Meta Blog Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 Originally from The Charlotte Capitalist ™, In 72 hours, a private company did what South Carolina's government schools could not do in over 12 years. See what John Stossel has to say about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangelical Capitalist Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 Once you've been taxed to support the public schools and other wastes of public money, you don't have a lot left to spring for private school tuition. [bold added] This is something that honestly hadn't occurred to me before, not explicitly anyway. It's not just taxes for directed toward education that would be at parents' disposal, but other money, currently spent on welfare programs or pork-barrel projects or whatever, that they could direct toward their child's education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 The public school system has been very resilient to well-reasoned assaults. Ideas like vouchers have been on the table for decades. Yet, voters have often rejected proposals to introduce a voucher scheme. One would think that the right would want their kids to go to schools that teach some of their values, and that this will be a big enough motivator. It does not seem to work that way. The NEA is strong, but I don't think that explains it all. Some states allow limited choice of schools, within the public school system. For instance, some districts create a magnet school with a more academic orientation and let parents opt for that, rather than the regular, nearest school. In other places, school-districts allow kids from nearby districts to attend their schools, and the state pays them some amount for doing so. Yet, offering any type of parental choice typically runs into political road-blocks. The usual argument against any type of scheme that provides parents with choice is this: if parents are allowed choice, a large number from your local school will decide to take their kids elsewhere: different public school, different school-district, or private school. When that happens, the argument goes, the standards in your school will drop further. Why does this argument have legs? Obviously it would not appeal to parents who want to take their kids elsewhere. So, my conclusion is that a majority of parents do not want to move their kids to other schools, even in situations where they think their current school could do a better job. My guess is that they think the added inconvenience (e.g. commuting to a non-local school), or the added cost (e.g., a voucher or credit will often not cover all the cost) is not worth the extra education. If anyone has a better explanation for voters' behavior on this issue, I'd like to hear it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeatherFall Posted February 5, 2006 Report Share Posted February 5, 2006 Most people who have gone through the public school system (which is also most people), have been told that if school were privatized it would be unaffordable and only the very wealthy would be educated. The fact that they haven't questioned the logic of this idea is a testament to the failure of public schooling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted February 5, 2006 Report Share Posted February 5, 2006 Yes, many people think that an all-private school system would be too expensive for them. However, the voucher propositions were somewhat different. I've done a little more digging, and this is what I found: The typical proposition was worded so that any child who went to a private school would get vouchers worth about half of what the state paid (on average) per pupil. e.g. California spent about $8,000 per pupil, so the state would pay $4,000 in the form of vouchers. Since private school (in today's set-up) would probably be $10,000 at the lower end, this means that people would still have to pay at least $6,000 per child to send them to private school. My guess is that the number of people who would transfer their kids under such a scheme would be a small percentage. Since some of the propositions would have given the voucher money to kids who were already in private schools, it was easy for opponents to paint is as: taking tax money from public schools, to give to kids who already attend private school. The folks behind the Michigan proposition tried to be clever about this. Under their proposition, the only kids who would be eligible were from "failing" school districts, like downtown Detroit. Now, it seems to be a no-brainer that the incentives in such districts would make parents more willing to opt for a scheme -- as opposed to some of the suburbs, where public schooling is considered to be "not ideal, but pretty good". Yet, even that limited proposal failed by a large 2-to-1 margin. One thing I found surprising was that the polls from within those downtown Detroit school districts showed more than average opposition, with about 80% of the folk saying that they don't want the vouchers. [Featherfall, Perhaps this proves your point about poor schooling being the cause of stupidity, and further poor schooling.] Of the school-reforms that have caught on -- magnet schools, choice across public-schools, etc. -- the one which I think might really work in the long term are charter schools. Various states have allowed chartered schools, which are approved by there state, and funded very similar to a public school, but have more independence in their operation. (I do not know if their teachers are part of the NEA.) Opponents point out that the results from Charter schools are not much different from public-school results, but the evidence appears mixed, and it's a bit early to tell. The voucher folk have the support of the Catholic church, and a few rich folk. They aren't going to give up. I suspect they'll limit their proposal and come back to the voters again, and again, with narrower wedges each time, until something takes hold and they end up establishing the