The debate "The Education System should be privatized and families should be given vouchers instead" was started by
March 20, 2015, 7:56 pm.
16 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 24 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Naudious posted 10 arguments to the agreers part.
PsychDave posted 5 arguments, Tassja posted 4 arguments, Getmurked posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Naudious, TmlxIss2cool, Preploukus, Getmurked, project_mayhem, wmd, kimmy92 and 9 visitors agree.
PsychDave, Daph, Seraph, Cormi98, Tassja, Bodaciouslady16, egybro, frozen_emily, l2lll, Untamed, transfanboy and 13 visitors disagree.
*Turning public schools into private institutions.
1) It doesn't really matter. Some kids will go to religious schools, others will go yo srcular schools based on what yhe famoly decides. Private schools arent going to turn down poor kid's vouchers. In fact, because public schools require that students go to the school in their districted region, yhey are already discriminating. It is clearly shown that inner city schools, which are mostly black, just suck. Vouchers allow parents to get their kids out of that situation.
2) These are partial voucher systems. Where students are usually chosen in a lottery, and it still helps kids. But I am proposing fading out public schols entirely, turningv th hem into public institutions. Then vouchers could even be for more money.
3) In Cleveland, the public systems spends $6,195 per pupil, which is more than the Ohio state average. The voucher system,by lottery, gave kids $2,250 to send a kid to private school, because the public option was so abysmal. The voucher kids who won the lottery had parents who were more satisfied in all fields, tought students who were poorer, had better safety conditions, and saw improved academic performance. All this, while costing taxpayers less. I don't even propose curting the education budget, so students vouchers would be the budget divided by the number of students.
Are we numbering our points now? Alright...
1. When did I mention racism? I said discrimination, those two are not mutually inclusive. But if you're going there then sure, a private school can be theoretically racist because they do not have to respond to affirmative action like public institutions. Thank you for proving my point.
2. And another thing, vouchers do not help low income families, you know, 1 in every 5 children. They weren't designed to. A voucher may provide for the majority of tuition, but schools have other fees and things needed that a low income family would struggle to afford.
3. One more, Milwaukee and Cleveland have already tried this system: they failed because it made the private schools worse than the public ones. The government needs to make our public better not support rich private schools.
1) The US healthcare system is expensive because government regulations which mandate services drive up costs. For instance, in Virginia, you have to by 70 coverage items. These include coverage for hysterectomies, even if you dont have a uterus. This drives the price up, just like if the government mandated pizzas be served with 70 toppings, the pizza will cost more.
1.5) The US produces nearly all the drugs and medical devices in the world because of private enterprise. Patient Healthcare in other countries is entirely overstated, in Canada doctors will often suggest private care if you want expedient healthcare.
2) Racism? Really? We need the government to run education, because a private buisness is going to voluntarily, not only break the law, but turn down 23% of the population's money for no reason. Not to mention the government could discriminate just as much as any other group of individuals, see Jim Crow and Slavery.
3) Richer people would afford better schools like they do today. But poor schools would be forced to improve to keep money, because they would still compete for the vouchers. So tye g I al og privatization is to force low performance schools to improve, and to givevthem the freedom to do do.
With the voucher system, parents don't really have a choice where they send their kids because it is the private school that decides whether or not to admit the students. And the frightening bit of that is they can and do discriminate. They discriminate based on religion, academic record, discriminatory record, economic background, disability, and English language capability.
And you are basing the assumption that this competition would benefit students on what? It hasn't worked in health care or every hospital in the US would be great. Instead you have a handful of very good clinics that charge exorbitant fees, and a lot of mediocre to poor ones that also charge absurd amounts, but since it is go there or die, people pay it. If this system worked, the American medical system would be one of the best in the world and other nations would be emulating it.
Schools won't lose anything if Americans lose out in education, kids will still have to go to school. So they aren't partaking in meaningful competition.
Yes, funding for the vouchers would come from the money now spent on public schools.
Again, I emphasize that kids will still have their education paid for because of the vouchers. I argue that if parents get to determine where education money is spent, as in where their child will go to school, then schools will have to improve their performance in order to get their funding. Government can't simulate this, its too personal to the students what education they need. The government has to make a system that tries to work for everyone, but ends up not working for many people at all.
schools already have the incentive to improve, it's called a competition with other countries.
And where would the government get the money to pay for parents? chances are they would take it from the education budget
The government would pay parents the vouchers for education, so kids will still be educated.
The schools will them also have an incentive to improve.
I would say it's unethical to force kids into an educational system which may not work for them.
it seems to me privariting all schools seems to be an unethical choice. such a thing has never been up for debate by politicians, as we pride ourselves im free, public education. we want a smarter nation, so providing free public education is a much wider avenue for that. now, america is pretty far back statistic wise for our educatiom, but we still rank among the top 10 or 20, and we shouldnt change that now
It is not competition that makes private school outperform public, it is the fact that they are substantially more expensive both to attend and to run. Can you show even one essential service, anywhere in the world, that has both improved and become more cost effective by being privatized?
