3 ms·

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

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?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- jbay808 7y ago
  Sorry, I really don't follow the analogy. If there were such a thing as a public countries and private countries, within the territory of the US, such that the wealthy could opt to be governed by a private government while the poor had to be subjected to the public government, then perhaps an analogy could be made along these lines. By the way, moving countries is surprisingly rare and quite difficult to do, even when times are tough in your home country.

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?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jbay808 7y ago
Sorry, I really don't follow the analogy. If there were such a thing as a public countries and private countries, within the territory of the US, such that the wealthy could opt to be governed by a private government while the poor had to be subjected to the public government, then perhaps an analogy could be made along these lines. By the way, moving countries is surprisingly rare and quite difficult to do, even when times are tough in your home country.