5 ms·

Education hasn't gone well publicly so far in America. I'm not sure completely private is the answer but something needs to change. Government funding has led t

Education hasn't gone well publicly so far in America. I'm not sure completely private is the answer but something needs to change. Government funding has led to massive amounts of money being spent for negligible results. Agree on health, law / police though

tsukurimashou 7y ago
I can only speak for France but the education system is beyond saving at this point.
Thlom 7y ago
But isn't the problem with public schools in the US that the funding comes from taxes in the school district itself, so ppor districts will get a underfunded school while rich districts get a well funded school? Anyway, the school system should be changed dramatically everywhere. The current paradigm is hurting children and should be abolished.
- claudeganon 7y ago
  The problem with schools in the US is and has always been segregation. The problem is that local versus federal control of schools allows local politicians to bow to the deranged, racist fears of upper class parents, as opposed to policies, like integrative bussing, that actually improved outcomes.
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    Forcing integration, which would mean forcing people to live in certain places and not be able to send their kids to private schools) is less likely to succeed than efforts to structurally reduce income/wealth gap (aka wealth transfer from rich to poor).
    - claudeganon 7y ago
      > Forcing integration, which would mean forcing people to live in certain places Not sure I follow. Busing was premised on the exact opposite of this? I’m all for structural change on many fronts, but I’m not sure that private schools should even exist. It’s hard to build successful, high performing universal services, and especially for education, if the wealthy can just construct a separate, parallel system that becomes a social marker for perpetuating elite status.
      - lotsofpulp 7y ago
        I doubt people with means are going to want their children to waste time being transported from the rich side of town to the poor side. I would just move one town over.
      - frockington1 7y ago
        Private schools enabled my family to give me better opportunities than they had. Rather than go to the school next door with the heroin dealers, I went to a neighboring town full of motivated peers. Why do you believe private schools shouldn't exist? For some it's the only way out.
        jaymmartin 7y ago
        They stated why. If you allow people with the means to do so to opt-out of a system, they do not participate in the system. The system now loses the governance and to some degree resources of those people with means. More specifically, rich families put their kids through private schools and abandon the public school system. Without skin in the game, they vote to reduce the budget of the public school system. Rich families generally have more time and resources to spend being involved in the schools. They won't be spending those resources advocating for improving the public school systems. Additionally, their kids, who are well-cared for and come from a family who values education, do not form a peer group with the other less fortunate kids. This deprives those kids of better peers to model. Now, you can argue that the freedom of and benefits to the rich families trumps the benefits that the poorer families would receive, but there is a greater good argument. I've seen it argued that universal social programs are generally seen to work better and are more popular compared to means-tested ones. For example, Medicare and social security vs Medicaid and TANF.
    - frockington1 7y ago
      You're not likely to get American voters to vote for the government picking their location and/or income. As an American in flyover country, the people here would rather die than become reliant on the government or work
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - larkost 7y ago
        I agree that that is a sentiment (being from one of those states originally), but then you have to start talking about how very reliant those same areas are on government programs (in other cases those same people would call hand-outs): 1. Rural telecommunication is highly subsidized. People living in cities almost entirely fund the expensive infrastructure needed to connect those living outside them. 2. Rural electric is mostly done through semi-governmental agencies (co-ops) that are largely built using government-subsidized loans (small hand-out) and grants (larger hand-outs). Urban electricity is more (but still not completely) private. 