5 ms·

>IMO, the best way to avoid issues like this would be to ban private schools Why should it be illegal to give my child a better education than what the state p

by daenz 7y ago

>IMO, the best way to avoid issues like this would be to ban private schools Why should it be illegal to give my child a better education than what the state provides?

tachyonbeam 7y ago
It's a way to give children a more equal start, even if they come from poor families. Right now there's clearly a two-tier education system structured in a way that poor kids have very limited access to better schools. Equal opportunities.
- brobdingnagians 7y ago
  But that is making everyone equally poor, not equally rich, in the same vein of thinking as the government in "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut. People become wealthier and better off by helping each other and inventing new things with the freedom to explore, not by fiat of law or force. The kind of force and compulsion you are talking about will lead to equality of poverty. The first step on that road is the loss of everyone's freedom of choice. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron
  - ownagefool 7y ago
    This is an issue of perspective. Similarly, it would mean rich kids mix with poor kids, allowing for more diverse sharing of culture and learning. Maybe this makes us all poorer, but maybe it makes us all richer?
    - hgoel 7y ago
      No, it does not as rich kids generally live in rich neighborhoods and poor kids in poor neighborhoods. All it does is make everyone miserable.
      - ownagefool 7y ago
        Maybe. I honestly wouldn't know for a fact. I believe Finland is generally consider to have the best education system in Europe, without any real private schools. So is your opinion based on evidence, or just feeling?
    - remarkEon 7y ago
      People imagine the “mixing” of socioeconomic groups at a young age in school to be some kind of great formative event for students that’s more or less required now in the modern narrative around education. It’s mostly bullshit, IMO. Cultural norms between rich and poor transfer extremely slowly, and without a heavy handed approach it’s anyone’s guess which direction they flow. I grew up upper middle class, and went to a high school that did this and it was terrible. Poorer students brought with them drugs and violence and a “fuck it” approach to academics. The more wealthy students just stayed away. By the time we were juniors everyone had self selected into AP and Honors classes, so there was virtually no interaction. I didn’t learn a single thing from that experience other than that I actually need to keep my gym locker locked so that may stuff didn’t get stolen.
      - ownagefool 7y ago
        That's an interesting anecdote, but I think you need to be in for a penny in for a pound on this sort of stuff. Truth is, I'm playing devils advocate. I've worked in tech for 15 years and have bought a house in a good free school area, so it's a bit hypocritical, but I don't overly believe the US or the UK has the best education systems. You could argue they're the best at the high end. Indeed, Ivy League and Oxbridge has some of the best reputations in the world, but interestingly, most of the Red Brick pulls in rich kids (especially Oxbridge), which recently have been exposed for having easier exams (in the UK), which complicates the issue. Are they the best because they're the best, or because they have all the money? Blah blah blah, different colours of grey.
  - carlmr 7y ago
    It could also lead to better funding and quality of public schools. Rich/intelligent people would be more invested in taking care that public schools have appropriate funding if their kids had to go to the same schools.
    - pochamago 7y ago
      I live in an area without a heavily funded private school. All that happened was the richer people started their own town with its own school district that has better funding than the city. I don't think you can solve the problem by trying to take away valuable tools, you have to give access to those without the advantages.
      - carlmr 7y ago
        Well this wouldn't work obviously if it wasn't a more far reaching ban. If the next private school was in Europe I'm sure not many people would move over there. The next town is not a hindrance.
        DuskStar 7y ago
        The point is that the rich people found a public school that they could make act like a high-quality private one. The inner city kids were still left in the same situation as before.
- ownagefool 7y ago
  Further to that, your child needs a society to live in. You could have the best educated child in the world, but if the society behind them doesn't function, the chances of achievement would be particularly low. It's one of those greater good and where do you draw the line arguments. On one side, there's anarchy, every man for themselves, but you'll have to give up property rights here, because why should the rest of us shouldn't have to pay for police and courts for you, on the other hand there's communism, but with no reward for work, why would we bother? Once you accept everyone is on the spectrum, it's harder to argue against a good education and medical system, paid from by tax, if it has the wider benefit to society.