principle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mweiss Posted February 6, 2006 Report Share Posted February 6, 2006 I was having a debate about this in another forum. The other poster raises the typical objections. He also believes children have a right to an education--especially poor children. How DO the poor educate their children if they can't afford private schools in lieu of public? Quoted text follows: Reality check. ALL governments excise taxes from their citizens. This has been going on for thousands of years. You live in a country, you pay the taxes. If you want working roads, street lights, police and fire departments, an infrastructure to supply you water and electricity, a military to keep invaders away, a judicial system to punish criminals, waste management, you need to pay for it. These services don't grow on trees. This is much more than just public schools, which by the way you seem to really have a hard time with the concept that this country ENCOURAGES giving all of its citizens the benefit of an education. Regardless of their social or financial status in this country. You seem to want to just do away with the educational system altogether just so you can keep your property taxes. Fine. Move to a country that doesn't require an education for every child. The poor stealing your money... indeed. Apparently you never have been so poor that you have to do without electricity a few months, or eat just beans and bread for dinner, or stand in line at the labor hall (or worse on the street) hoping today you can get an honest day's work. In case it never occurred to you when you are below poverty level you essentially don't pay taxes. Do you see these people rolling in so much extra money that they take their kids to private schools? No. Why? Because the no-taxation brings more money argument is a farce in this instance. Now you want to take away one of the few rights the government gives that would actually give their children a better future? What information do you have regarding teachers salaries sounding so good? I have a few friends who are teachers. NONE of them say you should go into teaching for the money. Most of the time the salary increases do not even match the inflation rate. Please cite where you get your information here. Fascism in the school system? You have been reading way too many articles and not spending enough time in actual schools. Yes the government doesn't know how to manage their money and yes they need to get their act together. However by your assessment public education takes a lot of money and that money NEEDS TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE. Hate property taxes? One more time... I say give an alternative. You are complaining. Not proposing solutions. State lotteries don't provide nearly enough money. This is coming from somebody who lives in a lottery state. A revenue stream needs to be established to pay for schools. There are still schools that are underfunded and understaffed. Maybe you haven't seen them in your nice neighborhoods, but there are plenty of poor communities who are begging for funds. So apparently the current system isn't even enough. So not only do you need to provide a solution to curb property taxes in the current state, but also it would be nice to see an alternative that would give more money to the schools that really, really need it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proverb Posted February 6, 2006 Report Share Posted February 6, 2006 (edited) How DO the poor educate their children if they can't afford private schools in lieu of public [schools]? They wouldn't. (But it's not a closed issue) I'm not sure of the context under which you posted that quoted text but it sounds like it came from someone who is torn between two different ideas: that it's beneficial for everyone to have an education, and that with the current state of affairs the money has to come from 'somewhere.' If anyone has a better explanation for voters' behavior on this issue, I'd like to hear it. To address both of the quoted posters: This is the big problem with education (the belief that the money has to come from somewhere) and it comes from the biggest problem in government today in many issues: the power to levy and collect tax. The problem is the fact that the government is in the market of providing 'basic necessities.' Everyone, with few exceptions pays taxes. This fact, through the participation of the government in the market and the basic concept of getting what you pay for, has created a set of "pseudo-rights" such as the "right to education" or the "right to shelter." This is a big factor in the current temperature of voters on the issue of education. The people are trying to draft policies concerning the funding, improvement, redevelopment etc. of education while largely ignoring the debate on whether or not government should be in the market of education in the first place. The right position on that issue goes without saying in this forum. Americans at large are devoted to upholding civil rights, but pseudo-rights like the "right-to-education" are in direct conflict with the proper "right-to-life" in the context of individuals being able to select the desired schooling for their children. The people are in effect saying, "We think we have a right to education because we pay for it through taxes, but we can't let people who choose to have their children go to private school not pay taxes." etc. That's a rough generalization but I think I make the point. Further debate on the funding of education is at a deadlock until people are willing to reevaluate the position of government in education. Because of the the fact that I have had hot debates with people on this issue in the past I will address a few possible newbie responses: Yes, I am wholly for privatizing education. No, I am not for the thought of allowing the poor to fall into illiteracy. No, I do not recognize the power of government to levy taxes on my