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.
Larry I don't think you need a fully privatized sytem. many people are very happy with their public schools. If it isn't broke there is no reason to fix it. This why I liked the proposal in PA, it empowered the parents top ick the winners and losers and provided some very good incentives for failing schools to improve.
I agree. I don't think you need a fully privatized system either. I was answering the question, which is what would happen if you had one.
I'm not sure why you would penalize the gifted students, that's a race to the bottom. This is one of the reasons other countries are outpacing us, they are allocating their resources to students who can best utilize it. That's not say we kick these lower performing students to the curb but to allow the higher performers to rot on the vine just becsue they will be able to cope better is absurd.
With the a voucher system that every student can take advantage of I think the choices would expand dramatically for everyone. Music, science, vocational or special needs. Existing schools or new schools that would emerge would have an incentive to adapt their curriculum to attract a specific kind of student instead of them all trying to cover many bases.
It costs much less to educate them, and they often do better with project based learning or learning at their own pace. My own child is gifted and I have taught many gifted classes. Many districts use a pull out method of 35 to 1 teacher for one day a week, while the regular teachers reteach the regular students and tutor. It's very effective. The extra money saved is used for field trips for the gifted students. They get to study things that the regular kids aren't ready for...robotics, Egyptology, etc....
The students could also skip a year or two of schooling and that money be distributed between the two years. So they would get 10,000$ instead of $5,000.
I also think gifted students should test out of courses instead of having to take ones they already excel in.
Here is a great inner city school that is public and services students inexpensively in comparison to the other high schools in the district. The students learn at their own paces, and can take AP classes. 25% are gifted, with the rest being at risk students.
IMHO - a privatized school system would quickly lead to a extremely separated class system based entirely on the students and their parents ability and willingness to pay. We already do that to keep the wealthy kids separated from the lower class future minions.
Instead of abolishing public schools I would abolish private and religious schools. The wealthy would spend the money to provide excellent educational opportunity for all children.
Would there be a large decrease in population or would it remain the same (just with more uneducated people)?
What would happen if taxes for education were cut and parents of children had to either teach them at home or send them to private school and pay for everything themselves?
Would this lead to a more productive society?
What would happen?
That should be obvious based upon history. Back in the day - a long time ago - the only schools that existed were either private or run by local religious groups. And most people were uneducated and illiterate.
Also, keep in mind that those in power have a vested interest in dumbing down the population to make them easier to control, which is part of the reason they support the notion of privatizing schools - that way, those "poor folk" and "working class drones" won't be able to get a decent education.
Long story short, this change would utterly destroy a technologically advanced society by placing its future in the hands of the greedy and by locking people in one socio-economic bracket forever.
That should be obvious based upon history. Back in the day - a long time ago - the only schools that existed were either private or run by local religious groups. And most people were uneducated and illiterate.
Also, keep in mind that those in power have a vested interest in dumbing down the population to make them easier to control, which is part of the reason they support the notion of privatizing schools - that way, those "poor folk" and "working class drones" won't be able to get a decent education.
Long story short, this change would utterly destroy a technologically advanced society by placing its future in the hands of the greedy and by locking people in one socio-economic bracket forever.
Privatization is not the solution to failing schools and rising education costs. The solution to both problems is technology and curriculum standardization, with a new education model based on video lessons supported by teachers and staff -- a variation of the video-based curriculum now offered by many colleges.
Imagine if our schools adopted standardized, video-based lessons incorporating the best teaching practices. We might develop several versions of these video-based lessons to account for differences in the way students learn. Schools could administer a test at the beginning of the year to determine how each student learns best, and then assign students to classes with the video-based lessons that are best suited to the way they learn. There could be routine breaks in these video-based lessons for teachers to lead hands-on classroom activities.
Under this system, most classes would still have a "teacher" (or multiple "teaching assistants"), but the teacher would not be responsible for teaching lessons; instead, teachers and teaching assistants would be responsible for leading hands-on activities, answering questions, providing individualized attention where needed, and grading papers (when grading can't be automated). Subjects that require significant hands on attention, like math and chemistry, might receive more staff support (maybe one teacher + 2 teaching assistants), while subjects that require less hands on attention, such as history, might receive less staff support (maybe one teaching assistant).
Furthermore, gifted students or students requiring less individual attention could be given the opportunity to learn certain subjects at their own pace in computer labs. Picture a classroom with 30 computers, with each student at a computer with a pair of noise-canceling headphones, following video-based lessons at their own pace. Some students might complete one mandatory course in history during a school year, while other students might complete the mandatory course plus three other courses. Separating the kids that require less individual attention (at least for certain courses) into these video instruction labs would free up resources to provide more staff support for students and/or courses that require greater attention/support.
Of course, none of this will happen anytime soon due to political realities (i.e., opposition from teacher unions). However, I strongly believe this is where we are headed. Looking farther into the future, we may eliminate many individual classrooms and replace the computers in the computer labs with VR headsets, with a pool of cloud-based teachers (i.e., teachers with their own VR headsets or computers with cameras) supporting hundreds of students across an entire school district. Certain students, particularly those requiring less attention, could receive their public education via VR from the comfort of their own home, freeing up resources to provide students at traditional "brick and mortar" schools with more individual attention.
Instead of abolishing public schools I would abolish private and religious schools. The wealthy would spend the money to provide excellent educational opportunity for all children.
They already do. They have to pay property taxes to the local school district - even if they are childless or send their kids to private school. And of course, wealthy property owners pay more in property taxes than do those in other income brackets, because their properties are of higher value.
Children socialize with children of other races and income levels during play dates, arts rehearsals, during league sports, at the city park / swimming pool, at church, at camp, etc.
To assume that kids would never interact with anyone outside their race and socio-economic status if not for public schools is short-sighted.
To assume that all children would see comparable interaction with those outside their race, socio-economic status, and/or religious background, without the experience offered by public schools, is also a bit naive.
Many parents already do everything they can to control their children's activities or limit their participation to activities with others of the same race, socio-economic status, or religious background.
IMHO - a privatized school system would quickly lead to a extremely separated class system based entirely on the students and their parents ability and willingness to pay. We already do that to keep the wealthy kids separated from the lower class future minions.
Instead of abolishing public schools I would abolish private and religious schools. The wealthy would spend the money to provide excellent educational opportunity for all children.
Not much of a fan of freedom are you? Just ban businesses you don't like? Not allow parents choices in education?
My husband and I started our daughter in private school because she was ready for kindergarten, but due to the inflexible age policy of our local school district, we would have had to hold her out a year. We did what we felt was best for our child, but in your world I guess we'd just have to march in lockstep with what the government said was best for our child based on nothing but her date of birth?
It wasn't a class or wealth issue. In fact, when we bought our house (before she was born) part of the reason we liked it was its proximity to a park and public school. We had every intention of sending our future child(ren) to that school, until they refused to accept her when we felt she was ready.
We left her in private school throughout K-12 because it was better for her academically. Our kid, our choice, and one the state has no right to take away from us.
Instead of abolishing public schools I would abolish private and religious schools. The wealthy would spend the money to provide excellent educational opportunity for all children.
I'm not a fan of privatizing the system but that would not help either. There is nothing wrong with private or religious schools. There is also nothing wrong with home schooling.
Really we should be talking about strengthening the public school system, not removing all other options. Public schooling should be a strong option across the board, but right now quality is uneven.
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.
