What would be a short and simple way of explaining why private

Government education represents a monopoly which is bad for the consumer. People don't have a choice to fund it and it's very hard to fire teachers. This drives prices up and makes quality go down.

Private education represents more choice in the market which is good for the consumer. It drives down costs and improves quality because of competition.

>>17881325
Neither is superior. What you learn is purely up to you. You can put the same child in public and private schools, if they're a moron nothing will change.

>>17881325
It is not superior:
a) in a crap school you pay and you pass - countless people get degrees this way
or
b) you get high quality dedicated teaching, strict criteria for exams and admission, prestige at a (usually) very high price

Just google standardized test scores from students at public school vs. private school and look at the difference.
Stuff like that.

compare public education to training. it holds people back to the slowest learner in the class, stifles areas of interest and provided rigid definitions of success, etc

use nock's critique on training vs education and just label education as private schooling or even go as far as just making the case for charter schools. also you could mention montessori schools which teach kids to the degree which they can learn so you have mixed classes of age, people, and development so each kid can do as best as possible in each area they can rather then being held to all the same standards in every subject they are allowed to progress to their own ability to certain degrees, it is not like those hippy everybody gets a certificate places though, montessori schools often are strict and have very high passing and college graduate rates

http://pastebin.com/6hEyazuC

>>17881352
>What is confounding

>>17881325
Imo, the most straightforward approach would be a theoretical argument that competition is good. You can find a lot of papers on the topic, but I doubt very many of them are very good, so it'd take quite a while to make that case.

>>17881325
it's not.
private schools are usually obscenely expensive, religiously based, diploma mills, or some combination of the 3
the teachers get paid less than a starting teacher in a public school. in some cases it takes up upwards of 5 years of teaching in a private school to climb the pay-scale enough to have the same salary as a brand new, no experience, fresh outta uni teacher. Some private schools don't even hire teachers that are licensed/qualified to teach a subject

>>17882327
I get what your saying but schools are for the students not for the teachers and money is not the issue, the USA gives a shit load of money towards education and the any amount of more money is not helping. however charter schools are kicking both public and private schools asses right now and pay a bit more then average to teachers.

>>17882335
Under the "muh competetition" meme, lower pay attracts lower standards of competition, while higher pay attracts more suitable, competetive individuals.

In needing to turn a profit, private schools gimp themselves out of good teachers, because as a private business they are pressured to reduce costs by "muh competition" as well.

>>17882374
>while higher pay attracts more suitable, competetive individuals.
so then charter schools are the answer, exactly as i said
>In needing to turn a profit, private schools gimp themselves out of good teachers, because as a private business they are pressured to reduce costs by "muh competition" as well.
then why is the opposite occurring with charter schools? they pay the teachers more and do better then public and completely private institutions

we give the education system more money they oil and the military combined yet the education rates are dropping in males and the test scores are all going down and shittier countries are spending less and getting smarter students

>>17882374
>>17882335
That said, in order to pay more, private schools need to earn more.

They can up volume, by which large classes cancel out the effect of more skilled teachers. Or they can up fees, which will screen out poorer students(which as you said, this is about students) from their customer base. This creates unequal access to education that compounds the privilege more affluent students are already afforded by their birth. Whereas poorer students may have talent but affinity, but they are cut off from the benefits of a charter school altogether.

People spout bs about voucher systems, but again, it's still basically creating an unequal playing field. If poor students have equal access to privatized charter schools, they will be avoided by affluent students and parents. This will create a gentrifying effect as parents want their students to go to accomplished schools. Poorer, inner city students will not be able to commute as far to other schools and richer students will flock to areas that aren't accessable.

These charters full of richer students will have all the benefits and support that the students families are able to afford, while inner city schools are still prone to issues that the public school system faces.

Basically you can't win.

>>17882395
>we give education systems more money than oil and the military combined

aaaaaand here's your average libertarian

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=2016+us+government+budget+pie+graph

>>17881325
Why would you think it is? There are many differences with each approach, public education in an advanced country like Finland is nothing like the cancer in US for example, and some private school run by religious nuttcases isn't going to provide the same education a private school staffed by educated people.

