U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
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 10-02-2008, 09:53 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,217 posts, read 4,111,845 times
Reputation: 908

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DasNootz View Post
My answer is yes. I believe alternative solutions would present themselves that would allow all citizens a chance for an education regardless of their income levels.
That may be the case, but it may not. You can not say with an absolute certainty that every child will have the chance at having an education. You can only guess that they will. That is a HUGE gamble to take on education.

I don't have as much faith as you that charity will be able to fill that void. As I pointed out in another education thread charities in 2006 raised around (I believe it was) 295 Billion Dollars. That was divided among many charities, by the way. One of America's biggest charities is the American Red Cross which managed to raise I thik it was 5 million in that same year. I don't believe that charity would be sufficient enough to make up the difference in what a family could afford and what would need to be paid for an education.

As for government subsidizing education ,there is also a big hole that a lot of middle class families always tend to find themselves falling through, and that is the ones where they make too much for any type of assistance but do not make enough (typically seen where college education is concerrned). What happens to them?

If your answer is that families will "find more money", that is just a bad assumption to make. Many families are squeezed as it is and it's very difficult to squeeze blood from a stone.

I understand that you are not against public education. The reason I'm opposed to a complete privitization is because , again, it is a huge gamble with no certainties as to who will fall through the cracks and be left without an education and who wouldn't. America can't afford to be dumbed down by education being out of reach for many , which is a big possibility in such a scheme.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-03-2008, 05:33 AM
 
372 posts, read 760,764 times
Reputation: 126
Of course I can't say with absolute certainty... we're talking about a hypothetical situation.

What makes you think that middle class families won't recieve subsidies from the government to make education affordable?... We've already pointed out that they currently do. (It costs $16,000+ to educate a child in the current system per your numbers, and the average middle class family is paying less than $16,000 per child in total taxes that are allocated directly to education).

It is bad for society to have a mass of uneducated. I stongly believe that the American population will find a way to deal with the issue, just as we've found ways to feed and clothe and shelter our children.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2008, 06:30 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,217 posts, read 4,111,845 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by DasNootz View Post
Of course I can't say with absolute certainty... we're talking about a hypothetical situation.

What makes you think that middle class families won't recieve subsidies from the government to make education affordable?... We've already pointed out that they currently do. (It costs $16,000+ to educate a child in the current system per your numbers, and the average middle class family is paying less than $16,000 per child in total taxes that are allocated directly to education).

It is bad for society to have a mass of uneducated. I stongly believe that the American population will find a way to deal with the issue, just as we've found ways to feed and clothe and shelter our children.

Right now the way schools are funded is through property taxes. In my school district the school taxes cost me around $4,000 in a district that spends $16K per child. The reason it is $4000 is because the cost is spread among the districts tax base, or the number of homes or commercial businesses that are within the district. Each district has a different tax base. The next town over, while they have schools that are pretty much at the same level as my district, pay slightly higher than my district does and that's because we have a better tax base.

I'm also assuming, although I might be wrong, that the hypothetical scenario of complete privitization would do away with school taxes that is attatched to property? So, then we're talking only about whatever the state budget has to offer from , in our state's case, the money that they get from lottery and money they get from state sales tax. So. .how would you determine which student gets what would be "financial aid" as opposed to none. It would have to be based on income , similar to the way we determine financial aid from college. Being a middle income household that had 2 brothers going through college, I can tell you that what we qualified for was not much if anything because my parents "made too much" . It's not like they had that kind of cash laying around so how did they pay for it? They took out equity lines of credit on the house and my brothers took on student loans.

The point I wanted to illustrate, beyond that, was that right now, as education stands every child is given the opportunity of an education. No child falls through any " I can't afford school crack". If we switch to a new system of complete privitization no one will be able to say with any certainty that their child would get that education 100%.

