Self-Help Schooling

In 2000, James Tooley took a detour from his research in the well-heeled districts of Hyderabad, India, and stumbled into an invisible network of private schools for the poor:

Out of curiosity, I left my work--looking at private schools for the elite and middle classes--and took an autorickshaw into the slum areas behind the imposing 16th-century Charminar in the center of the Old City. And to my surprise, I found private schools on almost every street corner. Inspired by that, I grew to know many of the school owners, teachers, parents, and children; I learned of their motivations and difficulties and their successes and requirements.

Since then I have found private schools in battle-scarred buildings in Somaliland and Sierra Leone; in the shanty town of Makoko built on stilts above the Lagos lagoons in Nigeria; scattered among the tin and cardboard huts of Africa's largest slum, Kibera, Kenya; in the teeming townships perched on the shoreline of Accra, Ghana; in slums and villages across India; among the "floating population" in Beijing; and in remote Himalayan villages in China. Indeed, I have yet to find a developing country environment where private schools for the poor don't exist.

Among his discoveries: The schools tend to be for-profit operations run by local entrepreneurs, and they tend to provide a better education than the government schools do.

Comments

M1EK | October 13, 2005, 11:33am | #

Preemptive strike: what percentage of the poor in these countries get any schooling at all?

If private schooling results in slightly better education for 10% of the population at the expense of no education at all for another 10% of the population, are we better off?

British Libertarian | October 13, 2005, 11:48am | #

m1ek, how is it at "the expensive of"

quasibill | October 13, 2005, 11:48am | #

pre-emptive strike for M1EK:

What percentage of U.S. students can't read or write despite going through 12 years of mandated schooling? Are they better off than they would have been otherwise? Was it a good use of resources to spend 12 years on these kids when there are other kids who could benefit more from these resources? Such as kids in the same poor district, but who want to learn, but get held back because the learning environment must be slowed to attend to those who have no desire to learn?

mtc | October 13, 2005, 11:53am | #

M1EK-

Somehow I really doubt that the poor spending money on their own children's education is really taking any money away fron anyone else's children's education. The point you're trying to imply might be valid in a rich country with regards to vouchers, but I can't see how poor people who are probably paying little or no taxes to begin with can really be causing anyone else to miss out an education.

I imagine a lot of these private schools are in countries with government is so incompetent and corrupt that they couldn't deliver any kind of education to the lower class even with a determined bleeding heart like you at the helm.

josh | October 13, 2005, 11:57am | #

"I imagine a lot of these private schools are in countries with government is so incompetent and corrupt that they couldn't deliver any kind of education to the lower class even with a determined bleeding heart like you at the helm."

You're speaking of the US right?

M1EK | October 13, 2005, 12:08pm | #

Answering all at once:

In libertopia, there would be no public schools, as I often hear. So, when comparing libertopia to statisttopia, it becomes relevant to wonder what percentage of the population would actually get education in libertopia.

As for the US supposedly not educating a large chunk of public school grads, I haven't seen it. Trashing public schools is an enjoyable pursuit for y'all, but give me a freakin' break. Even the schools in the poorest parts of my district provide a basic education to those who are willing to be educated.

Note the distinction between "educate those who are willing to be educated" and "educate those whose parents can afford to pay for them to be educated" or "educate those whose parents are willing to send them to school". In libertopia, of course, only the middle group gets educted. (Even some of those who could afford it would keep their kids home to work the family farm, for instance).

Phil | October 13, 2005, 12:15pm | #

Note the distinction between "educate those who are willing to be educated" and "educate those whose parents can afford to pay for them to be educated" or "educate those whose parents are willing to send them to school". In libertopia, of course, only the middle group gets educted.

Why "of course?" Is it somehow a given that there would be no scholarships offered or awarded, no charitable education operations, etc.? I'm not quite ready to jump on a "no publick schools evar!1!!" bandwagon, but that's an awfully confident "of course" without some deeper thought to back it up.

Even the schools in the poorest parts of my district provide a basic education to those who are willing to be educated.

Part of the problem is that they should be able to categorically excluse those who aren't willing, as they just disrupt and slow down the process for the others.

(Even some of those who could afford it would keep their kids home to work the family farm, for instance).

And?

nmg | October 13, 2005, 12:17pm | #

"As for the US supposedly not educating a large chunk of public school grads, I haven't seen it. "

I assume you don't live in California.

"Note the distinction between "educate those who are willing to be educated" and "educate those whose parents can afford to pay for them to be educated" or "educate those whose parents are willing to send them to school"."

Not true. Even today we have many private organizations that provide education to underprivileged families who want it.

nmg

JMoore | October 13, 2005, 12:17pm | #

I thought this was a story about how some clever entrepreneurs had managed to make some money by teaching poor kids in really bad environments. And, as a result of their efforts, the children get a better education that what was on offer, evidently at a price their parents can afford. Which sounds pretty wonderful to me.

I had no idea they were denying education to another segment of the population all along.

Ruthless | October 13, 2005, 12:23pm | #

M1EK,
Define "education," then tell us what it's good for.

nmg | October 13, 2005, 12:24pm | #

For the statist central-planners, the concern isn't really about the children who might not get educated. The concern is that there are children being educated by schools that are *not under control of the state* This is a frightening prospect for them, so they hide behind their concern for educating kids, when really they are concerned about *indoctrinating* kids.

Some of them even come out and admit this much. Ask them why they are opposed to vouchers being used by parents to send their kids to religious schools, and invariably their answer has nothing to do with education and everything to do with state-administered indoctrination of children.

nmg

M1EK | October 13, 2005, 12:34pm | #

"Why "of course?" Is it somehow a given that there would be no scholarships offered or awarded, no charitable education operations, etc.?"

No, but it's a given that such scholarships and charity won't come close to ensuring that ALL kids who want to be educated will be given the chance.

"I assume you don't live in California."

Give me a break. I live in Texas, which by any objective measure has worse schools than California, and it's still not as bad as you doom-and-gloomers say.

"(Even some of those who could afford it would keep their kids home to work the family farm, for instance).

And?"

And that's bad. Kids who don't get educated because their parents don't want them to are much more likely to end up supported by the state in one way or another.

"I had no idea they were denying education to another segment of the population all along."

Oh, come the fuck on. It's clearly the undercurrent - "look, private schools are educating the poor, so we don't need public schools!"

"For the statist central-planners, the concern isn't really about the children who might not get educated. The concern is that there are children being educated by schools that are *not under control of the state*"

nmg, you're going to get some nasty strawburns.

MP | October 13, 2005, 12:35pm | #

Ask them why they are opposed to vouchers being used by parents to send their kids to religious schools, and invariably their answer has nothing to do with education and everything to do with state-administered indoctrination of children.

No. They are concerned that vouchers will divert both money and easy to educate children from the public school system, leaving them with less resources per child to educate the hardest cases. The greatest concerns deal with disabled/handicapped children and children of parents who don't really care about their child's education.