  - hgoel 7y ago
    Not at all. You're making this very bad assumption that anyone arguing against those things (or arguing against banning private versions of them) doesn't care about wider society. Not to mention that "good education and medical system" is itself meaningless as the entire issue is what constitutes a "good education and medical system". Paying for police/courts matters because they protect our rights directly. Public-only schooling doesn't really give anyone anything, it just pulls everyone down. Similarly, public-only fully tax payer funded healthcare only encourages abuse. For both, a tax payer subsidized system is far more preferable. We can't possibly make things equal for everyone without making everyone equally miserable but we can make it easier by having public schools and hospitals that are partially tax payer funded so people can atleast get the benefit of their existence, while those with better resources can enjoy their private education and healthcare.
    - ownagefool 7y ago
      Not sure I agree I've made a bad assumption, because I didn't actually state where I draw the line. I'm actually not sure, I believe the issue is too complex for someone like myself to understand without serious study into the area, and I'm not really in that line of work and cannot individually affect British policy, so I do my job which is tech. You however do make an assumption when you state "public school pulls everyone done". Why? Do you actually believe the US private school system produces the smartest kids in the world?
- divbyzer0 7y ago
  Having a private school gives a comparison (and hopefully competition) with state schools. Also, private schools can do better for children with learning difficulties - smaller class size etc. I say this as a parent with one child in private, and one in public. I'm very happy with both, but each school caters to the individual childs strenghts.
- vageli 7y ago
  I guess one way to make things equal is to remove opportunities, but that seems like a step backwards.
jbay808 7y ago
You have input regarding what the state provides. If you want to give your child a better education, you can improve the public system. No, not (only) by voting. Yes, you can do this as a single individual without coordinating with the rest of the country. If the students of wealthy families are in those public schools, the quality of education there going to go way up. Wealthy parents have much more time to take an active role in their child's school, volunteering for events, organizing fundraisers (and donating to them), scrutinizing the curriculum, and holding teachers to account. Parents living in poverty tend to be too busy to pay much attention (let alone to run for the school board), or may not realize what opportunities for improvement exist. There's no reason the state can't provide an excellent education, and in many countries it does. But if public education is de-facto only for the poor, then it s not going to be much of a priority for the state either.
- CivBase 7y ago
  > You have input regarding what the state provides. No, the majority electorate has input regarding what the state provides. If I'm lucky, I'm part of that majority. Government systems do not cater to minorities unless the majority electorate decides to be charitable. Private systems sometimes provide the minority extra choices because they chase profits instead of votes. Of course, that's only if there is profit to be made off the minority. Neither system does a good job of catering to poor minorities. But getting rid of one wont make the other better.
  - jbay808 7y ago
    Not sure you really read my post? If you're a wealthy parent, you can directly impact your child's school much more than by voting in an election. You can do so by taking time to pay attention to what goes on in your kid's school, organizing fundraisers, arranging guest lectures, extracurriculars, etc. You really have to have witnessed what these parents can do to understand their transformative impact. I've seen it for myself.
- hollerith 7y ago
  If it were feasible, would you want the US government to prevent wealthy Americans from emigrating? If not, what is different about a ban on emigrating such that your argument applies to a ban on private schools, but does not apply to ban on emigrating? Would not the quality of the US government stay higher if those American citizens with the largest capacity to influence it were forced to remain American citizens rather than become, e.g., German citizens when things in the US become worse than they are in Germany?

