Education in the United States
We have a thread devoted to academic freedom at universities, and we have a thread devoted to whether higher education should be subsidized. This thread is a landing spot for discussion of other issues related to education -- issues like school integration, pedagogy, the influence of politics on education (and vice versa), charter schools, public v. private schools, achievement gaps, and gerrymandering of school districts.
I'll start the discussion with two articles. The first deals with a major changes in the public school system in NYC.
NYC's public schools are highly segregated for such a diverse city. Last Friday, Bill DeBlasio announced the following:
Middle schools will see the most significant policy revisions. The city will eliminate all admissions screening for the schools for at least one year, the mayor said. About 200 middle schools — 40 percent of the total — use metrics like grades, attendance and test scores to determine which students should be admitted. Now those schools will use a random lottery to admit students.
In doing this, Mr. de Blasio is essentially piloting an experiment that, if deemed successful, could permanently end the city’s academically selective middle schools, which tend to be much whiter than the district overall.
DeBlasio also announced that:
New York will also eliminate a policy that allowed some high schools to give students who live nearby first dibs at spots — even though all seats are supposed to be available to all students, regardless of where they reside.
The system of citywide choice was implemented by former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg in 2004 as part of an attempt to democratize high school admissions. But Mr. Bloomberg exempted some schools, and even entire districts, from the policy, and Mr. de Blasio did not end those carve outs.
The most conspicuous example is Manhattan’s District 2, one of the whitest and wealthiest of the city’s 32 local school districts. Students who live in that district, which includes the Upper East Side and the West Village, get priority for seats in some of the district’s high schools, which are among the highest-performing schools in the city.
No other district in the city has as many high schools — six — set aside for local, high-performing students.
Many of those high schools fill nearly all of their seats with students from District 2 neighborhoods before even considering qualified students from elsewhere. As a result, some schools, like Eleanor Roosevelt High School on the Upper East Side, are among the whitest high schools in all of New York City.
Here is the New York Times article that describes the changes:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/18/nyreg...
Obvious questions for discussion include:
- How large a priority should cities place on ensuring that city schools are representative of the city as a whole?
- Are measures like the ones that DeBlasio is implementing likely to be effective in making schools more representative?
- Will these measures have unintended (or intended) consequences that extend far beyond changing the representativeness of city schools?
they exist because of lobbying money and insider dealing. it's a system of middlemen carving out money.
charter and private schools already exist in the united states, giving them further portions of public education funds provides nothing to the existing structure. the idea that those schools are going to suddenly double in size taking kids that aren't already able to afford/test into them is nonsense. the tuitions/test standards will just increase in proportion to the vouchers.
the idea that
You live in a red state where the charter systems may be how you describe. Ironically (because so many local, progressive politicians oppose them), in blue states they run much better, and undeniably provide a much better service at a much lower cost. And they operate mainly within the cities with most of the kids in them black and hispanic.
There really is no comparison; and in CA lower income Hispanic and black parents especially are extremely in favor of charter schools. It is definitely the single topic where there is disconnect between the political class and the base, and in local elections many candidates have won mainly on pro charter school platforms.
Yeah rent seeking is a really bad name for that phenomenon. Gives people a completely misleading understanding.
Remember that in the voucher system each parent is given a voucher for each child. The schools will have to work their tails off trying to convince each parent that their school is the best school for their child. It isn’t a race to the bottom to provide the worst/cheapest education. In fact the exact opposite would occur because each year the parent can switch to another that provides a better education.
Why then your idolized private system isn’t working for the US healthcare system for example .
The US pay double the cost in healthcare with the worst result compare to many countries with full socialized healthcare costing half the price , better result and full access to everyone .
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...
So why would that be different for school ?
Like slighted says , private sector are there to earn the maximum profit by giving the cheapest healthcare possible .
Not be the best possible healthcare for citizens -> that cuts profits .
No I am noting that life was particularly brutal in the Americas in the ancient last compared to the rest of the world pre-state.
Few places were as brutal in human history before states as north America was pre -european arrival, that's what the charts say.
The charts don't prove what you wrote above. (They don't prove the opposite either.)
I'll leave it to others to explain why.
Why then your idolized private system isn’t working for the US healthcare system for example .
