An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Public vs. Private Schools
Since a fierce debate emurged about private vs public schools / education in the thread about education in Afghanistan, it might be of interest to some, to debate about before mentioned issue, in this thread, which will make it more accessible and orderly.
My opinion: government should provide for public schools, while not having a monopoly on education. Private schools should, as such, compete with public schools. In my utopian dreams, public schools would only educate poor children, while private schools would educate the rest.
Debate.
73 Responses to “Public vs. Private Schools”
Michael,
If you’re still following this thread, how long is the school day in the Netherlands? How long are the summer holidays? Do parents have to pay for day care when their children are out of school during the holidays when the parents are working? All of these things enter into education in this country.
Jim S said :
You are also depending on beliefs concerning availability of mass transit that certainly don’t apply in many places.
Wrong . The transportation costs are fixed and go with the student
Mikkel , your response shows a complete lack of understanding concerning basic principles of economics. All vouchers do is offer the recipient the choice to shop for a school. They can still use that voucher to stay with the public school if it suits their perceived needs. That means many private schools as well as the public schools are competing for that education dollar when they were not offered that chance previously. More schools competing for the same dollar means lower cost. It’s basic supply and demand. Remember when only the US postal service was allowed to send an overnight package? Now you have many more who do the same thing better for less money.
Mikkel said :
[note: to eric who posted after I wrote this -- people are saying vouchers would pay for 70-80% which is far more than the average person would pay in taxes, so it'd still be subsidizing the cost], so unless a lot more denominations have enough money to do that they’d still cost more)? More for-profit charter schools? I already commented about how the corporations running them at low cost now are in deep financial trouble. The elite private schools that charge 10k+ can turn a profit but that would be more than the public schools charge already. There could be a dramatic increase in non-profit schools, but who will create them?
You seem to miss the point completely. First of all, it doesn’t matter if it is more or less than what a person pays in taxes. Good God! Take a public school system which spends 10 k per student. If you offer 7500 dollar vouchers you will get a certain percentage who will use them PERIOD! Some people would use that voucher for a school which costs MORE THAN THE VOUCHER. In that case they would pay the difference. Others would use it for a comparable cost or less. Charter schools already exist! Many more would add on and others would continue to grow. AGAIN. some people would continue to use the public schools. The end result would be pressure on the public schools to improve or lose customers.
Think about your question “There could be a dramatic increase in nonprofit schools, but who will create them?”
The fact that some schools struggle does not mean that others won’t flourish. One of the main problems these schools have is the fact that many people cant afford them The voucher system offers them a chance to do just that. The poor person with two kids and on public assistance can now shop for a school. It’s happening already
Jim S (mail):
MichaelF’s post only addressed it for charter schools, not the entire range of private institutions you’ve been speaking of or at least that’s certainly how it reads.
HUH ? Jim S ? Did you miss the discussion of Catholic schools as well ?
AGAIN JIM , it doesn’t matter which type of private school or charter school you choose . The voucher can be spent as you see fit .
Mikkel said :
When you have a high barrier for entering the market and little (realistic) consumer choice then that is a situation ripe for cost explosions or terrible performance.
STOP AND THINK! You just gave the argument AGAINST public schools! This is exactly what has been created with the public school system. For many lower middle class and almost all poor the prospect of a private school education is unattainable. vouchers open the opportunity in a way which make it feasible for new schools to open. THEY NOW HAVE A MASSIVE POTENTIAL CUSTOMER BASE WHICH WAS PREVIOULSY LIMITED !
Er, what? Look you don’t have to respond right away so if you want email me with some better responses if it takes you a few days. What you said right after my post relies on supply magically increasing, treating it like it is entirely free. Obviously vouchers don’t just “offer the recipient the choice to shop for a school” since the money has to come from somewhere. If it’s revenue neutral that is coming out of the public schools and if its not it’s through tax increases. I also pointed out several reasons why you can’t just say increased competition will lower the prices and listed the underpinings why: the same characteristics that utilities, health care and other necessities possess and have shown to be extremely vulnerable to spiraling costs. In addition I alluded to the fact that the more kids that get out of public schools, the worse they will become and therefore the greater the demand for private schools will be. I expressed reservation that secular non-profit schools will form because of the massive cost, so it is most likely they will be created as for profit, so they will charge as much as the market can bear. I acknowledged if there was a societal drive to create the institutions it could work out but we are not anywhere close to that point.