life. Yes, I do pay taxes, I am forced to. No, I do not recognize the benefits of my paying taxes, I do not know what they are, directly. Edited February 6, 2006 by Proverb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark_unicorn Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Speaking as someone who has taught in the public school system for 4 years now as a substitute, I can give you dozens of examples of how public education has not only made some people illiterate, I can also make a pretty solid case that it plays a role in the current phenomena taking place in Philadelphia (where I used to teach) where the city can't go a single day without someone being shot dead on the street. In Pennsylvania there is currently an insane Supreme Court ruling back in the 70s that has basically doomed the entire state's education system to mediocrity. Observe by way of a logical table. Senario: In the 1970s the Pennsylvania supreme court passed a law (ergo, legislated from the bench) that mandated a certain amount of land must be free of private ownership by either private business or resident property owners so that more trailor park space could be made available. Now let's see how the statistics to break down. 1. The average amount of money it takes to publicly educate a single child is roughly $7,000 a year. 2. The average nuclear family breaks even and puts about $7,000 back in for each child it sends to school. 3. The average single parent family pays about $3,000 back into the system, creating a deficit of $4,000 per child. 4. People living in trailor parks do not pay property taxes so they pay nothing back into the system, thus creating a $7,000 deficit per child. 5. The only known entity that pays property taxes and does not produce children, thus canceling out any education budget deficits, are small businesses and corporations. So do the math, the average property owning family breaks even, thus can not make up any of the budget deficit unless they are taxed more (which Ed Randell would be more than happy to do), and businesses are banned from using certain amounts of land in a given county because it is set aside for trailor parks by a matter of law, regardless to whether or not any people live on that land. And Pennsylvania wonders why our public school systems are running out of money and can't keep their music and arts programs? I say to hell with it, privatize the whole damned system, these government flunkies have no idea what their doing. Besides, I make more money per hour giving private guitar and piano lessons anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meta Blog Posted February 22, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 Originally from The Charlotte Capitalist , Amazing from The CNW Group: The public education system is responsible and held accountable for employing certified teachers, administering the provincial curriculum and operating with fiscal integrity. The private system is accountable to no one. Let's repeat that for emphasis.. The private system is accountable to no one. And that is what the public education establishment considers parents ... ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meta Blog Posted March 1, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2006 Originally from The Charlotte Capitalist , The New York teachers union is in a tizzy over Governor Pataki's tax credits for education plan. Parents, educators and taxpayers from a wide spectrum of groups are telling lawmakers to reject voucher schemes as a misplaced priority. Pataki's plan is for only $500 per student. He should have gone for $10,000 or whatever the average cost of a student is. The howling would have been the ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted March 3, 2006 Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 The push toward vouchers an tax-credits has been a long and slow one. Voters have been reluctant, even in districts where schools are obviously failing. In Florida, a state court struck down vouchers as being unconstitutional. One might have expected a Republican president to push the public schools to improve. Instead, the Republicans showed their true ideological roots in their "No Child Left Behind", a focus on the weakest rather than the strongest. One positive trend is the number of Charter schools. They increase slowly but steadily each year. According to this WSJ Op-ed, only just over half of the students in the Minneapolis school district attend traditional public schools within the district. The rest cross over into neighbouring districts (using "school choice" laws), use Charter schools, or private schools. It's a snail's pace, but the direction is right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted August 25, 2006 Report Share Posted August 25, 2006 (edited) [Merged with earlier thread -sN] After Hurricane Katrina, many of New Orleans's public schools have changed to being charter schools. The Wall Street Journal (Aug 24th, 2006) reports that before the hurricane, the city had 5 charter schools out of a total 128; in the coming 2006-07 school year the city will have 31 charter schools out of a reduced total of 53. I would guess that no other city has close to 50% of its students attend charter schools. (For the country as a whole, it's about 2% of students.) This is good news. