Parents want kid with peanut allergy removed from school

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

It's too bad those kids don't get to enjoy peanuts and everyone has to bend over backwards for the sake of just one person.

If only there were some way to make schools more like stores and diners and things. Y'know, where there are just so many that there's something for everyone, everywhere, in every price range. A kind of market, you might say, butfor schools. One that would be free of the public sector.

Nah, that would never work. Better to let the state handle it by throwing resources and proper legislation for good educational standards at the problem while we sit around scratching our heads and wondering why it isn't working. They'll get it right some day, I'm sure.


Alright, I'm done being a sarcastic ass for the moment (nobody panic, I'm sure the mood will strike me again soon). Seriously though, this kind of issue where the schools are doing something that not everyone approves of comes up often enough that one would think people would just naturally be agitating for a broader range of choices in schools.

And it's not like anyone is happy with the current US school system, anyway. The unions are never happy, the kids are never happy, the parents are never happy, our educational standing on an international level certainly isn't happy. But instead of actually doing anything about it we spend all our time arguing over who should get to tell whose kids how to learn what or whatnot.

It never ends. Should there be prayer in schools? Should there be a dress code? Is it ok to teach this, is it not okay to teach that? Are the standardized tests biased? Are the teachers paid enough? Would more pay help? Can we afford that? Which schools are underfunded? Which ones are overfunded? Why? Are the intelligent-designers idiots? Are the secularists morally bankrupt? And yes, should kids wash their hands more often? Et cetera et cetera. Back and forth. Over and over.

So why? For the love of God, or for the lack of it if that's your choice, will someone please tell me why we insist on this mandated institutionalization of public education? Why do people look at me like I've just grown a third head when I suggest privatization, or partial privatization, or even a voucher plan?

I could go on, but I'm sure we'll all agree this post is long enough for now.

Why don't we just completely stop funding education? I don't just mean the vile public institutions, but even the noble and sacred private ones as well. This mean that now you are directly responsible for little Johnny's education; after all, he's your kid. For any institution to survive would probably mean a several hundred percent increase in tution, since private and charter schools also currently receive substantial government subsidies.

What that now means is that if little Johnny's dream is to become a lawyer, it is his parent's job to make sure he can pass the collegiate entrance exam. No, of course not everyone is comfortable teaching every subject, but the free market solves that problem too. With legions of now unemployed educators milling about, tutors in every concievable subject will be readily available for private work. Of course, the best and most experienced ones will likely be very, very expensive, as they will be setting their own prices, but that is the law of the jungle. For others, there will certainly be some correspondence school flunkie willing to work for a pittance.

The end result is a society where far, far fewer people go to college. The ones that do will naturally be of much higher quality than what we see now. As a college professor who home schools his children, this gives me the best of all worlds both at home and work. And so I welcome this brave new world where always the strongest thrive. After all, as a career educator now working at the collegiate level, I am both uniquely qualified and of sufficient financial means to ensure that my children will rise to the top. As to your [globally speaking] children, they are neither my problem, nor my concern.

[tater]

takeda, is most of the subsidy for religious schools? I seem to remember a situation where a parochial system got subsidy because if they shut down, the city would have to absorb all the kids, so XXX bucks a head subsidy was a savings. I also think that the majority of private schools are religious (virtually every church in town has a school, but there are only 3-4 secular schools. Of course every single religious school is subsidized by a tax break (I'd end all tax exempt status for churches, period).

I'd be curious what subsidy secular private schools get. I know our school has a speech therapist that comes like 1 day a week from the city, but past that there is nothing obvious. Our tuition is already nearly twice was APS spends per kid.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by tater

takeda, is most of the subsidy for religious schools? I seem to remember a situation where a parochial system got subsidy because if they shut down, the city would have to absorb all the kids, so XXX bucks a head subsidy was a savings. I also think that the majority of private schools are religious (virtually every church in town has a school, but there are only 3-4 secular schools. Of course every single religious school is subsidized by a tax break (I'd end all tax exempt status for churches, period).