was a direct response to eric saying “With vouchers no one would need to be subsidized thus lowering the “cost”" and I am pointing out that it would still be subsidized because the government would still be giving most people more than they pay in taxes. If the average person was willing to spend $500 more than they are now to send their kid to a private school, then the second you give them all their vouchers the price would rise to $500 more than the vouchers, not the original amount spent on taxes. If you wanted to lower the cost you would merely give the people the option to pay taxes to the public school or get a credit for paying for private school. Of course since that’s not progressive the majority of the country wouldn’t want it so that’s why the vouchers were created (and which I’m arguing it wouldn’t matter in the long run anyway because the private schools would rise in cost offseting the vouchers). [Incidentally after writing this I did find a proposal to just have it be tax credits, and said that poor students could afford to attend through charitable contributions]
Yes the government has a monopoly and yes that is one reason why it wastes so much money. Trust me, being close to the federal government all my life either through my dad or working for them in some capacity I am well aware first hand how/why the money is wasted. That said, privatization has had a mixed record. This sums up some literature, has a long list of studies that are a few decades old. Notice that health care, military and utilities have extremely mixed records (the only school based one found no difference either). This is from a pro-privatization site, and I would summarize most of the findings by saying that cost savings occur most in situations where the private industry has built up to serve businesses/individuals (like in debt collection, daycares, construction, etc) and the government is merely tapping into the preexisting market. For things like military where it creates the market, the costs are significantly more to contract out than keep in the government. Moreover most of the government overruns are caused because of the inflexibility in hiring and firing, which causes personnel excess and that was were the majority of savings came from — something that will not apply to schools!
When it comes down to it, simply repeating the mantra “more supply” over and over again doesn’t address any of the issues I have talked about. MichaelF you sound like most Libertarians I’ve met that have ideological problems with the government and think that taxes are a crime etc, but instead of arguing that they try to wrap it up in some magical pseudo-empirical argument.
To quote Milton Friedman
in other words, take the leap of faith and it’ll appear. I am arguing that due to characteristics of the educational system, history has shown us it won’t.
Sorry, the second link above should be this
How in the heck can transportation be a fixed cost if they have choice in where to send their kids? You’re assuming that the school they can find will be in basically the same area that their current public school is in for that to be true. It seems to me that you’re trying to make what would rapidly become a very complex issue very simplistic. You either have to have real free choice which would result in geographical dispersement that would increase transportation complexity and cost or you limit choice by limiting the geographical area available. One or the other must be true. And if choice is limited then the ability of the market to function as you claim it would is limited.
Yes, I am following the thread -> I simply do not have a lot of time to read up and debate. My parents have gone to my grandmother -> she seems to be dying, she does not breath for a while, before she starts breething again, does not respond to anything, &c.
I have to go to classes in a sec. and after that I have to go to my grandmother. I am afraid that I will have little or no time today to post, let alone actively participate in comment threads.
Of course parents have to pay for day care. I am not paying. Good Lord -> lets pay for everyone. Heck no, come to think about it, great deal, we must change that: I would like to have the government pay for some kind of dog walk company for me as well…
Free market: I am a liberal conservative and as such, you guys would be surprised by my respect for the free market. But, like Mikkel, my believe not 100%, but say 95%: some extremes have to be solved (for instance by those vouchers).
Jim,
Transportation is a fixed cost in that the cost of bus systems is included in the cost of the education. Since many private schools offer transportation that has been included in their cost also. Others have used public transportation. Many kids going to St Agnes High school in Houston ride the public bus and parents seem to feel safe enough about it, but I guess sweeping generalizations are more important than honest discussions.
The idea that private schools would be the right choice for everyone in every situation is absurd and I see no one pushing that idea here. But you seem to say by your arguments because sometimes it might not be ideal for some no one without a lot of money should be able to go to private school. That doesn’t sound right to me.
