Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
Competing with free broadcast TV, I suppose cable is "niche" too. What exactly does it take for you to toss this "niche service" label onto something.... even more importantly, why the heck is that even a "problem"?

Of course cable isn't a niche market, but I've explained how consuming entertainment is different then consuming education. I never said that niche markets were a problem. All I've said was the market for their services would expand if they were subsidized.

Quote: Original post by tstrimp
Entertainment is a terrible example, because it is something that people in this country are addicted to. Whereas as we have discussed, parents generally don't care about their childs education.

Cable TV is only a "terrible" example because you have no real rebuttal for it. Examples such as that show QUITE PLAINLY that people pay significant amounts of money for things that they could otherwise have for free. For you to continue to act as if that doesn't happen is silly.



Anyways, back to the simple point ... if people really did believe public schools to be vastly inferior, those who could pay for it already have the ability to do enroll into private schools.

Quote: Original post by tstrimp

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
Competing with free broadcast TV, I suppose cable is "niche" too. What exactly does it take for you to toss this "niche service" label onto something.... even more importantly, why the heck is that even a "problem"?

Of course cable isn't a niche market, but I've explained how consuming entertainment is different then consuming education. I never said that niche markets were a problem. All I've said was the market for their services would expand if they were subsidized.

Likely it would, but there's still been little justification for *why* the open public school system should be drained of the funding; especially when the private education market can be supported by private consumers who believe the value offered is vastly superior.

I think Per Unckel, Governor of Stockholm and Sweden's former Minister of Education says it best.

Quote: Should Obama look to Sweden's successful school voucher program?
“Education is so important that you can’t just leave it to one producer,” said Per Unckel, Governor of Stockholm and former Minister of Education.

"We know from monopoly systems that they do not fulfill all wishes."

He added that kids should "never ever have to stay in a school that’s lousy. The right of the kid is to get a good education. If the public sector can not offer it, he or she should have the right to go somewhere else.”

The range of public and private schools available in Sweden suits many different learning styles and interests.

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
Cable TV is only a "terrible" example because you have no real rebuttal for it. Examples such as that show QUITE PLAINLY that people pay significant amounts of money for things that they could otherwise have for free. For you to continue to act as if that doesn't happen is silly.

There is a huge difference between paying $50 / month for entertainment then multiple thousands of dollars per year for a child's education. One is economically feasible for the vast majority of families in the country where as the other simply is not. You honestly think that they are equivalent?

Quote: Anyways, back to the simple point ... if people really did believe public schools to be vastly inferior, those who could pay for it already have the ability to do enroll into private schools.

Which leaves out those who can't pay for it. You're suggesting that only the wealthy should be able to get a good education for their children?

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
Likely it would, but there's still been little justification for *why* the open public school system should be drained of the funding; especially when the private education market can be supported by private consumers who believe the value offered is vastly superior.

You have yet to prove that it would have a significant impact on public school funding. If all those European countries can provide excellent public education AND subsidize private education, why shouldn't we consider the same?

Quote: Original post by tstrimp

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
Likely it would, but there's still been little justification for *why* the open public school system should be drained of the funding; especially when the private education market can be supported by private consumers who believe the value offered is vastly superior.

You have yet to prove that it would have a significant impact on public school funding.

Sure there is a question of whether the impact would be significant. (But that there would be a non-zero impact on funding is pretty self-evident.)

Quote: Original post by tstrimp
If all those European countries can provide excellent public education AND subsidize private education, why shouldn't we consider the same?

Sure .... but, that's the conundrum. The politicos pushing these proposals (in the US) are not generally seeking similar programs.

AFAIK, many of the EU countries apply pretty strict rules on private schools that accept funding, almost to the point that the private schools follow the same guidelines as the public ones .... yet, in the US, the same "free market" types pushing for the use of public funds are the exact same ones who would cry foul at trying to attach regulations to the process.

I've already stated earlier that I have no problem with school choice initiatives, if they avoid exacerbating the large problems (specifically, stuff like cream-skimming). I haven't seen a lot of push in the US for the school choice implementations that avoid those issues, though. A good deal of the talk is for the cash-value vouchers which is the worst of the worst, IMO.

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
Likely it would, but there's still been little justification for *why* the open public school system should be drained of the funding; especially when the private education market can be supported by private consumers who believe the value offered is vastly superior.

Quote: Original post by tstrimp
I think Per Unckel, Governor of Stockholm and Sweden's former Minister of education says it best.

Quote: Original post by tstrimp
Which leaves out those who can't pay for it. You're suggesting that only the wealthy should be able to get a good education for their children?