by daenz 7y ago

>IMO, the best way to avoid issues like this would be to ban private schools Why should it be illegal to give my child a better education than what the state provides?

tachyonbeam 7y ago

It's a way to give children a more equal start, even if they come from poor families. Right now there's clearly a two-tier education system structured in a way that poor kids have very limited access to better schools. Equal opportunities.

brobdingnagians 7y ago
But that is making everyone equally poor, not equally rich, in the same vein of thinking as the government in "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut. People become wealthier and better off by helping each other and inventing new things with the freedom to explore, not by fiat of law or force. The kind of force and compulsion you are talking about will lead to equality of poverty. The first step on that road is the loss of everyone's freedom of choice. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron
- ownagefool 7y ago
  This is an issue of perspective. Similarly, it would mean rich kids mix with poor kids, allowing for more diverse sharing of culture and learning. Maybe this makes us all poorer, but maybe it makes us all richer?
  - hgoel 7y ago
    No, it does not as rich kids generally live in rich neighborhoods and poor kids in poor neighborhoods. All it does is make everyone miserable.
    - ownagefool 7y ago
      Maybe. I honestly wouldn't know for a fact. I believe Finland is generally consider to have the best education system in Europe, without any real private schools. So is your opinion based on evidence, or just feeling?
  - remarkEon 7y ago
    People imagine the “mixing” of socioeconomic groups at a young age in school to be some kind of great formative event for students that’s more or less required now in the modern narrative around education. It’s mostly bullshit, IMO. Cultural norms between rich and poor transfer extremely slowly, and without a heavy handed approach it’s anyone’s guess which direction they flow. I grew up upper middle class, and went to a high school that did this and it was terrible. Poorer students brought with them drugs and violence and a “fuck it” approach to academics. The more wealthy students just stayed away. By the time we were juniors everyone had self selected into AP and Honors classes, so there was virtually no interaction. I didn’t learn a single thing from that experience other than that I actually need to keep my gym locker locked so that may stuff didn’t get stolen.
    - ownagefool 7y ago
      That's an interesting anecdote, but I think you need to be in for a penny in for a pound on this sort of stuff. Truth is, I'm playing devils advocate. I've worked in tech for 15 years and have bought a house in a good free school area, so it's a bit hypocritical, but I don't overly believe the US or the UK has the best education systems. You could argue they're the best at the high end. Indeed, Ivy League and Oxbridge has some of the best reputations in the world, but interestingly, most of the Red Brick pulls in rich kids (especially Oxbridge), which recently have been exposed for having easier exams (in the UK), which complicates the issue. Are they the best because they're the best, or because they have all the money? Blah blah blah, different colours of grey.
- carlmr 7y ago
  It could also lead to better funding and quality of public schools. Rich/intelligent people would be more invested in taking care that public schools have appropriate funding if their kids had to go to the same schools.
  - pochamago 7y ago
    I live in an area without a heavily funded private school. All that happened was the richer people started their own town with its own school district that has better funding than the city. I don't think you can solve the problem by trying to take away valuable tools, you have to give access to those without the advantages.
    - carlmr 7y ago
      Well this wouldn't work obviously if it wasn't a more far reaching ban. If the next private school was in Europe I'm sure not many people would move over there. The next town is not a hindrance.
      - DuskStar 7y ago
        The point is that the rich people found a public school that they could make act like a high-quality private one. The inner city kids were still left in the same situation as before.
ownagefool 7y ago
Further to that, your child needs a society to live in. You could have the best educated child in the world, but if the society behind them doesn't function, the chances of achievement would be particularly low. It's one of those greater good and where do you draw the line arguments. On one side, there's anarchy, every man for themselves, but you'll have to give up property rights here, because why should the rest of us shouldn't have to pay for police and courts for you, on the other hand there's communism, but with no reward for work, why would we bother? Once you accept everyone is on the spectrum, it's harder to argue against a good education and medical system, paid from by tax, if it has the wider benefit to society.
- hgoel 7y ago
  Not at all. You're making this very bad assumption that anyone arguing against those things (or arguing against banning private versions of them) doesn't care about wider society. Not to mention that "good education and medical system" is itself meaningless as the entire issue is what constitutes a "good education and medical system". Paying for police/courts matters because they protect our rights directly. Public-only schooling doesn't really give anyone anything, it just pulls everyone down. Similarly, public-only fully tax payer funded healthcare only encourages abuse. For both, a tax payer subsidized system is far more preferable. We can't possibly make things equal for everyone without making everyone equally miserable but we can make it easier by having public schools and hospitals that are partially tax payer funded so people can atleast get the benefit of their existence, while those with better resources can enjoy their private education and healthcare.
  - ownagefool 7y ago
    Not sure I agree I've made a bad assumption, because I didn't actually state where I draw the line. I'm actually not sure, I believe the issue is too complex for someone like myself to understand without serious study into the area, and I'm not really in that line of work and cannot individually affect British policy, so I do my job which is tech. You however do make an assumption when you state "public school pulls everyone done". Why? Do you actually believe the US private school system produces the smartest kids in the world?
divbyzer0 7y ago
Having a private school gives a comparison (and hopefully competition) with state schools. Also, private schools can do better for children with learning difficulties - smaller class size etc. I say this as a parent with one child in private, and one in public. I'm very happy with both, but each school caters to the individual childs strenghts.
vageli 7y ago
I guess one way to make things equal is to remove opportunities, but that seems like a step backwards.

jbay808 7y ago

You have input regarding what the state provides. If you want to give your child a better education, you can improve the public system. No, not (only) by voting. Yes, you can do this as a single individual without coordinating with the rest of the country. If the students of wealthy families are in those public schools, the quality of education there going to go way up. Wealthy parents have much more time to take an active role in their child's school, volunteering for events, organizing fundraisers (and donating to them), scrutinizing the curriculum, and holding teachers to account. Parents living in poverty tend to be too busy to pay much attention (let alone to run for the school board), or may not realize what opportunities for improvement exist. There's no reason the state can't provide an excellent education, and in many countries it does. But if public education is de-facto only for the poor, then it s not going to be much of a priority for the state either.

CivBase 7y ago
> You have input regarding what the state provides. No, the majority electorate has input regarding what the state provides. If I'm lucky, I'm part of that majority. Government systems do not cater to minorities unless the majority electorate decides to be charitable. Private systems sometimes provide the minority extra choices because they chase profits instead of votes. Of course, that's only if there is profit to be made off the minority. Neither system does a good job of catering to poor minorities. But getting rid of one wont make the other better.
- jbay808 7y ago
  Not sure you really read my post? If you're a wealthy parent, you can directly impact your child's school much more than by voting in an election. You can do so by taking time to pay attention to what goes on in your kid's school, organizing fundraisers, arranging guest lectures, extracurriculars, etc. You really have to have witnessed what these parents can do to understand their transformative impact. I've seen it for myself.
hollerith 7y ago
If it were feasible, would you want the US government to prevent wealthy Americans from emigrating? If not, what is different about a ban on emigrating such that your argument applies to a ban on private schools, but does not apply to ban on emigrating? Would not the quality of the US government stay higher if those American citizens with the largest capacity to influence it were forced to remain American citizens rather than become, e.g., German citizens when things in the US become worse than they are in Germany?