Great post Eric . You get it .
Mikkel said :
Obviously vouchers don’t just “offer the recipient the choice to shop for a school” since the money has to come from somewhere.
You obviously don’t get the voucher system. The voucher comes from the same funds that operate the public school system. It doesn’t get any more basic than that. AGAIN
If you have a child going to public schools which cost the tax payer 9,600 dollars per student and you give the parent a voucher for 7,500 dollars that is coming from the same money which funds the public school system. If the parent takes that voucher to a private or charter school have a cost and spends the money there you have a cost SAVINGS.
If the parent takes the voucher to the public school you end up with NO DIFFERENCE.
Mikkel said :
Of course since that’s not progressive the majority of the country wouldn’t want it so that’s why the vouchers were created (and which I’m arguing it wouldn’t matter in the long run anyway because the private schools would rise in cost offseting the vouchers).
Ok . Here is the problem . You lack a basic understanding of economics . The quote you just gave from Milton Friedman backs MY ARGUMNET NOT YOURS !
Then you say this :
Mikkel said :
in other words, take the leap of faith and it’ll appear. I am arguing that due to characteristics of the educational system, history has shown us it won’t
No . It has nothing to do with taking a leap of faith. It’s based on the most basic principles of economics. In addition, vouchers are being used and they do not result in what you claim. They actually follow the laws of economics nicely .
Mikkel said:
Obviously vouchers don’t just “offer the recipient the choice to shop for a school” since the money has to come from somewhere. If it’s revenue neutral that is coming out of the public schools and if its not it’s through tax increases.
Are you paying ATTENTION? AGAIN, you don’t understand how vouchers work. OF COURSE THEY ARE FROM THE EDUCATION BUDGET! AGAIN, Boston Public High Schools spend 9,600 dollars per student. If a student leaves the public schools with a 7,500 dollar voucher the public school budget has one less student and 2,100 dollars more to spend on other students in the system. Read that over ten times. There is no loss to the public schools.
How people react to the market after this is a separate issue. If public schools are to survive they will be pressured to get BETTER. The effect on private schools will be different. Some schools will see no effect since they cater to the very rich while others will offer value for dollar.
Back to what you said earlier:
Mikkel said
Obviously vouchers don’t just “offer the recipient the choice to shop for a school” since the money has to come from somewhere. If it’s revenue neutral that is coming out of the public schools and if its not it’s through tax increases
Mikkel , you kept commenting during this thread without a basic understanding of how the voucher system works. BY DEFINITION they come from the taxes which support the education budget.
MichaelF you’re getting so hysterical you’re not even reading what I’m saying. The Milton Freedman quote was to demonstrate that when it comes down to it the issue it is not about empirical, pragmatic solutions that have proven to work (in the public services realm at least, I’ve talked over and over again why) it’s “Choice is a self-contained reform with its own rationale and justification.” That quote is the crux of Libertarian argument. “Government is bad, the market is always the best” is a self truth for Libertarians, an axiom from which all their other ideas flow. His quote literally treats the free market as magic. Any idealized sociopolitical system whether it be Communism, Fascism, Democracy, Isolationism, Neoconservatism, Big Governmentism, Anarchy etc. all would be perfect in practice if their axioms where true. This is never the case, and the systems that work best are those with the axioms that are least false (like Communism would only work if basically every person on earth was unselfish…obviously it’s not going to work). The Libertarian axioms are mostly true — perhaps the MOST true — but the “black box free market always is perfect in all situations” one is tragically not. I am saying that’s TRUE in 90% of cases but not true when talking about things with the characteristics I’ve listed above — including pointing out empirical (although admittedly fragmented) evidence from a pro-privatization site that supports my case: evidence I found after I already explained the abstract underpinings that would cause it (ok the utilities were a big savings, but recent examples in CA, etc have supported my contention too). You’re arguing with someone that deeply believes free markets will end up being the best force for global change in history. As such, I’ve spent years studying how globalization affects the developing world (where it works and where it doesn’t and why), how charity is the safety net and that the form of it matters as much as the amount, and most importantly where the model falls apart (specifically either when there is unlimited close-to-free supply like digital data or when there is inelastic demand and the things I listed above). I think the #1 threat to free markets is irrational belief in their magic; specifically the incorrect abstraction of supply and demand as global factors instead of realistic regional ones, and not admitting in reality there is a passive consumer base that doesn’t weigh cost/benefit ratios for every purchase. [I should note that the internet is the perfect solution to both of these things and that is the reason why it is the most amazing retailing apparatus.] I furthermore acknowledge that the government is a big problem in contributing to these two factors, but know that if we just dropped the government instantly it would backfire because the underlying societal behavior wouldn’t be ready for it (so the core assumptions the theory are based on are false). I also said it is possible to create societal structures that address these concerns and change behavior (making the assumptions true) so we can change the government.