The only way I see to guarantee that is if you say to every household with a child that school will cost them no more than what they are already paying in property taxes, but I don't think that would be possible..because then how do you determine which student gets into what every parent wants "the best" school in the surrounding area? It would also put a strain on state budgets to make up the difference in what was collected in taxes from all those households that are now not paying school tax due to the switch to private.

And this is all hypothetical on my end to, as this hasn't happened, there is no plan to do it, etc. But it does illustrate my point that there are too many "what if's" and unanswered questions and no guarantee that a child wouldn't be left out.

BTW..the way that society houses feeds and clothes every child is through welfare for the poor. Middle class don't get , nor do they want welfare. While costs are shared among a community for education, it is far from a "welfare" program. Even in a poor community people on some level contribute to the cost of their childs education because they pay rent, which a portion of their rent goes to cover the cost of the landlords property taxes.

If anything were ever going to be implemented like this, I wouldn't be comfortable unless I knew every child would be educated and families wouldn't have to go into hock with equity loans and credit cards to pay for that education.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2008, 07:22 AM
 
372 posts, read 760,764 times
Reputation: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post
Right now the way schools are funded is through property taxes. In my school district the school taxes cost me around $4,000 in a district that spends $16K per child. The reason it is $4000 is because the cost is spread among the districts tax base, or the number of homes or commercial businesses that are within the district. Each district has a different tax base. The next town over, while they have schools that are pretty much at the same level as my district, pay slightly higher than my district does and that's because we have a better tax base.
So we're in agreement that currently your child's education is partially subsidized by the government. If you're only paying $4000 and it cost $16,000 that $12,000 difference doesn't just pop out of nowhere. If it comes from other tax payers (regardless if they call it school tax, sales tax, lottory proceeds, etc) it's a subsidy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post
I'm also assuming, although I might be wrong, that the hypothetical scenario of complete privitization would do away with school taxes that is attatched to property? So, then we're talking only about whatever the state budget has to offer from , in our state's case, the money that they get from lottery and money they get from state sales tax. So. .how would you determine which student gets what would be "financial aid" as opposed to none. It would have to be based on income , similar to the way we determine financial aid from college. Being a middle income household that had 2 brothers going through college, I can tell you that what we qualified for was not much if anything because my parents "made too much" . It's not like they had that kind of cash laying around so how did they pay for it? They took out equity lines of credit on the house and my brothers took on student loans.
College is different than k-12. There's no mandate that every child has to go to college. I'll also note that community colleges offer a great alternative at a reasonable price. Erie Community College (in your state of NY) offers tuition of $1,500+/- for in county residences per semester for up to 18 credit hours.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post
The point I wanted to illustrate, beyond that, was that right now, as education stands every child is given the opportunity of an education. No child falls through any " I can't afford school crack". If we switch to a new system of complete privitization no one will be able to say with any certainty that their child would get that education 100%.

The only way I see to guarantee that is if you say to every household with a child that school will cost them no more than what they are already paying in property taxes, but I don't think that would be possible..because then how do you determine which student gets into what every parent wants "the best" school in the surrounding area? It would also put a strain on state budgets to make up the difference in what was collected in taxes from all those households that are now not paying school tax due to the switch to private.

And this is all hypothetical on my end to, as this hasn't happened, there is no plan to do it, etc. But it does illustrate my point that there are too many "what if's" and unanswered questions and no guarantee that a child wouldn't be left out.
Again, the question isn't wheter a fully privatized system is better... it's will Americans be able to afford it. I say yes. It doesn't matter if you'd be comfortable with it or not, it's could we afford it.

In your hypothetical scenario that people pay only what they pay in current school taxes, what happens to tenants that don't own their own property, and do not pay school taxes directly?