I went to private and public schools in Germany and both were pretty much equally shit, the only benefit from private education was that they didn't give a shit about my attendance.

Just sum up the general benefits/downsides and explain why you think A is better than B.

>>17882374
Also often this. Another example would be how bad the private jails suck.

>>17882395
>shittier countries are spending less and getting smarter students
Just like most countries with free health care spend less and get better results for everybody?

The problem with public education in Murica goes far beyond money and can't be viewed separately from other factors.

What would be a short and simple way of explaining why OP is a faggot?

For a presentation

You have to be 18 to post on this site. Figure out your high school presentation yourself.

>>17882399
>If poor students have equal access to privatized charter schools, they will be avoided by affluent students and parents. This will create a gentrifying effect as parents want their students to go to accomplished schools.
thats not how all charter schools work. the most successful ones are run on a lottery system, anyone who is in the are of the school district signs up their kid and then they have raffle to see who can attend.
>Poorer, inner city students will not be able to commute as far to other schools
see above, and in that case make more charter schools, there is a reason why inner city moms take night jobs just so they can take their kid to a good school across town.
>These charters full of richer students
wrong again, your definition of charter schools is not the norm. charter is not an exclusive school it is just a mixture of publicly and privately funding school
>>17882403
we spend trillions on education.. not 78B only. obviously im talking about as a whole so each area would be different dont be retarded.

even still, our public education is being fucked up by teachers unions and ever since they 70's everyone is saying we need more money to go to schools and we have spent trillions and havnet gotten any good results
>>17882426
>Just like most countries with free health care spend less and get better results for everybody?

completely false
socialist healthcare is a scam. in the uk and canada they have to wait forever to get treated, they get more money taxed for shit they will never use.

>The problem with public education in Murica goes far beyond money and can't be viewed separately from other factors.
your talking shit, be specific

i am a healthy male i do not and will not ever need coverage for female issues so why should i pay for maternal leave and things like that?

government run healthcare is a piece of shit as evidenced by
>america has the highest cancer survival rates in the world
>usa has the best medical treatments

>>17882426
God forbid the active strain of anti-intellectualism running through both inner-city culture and religious culture here in the states.

It goes without saying that the religious right wing of the US has a genuine interest in perpetuating this anti-intellectualism ever since the dixie strategy was introduced and the parties flipped. They've essentially postured themselves to need this anti-intellectualism to keep appealing to their demographics. This is apparent in conflicts between the conservative, religious community of America, and in their alliance with oil interests.

Roughly half of this country aligns themselves with a political party that is blatantly ant-intellectual. Of course we'll get shittier students.

>>17882455
>the parties flipped.
that literally never happened. democrats voted against the civil rights act by a larger percent and even struck it down when it was first attempted to be past in the the 1800's
>anti-intellectualism
so basically your saying shitty schools have not helped dumbasses, NO WAY?!

>>17882395
education gets 2% ($78.9bn) of the national budget, whereas the military receives 16% ($634.2bn), energy and environment receive 1% ($52.1bn), and transportation receive 3% ($107.8bn). your argument would have more weight if it was based in reality, but it's simply not true
t. https://www.nationalpriorities.org/analysis/2015/presidents-2016-budget-in-pictures/

>>17882447
>we spend trillions on education.
nigger where? In what universe is the American government spending more on education than any other item-line? I'm going to need sources

>>17882447
>in the uk and canada they have to wait forever to get treated
It preferable to wait a bit longer for your treatment than getting in fast and being told that you can't afford it.

> they get more money taxed for shit they will never use
Yes, Jimmy, that's how insurance and taxes work. You also pay for roads even if you only use your private helicopter all the time. It's horrible but history and basic reasoning showed us over and over again that other approaches are even worse.

>usa has the best medical treatments
It's decent if you're one of the few people who can afford it. Absolutely shit for the majority. Monarchy is cool too if you happen to be born out of the right hole.

