U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Would you be able to afford to Educate your child under a fully privatized system?
Yes 40 59.70%
No 27 40.30%
Voters: 67. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-25-2008, 09:48 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,217 posts, read 4,115,850 times
Reputation: 908

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by homlish560 View Post
TM-----
I
On the affordability part----
I think more people can afford it if they tried harder and cut back on the things they don't need.

The schools are really corrupt anymore, and I think people that send their kids to better schools and pay for their education are doing them a favor.

Well.. if I cut out my cable, and we dropped one of our cars (which we both need to do our busiens.. so that wouldn't really work) , dropped our cell phones (also needed btw, to do business) and any extras beyond food and shelter... that still doesnt' add up to the extra $12K a year I'd need to come up with to raise my child..

Not to mention one of us wouldn't be able to work due to only having 1 vehicle and our business would suffer without our mobility.. which would worsen our economic status.

As for the last statemetn.. there is coruption in anything..just LOOK at corporate America!!! As for quality of education, in the other thread in this Great Debate Forum I have pointed to two different studies that have shown that the quality between public and private schools are equal.. as a matter of fact public schools came out ahead in math scores.

So.. the only difference is the percieved difference between pubic and private. I know you know the thread as you posted there too.


I could cut out my health insurance that cost me $856/month.. but then how responsible would that be with a 2 year old and being a type 1 diabetic!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-26-2008, 09:47 AM
 
Location: CO
1,599 posts, read 3,007,886 times
Reputation: 488
Hey, maybe this would be a way to slow the population growth like China has done! If Americans couldn't afford to educate their children, maybe they'd have fewer children...

Realistically, we'd likely just have that many more uneducated children, which would create all sorts of additional issues. The poor would receive a substandard education compared to the middle and upper classes. I suppose some are quite alright with that. It concerns me though.

If we were only taxed based on what benefited us directly and not what was best for our society (as well as a benefit to us indirectly), would things be better? How does it benefit those who don't have children to not help educate other American children? Doesn't it help all Americans to keep educating our youth (especially the youth that couldn't afford education otherwise) and keep crime lower and American innovation going in a positive direction? Isn't it dangerous to not give all children a shot at an education even if their parents weren't able to pay for it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2008, 01:40 PM
Status: "Done with the 90s (hopefully)?" (set 1 day ago)
 
Location: East Central Phoenix
5,421 posts, read 8,306,841 times
Reputation: 5780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludachris View Post
Hey, maybe this would be a way to slow the population growth like China has done! If Americans couldn't afford to educate their children, maybe they'd have fewer children...

Realistically, we'd likely just have that many more uneducated children, which would create all sorts of additional issues. The poor would receive a substandard education compared to the middle and upper classes. I suppose some are quite alright with that. It concerns me though.

If we were only taxed based on what benefited us directly and not what was best for our society (as well as a benefit to us indirectly), would things be better? How does it benefit those who don't have children to not help educate other American children? Doesn't it help all Americans to keep educating our youth (especially the youth that couldn't afford education otherwise) and keep crime lower and American innovation going in a positive direction? Isn't it dangerous to not give all children a shot at an education even if their parents weren't able to pay for it?
Education should be like any other industry: privately run and competitive. What would this country be like if everything was socialized? Are insurance companies government run and subsidized by taxpayers? Are high tech firms? Are consumer products? Of course not ... but look how successful they have been. People from all economic classes use those goods & services, and nobody has complained about being "left out". What about the successful private universities such as Princeton, and University of Phoenix? I received two BAs from the University of Phoenix, which is a highly accredited institution. Incidentally, you'll find students from all economic classes in those universities. I don't hear anybody complaining about how those private educational colleges are leaving out the poorer students.

Also, public education isn't free. Somebody is paying for it ... and it's the taxpayers by way of local property taxes & federal taxes. Depending on the state or region, even sales taxes are included in the mix to fund pubic education. You rightfully claim that education benefits us all ... but so do many other amenities like health care, and those non socialized industries that I mentioned in the above paragraph. Why can't education be run like those successful industries, so that competition can play a role in trying to make education better as a whole? That's why many people say private schools are superior: they COMPETE with each other for better results, just like any other business does.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2008, 01:43 PM
 
54 posts, read 80,513 times
Reputation: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post
There is a thread on this forum about Why Schools Should be privitized.

