Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If they can't afford those kids then they shouldn't have had them. The middle class is dying. That's the free market.
I'm channeling right now.
Perhaps we could take those children and sell them to people who need cheap labor. Of course we would have to repeal the anti-slavery laws, but that shouldn't be too big a problem once the free market sets in. If we made it a crime to have children that you couldn't support, it would hasten things along. Parents would be happy to get rid of a school fee burden. An added plus would be that those children wouldn't need more than a year or two of schooling--just enough to teach them how to read and calculate well enough to do housework and yardwork. Benevolent owners would be encouraged to pay for education for their slaves, but not required to do so, as they didn't have the children in the first place.
Perhaps we could take those children and sell them to people who need cheap labor. Of course we would have to repeal the anti-slavery laws, but that shouldn't be too big a problem once the free market sets in. If we made it a crime to have children that you couldn't support, it would hasten things along. Parents would be happy to get rid of a school fee burden. An added plus would be that those children wouldn't need more than a year or two of schooling--just enough to teach them how to read and calculate well enough to do housework and yardwork. Benevolent owners would be encouraged to pay for education for their slaves, but not required to do so, as they didn't have the children in the first place.
Well, one thing's for sure, they wouldn't have to take Music, PE or Art
Private schools are usually non-profit, and yet they are run as businesses, where they do need to cover expenses. They do this through tuition and donations. The donations comes from foundations, from individuals, from corporations, from a sponsoring church, etc. There is no reason why this model wouldn't succeed on a widespread basis.
According to the US census, in 2008 (the last year for firm data, just estimates since then), close to 90% of PK-12 students attended public schools, with fewer than 6 million in private schools nationwide. Do you believe that donations could increase to the point to make the model succeed when an additional 49 million students flood the private school market? Please address, if you could, how to reconcile those numbers with something other than a vague reference to free enterprise. I'm sure that would be helpful in swaying people to your side.
If it's not important to taxpayers to fund schools voluntarily, they certainly shouldn't be funded involuntarily, by coercion. This doesn't sound like the will of the people to me.
Once the free market sets in, the waste in government education spending will be drastically reduced. The market would set the price of education.
Well in some areas there is already a pretty well developed market for private schools. I can only speak knowledgeably about the Fort Lauderdale, FL area where I live. Here there are many options for private school. Religious, secular, Montessori, etc....
Costs range from about $8-$27K per year. I am sure if someone could do it for less they would. There is financial aid available for the very poor and there are limited numbers of academic scholarships available but most parents with kids in private schools have to pay.
Let's talk numbers. Around here teachers make around $45K per year. If you gross that up 33% for benefits the total cost of a teacher is around $60K per year. If you figure that each teacher handles 25 full time students per day it costs around $3600 per student just to hire a teacher. You have not obtained any real estate, any chairs for the students to sit in, any books for the library, any librarian, etc.......and you have already used up the $3500 tax savings that your hypothetical parent will receive under your plan. And that's only for one student.
Private schools are usually non-profit, and yet they are run as businesses, where they do need to cover expenses. They do this through tuition and donations. The donations comes from foundations, from individuals, from corporations, from a sponsoring church, etc. There is no reason why this model wouldn't succeed on a widespread basis. There is also nothing wrong with a for profit model. If parents found a for-profit school to be successfully educating their children, it would stay in business. If parents didn't find the education worth the money, it would go out of business.
Charities are not run as businesses. Their motive is to attract large donors, not to attract customers.
As I pointed out twice now, the charity model inevitably leads to competition solely for the students with the socio-economic tools to succeed highly or who area already academically highly successful. Students below that tier make a charity model school less competitive.
With a for-profit model, the most successful school will be the school that generates the most revenue to the parent, namely a diploma mill with a kickback and long after school care hours (or minimal in school hours for working age children). The success in educating the student is insignificant compared to the success in granting students their credentials with a financial benefit for the parents. We have seen this with post-secondary for-profit schools, and that is the reason that colleges utilize accreditation. Through accreditation out the window for elementary and secondary schools, and this is what you will have.
Perhaps we could take those children and sell them to people who need cheap labor. Of course we would have to repeal the anti-slavery laws, but that shouldn't be too big a problem once the free market sets in. If we made it a crime to have children that you couldn't support, it would hasten things along. Parents would be happy to get rid of a school fee burden. An added plus would be that those children wouldn't need more than a year or two of schooling--just enough to teach them how to read and calculate well enough to do housework and yardwork. Benevolent owners would be encouraged to pay for education for their slaves, but not required to do so, as they didn't have the children in the first place.
That is one possible solution... Jonathan Swift had another:
A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People From Being a Burden on Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Publick A Modest Proposal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Perhaps we could take those children and sell them to people who need cheap labor. Of course we would have to repeal the anti-slavery laws, but that shouldn't be too big a problem once the free market sets in. If we made it a crime to have children that you couldn't support, it would hasten things along. Parents would be happy to get rid of a school fee burden. An added plus would be that those children wouldn't need more than a year or two of schooling--just enough to teach them how to read and calculate well enough to do housework and yardwork. Benevolent owners would be encouraged to pay for education for their slaves, but not required to do so, as they didn't have the children in the first place.
Woo Hoo!
I would be able to expand my oriental rug collection, for dirt cheap. Don't care about the school fee, as where I live, there isn't one.
If you can't feed them and educate them, on your own nickel, don't have them. (Please don't use the word 'slave', how about 'indentured servant' instead. Sounds a little classier, but I consider the source). JMHO.
Charities are not run as businesses. Their motive is to attract large donors, not to attract customers.
As I pointed out twice now, the charity model inevitably leads to competition solely for the students with the socio-economic tools to succeed highly or who area already academically highly successful. Students below that tier make a charity model school less competitive.
With a for-profit model, the most successful school will be the school that generates the most revenue to the parent, namely a diploma mill with a kickback and long after school care hours (or minimal in school hours for working age children). The success in educating the student is insignificant compared to the success in granting students their credentials with a financial benefit for the parents. We have seen this with post-secondary for-profit schools, and that is the reason that colleges utilize accreditation. Through accreditation out the window for elementary and secondary schools, and this is what you will have.
Quote:"Charities are not run as businesses. Their motive is to attract large donors, not to attract customers."
I guess that obviates GoodWill, Salvation Army and a dozen others I can list, if you like.
Quote:" As I pointed out twice now, the charity model inevitably leads to competition solely for the students with the socio-economic tools to succeed highly or who area already academically highly successful. Students below that tier make a charity model school less competitive."
To sum it up succinctly, "If you are stupid, you lose". I am just the messenger, so no flames, please.
The rest of the post is pure drivel. (JMHO)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(Please don't use the word 'slave', how about 'indentured servant' instead. Sounds a little classier, but I consider the source). JMHO.