>be specific
>>17882455
Mentioned few things. Then there is the whole under-funding of some schools, while others get over-funded. Overall a very end result specific approach making the kids focus on passing tests instead of actually learning shit. A very stressful environment further lowering the performance of students (or causes them to pull a hero, get depressed and whatever else, often in the top schools) Then all this factors intervene further mess shit up and you'll get a massive clusterfuck, so in a way it's impressive that the thing works at all despite all the shit.

>>17882488
>It preferable to wait a bit longer for your treatment than getting in fast and being told that you can't afford it.
in the usa this does not occur if its an emergency, people get treated regardless.
who cares if you have to work more to pay off your life prolonging surgery, its better then the government telling you "no its not covered its experimental"

insurance is insurance not a guarantee, shit happens and its too bad but the government cannot fix that and when they try to you get taxed more then you earn.

>muh roads
fuck you bitch i never said anything about roads we are talking about education and now bc your dumbass we are talking about socialist healtcare bc big smarty intellectual thinkers such as your dumbass cant stay on topic bc if you do you would be forced to acknowledge other peoples talking points rather then continually spout your lifty opinions without specifics
>Overall a very end result specific approach making the kids focus on passing tests instead of actually learning shit
alright alright, thank you. i would agree thats what nationaly mandated standards are pointless in my opinion, and that why I told op to check out mountessorri schools

i think the education system and de facto the gov is being charged with dealing with too much things that arent their job and too many people are being lazy and shitheads to teach their children and things like that. i feel you and i both agree money alone will not solve things

having said all that i would like to begin the conversation now if you would like to continue i would be pleased to hear what you feel are potential solutions to specific problems. the culture issues you brought up cannot and are not schools and or governments jobs and if they do try to step in i think we would get psycho students like in japan and or brainwashed kids, obviously not all schools are this type of worst example, i hope you know i also realize that

>>17882528
>montessouri schools
pour more money into each kid on average than larger classrooms typical to most public/private institutions.

Standardized testing has the upside of holding an accountable standard of education that can be widely and equally applied. Given that the tests are adjusted for local culture. A torch and flashlight describe the same thing for example.

The downside is of course that the goal is to pass a test, with all the implications that carries.

But without some level of enforceable standards, private institutions are then allowed to be free to grade students as they please. This is why, for example, you're encouraged to check if online schools and degree programs have regional accreditation. If they don't meet standards set by the DoE and CHEA, or other regional institutions, then you run the risk of applying to a diploma mill that will not serve you in any way.

This is another issue with privatized education. There will always be incentive in the private sector to push for less government oversight. It's expensive.

Wasn't one of your base points cost effectiveness?

>>17882528
>in the usa this does not occur if its an emergency, people get treated regardless
And get a bill pretty much damning them to pay for it till they kick the bucket. Also waiting long enough till something becomes an emergency is a horrible practice from medical POV, usually resulting in more complications.

>who cares if you have to work more to pay off your life prolonging surgery
It's indeed irrelevant IF you have a job that pays enough to pay it off. If it's a really advancement treatment, most people won't have the cash either way and the ones who do, can easy go to wherever it's possible either way.

> its better then the government telling you "no its not covered its experimental"
Covering experimental treatment is indeed a weak point of free healthcare approaches but can be easy adjusted. Besides, most treatments are pretty basic and don't require anything special, yet either unobtainable or at least extremely expensive.

>we are talking about education
Roads and health care got the same principle. Providing only a part of a population with benefits like these while letting everybody else rot is a recipe for social unrest in best case scenario. In case of education, it'd be going back to times when being able to read was an accomplishment for the enlightened ones. Besides, uneducated workforce is negative for productivity too.

>nationaly mandated standards are pointless in my opinion
Seems a bit too extreme. The current ones are definitely shit though.

>too many people are being lazy and shitheads to teach their children
Too many people don't have any knowhow neither about the subjects nor teaching. If you ask random faggots on the street even about basic shit like differential calculus, do you really think many would be able to explain it to you? Ideally the parents should be able to do it and schools would only provide finishing touch + socializing. In reality ... well, you know.