3. Farmers (the basis of most rural economies) are generally protected by government-subsidized and run crop insurance programs, and have a number of programs that pay them to fallow their land at times (direct payments not to plant things to manipulate the market). There are also numerous subsidy programs to make direct payments to shore up effective commodity prices. 4. Social Security is just a baseline everywhere. Despite the system that is designed to fool you into thinking you pay for your later payments through wage taxes, most people who make it to retirement get out much more than they ever put in (even adjusted for interest and inflation). So I would submit that those same people who talk about not being dependent are in face highly dependent.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  While proper and equitable funding of schools is an issue, unfortunately, it seems the peer group and home life of a student make a very big impact on their probability of success, and if we allow a people to freely move around, society seems to sort itself by socioeconomic status and as the income/wealth gap gets wider, there is no amount of funding that can make up for the effects of not having a wealthy, knowledgeable, and motivated peer group.
- Ohn0 7y ago
  Money is not their problem.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > But isn't the problem No, but it is one of many problems.
- coryrc 7y ago
  In Michigan, where I grew up, Detroit public schools got about 50% more funding than the public school I attended. Want to guess which schools had better outcomes?
  - IggleSniggle 7y ago
    I would expect schools in impoverished, troubled neighborhoods would cost QUITE a bit more than schools in wealthy neighborhoods in order to get the same results. The students are more likely to be facing food insecurity and odd parental schedules at home. The school may need to spend more keeping their student body safe. And one kid with a violent parent who reacts by being violent in turn can wreck havoc on the rest of the classroom. That kind of person might need an education that is more therapy than academic.
socialdemocrat 7y ago
The US however is not a good example of public education. School fees are quite high. Private companies push student loans eagerly. Funding to schools is highly depended on neighbourhoods. To see that publicly education can work very well. Look at Finland e.g. But there are also many asian countries showing good results with public education. Based on my experience as a foreigner in the US, the US school system strikes me as something operating far more like private enterprise. Schools compete for students while there are no strong national standards and so you get insane grade inflation. I was shocked when I studied in the US how high grades where. Anything to please the "customers" I mean the students I guess.
- frockington1 7y ago
  > The US however is not a good example of public education So why is the common reaction to fund public schools even more? To me the logical reaction is to cut funding and try something different
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    The logical reaction should be to analyze the problem and try to suss out the cause. Unfortunately, the cause seems to be a widening wealth/income gap creating a segregated society and a lack of stable and supportive families on the lower income end. The solution to that, a long term initiative to change culture and create stable families and wealth transfers, is politically impossible, so the next best, easiest thing one can suggest is more funding for the schools.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  US has fine reasonably affordable public colleges. The student loan crisis is about people who shouldn't have attended those private schools in the first place.
akhilcacharya 7y ago
K12 education is generally pretty great in the US, it's just incredibly unevenly spread. There aren't that many schools on par with Stuyvesant or Thomas Jefferson or Bronx Science (all testing admission) in the world.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> Education hasn't gone well publicly so far in America It has in most the rest of the developed world; maybe (as with healthcare) the problem is that the system has been deliberately compromised to benefit private providers for financial and (more for education than healthcare, though it's a factor in both) sectarian reasons by the same people that use the poor results to rail against the public system and for (usually, publicly subsidized) privatization to further benefit the same private financial and sectarian interests. And not a fundamental problem with the service being publicly provided, which plenty of countries manage to do quite well. > Agree on health, law / police though To be fair, public provision of both of those are pretty bad in America, too, though the private provision of the former is worse.