And then you keep saying I don’t understand the voucher system, but I was pointing out your analysis relied on the assumption costs were porportional. “Some people will go to private school and if they don’t like it, public school” acts like when the vouchers started they wouldn’t affect existing ones. No, the money/people will be taken from public schools and — much of it because of fixed cost and human resources — lead to a severe decline in quality. You can’t just take total expenditures and divide by total students, you have to take fixed costs, then add per student cost and then divide by total students. This is why I keep bringing up the factory analogy! So when I said it (money, although I didn’t even talk about teachers and students etc) had to come from somewhere I was pointing out your analysis would only apply in unlimited resource environments where new sources of demand wouldn’t hurt the existing sources (like uh…our current situation where a new private school has minimal impact on the public schools.) This sentence of yours explains it all “If public schools are to survive they will be pressured to get BETTER.” Every reason I have given is to say they won’t survive and explained in great detail why. In the free market some companies fail when new ones enter the market, that’s what keeps it greased — I’m saying that the public schools would fail (at least to the point they are in shambles) and all the pro-voucher people are being extremely intellectually dishonest to act like they won’t. That’s the elephant in the room: Libertarians — the very smart people that designed the whole program — WANT it to fail because they hate the government and think taxes are a form of slavery. I also then pointed out reasons why private schools would end up forcing the poorer kids back into the public school system after they already failed, all using a free market thought experiment akin to what we’ve seen in other fields.
Needless to say no one has addressed any of the specific points I had about the almost certain price hikes of private schools. The whole debate around this issue is almost comical because pragmatically it goes against every Libertarian argument against other things. Increasing minimum wage would help the poor: No all the poor people will get more money but then inflation will rise to reflect this on all the core items until they are in the same situation (and education is different because?) Private schools are cheaper because the teachers are, but they’re cheaper because they have less credentials (ok and no unions) but they score better so salary doesn’t matter for attracting good teachers (it might not for the small number that are doing it now, but when you have twice as many it surely will — you guys argue that for all other industries). The list goes on.
I am real sorry that I do not have the time to read up as much as I would like in this thread, let alone comment. I just wanted to say that I have bookmarked this thread and will read it once I have more time.
Mikkel.
I’ll be honest after about three sentences I just wrote your tirade off. Big word don’t always make you sound smart. To me you seem to be dodging any honest and practical discussion with BS. The deal is simple, people feel there should be choice. Vouchers would give choice to people of low income where before only people with money had choice. That people haven’t addressed you entirely theoretical (and very weak theory at that) that prices for private schools would go up means nothing but that they don’t believe or think it doesn’t matter. Why should it when no one is calling for public schools to lose all funding? You throw out all kinds of BS but my basic feeling is people should be able to choose and in your situation poor people just need to take what others decide is best.
And the rant against libertarians…….get over it. You sound like the homeless guy on the corner.
Mikkel said:
No, the money/people will be taken from public schools and — much of it because of fixed cost and human resources — lead to a severe decline in quality. You can’t just take total expenditures and divide by total students, you have to take fixed costs, then add per student cost and then divide by total students.
That simply buttresses my point AGAIN. We already showed how the costs of labor are higher in the public school system. The same can be said for all other aspects of schools costs, particularly administrative costs. AGAIN, that is where charter schools and many private schools have a pecuniary advantage over public schools.
The silly meme of Libertarians considering government simply does not apply here. If what you say were true the many private schools and charter schools offering a better yet cheaper education would not exist . But they do.