>>17882639
>i feel you and i both agree money alone will not solve things
Yeah definitely. Money is important. Spending it right even more so.

As for potential solutions, getting religion fags away from education for one. And multiple choice tests. Fuck them. Learning is as much about the process as about the end result. Ideally the aim would be to emulate the Finnish system (given their small class rooms, this will raise costs for sure though), since it's proved to be objectively one of the best (next to the hardcore Asian approach, which disregards creativity and mental health too much). Generally the entire needs a pretty radical change due the incoming automatisazion in the next two decades and a very high probability that there won't be jobs for most people, so the couple realistic changes that can be made for it now are basically applying a new paint to a broken car.

>>17882594
>Wasn't one of your base points cost effectiveness?
for sure it was. not trying to totally side step what you said but i dont think every private school is that way. and the risk of a degree mill is worth it to get a better education at your own pace (within a certain limit which is where standards come in, i just disagree with the NCLB act and the CC was even worse, standards are good but rigid instruction guidelines are fruitless bc not everyone is equal nor do they like to learn the same way.)

I look at charter schools as a why not. they are under inspection even more then public schools bc they are a new way in the usa, which will be good bc then they dont have room for faculty to fuck off on some being hired for too long kind of rules or anything like some public school teachers can.

just bc ITT tech exists(which it got btfo for being a scam and got shutdown) doesnt mean standford university is bad too

>>17882639
>If it's a really advancement treatment, most people won't have the cash either way and the ones who do, can easy go to wherever it's possible either way.
not many people pay in cash, and there are clinics who specifically work with poor people without insurance. lots and lots of immigrants go to these clinics bc its significantly cheaper, if we do a government option these would dissapear.

my ultimate solution to healthcare would be for people to stop being a lazy fat drug user, but alternatively i would like to see private practices more. how it used to be where dr.s would be on retainer for groups, jobs, clubs, etc.

if we are going to pay $1 to the insurance company and .10 goes to the gov, .30 goes to the insurance company and .60 goes to the Dr. why not just pay .75 to the Dr directly and make a payment plan?

a fed option wouldnt be able to be efficient and would keep people away from life saving options bc they would set standards on quality of life and longevity- they do this in the uk already.

>>17882639
>Providing only a part of a population with benefits like these while letting everybody else rot is a recipe for social unrest in best case scenario.
but thats not relatable bc the government already provides many of these services to the tune of trillions of dollars. the only people who get these services are those who cant afford other means, but this allows fraud as well. it is a fact that these liabilities that the government must fund or repeal(which i hope to repeal) are upwards of 40% of our spending, if they increase the coverage that means the government will spend even more money which means we go into more debt. taxes alone cannot cover the cost for more then 3 years even if at 100% tax rate
>Too many people don't have any knowhow neither about the subjects nor teaching. If you ask random faggots on the street even about basic shit like differential calculus, do you really think many would be able to explain it to you? Ideally the parents should be able to do it and schools would only provide finishing touch + socializing. In reality ... well, you know.
but my man cal 2 is not the cultural issue we were talking about before. cal 2 is reasonable for a school to teach, manners and values is not reasonable for a school to be expected to teach that shit should be built in already by the parents before the kid even enters school
>As for potential solutions, getting religion fags away from education for one.
how does peoples religion affect school other then islam? im being serious, as far as i know religion is not involved in public school whatsoever. also if a private school wants to teach religion thats their right, we cant try and do 1984 stuff but thats just a consequence of freedom, ya know? which makes the "good eggs" even better in spite of the dumbassess.
>finnish system w/smaller classes
ill check it out, im not sure what they do desu. they have a way smaller pop. so maybe the good aspects could be replicated on a larger scale?