Total cost to educate 1 child for one year would be $12,679 a year. Two children would be $29,358. The question is meant to ask if you can do it without taking on extra credit debts or mortgaging your home.
The costs you are citing are what the public tax base provides; it has no relationship to the actual cost of providing an education. Home schooling is an option for many that costs much less. The cost of private school is can also be much lower. And the student actually receives an education!

Costs: CAPE | Private School Facts

Regardless of cost; the problem most have with the public school system is the lack of education being provided. Is there anyone who doesn't recognize the fact that levels of actual knowledge imparted is falling in public schools? So why are we paying premium costs for substandard performance?
How can it be fair that I pay tuition for my childs education and taxes to support the public school as well? Everyone does and should pay school tax- no one can opt out because it is a community obligation. But vouchers should be issued in the amount of the taxes paid for those who choose private or home school. Isn't it more fair to allow each family to decide where to spend the education dollars? IMHO be cause of the competition this would also lead to improvements in the public schools as well.

BTW, I have 3 with a public school education (small rural school). Luckily they have been able to overcome the lack of education that resulted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2008, 02:00 PM
 
Location: CO
1,599 posts, read 3,007,886 times
Reputation: 488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valley Native View Post
Education should be like any other industry: privately run and competitive. What would this country be like if everything was socialized? Are insurance companies government run and subsidized by taxpayers? Are high tech firms? Are consumer products? Of course not ... but look how successful they have been. People from all economic classes use those goods & services, and nobody has complained about being "left out". What about the successful private universities such as Princeton, and University of Phoenix? I received two BAs from the University of Phoenix, which is a highly accredited institution. Incidentally, you'll find students from all economic classes in those universities. I don't hear anybody complaining about how those private educational colleges are leaving out the poorer students.

Also, public education isn't free. Somebody is paying for it ... and it's the taxpayers by way of local property taxes & federal taxes. Depending on the state or region, even sales taxes are included in the mix to fund pubic education. You rightfully claim that education benefits us all ... but so do many other amenities like health care, and those non socialized industries that I mentioned in the above paragraph. Why can't education be run like those successful industries, so that competition can play a role in trying to make education better as a whole? That's why many people say private schools are superior: they COMPETE with each other for better results, just like any other business does.
Again, my fear is that we'll end up having more uneducated children - which will likely have a substantial negative impact on our society in some way or another. You're making the assumption that it would force people to be more responsible - would it really? It's one thing to have 40 million people without health insurance, as some may be healthy and might not have a need for it (lucky for them). But it would be quite another thing to have even half that many children grow up without an education because their parents couldn't afford it. That's my biggest concern. How would we ensure that wouldn't happen with a privatized system? Or is that just a risk we're willing to take?

Don't get me wrong, I want to see improvements. But I also want to be careful with the consequences of the changes that would be made. I don't know if I feel good about putting my child in a better position at the expense of another child.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2008, 02:30 PM
Status: "Done with the 90s (hopefully)?" (set 1 day ago)
 
Location: East Central Phoenix
5,421 posts, read 8,306,841 times
Reputation: 5780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludachris View Post
Again, my fear is that we'll end up having more uneducated children - which will likely have a substantial negative impact on our society in some way or another.
Unfortunately, that is a common assumption. However, it really is a nothing more than a scare tactic. As I stated previoulsy, I went to a private school in my elementary & junior high years, and my parents paid for it entirely out of their own pockets. They certianly weren't wealthy by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, we shopped at "Five & Dime" stores, and did without many of the luxuries. They rightfully believed that a good education was more important than wearing the latest fashions, or having the newest gadgets.

Admittedly, this was quite a few years ago ... but I distinctly remember that the best education I received was in my elementary & junior high grades. The public high school I attended was AWFUL, and I got very little out of it. Ironically, it was one of the "better" high schools because it was in a middle class suburban area ... not inner city or ghetto by any means. Again, I can only relate my own experiences (and those of others I personally know) to why privatization is the way to go.