Much of the problem with your analysis is that you are making your own conclusions based on your “feelings.” You seem to think they trump recognized laws of economics.
I have shown you the facts which exist regarding private schools outperforming public schools. Your assumptions have not proven to be correct as I clearly showed.
Mikkel said :
I think the #1 threat to free markets is irrational belief in their magic; specifically the incorrect abstraction of supply and demand as global factors instead of realistic regional ones, and not admitting in reality there is a passive consumer base that doesn’t weigh cost/benefit ratios for every purchase.
So you are claiming that people will make decisions on their kids education which are not consistent with basic economic principles? AGAIN, I have shown you that they do. I don’t need to repeat the links of charter schools and other private educational institutions.
The basic concept works like this. Tax something and you get less of it. Subsidize something and you get more of it. It operates exactly that way with vouchers and education. You have not shown otherwise
Eric said :
That people haven’t addressed you entirely theoretical (and very weak theory at that) that prices for private schools would go up means nothing but that they don’t believe or think it doesn’t matter.
Correct Eric . As I said , if you subsidize somthing you get more of it .Education is just an example . The facts can’t be refuted as we have ample proof in the charter school system .
Mikkel said :
I also then pointed out reasons why private schools would end up forcing the poorer kids back into the public school system after they already failed, all using a free market thought experiment akin to what we’ve seen in other fields.
Mikkel , again you don’t get it. Many charter schools exist specifically in poor areas to educate the poor. They can exist as an alternative because of they are funded. Otherwise they are forced to stay in the public school system. Forget the attacks on Libertarians or other political ideologies. Show why those Charter schools which educate the poor will suddenly STOP. It make no sense because if they do another school will gladly take those dollars.
mikkel said :
Needless to say no one has addressed any of the specific points I had about the almost certain price hikes of private schools.
If you missed them you were not paying attention . A word to the wise ,When you say ” almost certain price hikes of private schools ” you show the weakness of your case. But just so you understand , here is why it CAN’T happen .Someone else will step in to supply the demand . It is really that simple. It’s not “MAGICAL” as you claim earlier . It is VERY BASIC economics .
So you tell us why that poor parent NOW SENDING A KID TO A CHARTER SCHOOL will suddenly act differently . If you think ALL private schools will suddenly raise prices above the level of the vouchers , explain why another charter school wouldn’t step in to supply the demand . Remember , they have fixed costs now . They manage to keep those fixed costs lower than the public schools .
Mikkel . you claimed to have shown why the cost of private schools would go up dramaticly . the comments were very silly and bear no basis on reality . Let me show you why.
Mikkel said :
There are many aspects to education that make the traditional competition model fall apart. Demand is inelastic, there are massive fixed costs involved, and there is limited mobility. When you have a high barrier for entering the market and little (realistic) consumer choice then that is a situation ripe for cost explosions or terrible performance. A perfect example was Enron. I saw The Smartest Guys in the Room last night and it talked about how they manufactured the California energy crisis. …
Of course that’s hyperbolic because making a school is not as intensive as energy utilities but it still has many of the same qualities. Any school will need many teachers (including specialized ones if in jr/high school) and adminstrative staff.
First of all the comparison was absolutely ludicrous for a number of reasons .As i already showed you , public schools pay much higher salaries for teachers and administration . This is an obvious advantage for the private market .The number of Charter schools is growing . With the voucher system those numbers would multply even faster . AGAIN , if you subsidize somthing you get more of it .
Private schools for profit operate much like any other business. When I build a strip mall or open a retail establishment I do so because of demand. As the number of cars driving down a road increases (traffic count) that location becomes increasingly more attractive
do to the increased number of potential customers. When that traffic count reaches a certain level I will build. You can see this in almost any area of the country. As the traffic count mounts more and more building occurs as long as there is nothing preventing it from doing so. The same would hold true for education. As the potential number of customers (students) grows so will the number of schools.
What you see as massive fixed costs are simply the cost of doing businessman fact, I lease to a few educational business and have had others in the past. There is plenty of money out there to start new schools. This would multiply dramatically with vouchers.