>>17882639
>Besides, most treatments are pretty basic and don't require anything special, yet either unobtainable or at least extremely expensive.
i agree thats why i like the paying the dr directly as teh best idea bc then only the people who are directly involved in helping and those being helped trade money. its called "concierge medicine" its how it was done in the 50's, and believe it or not but more people had access to Dr back then than they do now, but that probably has to do with population density more then anything. I think modern tech like telemedicine(using video conference calls in a private chat with a healthcare provider) could make this a reality again though, and then we could remove some hands from the process and reduce medical costs. there are already some big health centers starting to do this, there is one in tulsa that lists all of there prices upfront for every type of surgery and they only focus on that specifically rather then trying to treat everything.

i like this model bc like the car industry ford used to be a piece of shit and unsafe but a decade or so after dadson and other foreign car companies started selling a lot of cars " all the sudden" ford started making better and safer cars.. I think the health insurance and gov are the modern ford company of the healthcare scene. and they collude bc it means more taxes and more money for less coverage. so why not tell them both to get bent and just pay or make arrangements with the dr directly.

and i know im not responding to everything bc a lot of it is realatable to one or more of the other points we make so if I skip over an important one just let me know.

>>17882670
>there are clinics who specifically work with poor people without insurance
Pretty much a minority though.

>if we do a government option these would dissapear
Because they wouldn't be necessary anymore. So hardly a issue.

>my ultimate solution to healthcare would be for people to stop being a lazy fat drug user
Even then there are accidents and even the most healthy lifestyle won't protect you from random sickness, just minimize the chance. Besides, some fatties and drug users can be a monetary benefit, if they die fast enough. Old people are the biggest drain on healthcare and there is no cure for that.

>if we are going to pay $1 to the insurance company and .10 goes to the gov, .30 goes to the insurance company and .60 goes to the Dr. why not just pay .75 to the Dr directly and make a payment plan?
Murica got pretty much the worst of both worlds, fucking everybody sans insurance companies. At least here in Germany it's a lot simpler due the insurance company working non profit for the state and there is still a private option (which often cuts the waiting times and can be cheaper if you're healthy). While you always can end up paying more than YOU need with mandatory insurance, showing some solidarity with other people for couple % of your paycheck sounds better to me than having some poorfuck avoiding to visit the doctor and suffering because he's a poorfag. Even if it's his fault.

> they would set standards on quality of life and longevity
Which can be always adjusted, and when they do, pretty much everybody will benefit from it instead of the chosen few.

> but this allows fraud as well
When it comes to people, the damage from abuse is just too small to really count. If you want to save billions, there is the MIC building tanks for the sake of employment and tons of others projects that are basically welfare for companies, where the damage is massive.

>>17882843
>values
Ah, misunderstood you there. Yes, ideally it'd come from parents but given the subjectivity of many values, it's not a too bad idea for the school to join in and provide a rough basis. There is a pretty thin line between education and indoctrination so it's a tricky subject.

>how does peoples religion affect school other then islam?
Check Texas connection to the curriculum and school books. They affect the rest of the country. It's a big thing, so best I can suggest is looking it up.

>religion
Sure but depending on how far they take the right it can easy jump over freedom to indoctrination and misinformation. As long it happens beyond the educational system? Well, it's their choice, but it should affect the education system itself.

>Finland
Sure but they spend 5,9 of their GDP on education, US spends 5,5 ... so while the difference is there, and would probably be even higher overall, it doesn't sound that extreme. Specially given the results. A well educated population has tons of benefits and can lower future spending on welfare or the criminal system, increase productivity and whatever the fuck else.

>modern tech
Hell, given advancements in AI, routine things won't even need an actual doctor and will definitely help in places with lower population density. It should helps with waiting times too.

>so why not tell them both to get bent and just pay or make arrangements with the dr directly.
Doesn't sound too viable for the poorfags though. I am all for competition and letting the market decide - as long a basic standard of quality and (financial) availability for everyone is established, which seems tricky to accomplish with essential stuff like that because "affordable and available for everyone" is not very profitable and to stay profitable one would either need to cut costs/quality or lower the availability. At least for now. Hard to predict how it'll change with automatisation.