Exactly, private schools are
better because they are paid by the students who attend, so competition droves improvement.
So why shouldn't the government fund education through students instead?
I actually think it would cost more money to run a voucher system. Because the government will still need to tax for the voucher system, which would probably be about the same cost as the current system, and patents would probably subsidize their kids education with their own money.
The important thing is that the education wpuld be improved and personalized.
Private schools out perform public schools because they are receiving money from the students. That is like saying ivy league schools outperform community colleges. While factually true, it is not a fair comparison due to the cost difference.
Privatizing any essential system does not make it more cost effective, and it does not save people money. Taxes go down, so people like the government, but then they have to pay for the services themselves, or tax dollars have to pay for it and then then the government is paying someone else to run the same system they used to run, which is more expensive since they are trying to make money. How much would it cost you to see a doctor? If you had a sick child at home, would you have to decide between paying bills or getting them the medical attention they need? That is the problem with privatization in a nut shell.
I can take my daughter to the doctor, or go to the walk in clinic, and it doesn't cost me anything because it is already covered by my taxes. Women cam have a baby without mortgaging their future. Privatizing Lowes taxes and raises the cost to anyone who wants to use the service. The suggestion that doing that to education is shortsighted, and would inevitable cause far more problems than it would solve.
90 percent of students go to public schools, and private schools are currently turning down students how can afford it.
The public sector is terrible, but The answer isn't to take money from the education budget and give it to the parents it's to change the way we finance education
Correction: Private Schools nearly always out perform Public Schools. I cant provide you an example of a totally privatized education system because there hasn't been one yet. That is the point of my advocation.
Private Schools consistently show better results than public schools almost.
You accuse me if supporting radical change for the being radical. Yet your wntire argument focuses on reluctance to change simply because it's the system we've always had. Thats not worth wasting millions of people's full potential.
The fact is: Education in America is failing, and more funding to the same program has failed to make a difference.
I could make a far better cas against you of supporting inaction for the sake of being a moderate, than you can tgat my argument is for the sake of radicalism.
I agree the there needs to be education reform, but radical change for the sake of radical change is never a good idea. The current system has been in place for a long time and has constantly been reviewed and improved. It is far from perfect, but it is the best system people have been able to create thus far.
Could you point to somewhere that has implemented a privatized education system with positive results?
1) Even cheap schools have to compete. If a family can only send their child to a cheap school on a single vouchrr, then they are going to choose the best of their options. So even bottom barrel schools gave to compete. Thats something modern education lacks.
2) Broad standards are excluding. If Johnny is a scientific genius, but sucks at taking tests, organization and note taking. While Abby is great at test taking and turning in homework and can memorize easily what she needs for the next test, but she couldn't comprehend scientific principals at all. Who will succeed in the education system and get to become a scientist? Is Johnny really worse than Abby, and less deserving.
Private education would allow Johnny and his parents to recognize this and send Johnny to a school where he can show his real potential.
3) Refusing to make a radical change in education can severely hamper
generations. Schools need to specialized, because not everyone will reach their potential in the Prussian education system. Providing a high quality education which is improving and specialized to students is a task to complex for the Makers of the DMV.
Privatization works well for products and luxuries, but not particularly so for essential services. There are already private schools for the wealthy, and everyone else goes to public schools. How would the addition of a coupon system help? Schools that would admit students with the voucher would be the worst schools. Others would take the voucher for taxpayer money, and charge extra from the parents. It would reduce taxes, but suddenly universities would be far more likely to accept students from a paid school than a voucher school because they have the best teachers, resources, and obviously can afford tuition.
This idea would widen the gap between haves and have nots and make education a commodity that private corporations would charge as much as they could get away with, while supplying as little as possible to increase profit margins. Look at the price of gas and tell me that competition would keep the price down.
Finally, there is a reason for broad practices, called curriculum, in education. It makes sure that people with a certain level of education have certain levels of knowledge. If schools were allowed to just teach whatever they wanted, the "cheap" schools have no real incentives to improve since they are already the bottom of the barrel. They would pass students just to keep them rolling through the system and make room for new students. This would likely lead to many of the bottom tier schools being franchised. That way it keeps down costs, and gives a larger overall profit. McDonald's does huge volume in food, but would you argue that the fast food competition has encouraged them to become a 5 star dining establishment? No, they make cheap, fast food that people like. For-profit free-to-you education would become something similar as the corporation cashed in the vouchers for money from the government for the number of students enrolled and didn't care so much about how well educated they are since they get the same amount of money regardless.
Privatizing the education system will allow competition which will improve the Education industry like other industries improve due to competition. Poor families will be given the option of where to send their children, which gives them the chance to improve their child's education according to their needs by choosing which school their child goes to. Schools will be held accountable, because they will actually lose money from poor educational performance. Poor families will not be excluded because of the vouchers they will recieve. Education is a vast field which needs specialization, not broad practice; this requirement is beyond the government's ability to replicate.