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds over the next few years. Most of the teachers and administrators in the charter schools are the same ones who were previously employed in regular public schools; however, a system, and the individual responsibility it either encourages or stifles, can make a big difference. One principal is quoted as saying: "As a principal in the public schools before, I never thought about the budget... Now, I look at it differently. Here is a USA Today story on the same topic.) The teachers' union, and others with their philosophy, criticize charter school, claiming that they do no better (and even do worse) than regular public schools "after controlling for several school characteristics". I read that qualification as saying the following: "All the good students went to charter schools and did better; however, that's not because of the school, that's because of other characteristics of the students". Well, so be it... if all the charter schools do is offer a safe haven to student who want to study, more power to them. Charter schools are far from an ideal solution to the current problems with U.S. K-12 education, and some charter schools are really bad -- like the Charter school in California that was teaching students Mexican nationalistic ideas. The best alternative -- privatized education -- has zero political support. Better than Charter schools would be a system of education tax-credits; however, since that is something the poor (who pay hardly any tax) won't get, it too has no political support. For that matter, charter schools themselves do not have much support, and have been growing ever so slowly. Still, overall, they are better than the current system. Edited October 7, 2006 by softwareNerd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
konerko14 Posted October 6, 2006 Report Share Posted October 6, 2006 (edited) [Merged with earlier thread -sN] If a parent decides to send their child to private school instead of public school, do they still have to pay taxes to support public schools? I would assume it to be very difficult for a good portion of parents to be able to afford both expenses, so in effect they would be forced to send their child to public school. But if they could get a tax refund or something like that, then more people would have the option of sending their kid to private school. Or is that the intention of the government, to make it more difficult to send a child to private school? Edited October 6, 2006 by softwareNerd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted October 6, 2006 Report Share Posted October 6, 2006 ...child to private school do they still have to pay taxes to support public schools?Under current law, yes. Those who have no kids also pay.I would assume it to be very difficult for a good portion of parents to be able to afford both expenses, so in effect they would be forced to send their child to public school.A vast majority of people either cannot afford it or don't think the difference is worth it. Some, opt to send their kids to private school for a few years and use public schools for the rest. Paying $10,000 - $15,000 a year, for each child, for 12 years does add up! Think of the difference in life-style that a middle class family will have to accept when making that choice.But if they could get a tax refund or something like that, then more people would have the option of sending their kid to private school. Or is that the intention of the government, to make it more difficult to send a child to private school?A sizable tax-refund (say 75% of actual) would probably kill public schools. Such schemes run up against altruists who point out that the poorer people will not be able to switch. So, the alternative that has had a little more political success has been the idea of vouchers. To an altruist, these are a more just way to go private; to an Objectivist, they are far less just. Nevertheless, voucher schemes have had little political success as well. Voters is the slightly better school districts are notorious for voting against vouchers, for fear that the system -- which they consider flawed, but acceptable -- will decline. So, some have proposed laws that will allow vouchers, but only in school districts that do not perform well. It is a tough political fight, and the NEA (the teacher's union) is a tough opponent. Some of the earlier posts in this thread have more info. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherry Posted October 6, 2006 Report Share Posted October 6, 2006 (edited) My husband and I have 5 kids, 3 in public school and the youngest 2 in a private Montessori school (owned by an Objectivist!) I don't know if we will be able to afford to send them to the school next year, but I have to say it is well worth giving up a little in lifestyle to send them. (I would call it a life style adjustment, but certainly NO sacrifice!) Just not dealing with some of the bs that you have to deal with in a public school setting is a huge relief. And, they are getting a much better education, which is the mosst important part. Regarding taxes: this wouldn't apply to all kids, but if your kids are under a certain age, you can usually write off tuition for kids in preK or younger. For older kids, any extra fees you pay for before or afterschool care can be written off your taxes. (You would do well to double check this info for your own circumstances, of course!) It isn't the same as getting out from under property or other taxes you have to pay for public schools, but it is something to consider if you are thinking about sending your kids to private school. Edited October 6, 2006 by Sherry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aequalsa Posted October 7, 2006 Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 Here is a great essay I found that does a great job of debunking the myth of underpaid teachers that the NEA has been perpetuating for years. (references at the bottom) http://www.policyreview.org/apr04/hess.html Some highlights "Teacher pay is actually quite reasonable when considered in context. The average teacher salary in 2001 was $43,300, compared to the average full-time worker salary of $40,100 ... 