The US pay double the cost in healthcare with the worst result compare to many countries with full socialized healthcare costing half the price , better result and full access to everyone .
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...
So why would that be different for school ?
Like slighted says , private sector are there to earn the maximum profit by gi
I think people in other countries dont appreciate how much wealthier the US population is compared to other countries. Healthcare is expensive, but most people can afford adequate healthcare, and the ones that dont have adequate free options. There really isn't a big healthcare deficit in the US.
Public schools really are completely dysfunctional and dangerous in many places, so private/quasi private options really are an attractive alternative to parents who just want a decent education and safety.
I think people in other countries dont appreciate how much wealthier the US population is compared to other countries. Healthcare is expensive, but most people can afford adequate healthcare, and the ones that dont have adequate free options. There really isn't a big healthcare deficit in the US.
Public schools really are completely dysfunctional and dangerous in many places, so private/quasi private options really are an attractive alternative to parents who just want a decent education and
Lol U.S. citizen are wealthier because the us debts increase exponentially lol….
The US pay double the price in halthcare in the world compare to the second highest per capita expenditures and u call it great ?
Yes u make sense …
Btw Switzerland for example that have one of the highest healthcare cost in the world are half of the US and yet are per capital higher in wealth than the US .
How that possible ????
But hey thinking us healthcare system is great lol
Ps: life expectancy in US are the lowest by a huge margin to compare to many countries .
Look at my link ….
Yup it works great all right …
American health care is extremely expensive but the problem is two fold, restrictions on supply and artificial demand in the form of medicare and medicaid.
Per capita and just stating healthcare in the US is expensive misses the biggest flaws in the US system. If you make 500K + healthcare is ludicrously cheap in the US because apart from some small Obamacare additions taxes and healthcare costs are basically divorced from income. So a guy making 500k and a guy making 50k at the same company can easily need treatment and at the end of the day pay the same total amount for the year. It will just be way more expensive as a % of income for the 50k guy.
this simply isn't how the world works with stuff like this.. it might work that way in your trickledown privatize everything fantasy world, but that's not the case with real people. i have 1 ISP available to me. my only option is to move. that ISP has absolutely zero need to compete thus why my service is absolute crap and i pay just as much as people with literally 25x the speed and service. and they spent a lot of money for the privilege of NOT competing. that's how schools will work. wha
Just because you found one example where there isn’t a lot of competition in remote areas of the US doesn’t prove the same would occur in education. You didn’t even compare education to ISP - upfront cost to set up per capita, ongoing cost per capita, revenue per capita, etc.
I think you forgot that the voucher system doesn’t end public schools day 1. If a private company doesn’t think the town you live in is worth trying to penetrate you will continue to have zero option except the public school your kids already go to. Of course, the more likely scenario is that a private company comes in and proves to every parent in he town they are better than the public option and your kid gets a better education.
It’s also important to keep in mind that the majority of kids don’t live in super remote parts of the country and just because your kids do doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to make education better for all the others.
The US would have a high per capita GDP and its citizens would be rich even if our national debt was $0. I hope (for you own sake) you don’t actually believe what you said.
If a government spending a lot of money and having a massive national debt was the key to creating rich citizens there would be a lot of poor countries that would be really rich. Also, if you really believe this then explain Japan.
Just because you found one example where there isn’t a lot of competition in remote areas of the US doesn’t prove the same would occur in education. You didn’t even compare education to ISP - upfront cost to set up per capita, ongoing cost per capita, revenue per capita, etc.
I think you forgot that the voucher system doesn’t end public schools day 1. If a private company doesn’t think the town you live in is worth trying to penetrate you will continue to have zero
i'm in a city metro of a million people. i live in an apartment building. it may be backwards red but this is not rural. lol. this "competition" schtick works okay-ish for things you want. it's really terrible for things you NEED. at some point along the chain someone monopolizes the process and when it's things you can't really do without in the modern world like education or to a slightly lesser extent internet it gets screwed up. somewhere along the chain some company has stifled out the competition and your options are them, go without, or move your whole life somewhere else.
these aren't going to be small companies setting up private voucher schools like some utopia, you are going to have mega corps led by betsy devos enshitifying everything and taking control of whole counties/regions. to think otherwise is just pure naivety.
i grew up in a fairly rural area though, and that private company that just for their good nature decides to service the area for pennies doesn't really exist. cable tv companies laughed at us when asking if they serviced the area.
