provisioning, on the contrary, it represents the ability of a community with enough sufficiently powerful and motivated people to shape a public school into what they want (with the aid of lots of tax dollars). I think it's fairly obvious that communities like this would find a way to provide excellent education for their children even if classes had to be held in an old barn. Of course, public school apologists are quick to take credit for any excellence they can find. Meanwhile, the inner city poor beg for voucher systems and are denied by powerful teachers unions, etc. The poor simply lack the political power and resources to overcome the state sanctioned education monopoly. Notably, one reason why your statistic of private schools being worse is true is because some of the largest serve vast numbers of the urban poor for pennies on the dollar (compared with public schools). Much of this (due to the shortage of funds created by the public monopoly) is via Catholic charities, but it's still a remarkable accomplishment. Even so, those schools reach a limit and have to turn people away... Meanwhile funding gets pumped into failed public schools (many of which can't even offer a safe environment free of violence) and parents who weren't lucky enough to get a spot in an affordable private school must send their kids into these awful prisons every day.

pw0ncakes 17y ago

Some public schools (those in rich suburbs) actually provide a good education (chances are someone who attended one of those schools will object to this comment). Those are an exception and exist in areas where residents could afford to send their kids to private school if necessary. I think a few things are worth pointing out here: The best 10-20% of teachers are really good, because teaching is (although not as admired as medicine or law) admired enough that some seriously talented people enter it. Those teachers are highly desired and usually end up at the most reputable schools teaching honors and AP classes. So if you're lucky enough to have such teachers, you're going to get a good education. Good schools have no problem getting a satisfactory percentage of students to pass the assessment tests and therefore actually teach. Mediocre schools that are on the bubble begin "teaching to the test" (which means a focus of attention and resources onto the worst students, to the detriment of average and good students) and therefore the quality of education declines even further.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
yummyfajitas 17y ago
Focusing attention/resources onto the worst students will raise the median/mean quality of education at the expense of the quality of the 90'th percentile. For an egalitarian [1], this should probably be a good thing. [1] I use the word "egalitarian" in the liberal sense of favoring equal outcomes for all people/groups.
grandalf 17y ago
I think you make an accurate point that people who teach (who are capable enough to have other options) are probably not motivated solely by the financial rewards. But there is nothing about teaching that would prevent a top teacher from earning $250K per year. The reason that doesn't happen (and the reason we don't see more luxury cars in the teachers' parking long) is because unions have forced wages to be based on seniority and not based on merit. This means that rather than one teacher (a good one) making $70K and another (not so good one) making $30K, they both make $50K. This gives the bad teacher every incentive to continue being a mediocre teacher for decades rather than moving on and finding a career he/she is good at.

SamAtt 17y ago

So by your logic it's OK for the government to use education to relegate poor kids to dead end jobs because they live in a bad neighborhood? Very enlightened. Edit: For anyone who downvotes this answer me one question: How is this not exactly what he's saying when he says: The goal of public schools is to teach children to conform to the expectations of the work force, so depending on where the school is located the students may end up barely

sp332 17y ago
It's not grandalf's logic, it's an accurate observation.
- SamAtt 17y ago
  His claim was, and I quote, "The goal of public schools is...". That's attributing a set of values to society (and his tone implied that he agreed with those values). Not making an observation as to what is happening. If he had said "logically this outcome is the end result of [insert economic factors here]" I'd have no problem with his statement. But when he says this is what we as a society intend and that there's nothing wrong with that I have a problem.
  - jerf 17y ago
    Nonsense. Observing that someone else has a goal does not mean you agree with it, by implication or otherwise. Besides, anyone who seriously accepted that "the goal of public schools is to teach children to conform to the expectations of the work force, so depending on where the school is located the students may end up barely literate but sufficient to fill the local factory jobs, etc." is a good thing is probably not posting here. And I think phrases like "barely literate" would tend to indicate disapproval, not approval.
    - grandalf 17y ago
      Jerf and sp332: Correct, I strongly disapprove of the way public schools function. You correctly interpreted my opinion.

btilly 17y ago

Some of what you say is obviously true. John Taylor Gatto has written very eloquently on the historical roots of the public education system in the USA. But when you look internationally, there are plenty of publicly provisioned education systems that deliver a far better education than the USA. (I am the product of one. I went to school in Canada, in a not particularly good neighbourhood.) How do you explain that? Within the USA, once you control for parents' socio-economic status, measured educational outcomes are better in public schools than private. (Controlling for that factor is important because private schools have a different of wealth than public schools.) How do you explain that? Public provisioning is not, a priori, an obviously bad thing to do.

grandalf 17y ago
To your first point: There are certainly rare exceptions. But the broader effect of public schools is to remove competition and choice, so the natural tendency of humans to compare various options and make a choice (as a projection of individual identity) is suppressed. People value things because they chose them and because they realized that "wait a second, I have to pick which one I want, so which one is better?" (I experienced this phenomenon first hand when asked about my preferences on china patterns, and it's visible even in poor communities with things like mobile phones and athletic shoes). To your second point: In a rich community (Greenwich CT, the Chicago suburbs, etc.) the public schools are exceptionally well funded and well supported. I know people who attended public schools where most of the faculty had masters degrees and some had doctorates. This does not represent the success of public provisioning, on the contrary, it represents the ability of a community with enough sufficiently powerful and motivated people to shape a public school into what they want (with the aid of lots of tax dollars). I think it's fairly obvious that communities like this would find a way to provide excellent education for their children even if classes had to be held in an old barn. Of course, public school apologists are quick to take credit for any excellence they can find. Meanwhile, the inner city poor beg for voucher systems and are denied by powerful teachers unions, etc. The poor simply lack the political power and resources to overcome the state sanctioned education monopoly. Notably, one reason why your statistic of private schools being worse is true is because some of the largest serve vast numbers of the urban poor for pennies on the dollar (compared with public schools). Much of this (due to the shortage of funds created by the public monopoly) is via Catholic charities, but it's still a remarkable accomplishment. Even so, those schools reach a limit and have to turn people away... Meanwhile funding gets pumped into failed public schools (many of which can't even offer a safe environment free of violence) and parents who weren't lucky enough to get a spot in an affordable private school must send their kids into these awful prisons every day.