Don't mistake me as a defender of public schools. But your claims are way off base.

nmg | October 13, 2005, 12:37pm | #

I knew it.

nmg

nmg | October 13, 2005, 12:40pm | #

" It's clearly the undercurrent - "look, private schools are educating the poor, so we don't need public schools!""

Well.... it appears to be the case doesn't it? In these environments even the poorest families are getting their children educated at *for profit* schools amidst squalor and poverty. That is indeed a pretty compelling argument that we dont' actually *need* public schools.

Note that there is also a difference between public schooling and publicly funded education, and wholly privatized...

Of the three, public schooling is by far the worst option.

nmg

Phil | October 13, 2005, 12:43pm | #

"Why "of course?" Is it somehow a given that there would be no scholarships offered or awarded, no charitable education operations, etc.?"

No, but it's a given that such scholarships and charity won't come close to ensuring that ALL kids who want to be educated will be given the chance.

Right. I didn't claim that it would. I was questioning your premise that the ONLY group that would be educated would "of course" be "those whose parents can afford to pay for them to be educated." You're conceding, then, that that wouldn't be the case?

Kids who don't get educated because their parents don't want them to are much more likely to end up supported by the state in one way or anothe

Fair enough.

M1EK | October 13, 2005, 12:47pm | #

"Right. I didn't claim that it would. I was questioning your premise that the ONLY group that would be educated would "of course" be "those whose parents can afford to pay for them to be educated." You're conceding, then, that that wouldn't be the case?"

True. Some small percentage of those whose parents can't afford it will get scholarships. This subset, when applied to the entire population, is likely to be negligible.

M1EK | October 13, 2005, 12:49pm | #

"In these environments even the poorest families are getting their children educated at *for profit* schools amidst squalor and poverty."

No, what it shows is that SOME poor people are getting their children educated. SOME.

SOME can mean MANY; it can mean FEW. I bet in these cases it's FEW.

Of course, many of those private schools in places like Pakistan come in the form of madrassas. YAY!

nmg | October 13, 2005, 12:50pm | #

MP, in my experience, the opposition to vouchers is usually articulated as a fear of some kids getting religiously indoctrinated in cloistered religious schools away from the influence of the "mainstream".

I have heard those who voice concerns that vouchers will divert money from the system and make it harder to educate those left behind, but this is a specious objection considering what a failure the schools are now. Diverting resources can't make them worse since they are as bad as they can possibly be.

M1Ek is delusional. The schools in urban zones are absolutely atrocious. I'm personally dealing with it now myself regarding my own kids.

nmg

Phil | October 13, 2005, 12:53pm | #

True. Some small percentage of those whose parents can't afford it will get scholarships. This subset, when applied to the entire population, is likely to be negligible.

Again, I made no claim otherwise.

M1EK | October 13, 2005, 12:54pm | #

"M1Ek is delusional. The schools in urban zones are absolutely atrocious. I'm personally dealing with it now myself regarding my own kids."

I'd be more likely to believe you if I hadn't sat through a dinner with a couple who were homeschooling their daughter (middle school) and about to send her to a $25/k year high school because the schools in Round Rock were supposedly atrocious (i.e., the suburb everybody moves to because they say the schools in Austin are atrocious). They went on to claim that EVEN IN THE AP CLASSES, teachers went no further than teaching to the state BASIC PROFICIENCY TEST.

Every other person at the table (I knew everybody except this couple quite well) looked at each other and didn't know what to say. This was a group of 10 20-and-30 somethings, all of whom moved here to Austin with IBM (i.e., we're all high-tech) who went to school at all sorts of different places all around the country (urban, rural, suburban) - but one thing in common:

WE ALL WENT TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

Sorry, at that point, I finally got it. Some folks, including many here, will NEVER view public schools as acceptable. NEVER.

Rhywun | October 13, 2005, 12:57pm | #

I never fail to be amazed that every time this subject comes up around here, the majority of posters advocate throwing out the current system (which has troubles, but is far from "as bad as [it] can possibly be") and replacing it with one that is untested at the national level, merely on account of ideological purity. If you guys want to turn the US into a banana republic, go ahead. I want no part of it.

Smalls | October 13, 2005, 1:00pm | #

M1EK,
I am willing to admit that some public schools are acceptable. I recently bought a new home specifically so that my daughter could attend one that I feel is acceptable.
However, I can't think of any schools in poor neighborhoods that I would consider acceptable.

nmg | October 13, 2005, 1:06pm | #

M1Ek, Ap classes? I'm talking about elementary schools with security guards and that can't pass more than 20% of the students on the state exams, which are pathetically easy to begin with. Your out of touch suburbanite friends who are unhappy with the challenge level of the AP classes DO NOT prove that public schools are just fine.

Public schools in urban areas should be scrapped. Nothing could be worse than the system we have now.

nmg

Rhywun | October 13, 2005, 1:07pm | #

I can't think of any schools in poor neighborhoods that I would consider acceptable

Gee, my high school was in a poor neighborhood, yet it is consistently ranked among the top high schools in the country. Go figure.

josh | October 13, 2005, 1:07pm | #

"Kids who don't get educated because their parents don't want them to (or just don't care)are much more likely to end up supported by the state in one way or another"

This class currently make up what I would consider to be a good portion of public school students. I fail to see how their lot would be different if compulsory public schooling was abolished.

M1EK | October 13, 2005, 1:08pm | #

"However, I can't think of any schools in poor neighborhoods that I would consider acceptable."

And yet poor students get educated and many of them get into college.

And those students are getting an education, IF THEY WANT ONE, which would be the envy of the large subset of poor people in those other countries who can't pay the private school tuition and can't get somebody to take them in as a charity case.

Oh, except for the Saudis. They love paying for other peoples' educations. An excellent role model for libertopia, methinks.

MP | October 13, 2005, 1:09pm | #

Some folks, including many here, will NEVER view public schools as acceptable.

Maybe...but the biggest gripe I have against the public school system is that the mechanisms for correcting failures within the system suck. When a private school sucks, it goes out of business. When a public school sucks, it gets more money. This is not an indictment of public schools in general. It is an indictment of the mechanisms that correct failures within a public school.

A Friedman system of vouchers (which I strongly support) does not entail the closure of public schools, but simply introduces choice as a corrective mechanism for alleviating the failures that can occur within the public school system.

M1EK | October 13, 2005, 1:12pm | #

"This class currently make up what I would consider to be a good portion of public school students. I fail to see how their lot would be different if compulsory public schooling was abolished."

I don't care about those who don't want to be there. (Note: I don't think you can make this determination until high school, with a few outliers in middle school; I'm not advocating letting 6-year-olds decide to drop out here, and most would say our school 'problems' are concentrated in middle and high schools anyways).

I care about those who want to be there, but don't have the money to pay the tuition bills in Libertopia, and, personally, I would rather they not get their education at Wahabbi R Us.