Remember that in the voucher system each parent is given a voucher for each child. The schools will have to work their tails off trying to convince each parent that their school is the best school for their child. It isn’t a race to the bottom to provide the worst/cheapest education. In fact the exact opposite would occur because each year the parent can switch to another that provides a better education.
Traditionally when most people think of rent they think of the price people pay to stay in
rent in economical terms (when moving out of the use of the word in housing settings) comes from Henry George (they guy who thought the most moral tax was that on land value, because the value of the land you own dependa on what other people do, not on what you, as the owner, do).
He defines it as "the part of the produce that accrues to the owners of land (or other natural capabilities) by virtue of ownership" and as "the share of wealth given to landowners because they have an exclusive right to the use of those natural capabilities".
(Second part is the main one in industrial or postindustrial societies).
It then rapidly became generalized by people after George as "excess profits over economic profits" from owning an asset, including any virtual financial claim.
A perpetual state annuity because you are a cleric or a veteran is a rent in that framework.
It's money given to you for whatever reason that you didn't work for basically (in late 19th century economic parlance).
It's different from the profits coming from an asset your "risk with", you gamble with, or you built.
It has a permanent connotation of privilege/underserved cash flow (so for veterans , they would start using rent only if they think it's excessive, or you didn't actually earned it).
this simply isn't how the world works with stuff like this.. it might work that way in your trickledown privatize everything fantasy world, but that's not the case with real people. i have 1 ISP available to me. my only option is to move. that ISP has absolutely zero need to compete thus why my service is absolute crap and i pay just as much as people with literally 25x the speed and service. and they spent a lot of money for the privilege of NOT competing. that's how schools will work. wha
You have one ISP available because of state violence. The regulatory states helps incumbents to rape customers.
The state is the source of your problems there.
Yes that single ISP provider who carved a niche through the abuse of state violence is cashing in a rent.
Which is an extra cash flow advantage predicated upon non-market conditions, based on state violence.
Schools work like that RIGHT NOW ffs. The public school your zip code is under, is your local monopolist. You either go there and you suck it up with any grievance, or you pay out of pocket the whole amount of tuition to go further away.
And the public school vampire STILL GETS PAID BY YOUR TAXES ANYWAY, no matter how disgusting the quality is, and no one ever gets fired.
Your ISP example is correct. And the single ISP abuser IS THE PUBLIC SCHOOL.
The US would have a high per capita GDP and its citizens would be rich even if our national debt was $0. I hope (for you own sake) you don’t actually believe what you said.
If a government spending a lot of money and having a massive national debt was the key to creating rich citizens there would be a lot of poor countries that would be really rich. Also, if you really believe this then explain Japan.
No, 0 public debt would be disastrous for the economy much much much much much much more than you can even imagine.
And i say that as someone who considers current deficits an existential threat to the USA.
Japan btw is very well off, it just has SO many more dependants as a % of the population, it's actually miracolous how good Japan is doing given how many unproductive and costly elders they have
You have one ISP available because of state violence. The regulatory states helps incumbents to rape customers.
The state is the source of your problems there.
Yes that single ISP provider who carved a niche through the abuse of state violence is cashing in a rent.
Which is an extra cash flow advantage predicated upon non-market conditions, based on state violence.
Schools work like that RIGHT NOW ffs. The public school your zip code is under, is your local monopolist. You either go there and you su
you think TOO much state regulation is why private companies can become monopiles and screw over companies and not too little anti-trust regulations?? i would almost agree that the state is the source of my problem. it should prohibit my problem from happening with MORE regulations against the very obvious nature of end product capitalism.
i cant vote out the private company that has a monopoly on my internet service when it gets progressively shittier.
One only has to look at US health care to see how privatization destroys what should be a basic human right. You don’t need to trot out the eye popping statistics about cost relative to value (eg clinical outcomes) to understand this - anyone who has interacted with the US healthcare system gets it. It is essentially a wealth redistribution scheme and it’s foolhardy to believe that further privatizing education (eg in the form of a voucher system) would lead to a different result.