2002 graduates of journalism and mass-communication programs who were able to land positions earned a median salary of $26,000 if they had a bachelor’s degree and $32,000 if they had a master’s ... the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the average pay per hour for all workers in the “professional specialty” category in 2001 was $27.49, while public secondary school teachers earned $30.48 and elementary teachers $30.52 — or about 10 percent more than the typical professional. ... Most Americans work about 47 weeks a year (with about three weeks of vacation and two weeks of assorted holidays). Teachers, on the other hand, work about 38 weeks a year ... Public educators also receive generous benefits, including “defined-benefit” pensions that do not require any contribution from the teacher. A career teacher, without ever having to contribute a nickel, can normally retire at age 55 and receive close to 70 percent of his or her salary for life ... according to the National Center for Education Statistics, teachers claim to work slightly more than 49 hours a week during the school year, including 38 hours in school, three hours with students, and almost nine hours at home ... the typical workday for nonprofessional workers often stretches from 8:30 to 5:30, or 45 hours a week ... at least 15,000 to 20,000 teachers earn more than $100,000 a year for their teaching duties ... half of all teachers earned more than $91,000 during 2000-01" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aequalsa Posted October 7, 2006 Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 ... half of all teachers earned more than $91,000 during 2000-01" That was half of all teachers in new york....sorry for misquoting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mweiss Posted October 7, 2006 Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 That was half of all teachers in new york....sorry for misquoting Just as a note of interest, the teachers here in New Milford, CT frequently manage to get a 13% pay increase most years. Ironically, they have kids picketing in the town green during budget voting season, with signs that urge voters to "vote for the children's futures" and other such propaganda. I found it sickening, almost as sickening as my property tax bills. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted December 13, 2007 Report Share Posted December 13, 2007 Someone asked me, privately, about government run schools. I'm posting my response to the forum, so that others can add and comment. The issue was not about the legitimacy of such schools, but more about the about why the NEA is so bad, does not support merit pay, etc. Thus this post. The government should not be running K-12 schools. For them to do so is an immoral over-stepping of the legitimate role of government. However, this post is about why such school are so inefficient. Apart from the fundamental issue of schooling not being a government function, such a school system has three basic problems: the first is that it is a government organization; the second is that schools are near monopolies the third is that teachers are unionized I'm not referring to ethical/political issues here, but simply the day-to-day issue of running an effective organization. Government organizations are very rarely as effective and efficient as private ones. Unionized organizations are very rarely as effective and efficient as non-unionized ones. Take the first one: government. The typical government-run organization is bureaucratic. Being government-owned almost often means that the organization is set up with many processes and controls, that ensure that government is being "fair". When the government is involved, this is necessary. Yet, all the bureaucracy stifles initiative. The administrative overhead is high. One often hears stories that go something along the lines: the Pentagon pays $1 for a paper-clip, or something like that. These are usually the really extreme cases. Yet, the point is that even in the usual cases, government run organizations usually make decisions via an elaborate scheme of procedures, committees, and checks and balances. Sometimes, poorly-run mammoth corporations also start to deteriorate in the same way, becoming excessively bureaucratic. However, with government, it is the norm. With a private organizations, at least losses can be a wake-up call. Secondly, schools are near monopolies. Used in this sense, "monopoly power" comes when the government favors one entity over another, and gives the favored entity some type of business advantage. So, for instance, if a city government tells all the barbers that they may not work until getting a license, the city is instituting a degree of monopoly power. In a case like that, the requirements are usually fairly objective, and barbers can qualify. However, take an example where a city is licensing taxi-cabs. Often, they do not just impose conditions for a license (e.g. know how to drive), but they also have a certain fixed number of licenses they will give out. If we assume that more people want to run taxis than the city will licence, this gives the licenced driver monopoly power. They have an edge, by government fiat. Since the supply has been restricted, they can charge more than they otherwise would. If the government imposes price-controls, then they cannot charge more, but will instead cut back on service. For instance, they may not care what the inside of the cabs are like. In the case of schools, the government takes tax money from people and gives it to only certain schools (government owned or chartered) and tells its citizens that they can go there if they want a free education. By doing this, the government gives these organizations a huge leg-up. A private school has to compete against "free". In this sense, K-12 schools are a "near monopoly". As a consequence, schools have to worry very little about the service they provide their customers. Take my school district, for instance. I have neighbors who will say, "yes, that private school is good, but I can't afford $12,000". The fact is that the public school ends up costing about $ 9,000 per student. However, because of government power, the consumer has no choice, he has to pay toward that $9,000 anyway. So, instead of paying $3000 [12k - 9k] to go to the better school, it costs him $12,000. At that price difference, many consumers simply put up