I'd be curious what subsidy secular private schools get. I know our school has a speech therapist that comes like 1 day a week from the city, but past that there is nothing obvious. Our tuition is already nearly twice was APS spends per kid.

I can't speak for every private or charter school, but all of the charters that I know of are actually grouped with the local school district. For example, all charters in Philadelphia are actually funded by the School District of Philadelphia.

My first year teaching was spent in a non-religious private school. Our textbooks, various teaching aids, some salary and equipment (smartboards, overheads, etc) were purchased through state subsidies. The rest was covered by tuition and fundraising. Again, I don't know about every single school out there, but I am under the impression that this is the norm.

You are right about religious school receiving substatial subsidies. Of course, that doesn't seem to be keeping them open in this part of the country, but the problems with priests and young boys seem to play a major part in that.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Why don't we just completely stop funding education? I don't just mean the vile public institutions, but even the noble and sacred private ones as well. This mean that now you are directly responsible for little Johnny's education; after all, he's your kid. For any institution to survive would probably mean a several hundred percent increase in tution, since private and charter schools also currently receive substantial government subsidies.

I didn't say we had to completely stop funding education. I mean, I'd love it if we did (I think), but I also suggested partial privatization and vouchers. I'm willing to compromise. My only concern is that some kind of competition be introduced to public rather than one massive politically-governed entity.

Nor do I think private institutions are noble or sacred. Or any business for that matter. I expect them to do exactly what business does: act in it's own best interests, but do so in a fashion that is conducive to other's best interests, or at least to the extent they attach their best interests to currency.

Finally, I have to ask why you would think that a move towards privatization would result in an increase in tuition. That doesn't even make any sense. Are you suggesting that the existence of more schools, which are competing, would somehow lead to an increase in tuition? How? That's not true anywhere else.

What that now means is that if little Johnny's dream is to become a lawyer, it is his parent's job to make sure he can pass the collegiate entrance exam. No, of course not everyone is comfortable teaching every subject, but the free market solves that problem too. With legions of now unemployed educators milling about, tutors in every concievable subject will be readily available for private work. Of course, the best and most experienced ones will likely be very, very expensive, as they will be setting their own prices, but that is the law of the jungle. For others, there will certainly be some correspondence school flunkie willing to work for a pittance.

And you think that the ignoble law of the jungle doesn't apply to the public system? Or that it applies less? Look around you, Tak. Look at our schools. Look at the state they are in. Do you really imagine that the law of the jungle is not at work? You're not fixing the law of the jungle by supporting the current system, you're just moving the jungle to a level where kids and parents can't reach.

The end result is a society where far, far fewer people go to college. The ones that do will naturally be of much higher quality than what we see now. As a college professor who home schools his children, this gives me the best of all worlds both at home and work.

I disagree. I think the end result will be a society where far, far, more people end up pursuing a specialized educational plan, and specialization is the heart of societal progress. Denmark uses a voucher system and it doesn't have a dearth of college students. Nor does any other nation with a voucher system I can think of. Find me one nation with a voucher system that compares poorly to the US in academic achievement and I'll cede the point.

We're agreed upoin the point that the quality of education would be higher, however.

And so I welcome this brave new world where always the strongest thrive. After all, as a career educator now working at the collegiate level, I am both uniquely qualified and of sufficient financial means to ensure that my children will rise to the top. As to your [globally speaking] children, they are neither my problem, nor my concern.

Glad you're so eager to embrace the brave new world, since you're already living in it. Don't believe me? Look at your US public education system. Look at what it has done with the highest spending per student in the world.

I am not trying to suggest a system where the best rise to the top. We already have that. I'm trying to suggest a system where everyone gets what they want. If that means the best rise to the top, so be it. They'll have to drag my specialized ass along with them. If that means some fall behind, so be it. They already do it anyway and charity is a wonderful by-product of the law of the jungle.