One only has to look at US health care to see how privatization destroys what should be a basic human right. You don’t need to trot out the eye popping statistics about cost relative to value (eg clinical outcomes) to understand this - anyone who has interacted with the US healthcare system gets it. It is essentially a wealth redistribution scheme and it’s foolhardy to believe that further privatizing education (eg in the form of a voucher system) would lead to a different result.
Imagine thinking American healthcare is "privatized" and Canadian health care isn't lol
The US would have a high per capita GDP and its citizens would be rich even if our national debt was $0. I hope (for you own sake) you don’t actually believe what you said.
If a government spending a lot of money and having a massive national debt was the key to creating rich citizens there would be a lot of poor countries that would be really rich. Also, if you really believe this then explain Japan.
Lucian responded pretty good but to add up .
the bolded part shows you might started to understand what benefits having the reserve currency of the world brings….
The world always need more dollars so the US can print massive amount of money (creating debts) without too much worry .
Obv if Zimbabwe created huge amount of debts , who in the worlds needs Zimbabwe currencies ? They couldn’t sell much bonds so yes your idea wouldn’t work .
Nice try tho !
Japan had a huge deflationary depression with the worst demographic in the world so for them the inflation scare (through printing of money/creating debts) was not a big deal .
It took a long time but it seem to start to change for couple of months now .
I mean when you compare the real estate from 1989 to today prices you see how far they were stuck in a deflationary spiral .
i'm in a city metro of a million people. i live in an apartment building. it may be backwards red but this is not rural. lol. this "competition" schtick works okay-ish for things you want. it's really terrible for things you NEED. at some point along the chain someone monopolizes the process and when it's things you can't really do without in the modern world like education or to a slightly lesser extent internet it gets screwed up. somewhere along the chain some company has stifled out th
I agree we are likely to see some small private schools that pop up that are affiliated with zero or few other schools but for the most part we are going to see a few large education companies that figure it out and are able to provide a superior product than what is currently available.
Remember that the voucher system isn’t auto-closing any schools. This isn’t Obamacare - if you like your school you can actually keep it.
this simply isn't how the world works with stuff like this.. it might work that way in your trickledown privatize everything fantasy world, but that's not the case with real people. i have 1 ISP available to me. my only option is to move. that ISP has absolutely zero need to compete thus why my service is absolute crap and i pay just as much as people with literally 25x the speed and service. and they spent a lot of money for the privilege of NOT competing. that's how schools will work. wha
You went to law school and are smarter than this. You don't have more than one ISP because the startup infrastructure costs are astronomical. We saw this when Google tried and failed, even having a bottomless pool of money to spend. It's the same reason you don't have any competition for who you buy your natural gas or electricity from. The infrastructure requirements make it a non-starter for new entrants into the market.
Schools need staff and students, and 4 walls to put them in. Some charter schools serve less than 50 kids and do a great job.
The risk is having straight up grifters pop a tent up, but those outcomes aren't likely to be much worse than what these districts are doing now, and these schools are still going to be subject to standardized testing and audits. Hopefully the oversight is better than our child care system.
Milwaukee had a big problem a while back with people scamming the state daycare fund. On paper, you watch my kid and I'll watch yours. Each of us owns a daycare business and charge the state $200/week for services. One woman went further and would "hire" the moms for a wage low enough to still qualify for all the benefits. The risk was lower for the fake employees, and she billed the state fund $1.7 million dollars in a 12 month period. No kids ever changed hands. Everyone just chilled at home collecting checks. She got 5 years.
We'll need to make sure that sort of thing doesn't happen with school-age kids.
Privatizing schools will end up one way. Companies absolutely gouging the govt.
The govt is already gouging itself, with very poor results to show. If private schools with public funding had the same level of waste/grift/overcharging with better outcomes most people would be fine with that.
That is the part you guys seem to be glossing over. There is high demand for other options because public school is so dysfunctional with such poor results outside upper middle class suburbs which operate as quasi private anyways.
That being said, I acknowledge I live in such a suburb and the dysfunction of nearby urban school districts is undoubtably a big component why the value of my house is just going to keep going up.
