Black market schools

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
There is still no recognition of the two glaring fundamental issues surrounding the alledged benefits of private education. There is no, none, zip-i-de-doo-dah evidence that private education is superior to public education within the same socio-economic group. Everyone bemoans how far we have fallen behind other countries in education. Guess what...we've fallen behind countries that accomplish that with public education.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if you claim there is no difference, why are you such a zealot? Why are you opposed to people selecting their own school, and paying for it themselves?

[ QUOTE ]
The other ( and somewhat related issue) is the clear correlation between a complete family unit and stay at home parents with education results. Even if private education were superior, private education and the accompanying free-rider problem would make the stay-at-home parent issue worse, as some parents would have to work to pay the increased cost that otherwise could have stayed at home.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, if you didn't have to pay for BOTH the private school tuition AND the public school taxes, more people could stay at home.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
14 million is a lot less than the CURRENT number of undereducated Americans.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's an "undereducated American?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Some less obvious examples...the savings in number of police needed on the streets during school hours, reduced crime rates overall

[/ QUOTE ]

We could accomplish the same thing with concentration camps <font color="red"> true, but concentration camps dont carry the other benefits of education </font>
[ QUOTE ]
the additional parents that enter the labor force helping to keep labor costs down

[/ QUOTE ]

Those labor costs would go down because of the increased competition for jobs. <font color="red">thats what i said </font> Competition tends to improve quality and reduce price. Computers and cell phones are better and cheaper than ever while education is weaker and more expensive. I wonder why. <font color="red"> are you implying a correlation? </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
14 million is a lot less than the CURRENT number of undereducated Americans.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's an "undereducated American?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point! For the purposes of this discussion, it could be a relative comparison with people in other countries, people "back then" when 93% were in private schools, whatever. Take your pick. More people (percentage wise) have poorer educations today than before government started "taking care" of this problem.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
More people (percentage wise) have poorer educations today than before government started "taking care" of this problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't understand. What is the subjective measure of "quality of eduction" that is implied here? What does "poorer" mean in this context?

[FooSH]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I thought I'd add this nice tidbit, taken from a book I recently read: In 1821, *long* before public schools were created, 93% of all NYC children were enrolled in private schools.

So much for the fallacy that without public provision of schooling too many children would go uneducated.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

So that would be what? Roughly 14 million Americans without basic schooling. I'd call that a problem and I don't even live there.

[/ QUOTE ]

14 million is a lot less than the CURRENT number of undereducated Americans. Good thing we're all "benefitting" from this coercively funded product.

[/ QUOTE ]

That 14 mill is ON TOP of current levels.

Are you guys doing this just to antagonize me, I can't tell.

Lets put it this way. If the number of children being schooled went from 100% to 93% would the number of educated people be higher or lower?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
If the number of children being schooled went from 100% to 93% would the number of educated people be higher or lower?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an ill posed question. If the 100% are government schooled and the 93% are privately schooled, the number of educated students and the quality of their educations would be vastly higher.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
This is an ill posed question. If the 100% are government schooled and the 93% are privately schooled, the number of educated students and the quality of their educations would be vastly higher.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you can help me where pvn did not: how in the heck do we objectively measure quality of education?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I thought I'd add this nice tidbit, taken from a book I recently read: In 1821, *long* before public schools were created, 93% of all NYC children were enrolled in private schools.

So much for the fallacy that without public provision of schooling too many children would go uneducated.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

So that would be what? Roughly 14 million Americans without basic schooling. I'd call that a problem and I don't even live there.

[/ QUOTE ]

14 million is a lot less than the CURRENT number of undereducated Americans. Good thing we're all "benefitting" from this coercively funded product.

[/ QUOTE ]

That 14 mill is ON TOP of current levels.

Are you guys doing this just to antagonize me, I can't tell.

Lets put it this way. If the number of children being schooled went from 100% to 93% would the number of educated people be higher or lower?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're begging several questions.

As a previous poster already pointed out, there's no objective definition of "educated". And if the public school system disappeared, you can't simply assume that the whatever replaces it will educate its students to the same levels. So saying the 14 million would be "on top of current levels" is an unjustifiable assumption.

[FooSH]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the number of children being schooled went from 100% to 93% would the number of educated people be higher or lower?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an ill posed question. If the 100% are government schooled and the 93% are privately schooled, the number of educated students and the quality of their educations would be vastly higher.

[/ QUOTE ]

It looks like you have been misinformed check the summary