tsukurimashou 7y ago

I can only speak for France but the education system is beyond saving at this point.

Thlom 7y ago

But isn't the problem with public schools in the US that the funding comes from taxes in the school district itself, so ppor districts will get a underfunded school while rich districts get a well funded school? Anyway, the school system should be changed dramatically everywhere. The current paradigm is hurting children and should be abolished.

claudeganon 7y ago
The problem with schools in the US is and has always been segregation. The problem is that local versus federal control of schools allows local politicians to bow to the deranged, racist fears of upper class parents, as opposed to policies, like integrative bussing, that actually improved outcomes.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  Forcing integration, which would mean forcing people to live in certain places and not be able to send their kids to private schools) is less likely to succeed than efforts to structurally reduce income/wealth gap (aka wealth transfer from rich to poor).
  - claudeganon 7y ago
    > Forcing integration, which would mean forcing people to live in certain places Not sure I follow. Busing was premised on the exact opposite of this? I’m all for structural change on many fronts, but I’m not sure that private schools should even exist. It’s hard to build successful, high performing universal services, and especially for education, if the wealthy can just construct a separate, parallel system that becomes a social marker for perpetuating elite status.
    - lotsofpulp 7y ago
      I doubt people with means are going to want their children to waste time being transported from the rich side of town to the poor side. I would just move one town over.
    - frockington1 7y ago
      Private schools enabled my family to give me better opportunities than they had. Rather than go to the school next door with the heroin dealers, I went to a neighboring town full of motivated peers. Why do you believe private schools shouldn't exist? For some it's the only way out.
      - jaymmartin 7y ago
        They stated why. If you allow people with the means to do so to opt-out of a system, they do not participate in the system. The system now loses the governance and to some degree resources of those people with means. More specifically, rich families put their kids through private schools and abandon the public school system. Without skin in the game, they vote to reduce the budget of the public school system. Rich families generally have more time and resources to spend being involved in the schools. They won't be spending those resources advocating for improving the public school systems. Additionally, their kids, who are well-cared for and come from a family who values education, do not form a peer group with the other less fortunate kids. This deprives those kids of better peers to model. Now, you can argue that the freedom of and benefits to the rich families trumps the benefits that the poorer families would receive, but there is a greater good argument. I've seen it argued that universal social programs are generally seen to work better and are more popular compared to means-tested ones. For example, Medicare and social security vs Medicaid and TANF.
  - frockington1 7y ago
    You're not likely to get American voters to vote for the government picking their location and/or income. As an American in flyover country, the people here would rather die than become reliant on the government or work
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - larkost 7y ago
      I agree that that is a sentiment (being from one of those states originally), but then you have to start talking about how very reliant those same areas are on government programs (in other cases those same people would call hand-outs): 1. Rural telecommunication is highly subsidized. People living in cities almost entirely fund the expensive infrastructure needed to connect those living outside them. 2. Rural electric is mostly done through semi-governmental agencies (co-ops) that are largely built using government-subsidized loans (small hand-out) and grants (larger hand-outs). Urban electricity is more (but still not completely) private. 3. Farmers (the basis of most rural economies) are generally protected by government-subsidized and run crop insurance programs, and have a number of programs that pay them to fallow their land at times (direct payments not to plant things to manipulate the market). There are also numerous subsidy programs to make direct payments to shore up effective commodity prices. 4. Social Security is just a baseline everywhere. Despite the system that is designed to fool you into thinking you pay for your later payments through wage taxes, most people who make it to retirement get out much more than they ever put in (even adjusted for interest and inflation). So I would submit that those same people who talk about not being dependent are in face highly dependent.
lotsofpulp 7y ago
While proper and equitable funding of schools is an issue, unfortunately, it seems the peer group and home life of a student make a very big impact on their probability of success, and if we allow a people to freely move around, society seems to sort itself by socioeconomic status and as the income/wealth gap gets wider, there is no amount of funding that can make up for the effects of not having a wealthy, knowledgeable, and motivated peer group.
Ohn0 7y ago
Money is not their problem.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> But isn't the problem No, but it is one of many problems.
coryrc 7y ago
In Michigan, where I grew up, Detroit public schools got about 50% more funding than the public school I attended. Want to guess which schools had better outcomes?
- IggleSniggle 7y ago
  I would expect schools in impoverished, troubled neighborhoods would cost QUITE a bit more than schools in wealthy neighborhoods in order to get the same results. The students are more likely to be facing food insecurity and odd parental schedules at home. The school may need to spend more keeping their student body safe. And one kid with a violent parent who reacts by being violent in turn can wreck havoc on the rest of the classroom. That kind of person might need an education that is more therapy than academic.

socialdemocrat 7y ago

The US however is not a good example of public education. School fees are quite high. Private companies push student loans eagerly. Funding to schools is highly depended on neighbourhoods. To see that publicly education can work very well. Look at Finland e.g. But there are also many asian countries showing good results with public education. Based on my experience as a foreigner in the US, the US school system strikes me as something operating far more like private enterprise. Schools compete for students while there are no strong national standards and so you get insane grade inflation. I was shocked when I studied in the US how high grades where. Anything to please the "customers" I mean the students I guess.

frockington1 7y ago
> The US however is not a good example of public education So why is the common reaction to fund public schools even more? To me the logical reaction is to cut funding and try something different
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  The logical reaction should be to analyze the problem and try to suss out the cause. Unfortunately, the cause seems to be a widening wealth/income gap creating a segregated society and a lack of stable and supportive families on the lower income end. The solution to that, a long term initiative to change culture and create stable families and wealth transfers, is politically impossible, so the next best, easiest thing one can suggest is more funding for the schools.
lonelappde 7y ago
US has fine reasonably affordable public colleges. The student loan crisis is about people who shouldn't have attended those private schools in the first place.

akhilcacharya 7y ago

K12 education is generally pretty great in the US, it's just incredibly unevenly spread. There aren't that many schools on par with Stuyvesant or Thomas Jefferson or Bronx Science (all testing admission) in the world.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> Education hasn't gone well publicly so far in America It has in most the rest of the developed world; maybe (as with healthcare) the problem is that the system has been deliberately compromised to benefit private providers for financial and (more for education than healthcare, though it's a factor in both) sectarian reasons by the same people that use the poor results to rail against the public system and for (usually, publicly subsidized) privatization to further benefit the same private financial and sectarian interests. And not a fundamental problem with the service being publicly provided, which plenty of countries manage to do quite well. > Agree on health, law / police though To be fair, public provision of both of those are pretty bad in America, too, though the private provision of the former is worse.