Quote: Original post by tstrimp
You have yet to prove that it would have a significant impact on public school funding. If all those European countries can provide excellent public education AND subsidize private education, why shouldn't we consider the same?

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
Sure .... but, that's the conundrum. The politicos pushing these proposals (in the US) are not generally seeking similar programs.

Or that apply similar kinds of solutions that seem to work. Here private education has to meet fulfill a set obligations and meet commonly set targets on many things concerning education, but they cater to different, more niche, segments in different ways. It seem to work. However, if private schooling existed mostly to amend poor public sector, I have a feeling it woud not work even this well.

For what I know Nordic systems (Iceland is somewhat different), they have their problems too (though quality of education isn't in general one of them) and they are a part of wider sphere of politics, like regional policies.

For what I feel based on this that the public system in the U.S. should be put into a better shape in order to guarantee an equal enough change for everyone to learn. If it were left for private only education, it'd probably break the socio-economic ladders pretty badly -- making it even difficult for the elites to find skilled labour.

Quote: Original post by Naurava kulkuri
For what I feel based on this that the public system in the U.S. should be put into a better shape in order to guarantee an equal enough change for everyone to learn.

But full equality isn't nesessary,even bad.Talent children must be "detected" by teachers as soon as it possible,in former SU it was mostly at school level.
There was(is) such way: in 8'th form purpils (and parents) can choose -to continue education in school and after 10th form go to institute(university) and become scientist/ingineer/teacher/economist etc,or go to 2-4 years "technical school" to become "worker".In addition there was (is) a parallel "separation"- school/town/district/regional/country level olimpiades (math,phisics etc.),winners can pass "exams" in special public schools with more detail learning of some subject,and after go in any university without exams at all.No talk about payment for such children,of couse.

Quote: Original post by tstrimp

Quote: Original post by LessBread
That's not much of an answer. The majority doesn't care and the minority wants to destroy the system because it thinks the grass is greener on the other side of the fence.

Hyperbole much? There is no evidence that subsidizing private education will "destroy the system".

Are Vouchers Destroying Public Schools? (March 31, 2009)

Quote:
...
Overall, the voucher system, as viewed by most educational leaders and city planners, is quite risky. As schools depend on tax payer dollars, providing families with the opportunity to personally control the direction of each tax dollar can lead to some public schools succeeding, with other public schools failing.

With this dichotomy, the pros and cons of the voucher system are waging a seemingly endless debate. In fact, according to reports from The Washington Post, nearly every state and city that has offered vouchers as an option in an election has been unsuccessful. In fact, vouchers have even been banned in some states, such as Arizona, where high courts have deemed vouchers “unconstitutional.” Since vouchers can be used to pay for private and religious schools, many argue it violates the constitution’s separation of church and state. Overall, it seems as though the public is very trepidations and cautious about implementing voucher programs.
...

Quote: Original post by tstrimp

Quote: It's not apples and oranges at all. Both examples involve the provision of a service, that educational services are provided for free and postal services are not doesn't change that.

Of course it changes things. The fact that you're blind to that is unbelievable. Would UPS and Fedex exist if USPS provided "free" shipping for any package? What would happen to the demand for those services? A similar thing is going to happen to insurance companies when we move to a single payer system. Who is going to pay for insurance when healthcare is "free" for everyone? Only those who can afford it and only if it provides better service. It will become a niche market, just like private education.

I didn't say it didn't change "things", I said it didn't change the fact that both examples involve the provision of service. Price isn't everything when it comes to service. There's also security, safety and speed of delivery to consider as well. USPS "free" shipping might take excessive amounts of time, packages might arrived damaged or not at all because they were stolen along the way. So, yes, UPS and FedEx would exist if USPS provided "free" shipping. Private schools exist even though public schools offer "free" education. I don't understand your beef with niche markets. Most people can't afford Jaguars or Cadillacs. It's not the end of the world.

Quote: Original post by tstrimp

Quote: And considering that educational services aren't truly free in that we pay for them through taxes, the differences fade away.

Only if you get your money back if you decide to persue other options.

Are you suggesting a tax credit for parents of children who attend private schools?

Quote: Original post by tstrimp

Quote: Again, if the demand is low, then why all the fuss? Why are we pampering the few who seek to restructure the entire system?

It's hardly restructuring the entire system. If it can and has been implemented successfully at a local level, where is this grand restructuring you're alluding to?

Yes, it would be a restructuring of the entire system. See the link above.

Quote: Original post by tstrimp

Quote: That link doesn't address the performance of publicly financed private schools.

If they didn't perform better, why would a parent choose to send their child there? That's sort of the point of private schools.

For ethnic and religious reason. Maybe they want their children to study the Bible or the Koran as religious texts rather than historical texts?