The arguement about "Best Schools" holds no merit, as currently the best schools are not available to all. If a public school is considered "best", proprety values tend to be higher as it increases demand for properties in the district. In order to make all schools equal, we tend to dumb down the standards to the lowest common denominator, so as not to separate the weak from the pack.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2008, 10:08 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,217 posts, read 4,111,845 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by DasNootz View Post
So we're in agreement that currently your child's education is partially subsidized by the government. If you're only paying $4000 and it cost $16,000 that $12,000 difference doesn't just pop out of nowhere. If it comes from other tax payers (regardless if they call it school tax, sales tax, lottory proceeds, etc) it's a subsidy.

Yes.. I am in agreement. Never tried to denied that it wasn't subsidized. But, it isn't subsidized based on a qualifier such as personal income, etc. Even if you don't own property, rent and are living in the community your child is educated in the school system (because obviously the landlord pays the taxes, which can be considered a factor in your rental cost)



College is different than k-12. There's no mandate that every child has to go to college. I'll also note that community colleges offer a great alternative at a reasonable price. Erie Community College (in your state of NY) offers tuition of $1,500+/- for in county residences per semester for up to 18 credit hours.

Yes.. I understand that college is different in that it is not mandated. Even state or county run colleges , while having a lower tuition, do still require students to pay a tuition and a lot of times are funding their education through student loans or parents taking out equity lines of credit on their home. Both my brothers went to state schools, which cost less than a private school would have, yet they still have student loans and my mom had an equity line to pay for that education.

Also, college uses qualifiers as to who gets "assistance" and who doesn't. And when you use qualifiers like that people tend to fall through the cracks.

Let me ask you this. The argument FOR privitization is that it would be run more efficiently and therefore the cost for tuition would be lower. So, why is it that county and state colleges are publlic colleges, in the sense that they are not owned by private corporations, but are actually less expsensive than a private college?

Heathcare, for example... and health insurance. Both are privately run but whose costs are out of reach for many. You can qualify for medicaid, subsidized healthcare from the government, if you meet certain qualifiers. If you don't you're on your own. And a lot of people do not qualify for medicaid, yet do not have the funds sufficient to purchase insurance. Now.. insurance isn't mandated by law, but insurance helps pay for the costs of healthcare. While healthcare isn't neccesarily mandated, I think it is agreed that everoyone needs healthcare at points in their lives.

Again, the question isn't wheter a fully privatized system is better... it's will Americans be able to afford it. I say yes. It doesn't matter if you'd be comfortable with it or not, it's could we afford it.

What you are missing in my posts is that my discomfort level is not which is better or worse or even if they are the same. My discomfort level is that YOU *think* that we will be able to afford it. There is no absolute in that statement. That is a big IF when it comes to education. Right now, we KNOW that every child will have an education because affordability is NOT an issue. When introducing a completey privitized school district you take away the absolute and place it with a "maybe" or an "if".

If we try it and FAIL and find many students unable to afford school, then we'll make the problem 10x's worse than any better. It's a huge gamble to take.

Let me ask you. .. how long before schools, under a privitized system, would be considered a "welfare" or "entitlement" program that people would then want to do away with and criticizing like they are with many of the programs designed to aid those that do not make enough for what they need?

In your hypothetical scenario that people pay only what they pay in current school taxes, what happens to tenants that don't own their own property, and do not pay school taxes directly?

The arguement about "Best Schools" holds no merit, as currently the best schools are not available to all. If a public school is considered "best", proprety values tend to be higher as it increases demand for properties in the district. In order to make all schools equal, we tend to dumb down the standards to the lowest common denominator, so as not to separate the weak from the pack.

I just don't understand why the argument needs to focus on switching from a public to private system to improve schools. I'll admit that things need to change , particulary how we teach our kids etc. I think the foundation we have already in place is a great one, but we do need to make adjustments and fix it. Every area needs to focus on what works within their area to improve performance, test scores etc.

WE also need to get our kid interested in education again. I think we are a highly stimulated population with all the technology that we have. As a result our children need more stimulation in the methods used to teach (that's what I mean about outdated methods). I dont; know what the actual solution is, but I truly feel that completely privitizing the system is NOT what truly needs to be done.