It seems that those who point out that less fortunate children would be negatively affected are using class envy to back their claim. The fact is that private schools are NOT only for the upper economic classes. The private schools I went to were attended by students from all economic walks of life (poor, middle, and wealthy). This is why there are loans available ... just like there are college loans. And back to the original poll question about being able to afford education if schools were privatized: you'll notice that a majority so far are voting that they can afford it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2008, 02:36 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,217 posts, read 4,115,850 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polybius View Post
The costs you are citing are what the public tax base provides; it has no relationship to the actual cost of providing an education. Home schooling is an option for many that costs much less. The cost of private school is can also be much lower. And the student actually receives an education!

Costs: CAPE | Private School Facts

Regardless of cost; the problem most have with the public school system is the lack of education being provided. Is there anyone who doesn't recognize the fact that levels of actual knowledge imparted is falling in public schools? So why are we paying premium costs for substandard performance?
How can it be fair that I pay tuition for my childs education and taxes to support the public school as well? Everyone does and should pay school tax- no one can opt out because it is a community obligation. But vouchers should be issued in the amount of the taxes paid for those who choose private or home school. Isn't it more fair to allow each family to decide where to spend the education dollars? IMHO be cause of the competition this would also lead to improvements in the public schools as well.

BTW, I have 3 with a public school education (small rural school). Luckily they have been able to overcome the lack of education that resulted.

The numbers I cited for public schools, particularly my district are right on. The $16K I quoted is the cost it takes per year /per student to run the district which includes everything from the paper to the superintendent to run said schools. I don't doubt that that number can be trimmed somehow, but that's the bottom line. Most of that cost is for the educators and teachers pensions and benefits, btw... which are all negotiated for by teachers unions. The other $16K number slightly higher is what the district, through taxes, is able to collect per student enrolled in the district.

If you read any of the studies I pointed to in my links provided on the other thread, both studies show that there is NO DIFFERENCE in the quality of education taught in public schools vs. private schools.

I also linked and quoted information from an international study taken from the countries with the top schools in the world (all of which are publicly funded, btw) whose primary goal it was to study why those schools have been so successful.. and the answers are all in that report. Basically it came down to higher more qualified teachers, etc. All of which haev nothing to do with wether a school is public or private.

Then.. go read the articles I provided about privitization of schools and why public funding from the entire community is important to maintain. Yes.. you should pay as a member of the community to educate children of the community regardless of wether you go to private schools or not, just as those with no children or seniors whose children are grown are obligated to pay. Why? BEcause when the community children are educated it benefits the c ommunity and the nation as a whole. If everyone didn't have to pay for public schools that could then afford private schools would pull out of public schools it woulld leave the education in public schools severely underfunded.. it's all there in teh article about hte affect that privitization would have and voucher programs would have on public schools and the education system in the U.S

Also.. in the international study it also spoke, however briefly, about the lack of parental involvement in education that has caused the issues. Too many parents have left raising their children up to the schools to raise their kids and to dicipline.. meantime disciplining your children should start at home. And in 1 of the 2 studies I cited, when comparing parental involvement in a public school /private school with students of the same socio-economic background the complaints from the educators about parental involvement were the same as those from their public school counterparts.

What you all don't seem to understand is that by privitizing you are playing with fire. Watch the unedcuated and illiterate population of this nation grow as more and more people will not be able to afford education. Think our kids are undereducated now.. you just wait till many are left out in the wings because only the "rich" or "well off" are able to get an education. This country would quickly deteriorate all in the name of some corporations making a huge profit!

I guess the call now is " be damned the education of our population as long as someone is making a green buck!" but that green buck won't be made by you.. only spent by you while others get rich off your kids education YOU were fortunate enough to afford...

Home schooling is an option for families that have 1 parent that can stay at home.. I dont' see too many of those around anymore! What happens to the social aspect of our childs developement if we stick them in front of a computer and teach them without any interaction with their own piers, should the masses turn to home schooling. How do you expect parents who need to both work to put food on the table to also educate their children. who si taking care of the children when they would otherwise be in school why both parents work? Maybe where you live you have stay at home moms.. but in these neck of the woods you'd be hard pressed to find a woman at home unless she was out on maternity leave!