Rhywun | October 13, 2005, 1:14pm | #

When a public school sucks, it gets more money. This is not an indictment of public schools in general.

Yet it is for most of the posters here. Apparently, if something doesn't work to 100% satisfaction, it should thrown out and reworked. A very American solution, that is.

M1EK | October 13, 2005, 1:15pm | #

nmg,

"M1Ek, Ap classes? I'm talking about elementary schools with security guards and that can't pass more than 20% of the students on the state exams, which are pathetically easy to begin with. Your out of touch suburbanite friends who are unhappy with the challenge level of the AP classes DO NOT prove that public schools are just fine."

I use them as an example of how many people will NEVER view public schools as acceptable. You, for instance, are focusing on a tiny number of schools and damning the whole system - yet EVEN AT THOSE SCHOOLS, a good chunk of students are getting educated who would not have in libertopia.

And those who say that private schools that suck get closed - true. They 'suck' because people don't want to pay the bills. This does not mean the education was any good. The madrassas in Pakistan aren't going to close, because the Saudis are very happy with the 'education' they're funding. How charitable of them.

nmg | October 13, 2005, 1:16pm | #

"I would rather they not get their education at Wahabbi R Us."

As I said before, this always comes up. The concern over which flavor of indoctrination the kids are getting rather than the quality of the education.

nmg

nmg | October 13, 2005, 1:21pm | #

"yet EVEN AT THOSE SCHOOLS, a good chunk of students are getting educated who would not have in libertopia."

You don't know this. That 20% of kids who pass the minimum standards (which are laughably low by the way) may very well have been educated in "libertopia", and it's likely in fact, considering the drive and determination it takes to succeed in the environment they are currently *coerced* into.

The answer to make everyone happy is public funding without public schooling. Give everyone the opportunity to get educated but don't coerce them with a monopoly on public education like we do now.

It's funny how the leftwingers all love to rail against big business monopolies, and rightly so, for when they take advantage of consumers and abuse them, but they never question the ill effects of enforcing a state-run monopoloy on something like education. No accountability and no competition leads to nothing but terrible service and lousy product. And that's what we have now.

The answer is vouchers.

nmg

Herrick | October 13, 2005, 1:25pm | #

In Oak Park, Illinois where I be mad near, the village council rejected a proposal for a for-profit college to move into the top floor of a building on Lake Street (main downtown street) that had gone unoccupied for years because the way it was set up made it impractical for offices or retail. I think the vote was 3-3 and the ones who voted against it said it was not the kind of business that Oak Park should have. Being born in this town, you wonder why Hemmingway didn't shoot himself earlier in his life.

alkurta | October 13, 2005, 1:39pm | #

I agree nmg, vouchers are the answer. Let the parents decide what school will be best for their children.

Public schools that are doing a good job will continue to receive support (for instance, I live near Naperville Illinois, which has fantastic public schools). The poor performers will be forced to improve or wither on the vine. Children currently trapped in poor performers will be given a choice (something they currently lack) to go elsewhere.

How are using vouchers to send your kid to the school of your choice (which presumably would still have to meet state and federal guidelines as to subjects taught) equivalent to sending your kid to a madrassas?

Finally, let me relate this Public School horror story. My sister-in-law student taught in the Boston Public schools. She taught 5 freshman algebra classes. She found out that none of the kids could compute a 10% tip (i.e. decimal multiplication). She tried to provide remidial education to these kids but was overruled by her supervisor. She was told to "work around their limitations" because the remidial education would take up too much time and throw off the schedule.

Yeah, I'm sure the Boston Public schools can be improved if we only taxed the rich more.

MP | October 13, 2005, 1:47pm | #

which presumably would still have to meet state and federal guidelines as to subjects taught

Well, there is the rub of vouchers. When does state "standards" become state control? I have no pat answer to that question. But the Federal government should have no say in setting standards. Ever.

abdul | October 13, 2005, 1:48pm | #

M1ke wrote- "I don't care about those who don't want to be there. (Note: I don't think you can make this determination until high school, with a few outliers in middle school; ...I care about those who want to be there, but don't have the money to pay the tuition bills in Libertopia..."

If you don't care about the students who don't want to be in public school, why permit public schools force them to be there? If you do care about the kids who want an education, why force them to sit in class with people who don't want to be there and will sabotage the education?

If people who are actively or passively resisting public education are kicked out the classroom, or just allowed to walk out, the classroom would improve.

kevin | October 13, 2005, 1:48pm | #

Our public schools doing an adequate job educating our children, In some cases yes in some cases no and in some cases maybe. But since the news stories all seem to be that kids can't pass comprehensive exams in English and Math that are written at an absurdly low level, I think evidence will suggest that schools are not doing all they can and we as tax payers are not getting or moneys worth. Since it seems impossible to even shame politcians into action to make changes at a local level, to ensure that kids can read and write, we should be exploring ways to shake up the system. By and large the best schools are the schools that have the greatest PARENTAL involvement. Now since things I actively pay for (say like school which for my 4 kids is costing me 6500 over my taxes because my public schools are not so good), I tend to pay attention. For most people this is the case. Maybe a voucher system where you recieved a set amt per kid to apply for your education would work because it may force more parents to take an active role in thier childs education, it will force schools to compete (oh that nasty word again) for students. Some parents will obviously not care and they will be in the same state as now, receiving a substandard education. But some parents will care and their kids will receive a better education. Which is an improvement no?

Eric the .5b | October 13, 2005, 1:50pm | #

In libertopia, there would be no public schools, as I often hear. So, when comparing libertopia to statisttopia, it becomes relevant to wonder what percentage of the population would actually get education in libertopia....Even the schools in the poorest parts of my district provide a basic education to those who are willing to be educated....Note the distinction between "educate those who are willing to be educated" and "educate those whose parents can afford to pay for them to be educated" or "educate those whose parents are willing to send them to school". In libertopia, of course, only the middle group gets educted. (Even some of those who could afford it would keep their kids home to work the family farm, for instance).

Damn, you managed an argument. I feel vaguely obligated to answer.

It'd be nice to know what you meant by statistopia in comparing it to your take on libertopia. If in statistopia the only issue is whether the students want to be educated, that would suggest that they don't have to worry about the "educate those whose parents are willing to send them to school" issue. Does that mean all students must go to government schools and private education is banned? If not, how does private education fit in?

Of course, you could say that the public schools are soooo wonderful in statistopia that no one would ever want to bother with private school. On the other hand, I could say that in libertopia, charitable groups are happy to throw enough money at secular private schools that everyone who wants an education can get one, even if they can't afford it. But then, that's what happens when you compare utopias - you get nowhere.