with the difference in quality. Imagine if the government set up restaurants that served basic short-order cooked meals to all, for free. Think of what that would do to private restaurants from the cheap ones to the expensive ones. Also think about the government employees and waiters who ran the free-food restaurants. Would they have as much incentive to run a good (even if cheap) restaurant as the private guys did? Finally, teachers are unionized: By their nature, unions end up representing the "average worker". Many industries have seen a common pattern where a union will lay down "work rules" and productivity standards. They will usually negotiate rules that even many below-average workers can acheive. The union boss obviously does not want to agree to a standard that (say) 15% of his members cannot meet. The union bosses have little incentive to do anything special for the top 10%. More often than not, these are people who could command good wages in non-unionized lines of work. So, they hardly have any use for the union anyway; and vice versa. Sometimes, in a non-unionized environment, co-workers may get annoyed with (and even take some action against) someone who does significantly better than average, therefore demonstrating that they are under-performing. If the co-workers are a cohesive gang, the risks are higher. If they are unionized, one has basically institutionalized their gang-membership, given it recognition of law and made support for the average more than just a question of peer pressure or unlawful behavior. Sometimes, unionized institutions will also give the union leaders some type of role in making decisions about shifts and assignments. This increases the power of unions, and give them more ability to keep their members in line. In summary, in effect, most unions work to help the average and below-average worker earn something that they do not deserve, at the expense of the above average worker. It's what they do. U.S. public schools have all these three factors [government ownership, near monopoly, and unions]. So, it is no wonder that they aren't the best-run organizations when it comes to the good of their customers (the students and their parents). Instead of merit-pay and so on, what we need is to gradually have government schools charge fees. Indirectly, this will address the other issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
progressiveman1 Posted December 13, 2007 Report Share Posted December 13, 2007 ^Why couldn't(or wouldn't) teacher unions form if all schools were privatized? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted December 13, 2007 Report Share Posted December 13, 2007 Why couldn't(or wouldn't) teacher unions form if all schools were privatized?They could and do, and I don't see anyone arguing that they couldn't. There are separate questions here: why are government-run schools educationally bad; why are teachers unions educationally bad? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stellavision Posted December 13, 2007 Report Share Posted December 13, 2007 ^Why couldn't(or wouldn't) teacher unions form if all schools were privatized? They certainly could, and it should not be illegal for unions to form. However, in a proper system of government, any employer, including a school, should be able to refuse to deal with unions and insist on negotiating with teachers individually. If a school doesn't do so, that is their right, and it is theirs to accept the consequences of mediocrity that unions bring, while other schools that refused to deal with unions would reap the benefits of being able to reward individual achievement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
progressiveman1 Posted December 14, 2007 Report Share Posted December 14, 2007 They could and do, and I don't see anyone arguing that they couldn't. There are separate questions here: why are government-run schools educationally bad; why are teachers unions educationally bad? I thought SN made it a point that one of the reasons gov't run schools are bad is because there are teachers unions associated with them(2nd to last paragraph). But if teachers unions exist in the private market as well, why is it listed as a reason that makes gov't schools bad? It would make all schools bad. It seemed like he was condeming gov't schools because they had unions, but the gov't part doesn't have anything to do with the union part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted December 14, 2007 Report Share Posted December 14, 2007 (edited) US K-12 schools are bad: because they are government run; because they have near monopolies; because they have strong teacher's unions The first is a question of government ownership and administration. The next two are examples of illegitimate government power. With charter schools, for instance, the government backs away from administration, while still providing financing, thus giving such schools the same degree of monopoly power as government-owned schools. With unions, the government has laws that favor them. Thus, the government gives them a degree of monopoly power. Teachers may form unions if they were in private schools, but it you look at the private schools in the U.S. you'll find that this is not common. If schools were privatized, you might see teacher unions in some schools and not in others, just as you see unions in various retailers, but not in Wal*Mart. Today, public sentiment is not that favorable toward unions. If I had to guess, I'd say that a majority of private schools would end up non-unionized. Edited December 14, 2007 by softwareNerd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UptonStellington Posted December 16, 2007 Report Share Posted December 16, 2007 sNerd, thanks for your replies. I'm curious as to what examples you could provide in terms of laws that favor the unions? This is crucially important to my understanding of the monopoly status the NEA has... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.