The cost tables you show the non secular schools are 10 - 12K from what I gather from it.. which is about what it takes to educate the public . Remember, that is average and in smoe parts of the country that amount would be more. Already in some public schools it is approx $10 - $12 per student to educate children. Your information is also outdated.. since it is from 1999 - 2000... It is now 8 years later and with inflation you can bet the cost is higher.

Also.. those schools are much smaller and thereby require a small staff to run them. They do not have to hire as many educators because of their smaller population of students. Do you really think that once they have to expand to accomodate more students, tehy won't have to hire more teachers, more custodial staff, more adminstrative staff to deal with the larger population?

I'm all for vouchers being given to allow parents to send their children to the public school of their choice.. but don't funnle tax dollars to fund pubic schools out of those schools to private instititions. It undermines public educate.. and the ramifications are all in the articles I pointed to that I mentioned up above.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2008, 02:41 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,217 posts, read 4,115,850 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludachris View Post
Again, my fear is that we'll end up having more uneducated children - which will likely have a substantial negative impact on our society in some way or another. You're making the assumption that it would force people to be more responsible - would it really? It's one thing to have 40 million people without health insurance, as some may be healthy and might not have a need for it (lucky for them). But it would be quite another thing to have even half that many children grow up without an education because their parents couldn't afford it. That's my biggest concern. How would we ensure that wouldn't happen with a privatized system? Or is that just a risk we're willing to take?

Don't get me wrong, I want to see improvements. But I also want to be careful with the consequences of the changes that would be made. I don't know if I feel good about putting my child in a better position at the expense of another child.

Ludachris.

Forget trying to debate with Valley Native. He repeatedly ignores the statistics and information put forth in front of him. He says things that he doesnt' back up and when I call him out on it he has nothing to say.

He draws on his "experience" with a private school saying that that is proof enough private schools are better. What he doesn't understand is that experience differs from person to person and actual differences then can't be measured by an individuals "experience" but rather by clear data. .. Data to which I have shown shows no difference between public and private institutions.

His agenda is plain and simple. He wants to keep his 1100 in school property taxes in his pocket and doesn't feel that he benefits anything from having a community of educated children. He says that he is about the "quality" of education , but when I rebutt and prove to him that there is no difference in the quality, the only argument he has to fall back on is "why should I pay to educate others children".. which goes to the fact that he doesn't seem tothink he benefits from it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2008, 02:50 PM
 
Location: CO
1,599 posts, read 3,007,886 times
Reputation: 488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valley Native View Post
Unfortunately, that is a common assumption. However, it really is a nothing more than a scare tactic.
Maybe some are using it as a scare tactic. However, some of us are actually concerned and would like to know how we'd avoid watching millions of children go without an education.

I'm fairly certain that my parents wouldn't have been able to pay for my education when I was a child - things were extremely tight for our family. Situations change and money isn't always there, especially in tough economic times like this. It just seems like very risky way to do it. I'd hate to think something like a divorce, an injury, an illness, a loss of a job, etc. could mean that a child in any American family might go without an education. You can't always plan for everything, and an education is too valuable to leave to chance. I would argue that some education is better than none. Though again, we should find ways to improve the system any way we can.

And I wouldn't say that the votes you'll see here are anywhere near representative of the entire nation. Polls are nice, but you need a good understanding of the group being polled to get any real info out of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2008, 02:54 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,217 posts, read 4,115,850 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludachris View Post
Maybe some are using it as a scare tactic. However, some of us are actually concerned and would like to know how we'd avoid watching millions of children go without an education.

I'm fairly certain that my parents wouldn't have been able to pay for my education when I was a child - things were extremely tight for our family. Situations change and money isn't always there, especially in tough economic times like this. It just seems like very risky way to do it. I'd hate to think something like a divorce, an injury, an illness, a loss of a job, etc. could mean that a child in any American family might go without an education. You can't always plan for everything, and an education is too valuable to leave to chance.

And I wouldn't say that the votes you'll see here are anywhere near representative of the entire nation. Polls are nice, but you need a good understanding of the group being polled to get any real info out of it.

Only 9 responses are efinatelly not representative of anything. I should have asked what those responding cnosidered themseves.. ie : poor, working poor, lower middle , upper middle, upper and higher.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top