JD | October 13, 2005, 1:55pm | #

Rhywun - You said "the majority of posters advocate throwing out the current system and replacing it with one that is untested at the national level" and I'm honestly not sure what you mean. "Untested at the national level"? Schooling doesn't take place at the national level; it's not like national defense, a good which you can't provide to some and deny to others (sorry, I forget the technical term for that). And while we've had public/state education for a long time, we've also had plenty of experience with leaving other "critical" services to the free market, and we've had, generally speaking, far fewer problems there.

I think welfare is an interesting counter-example. As many problems as the US has had with poverty - even with people who supposedly can't afford enough to eat on their own - the response of government, at any level, has never been to open huge state-run cafeterias where anyone and everyone can eat for free. We have food stamps, but that resembles vouchers for education more than it does public schools...actually, the more I think about the two cases, the more interesting I think the comparison is.

mediageek | October 13, 2005, 1:55pm | #

And yet, you attempted the Limbaugh route. Friends with Eric the .5b, are you?

M1EK PWNAGE in 5...4...3...

Galius | October 13, 2005, 2:05pm | #

Here in Carpentersville, IL, we spend over $9000 per student in K-6. Assuming 25 pupils per classroom, that's $225,000 per classroom for 8 months of instruction.

If somebody in favor of public schools could post a hypothetical breakdown of where that money goes that does not involve huge waste and fraud, I'd like to see it.

Beyond that, how come a workable public school system cannot permit any competition or accountability?

Stevo Darkly | October 13, 2005, 2:16pm | #

When I read Jesse's post, my first thought was, "Well, thank God that in developed countries like the USA, the children of the poor are 'protected' from receiving an education from these unaccredited street teachers." I don't think M1EK has much to worry about.

I would like to mention a couple other things, though.

Here's my anecdote about homeschooling. The first (and as far a I know, the only) home-schooler I ever met was in the early 1990s. She was not a religious person concerned about her kids learning sekular hoomanism or "evilution" -- she was a teacher at a public school in Lodi, California, and she was appalled by the system. The racism (no white kids allowed in the special celebration for Martin Luther King day, with two kids as self-appointed but implicitly condoned enforcers stationed at the entrance to the auditorium to check the skin color of the students as they entered -- they wouldn't let a mixed-race kid in). No way to reward the good teachers, no way to get rid of the incompetent teachers (of which there was an abundance). She decided her two kids couldn't get a decent education in the local system, so she decided to teach them herself.

(I also remember reading an interesting statistic somewhere, about the high percentage of public school teachers who choose to send their kids to private schools. Rather indicative. If I have time, I'll try to look it up.)

Finally, on the assumption that only a minority of kids would get an education in "Libertopia," I am reminded of a REASON interview with Dave Barry, who summed it up nicely. He referred to it as "the sex with dogs" argument: This is the assumption that if you give people the freedom to act responsibly or not, of course most of them will simply abandon their responsibilities and use that freedom to act as outrageously as possible.
---------------

Barry: [Libertarianism is] ... a more complex political discussion than most people are used to, to explain why you think the way you do about public education or drug laws, and why it's not as simple as being for or against something.

Reason: Did you get any mail about being a libertarian after that article?

Barry: I got a few letters, mostly pretty nice. One or two letters saying, "Here's why it wouldn't work to be a libertarian, because people will have sex with dogs." Arguments like, "Nobody would educate the kids." People say, "Of course you have to have public education because otherwise nobody would send their kids to school." And you'd have to say, "Would you not send your kids to school? Would you not educate them?" "Well, no. I would. But all those other people would be having sex with dogs."

Source: http://reason.com/barry.shtml

not sold on vouchers | October 13, 2005, 2:17pm | #

I have no problem with public schools in general. I want to like the idea of vouchers, but I have many questions to which I have never received satisfactory answers.

Since a large segment of public school funding comes from property taxes and sales taxes, which the school inheriting the voucher holding student will not be receiving from this student's family, it would take a rediculously large voucher to even attend a school of dubious caliber without posing a drain on the new institution.

How is the new school supposed to sustain this influx without the incoming student being given an incredibly large voucher?

(one of the poorest performing districts in my area posted a total expenditure/pupil amount of $11,014)

Dan | October 13, 2005, 2:17pm | #

So it appears that Reason’s devotion to libertarian dogma has finally caused it to jump the shark.

We are now being told that the United States, whose public school system has helped create the richest society in world history, should dump its very successful model in order to emulate what’s going on in the slums of third-world counties.

It’s too much, folks. Really, does anybody here stop and think about this?

Cedarburg | October 13, 2005, 2:21pm | #

Man, M1EK is a hoot in these school threads. Dollars to donuts some frosty private school girl/guy turned M1EK down for a date years ago because M1EK was "too common."

:)

JD | October 13, 2005, 2:21pm | #

One other comment - I'm glad to see this topic approached from the perspective of "third world" countries. Too often political arguments, at least in this country, take the tacit assumption that the government is at least minimally democratic, responsive, honest, and competent, which it usually is in the US. But in much if not most of the world, government isn't all those things, and it often isn't any of them. Given that, isn't it criminally cruel to demand that the education of children be handed over to it?

People who argue for the primacy of state-run education often seem to make the tacit assumption that it just will be good, or that forcing everyone into state schools will somehow make them good. (This is the 'Ted Rall' argument: If we make government the only provider of good or service X, then it will have to be good, right?) Wanting good government is great, but it shouldn't be confused with handing stuff over to the government prior to it being good.

Stretch | October 13, 2005, 2:25pm | #

I think what the article proves is that low-cost, effective private schooling is possible in even the poorest areas as long as the government doesn't stop it from happening (even if only because the government is totally inept). We don't have to abolish public schools, and I'm not convinced that we should. We have to reduce the barriers of entry for private schools, so that ultimately the parents and children decide what the best option is for themselves.

Vouchers are one attempt to do that, but it takes place at the wrong, ie consumer, level. Honestly, the shit you have to go through to open up any business can be retarded, but to open a school is about 1000x worse. As far as I'm concerned, the government can mandate education all it wants, but it needs to get out of the way of those who would open a low-cost, private school. Private schools don't have to be as expensive as they are to open and maintain. The reason they cost so much for the families is largely a function of government overregulation and not inherent to a private school system.

Maybe that turns into "libertopia" or maybe public schools will always be necessary at some level, but at least it's a choice for parents and children.

Smalls | October 13, 2005, 2:33pm | #

Ummmmm......what he (Stretch) said.

Smalls | October 13, 2005, 2:35pm | #

Sorry if that wasn't clear. What I was trying to say is that what Stretch said seems to succinctly cover the issue.

M1EK | October 13, 2005, 2:35pm | #

"Man, M1EK is a hoot in these school threads. Dollars to donuts some frosty private school girl/guy turned M1EK down for a date years ago because M1EK was "too common.""

Oddly enough, I can't remember ever meeting anybody who went to private school. Seriously. (Other than the girl with the parents I mentioned earlier in the thread, of course).

The fact that everybody I've met in high tech went to public school is in and of itself a fairly strong (anectodal) piece of evidence that they can't be as bad as some people claim. Or, alternatively, private schools don't seem to be producing people who know how to do math and science. You pick.

