POLL Public education
- Thread starter Boomboom521
- Start date
I’m trying to be simple....very simple.....I think too often these issues are complicated in the process of legislation and funding to the point where division exists without it needing to.
With those "simple" possibilities, then you're right, only one option is valid.
So lemme guess how this works:
If you voted "yes' then you're doing the politically correct thing and are there for a good human being
If you voted "No - privatize" then you're somewhat worse than Hitler, because you've realized that this is a false option, because the gov't will always be involved.
If you voted "Yes, but, the budgets are too big" - then while you're a bad human being, you'll be crucified because you're asking for skools to reduce spending and that's a terrible thing. I mean skool administrators need to travel for conferences!
If you voted "yes' then you're doing the politically correct thing and are there for a good human being
If you voted "No - privatize" then you're somewhat worse than Hitler, because you've realized that this is a false option, because the gov't will always be involved.
If you voted "Yes, but, the budgets are too big" - then while you're a bad human being, you'll be crucified because you're asking for skools to reduce spending and that's a terrible thing. I mean skool administrators need to travel for conferences!
It’s not gotcha. I’m just curious how different all are when issues are simplified substantially
I think there are many, many different ways to deal with the budget being too high that are legitimate and positive.
These are what I consider my top issues, and I’m just curious as to what board members think on these issues at their MOST BASIC POINT. Solutions and further definition of these issues are much more complex to be sure, but this excercise (for me) is about common ground.
A better poll for me would be "do you think government does a cost-effective job running Public Schools"? Yes or No?
Then ask "spend more for government to run them better or privatization?"
That's both simple and accurate.
Then ask "spend more for government to run them better or privatization?"
That's both simple and accurate.
Last edited:
What do you think the poll that asks "are private schools superior to Public schools" would show?
I like the idea and even thought of doing it myself. I would suggest not posting them all in one day and instead choose one topic each day for discussion. Also try to add more options. I know you are trying to make it simple but at the same time the options aren't as thorough. Example: In this very question I would say that I want a combination of public and more options for private.
I want competition. Makes everyone better. Government run schools should compete for both students and dollars.
Imo, private schools can be options anywhere as long as people are willing to pay, right? If there’s a market, the schools will be built.
Sure but also give options for people who may not be able to afford but want to their kids to go to a private school.
That’s where it gets complicated though. That’s tax revenue taken out of the public school pot used for private schools.
I think we could actually free up money for public schools by going this direction. I envision a system that allows vouchers based on household income. In some cases we could offer up a full amount of funding for low income students if they choose a private school and a partial one for families who meet a certain threshold. By doing this we would be creating more options, more competition, smaller student to teacher classrooms and save tax payer money.
On average, it costs $10,615 to send a kid to public school for a year. (That's federal, state and local government spending combined.)
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/...-the-government-spend-to-send-a-kid-to-school
- The national average private school tuition is approximately $10,302 per year.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/tuition-stats/private-school-cost-by-state
It will just simply filter good teachers and good students into private schools, and the poor performers (students- teachers) into public. In time it would destroy public schools. That’s fine if that’s what you want, but one foot in both boats isn’t good for the long haul.
It will leave behind a group without much of a chance. Public education seeks to give EVERY American child a well rounded education and a chance to be a well informed successful citizen.
Why? Why should my tax dollars go to those that, as some of you all put it "are too lazy or lack the education to gain good employment" when a FREE public education is provided for them? Nope......sorry........
I've been telling you, there is NO common ground on most of these issues.
I also favor merit-based pay. Pay more for better teachers.
Means-tested vouchers. Subsidize parents who need the help to find better schools for their kids.
Tax incentivize providers of alternative education Choice options including Montessori education, homeschooling, virtual schooling, vocational schools, any other options that effectively produce better results.
In effect the more competition the more options, the better results we will get. Then we won't have to worry about poor people or students being pigeonholed into underperforming schools.
Means-tested vouchers. Subsidize parents who need the help to find better schools for their kids.
Tax incentivize providers of alternative education Choice options including Montessori education, homeschooling, virtual schooling, vocational schools, any other options that effectively produce better results.
In effect the more competition the more options, the better results we will get. Then we won't have to worry about poor people or students being pigeonholed into underperforming schools.
Performance determined by a bias standardized test that is written by "educators" that haven't been in a classroom nor taught a class in 20+ years...........
Totally disagree.
Here are a you few flaws in your argument. By saying that private schools would take the great teachers and students you are conceding that public schools currently only have some good teachers and some bad teachers. Let's assume that you are right and private schools pay the good teachers more and accept the good students. What changes at the end of the day? You still have the same great teachers and students and same bad teachers and underperforming students.
My argument is that this not only creates a competitive field for schools but also students and teachers. Higher pay for teachers at the private level and increase funds for teacher salaries at the public level makes the teaching a much more attractive profession than it is now so we will have more GOOD teachers entering the field.
Also as I said before we would have a smaller ratio of students to teachers which would allow more one on one teaching and increased student performance at ALL levels.
Correct. I can't link to it now but if you get a chance Google Atlanta teachers School testing Scandal and see what a scam that was for exactly the reasons you mentioned in your post.
Schools should operate differently, imo. Principles should be free to increase salaries based on performance, not a uniform standard of time in and education level. Tenure shouldn’t exist. All specifics that divide. The point was if you think public schools should led be a major filocis if the government or not
To see it on a business level....the lender cation is good, market is there, the product is solid.....management is all that has to be dealt with to turn a failure into success.
I reject the idea that they aren't presented with that very option right now. As 007 pointed out, funding is not an issue. Why are they still not producing results even with the money they currently have?
I don't disagree with any of those objectives the point is you don't need government to accomplish them.