I get what you are saying.. you are saying that you think that families would be able to afford it. What I'm saying is the IF factor is just not good enough when we're talking about replacing a system that has an absolute with a maybe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2008, 04:41 PM
 
372 posts, read 760,764 times
Reputation: 126
Without researching the numbers... I'd guess that public colleges cost less than private colleges because they're subsidized by the state. States want an incentive to educate students so that they'll stay in the state after graduation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2008, 05:45 PM
 
54 posts, read 80,454 times
Reputation: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by DasNootz View Post
You did not ask for probable scenarios... you asked for alternatives. I don't think anyone on this thread has posted that they believe a radical change from an predominant public system to a completely private system would be the best alternative.

But since you did now ask...
The probable scenario in this hypothetical world is that private corporations would take over the role of educating students at a price point that would make them the most money, as there would be a sudden and obvious demand to fill the education void. At some point, and most likely at the beginning, the gov't would set regulations that fixed prices if a school wanted to recieve public funding. You'd see everything from high quality niche schools to a a Walmart-esque educations for the masses at a low price point. In general you'd see the "have's" continue to get superior education, and the "have not's" would recieve an inferior one. Personally I think the level of service that a Walmart-esque school could provide may be superior to that of the worst of our public schools now, because they'd have the ability to throw the bad eggs out.

Charitable organizations and government funds would be used to subsidize the costs of education for the less fortunate.

Then comes the question... what do you think is better, an all private or an an public system? If given only the two choices, I'd vote for an all public system because it gives the most amount of people the "American Dream". Most likely, the best scenario is a mixture of the two.

Back to the original point of this thread....
If public schools were to close their doors and only private schools could be formed, would the american public be able to afford to educate their students?

My answer is yes. I believe alternative solutions would present themselves that would allow all citizens a chance for an education regardless of their income levels.
Quite well said. I would add that private corporations tend to accomplish the tasks necessary to earn a profit; if the private corporation fails another is waiting to take over. If education is the metric required to stay in business and make a profit then those private entities that succeed will take over from those who fail.
In my opinion, schools should be paid for by the community. That said, the schools should be predominantly private with public schools required only for those who refuse to or cannot function in a normal environment. Perhaps on the reform school model for miscreants and a day care type environment for the mentally challenged. (PC?) In other words, those who want an education should not have to contend with those whose only goal is to disrupt the education of others. I find it hard to imagine a private school system more abysmal than the worst of our public schools.

P
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2008, 06:04 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,217 posts, read 4,111,845 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polybius View Post
Quite well said. I would add that private corporations tend to accomplish the tasks necessary to earn a profit; if the private corporation fails another is waiting to take over. If education is the metric required to stay in business and make a profit then those private entities that succeed will take over from those who fail.
In my opinion, schools should be paid for by the community. That said, the schools should be predominantly private with public schools required only for those who refuse to or cannot function in a normal environment. Perhaps on the reform school model for miscreants and a day care type environment for the mentally challenged. (PC?) In other words, those who want an education should not have to contend with those whose only goal is to disrupt the education of others. I find it hard to imagine a private school system more abysmal than the worst of our public schools.

P

I really truly wouldn't have a problem with schools being privitized if I knew for certain that NO child would ever not recieve an education due to affordability issues, and , as you said, the community pays for education (which of course the parents are members of that community too). I'm not against private schools per say.. just the thought that if they went private, many would be left out or have to go into hoc to pay for the education. I much liked your last post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2008, 07:21 PM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,107 posts, read 34,361,805 times
Reputation: 4893
IMO, if someone chooses to have a child or children, they should then be willing to do whatever they need to do to care for those children - including "going into hoc" if that is what it takes to properly educate their child or children. It is not the states responsibility to pay for the rearing of children.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2008, 07:38 PM
 
372 posts, read 760,764 times
Reputation: 126
It may not be the state's responsibility, but is in the state's best interest to have a well educated society.
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