Smalls | October 13, 2005, 2:40pm | #

Eric,
Don't use the S word around M1EK, it makes him angry.

M1EK | October 13, 2005, 2:43pm | #

"Here in Carpentersville, IL, we spend over $9000 per student in K-6. Assuming 25 pupils per classroom, that's $225,000 per classroom for 8 months of instruction.

If somebody in favor of public schools could post a hypothetical breakdown of where that money goes that does not involve huge waste and fraud, I'd like to see it."

1. Special ed students cost vs. regular student cost.

2. Teacher salary + benefits

3. Other subject teacher salary + benefits (music teacher? art teacher?)

4. Building capital costs (library, computers, even if others covered by bonds)

5. Building operating costs (electricity? water? janitors? heat? security?)

6. Overhead employees (administration).

I have no problem positing little waste given your numbers and the above.

"Beyond that, how come a workable public school system cannot permit any competition or accountability?""

How come a workable police force cannot permit any competition or accountability?

How come a workable water utility cannot permit any competition or accountability?

Eric the .5b | October 13, 2005, 2:44pm | #

The fact that everybody I've met in high tech went to public school is in and of itself a fairly strong (anectodal) piece of evidence that they can't be as bad as some people claim.

Depends on how you weight "everyone M1EK worked with in his industry went to public schools and did alright" versus "everyone in the United States who finds his/her local public school inadequate".

Stevo Darkly | October 13, 2005, 2:46pm | #

As a public service, I have placed the dubious assertions in the following post in bold:

So it appears that Reason?s devotion to libertarian dogma has finally caused it to jump the shark.

We are now being told that the United States, whose public school system has helped create the richest society in world history, should dump its very successful model in order to emulate what's going on in the slums of third-world counties.

It?s too much, folks. Really, does anybody here stop and think about this?

Also, as an exercise if you're left of center, you can also replace "public school system" with "tradition of widespread gun ownership," and replace "the slums of third-world count[r]ies" with "historically dictator-plagued Europe" to see if it makes it easier for you to spot the logical fallacy therein.

natebrau | October 13, 2005, 2:47pm | #

"We are now being told that the United States, whose public school system has helped create the richest society in world history, should dump its very successful model in order to emulate what’s going on in the slums of third-world counties."

This, of course is incomplete. The U.S. has generated its wealth in spite of a poor primary and secondary educational system.

The U.S. has generated its wealth in part because of a fantastic post-secondary educational system, as well as the usual suspects (rule of law, respect for individual rights, culture of entrepreneurship, risk-taking, etc)

The differences between strictly state-run (U.S. context- local school district) local primary and secondary schools and mixed private-and-publicly run Colleges and Universities are astounding. If the definition of educational success is the generation of wealth, then the meritocracy, desire, and frank elitism of Universities who can pick-and-choose students is clearly the winner over the egalitarian and coddling local school.

-Natebrau

JMoore | October 13, 2005, 2:48pm | #

M1EK

Who's the chairman of IBM again?

M1EK | October 13, 2005, 2:48pm | #

"How are using vouchers to send your kid to the school of your choice (which presumably would still have to meet state and federal guidelines as to subjects taught) equivalent to sending your kid to a madrassas?"

If you can come up with a voucher system where you can guarantee that each and every student's voucher will be enough $$$ to get them into a secular private school, I'll gladly support it.

Otherwise, you're relying on some amount of 'charity', usually from religious groups. Hence, the madrassas.

Stretch | October 13, 2005, 2:48pm | #

AND those whose parents COULDN'T AFFORD to PAY to send them to school.

I think there's more of the latter than the former by a long shot.

I don't disagree. However, as stated above I believe the cost of private school is greatly inflated due to government regulation, and the vast majority of that regulation has zero to do with educational standards.

JDM | October 13, 2005, 2:53pm | #

I think you have to separate the effects of immediately cancelling public school for everyone, from the argument about whether or not private schools would work better. There are more people who would support a libertarian position of moving away from public schools, and support doing it gradually through vouchers, etc. than there are libertarians.

In order that I may understand any responses to my posts, I humbly asks that anyone responding angrily type PARTS of their POSTS in CAPS.

Les | October 13, 2005, 2:53pm | #

That said, how are the private schools mentioned in the article keeping poorer students from their public education?

M1EK | October 13, 2005, 2:57pm | #

"This, of course is incomplete. The U.S. has generated its wealth in spite of a poor primary and secondary educational system."

The theory that the US has a 'poor' primary and secondary educational system is relatively new. Until a few decades ago, most of the rest of the world used us as their example to which to aspire. Since then some have surpassed us, but that's not due to the model being faulty, since none of those countries have gone to a private libertopian model either.

Eric the .5b | October 13, 2005, 2:59pm | #

"Beyond that, how come a workable public school system cannot permit any competition or accountability?""

How come a workable police force cannot permit any competition or accountability?

How come a workable water utility cannot permit any competition or accountability?

Just checking...We know that's not anything like an answer - you do to, right? Or are you suggesting the banning of bottled water and private well-digging services?

M1EK | October 13, 2005, 3:00pm | #

"That said, how are the private schools mentioned in the article keeping poorer students from their public education?"

They aren't - their success in educating some small percentage of 'the poor' is being used as a club by which to beat people over the head with the claim that public schooling isn't necessary.

That reasoning is faulty enough to drive a big statist truck through, but of course, nobody in libertopia cares if poor folks don't get educated. They should have chose them some better parents.

Larry A | October 13, 2005, 3:03pm | #

<rant>

I live in a rural Texas small town with a highly-rated school system. Everything works great, as long as the student fits the mold.

My first daughter sailed through the AP classes with a 4.0, because when you present a subject to her by:Giving her a textbook that covers the general principles.Reinforce that with general illustrations.Establish specific theories.Illustrate them with specific examples.Evaluate frequently with true/false multiple choice tests.Review the material presented in a chronological manner.Administer a final comprehensive examination.She gets it.

Number two daughter simply did not learn that way. She learned by getting her hands dirty and proceeding from specific examples to general knowledge. She needs to climb a tree to understand a forest.

When she started getting in trouble grade and attendance-wise we tried to get more involved. The school administration's attitude was, "Your daughter's education is our job. F off."

Eventually, without our input, they diverted her into an unsupervised "self-study" program, the exact opposite of what she needed.

She finally figured that out, and tried to get back in mainstream. She offered to make up all the classes she had completed at the "alternative." The answer was, "No. It's one way. Attend one alternative class and you can never graduate with the regular students."

If they did it that way, you see, she didn't count on their statistics as a dropout.

She finally got her GED, passing it handily. But I doubt she will ever be able to succeed in a classroom again.

Back awhile when I needed work I substitute taught. I still remember that you can walk down the English or science or math hall, and every class will be studying the same subject out of the same book in the same manner, and usually almost on the same page.

</rant>

M1EK: As for the US supposedly not educating a large chunk of public school grads, I haven't seen it.

Have you been on the Internet lately? Shoot, this blog is one of the more literate and there's plenty of blue-pencil work in any thread. And we'd probably agree that a couple of the posters here qualify as uneducated. Although we might not be thinking of the same ones. ;-)

Jason Ligon | October 13, 2005, 3:03pm | #

"If you can come up with a voucher system where you can guarantee that each and every student's voucher will be enough $$$ to get them into a secular private school, I'll gladly support it."

Bah, the guarantee canard. The important question is whether more people will have more opportunity. The guarantee offered by the current public school system is the guarantee of a bandaid on the pretense that it is brain surgery.

JDM | October 13, 2005, 3:03pm | #

"So what's the reason for public schools as the preferred venue for education? Is it just inertia?"

You already pay for them, so you might as well use them.

dhex | October 13, 2005, 3:13pm | #

"The fact that everybody I've met in high tech went to public school is in and of itself a fairly strong (anectodal) piece of evidence that they can't be as bad as some people claim."

you seriously can't be claiming that this is some sort of test for anything other than the people you know?

i went to a public school. it wasn't horrible, school-wise (it was a waste of time like all high schools, but that's more of a human socialization thing than anything else). but mine mostly turned out fuckwits, teenage parents, etc.

which means public schools are neither good nor bad because we have two bodies of anecdotal evidence completely at odds with one another.

Les | October 13, 2005, 3:13pm | #

They aren't - their success in educating some small percentage of 'the poor' is being used as a club by which to beat people over the head with the claim that public schooling isn't necessary.

Does it say that in the article? I must have missed it. Could you copy and paste that part?

To me it seemed to say that private schools are almost always superior to public ones and that parents deserve more choice for their tax dollars. That doesn't mean that public schools shouldn't exist, but rather that they should learn how to teach better and waste less money.

It's funny how some folks react to criticism of public schools the way other folks react to criticism of the military. The military is, in my opinion, also corrupt and inept, but that doesn't mean I want to get rid of it.

shecky | October 13, 2005, 3:16pm | #

Having had a completely private (Catholic) education from beginning to end, I can say that the quality is a mixed bag.

My local school district puts out a mix of worker bees, dropouts and university-bound folks. Go figure. In the US, a good education is there for the taking. The student just has to be motivated to take it.

The problem of poor performing schools isn't necessarily one that can be fixed by adding money. I tend to think it's a problem of leading a horse to water, but being unable to make him drink. Isn't this really a problem of chronic poor/underachievers who won't perform for whatever reason, despair, stupidity, anger, mistrust, etc?

In the end, despite all the hand wringing, I wonder if the "problem" of public education is a real problam at all. As pointed out, the US is a tremedously successful economy overall. And some of the smartest folks around endorse the worst public decisionmakers of all.

natebrau | October 13, 2005, 3:18pm | #

"The theory that the US has a 'poor' primary and secondary educational system is relatively new. "

This isn't strictly true. My great-aunt wrote what used to be the standard high school Spanish textbook used in California. Of course, she also taught. And 100 years ago, the definition of what primary and secondary school education was was inordinately different from what it is today. Meaning, the "three R's" were what you learned 100 years ago, while today you're expected to be taught math through calculus, a foreign language, advanced literature, etc. if you're on the "college track" at a public high school.

A good qestion is, are the "three R's" well taught today, and is this sufficient goal for U.S. primary and secondary schools to aspire to?

Because if so, then making public schools better is a needless diversion and waste of time.

Personally, I think that standards and expectations for schools in general have increased consistently with the Flynn effect, and the major reason for disappointment with public schools in particular is how slowly they adapt and change- by today's standards they're bad, while by yesterday's standards they were fine. It's very instructive to compare this with private schools, which have changed and adapted substantially quicker.

shecky | October 13, 2005, 3:24pm | #

I live in a rural Texas small town with a highly-rated school system. Everything works great, as long as the student fits the mold.

Welcome to the world. As long as he fits the mold, a complete moron can go on to be president.

Those who can't, or won't, fit the mold in life will have to make due anyway.

Cedarburg | October 13, 2005, 3:26pm | #

Oddly enough, I can't remember ever meeting anybody who went to private school. Seriously. (Other than the girl with the parents I mentioned earlier in the thread, of course).

You're constantly saying the products of public schools are just fine, with admittedly no private school folks in your sphere for comparison.

Phil | October 13, 2005, 3:28pm | #

. . . but of course, nobody in libertopia cares if poor folks don't get educated.

Wow, you went from getting disabused of that "of course" bullshit to falling right back on it as a legitimate argument pretty fast. Want to try again?

Jeff P. | October 13, 2005, 3:42pm | #

What the hell's an "autorickshaw?"

Jason Ligon | October 13, 2005, 3:44pm | #

JeffP:

It is a 3 wheeled golf cart thingie with a lawnmower engine. In Bangkok, they call them "Duk Duks" because that is what they sound like.

Captain Awesome | October 13, 2005, 3:49pm | #

Whereas what I took from the article was, when the government doesn't provide/interfere the market will drive prices down of pivate schooling to the point that poor individuals desiring the service will be able to afford it. I find that to be one of the problems with the current system, theres absolutely no incentive for schools to develope more cost effective procedures for education. Of course, a little friendly competition could do wonders. Unfortunately people are terribly affraid to allow their schools to be tested in that arena. Maybe their afraid the market will tell them how much their education is actually worth.

Captain Awesome | October 13, 2005, 3:50pm | #

Speaking of not learning the 3 R's. Check out my sweet post above.

Jeff P. | October 13, 2005, 3:51pm | #

Jason: Got it. Thanks. From the name a pictured some weird vehicle that involved you somehow pulling yourself.

joe | October 13, 2005, 4:03pm | #

"Or are you suggesting the banning of bottled water and private well-digging services?"

Where do I pick up my voucher for bottled water? And when the vendor cashes it in, does he get paid out of the fund set up to operate and maintain the public water system?

jf | October 13, 2005, 4:06pm | #

Where do I pick up my voucher for bottled water? And when the vendor cashes it in, does he get paid out of the fund set up to operate and maintain the public water system?

Nice misdirection.

Captain Awesome | October 13, 2005, 4:10pm | #

Where do I pick up my voucher for bottled water? And when the vendor cashes it in, does he get paid out of the fund set up to operate and maintain the public water system?

Well, said. But, I pay a water bill, and if I were to bathe in Avian (who know's why) I wouldn't be paying the utility for that shower, would I? Like a voucher, my kid isn't using that school, therefore I don't pay for that use.

Number 6 | October 13, 2005, 4:12pm | #

Perhaps we can agree that general statements about public schools (or private), even if accurate, will not apply in every particular. Thus:
Schools in poor, urban areas tend to not be as good as those in rich areas.
However,
There are some very good schools in poor areas.
And vice-versa.

M1EK | October 13, 2005, 4:12pm | #

Or an easier example:

When I go to the bookstore and buy a bunch of books for my private library, do I get a refund for the taxes I paid to support the public library?

And one that the halfwit chose to ignore:

If I hire a bodyguard, do I get a refund on my taxes paid to support the public police or the public military?

jf | October 13, 2005, 4:13pm | #

Like a voucher, my kid isn't using that school, therefore I don't pay for that use.

I think that needs restated, otherwise anyone without a child in public school should get a credit on their taxes, and then you collapse the public school system.

And I'm sure none of us want that.

M1EK | October 13, 2005, 4:15pm | #

"Whereas what I took from the article was, when the government doesn't provide/interfere the market will drive prices down of pivate schooling to the point that poor individuals desiring the service will be able to afford it."

The article didn't say that at all. It didn't say that even MOST poor people were able to afford these private schools; it went at it from the other angle and said "these private schools are able to make money from educating some poor people".

M1EK | October 13, 2005, 4:19pm | #

"Oddly enough, I can't remember ever meeting anybody who went to private school. Seriously. (Other than the girl with the parents I mentioned earlier in the thread, of course).

You're constantly saying the products of public schools are just fine, with admittedly no private school folks in your sphere for comparison."

A. No private school representation (that I know of, so far) among the large circle of high-tech folks I know.

B. Public school representation from all over the damn country, all over the socioeconomic scale.

leads me to this anectdote:

Public school is unlikely to be as bad as you reactionaries claim it is.

joe | October 13, 2005, 4:19pm | #

Captain Awesome,

Both a water system and a school system have a high level of set costs, before a particular "user" comes into play.

You take 10% of the kids out of a school, it doesn't cost 10% less to heat. If you've got 3 biology teachers with 20 kids per class, reducing those classes to 18 each doesn't reduce their salaries by 10%.

With water systems, it's even more pronounced, since almost all the costs are set costs.

M1EK | October 13, 2005, 4:20pm | #

"Oddly enough, I can't remember ever meeting anybody who went to private school. Seriously. (Other than the girl with the parents I mentioned earlier in the thread, of course).

You're constantly saying the products of public schools are just fine, with admittedly no private school folks in your sphere for comparison."

A. No private school representation (that I know of, so far) among the large circle of high-tech folks I know.

B. Public school representation from all over the damn country, all over the socioeconomic scale.

leads me to this conclusion:

Public school is unlikely to be as bad as you reactionaries claim it is.

Kent | October 13, 2005, 4:23pm | #

"The theory that the US has a 'poor' primary and secondary educational system is relatively new. Until a few decades ago, most of the rest of the world used us as their example to which to aspire. Since then some have surpassed us, but that's not due to the model being faulty, since none of those countries have gone to a private libertopian model either."

Really? Dutch kids have been going overwhelmingly (I think the current fraction is around 2/3 to 3/4.) to private schools since the early part of the last century and seem to be doing pretty well. They use some sort of voucher system. I don't advocate vouchers for the sole reason that in this country the state would end up running ALL schools that accepted vouchers. From my experience, though, the Dutch are a lot more willing to accept the personal choices of their neighbors and are less interested in the conformity that is a goal and by-product of public schooling.

Jesse Walker | October 13, 2005, 4:30pm | #

leads me to this conclusion: Public school is unlikely to be as bad as you reactionaries claim it is.

Or maybe it just isn't all that important. A terrible school, public or private, can really damage a kid, but a merely mediocre one can be survived.

MP | October 13, 2005, 4:31pm | #

nsov,

How is the new school supposed to sustain this influx without the incoming student being given an incredibly large voucher?

An optimal voucher program is one which completely replaces the currently top-down funding arrangement. There would be no per-pupil funding shortage.

jf | October 13, 2005, 4:33pm | #

In addition to your excellent point, Jesse, I would add that the quest to somehow make stupid kids smart is doomed to fail no matter the quality of the school they attend. I'm sure at least a few people here would agree that President Bush makes a fine example.

joe | October 13, 2005, 4:36pm | #

Kent's point about the Dutch schools gets at one of the purposes of a public school system - to promote cultural cohesion and discourage the formation of mutually-hostile subcultures. The forging of a common identity.

In short, why does Kent hate Theo Van Gogh? (I know, terribly unfair, but there's a point in here somewhere.)

Stretch | October 13, 2005, 4:37pm | #

It didn't say that even MOST poor people were able to afford these private schools; it went at it from the other angle and said "these private schools are able to make money from educating some poor people".

"In each of the poor areas studied in detail, we’ve found that a large majority of the schools serving the poor are private, with either a large majority or a substantial minority of poor parents taking the private option."

and

"Second, and perhaps most important, a lesson we can learn from the poor in Asia and Africa is that not only can a majority of the poor that we’ve researched afford private education themselves, without state intervention, but it is precisely their payment of fees that appears to keep the schools accountable to them."

It certainly seems that even if MOST poor people are not able to afford these schools, that a substantial portion of them can. The main thrust of the article is not simply that people are making money. That is only relevent to show that charity is not a necessary condition to provide private education to poor people as well as to drive the point home that private schools are more accountable that non-profit schools, a chief reason for their success. Again, even if only 25% of the poor can afford the low-cost private schools (which according to the article is not true), why should that rule them out as a piece of the solution?

fyodor | October 13, 2005, 4:38pm | #

Both a water system and a school system have a high level of set costs, before a particular "user" comes into play.

Economists call them "fixed" costs. I think "sunken" costs is sometimes used.

Your example of building maintenance is a good one. There would have to be a signficant decrease in attendance before a school could move into a smaller building, and perhaps they could not get full value for their original building as it was built for their own purpose. But the teacher salary isn't so good, unless there's really only 18 students in that grade in the entire system. But multiply 18 by a mere 10 and you get 20 less then 20 by 10, ergo, there's a need for one less teacher.

joe | October 13, 2005, 4:39pm | #

No one wants to ban private schools, Stretch.

JDM | October 13, 2005, 4:40pm | #

"You take 10% of the kids out of a school, it doesn't cost 10% less to heat. If you've got 3 biology teachers with 20 kids per class, reducing those classes to 18 each doesn't reduce their salaries by 10%."

Come on now, that's just silly. A public school system with 10,000 students costs twice as much to heat as one with 5,000. Also 100 biology classes require fewer teachers than 120. We can never divert funds from the public school system because it's already been built? I guess that settles it.

joe | October 13, 2005, 4:41pm | #

fyodor,

FIXED costs! Thank you.

The algebra you mention would work if all of the teachers were all day/all subject teachers. But they're not. If you have 10% fewer students, firing one of your 3 bio teachers leaves you with 33% fewer biology teachers.

M1EK | October 13, 2005, 4:41pm | #

"Again, even if only 25% of the poor can afford the low-cost private schools (which according to the article is not true), why should that rule them out as a piece of the solution?"

Because the #1 solution pushed by the people here who breathlessly admire this article will involve eliminating public schools, which means the other 75% of the poor are SOL.

The #2 solution pushed by those people is vouchers, which will destroy public education for the remaining M% as well, since the top N% are also the cheapest/easiest to educate.

Neither solution proposes ANYTHING to handle the primary goal of public education - to attempt to educate ALL children, not just the ones who chose the right parents.

Captain Awesome | October 13, 2005, 4:42pm | #

You take 10% of the kids out of a school, it doesn't cost 10% less to heat. If you've got 3 biology teachers with 20 kids per class, reducing those classes to 18 each doesn't reduce their salaries by 10%.

So the public school argument is now that public schools don't have a mechanism for cost effectively dealing with a decrease in customers? I guess that would make sense, considering that ways of dealing with it in the past have mostly included mandating smaller class sizes.

M1EK | October 13, 2005, 4:43pm | #

"Or maybe it just isn't all that important. A terrible school, public or private, can really damage a kid, but a merely mediocre one can be survived."

That doesn't begin to explain the complete lack of private school grads in the hundreds of high-tech workers I know.

Occam's Razor.

MP | October 13, 2005, 4:44pm | #

one of the purposes of a public school system - to promote cultural cohesion and discourage the formation of mutually-hostile subcultures.

Do you really believe that is a legitimate goal? If so, you just validated nmg's point.

MP | October 13, 2005, 4:45pm | #

Economists call them "fixed" costs. I think "sunken" costs is sometimes used.

Actually, it is simply "sunk".

M1EK | October 13, 2005, 4:46pm | #

"Come on now, that's just silly. A public school system with 10,000 students costs twice as much to heat as one with 5,000."

Dude. Seriously. Think before you post.

A 10,000 student school is likely to have much less than twice as much space to heat as a 5,000 student school. Common areas don't scale up linearly.

fyodor | October 13, 2005, 4:47pm | #

If you have 10% fewer students, firing one of your 3 bio teachers leaves you with 33% fewer biology teachers.

Well first, that only applies to junior high and high school. Unless things have changed in the hundred or years since I attended, primary school teachers are all-subject teachers.

Next, I think that would still have to be a pretty small school district to only have three biology teachers. Plus, I seem to recall teachers occasionally moving from one area to another. They're not college professors, y'know.

JDM | October 13, 2005, 4:49pm | #

"Or maybe it just isn't all that important. A terrible school, public or private, can really damage a kid, but a merely mediocre one can be survived."

We are saved thankfully, by a university system which is the best in the world. I'll point out, that it is a far more competitive market than the public school system.

fyodor | October 13, 2005, 4:51pm | #

Good point MP. Plus I think joe's implied point that Islamist extremism in the Netherlands can be blamed on the cited preponderance of private education is rather a stretch.

JDM | October 13, 2005, 4:52pm | #

"Dude. Seriously. Think before you post."

Dude, seriously, read before you try to get wise with me. Note the word "system."

I will say that I went to a public school, and had a 12th grade reading level in the 4th grade. Of course, my brother taught me to read before I ever went to one...

dhex | October 13, 2005, 4:52pm | #

"That doesn't begin to explain the complete lack of private school grads in the hundreds of high-tech workers I know."

maybe you need to get out more?

now, i know a ridiculous amount of foreign tech workers, mostly from eastern europe. almost all of them went to private schools.

that and two dollars will get me a ride on the subway.

an interesting addition to your data set would be to find out how many of them went to private colleges.

joe | October 13, 2005, 4:53pm | #

"A public school system with 10,000 students costs twice as much to heat as one with 5,000."

Let's test this.

High school enrollment: 3000 in one school

Middle school enrollment: 3000 in three schools

Elementary school enrollment: 4000 in ten schools

Let's further stipulate that each school is full at this level, and that each 100 kids costs the same to heat.

Cost of heating the High School - 30X

Cost of heating each Middle School - 10X

Cost of heating each Elemetary School - 4X

Total: 30X + 30X + 40X = 100X

Now, we take 10% of each grade's population out of the system.

The High School has 2700 students, but it's still the same building. 30X

We close one elementary school. 36X

All three middle schools remain open. 30X

30X + 36X + 30X = 96X

A 10% reduction in population gives us an 4% reduction in heating costs, and that generously assumes that such a reducation will result in a very efficient relocation.

And yes, operating a school at 90% occupancy is very common.

M1EK | October 13, 2005, 4:55pm | #

"Dude, seriously, read before you try to get wise with me. Note the word "system.""

Point stands either way. A 5,000 student system is likely to have a fair deal more than 1/2 as much space to heat as a 10,000 student system due to economies of scale.

M1EK | October 13, 2005, 4:55pm | #

"now, i know a ridiculous amount of foreign tech workers, mostly from eastern europe. almost all of them went to private schools."

Since I was talking about American tech workers, I don't give a crap.

joe | October 13, 2005, 4:57pm | #

"Do you really believe that is a legitimate goal? If so, you just validated nmg's point."

Despite his hysterical phrasing, yes, nmg points to a legitimate goal. Think of the kids in New York's PS system in the 1890s-1930s.

dhex | October 13, 2005, 4:59pm | #

your experiences and your anecdotes will also get your a ride on the bus, so long as you bring those vaunted two dollars.

Captain Awesome | October 13, 2005, 5:03pm | #

This seems alot like a point I think Jennifer was making the other day. Something like, we actively choose not to take the long term improvement, in order to avoid dealing with the short term shock.

Kent | October 13, 2005, 5:06pm | #

joe,
While Holland is largely divided by religion (One Dutchman a theologian, two Dutchmen a sect, three Dutchmen a schism.), there has been little sectarian violence in centuries. Their recent Moslem issues are hardly unique in the Western world. In fact, aren't there conflicts BECAUSE OF rules aimed at Moslem children in French public schools?

Ludwig von Mises wrote a book in 1919 (the name of which I cannot remember) in which he talked about the causes of WWI. One of the causes he cited was struggles for control of public school curricula in regions with multiple ethnic, religious, and language groups. One of the reasons for an extensive Catholic school system in the US is efforts of Protestants to use the public school system to convert the children of immigrants in the early 20th century.

Compare the coexistence of "subcultures" in Holland to race riots in the US. In the sixties, when we were arguing about civil rights for Blacks, a survey of Dutch parents indicated that they overwhelmingly preferred that their children marry someone of a different race than someone of a different religion. I think there may be something meritorious in choosing one's companion based on a similar world-view as opposed to choosing them based on race, income, or profession.

I guess that is beyond the scope of this thread except that some parents have this quaint notion that they should have a say what their children are taught even if the majority disagree.

joe | October 13, 2005, 5:08pm | #

Now, my analysis leaves out the fact that the per-pupil heating cost will be higher in the elemtary grades, where the buildings are smaller. B