Are private schools really better than public schools?

What's needed is a progressive, anti-racist government that takes over all education, spends at least 6% of its GDP on education, and is strongly influenced by a powerful Teachers' Union.

A brilliant of example of the results you can get when you do this can be found here.

 

I'm not so sure about the "takeover" and I happen to think that when Federal government is assisting-financially-but-not-dictating a state in terms of post-graduate education, the most help possible is obtained. The government structure necessary to directly help 50-states post-secondary schooling could be overly expensive if all states were covered. However, simply assisting the state to pay the total-costs could be sufficient to change significantly results shown in the increased number actually graduating from tertiary-level schooling. (People who commit themselves to a post-secondary education typically leave it because of financial blockages. This is the real problem confronting the success of improved post-secondary national education numbers - which is why it must be made less costly.)

There are also a number of other reasons:
*There must be an apt measurement of how many of the high-school students are actually getting into post-secondary schooling. (Which is across the board - from apprenticeships to doctorates). States understand better when they are failing at secondary-schooling especially as regards the national-exams taken to apply to university in the final year of secondary-schooling.
*The money that the state-saves in funds allocated to its post-secondary schooling-costs by the Federal government must force states to spend upon wherever it is failing in its secondary-school education - and not at the simple whimsy of the governor in place.
*The Federal support program will naturally assist the poor who cannot afford a post-secondary schooling, but want one. Which lessens the number of people who are caught in and spend their entire lives below the Poverty Threshold.

 

Do click on my link.

I suspect that a lot of people would be, if not 'happy', at least willing, perhaps with reluctance, to spend more on education, if they believed we were getting more for our money. It's the fear that higher spending will just buy more expensive failure, or mediocrity, that has to be addressed by people -- like me -- who would like to see a better education system, and who know that it may well cost more.

But it appears that the people who argue most vociferously for higher taxes and more spending on education, are the very people who oppose genuine testing of any sort, any holding of schools accountable for results, any parental choice.

I'm quite aware of the failures of many charter schools, of the entry into the education-for-profit field of crooks and charlatans, of the dangers of standardized tests, of meaningless rote-learning teach-to-the-test pseudo-education.

But .... the failures of the government-controlled model of education, the one the US has now, are also very apparent.

It's hard to find people who seem to be aware of both sides of the issue.

Here is an example of what can be done.
Here is an example of how the education establishment resists empirical evidence that contradicts their ideology.

I tutor kids in mathematics and science, and follow the Mathematics Education academic journals pretty closely. The 'research' reported in them is largely vacuous, just the preening of post-modernist leftists dressing up their political prejudices as research.

We need to have an (international) debate/discussion about what education is really about. This shouldn't be a Left/Rightf issue, either. I believe that sincere Leftists are genuinely much more concerned with the bottom third of society than people on the Right are, but ... I also believe that for many of them, their ideological pre-conceptions are getting in the way of their seeing real solutions to the problem of getting a decent education to that bottom third.

 

THE INDUSTRIAL-AGE IS OVER IN AMERICA

We don't really have a choice. Well, there is one - the hard-way or the easy-way.

Because what is happening is fundamental. It is called the Change of Ages.

It's already happened twice. The first time in the latter part of the 19th century, we changed from the Agricultural Age to the Industrial Age. (We've come a long, long way since the Stone Age!)

Now we are exiting the Industrial Age and heading super-fast into the Information Age. Whyzat? Because we have moved on from being a Manufacturing-powerhouse to being a Services-provider economy. Barely 13% of the American workforce is located in a "goods-producing industry". (See here, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.) That all started in the 1970s and the evolution has been wrenching.

As in the past, one can deny that such is happening. But let's be careful, because we exit one age and enter another always at a great cost! We humans get used to our way-of-life and refuse to change without a great necessity.

Do we need another 10% Unemployment Rate to convince anybody? Only time will tell the answer ...

 

Yes, I think you're right. The eventual outcome, if we can keep from having a big war, will be wonderful. Man is on the verge of becoming the subject, and not the object, of history. Gene-editing alone is going to mean the end of most diseases, and good physical health, and stellar IQs, for our descendants. It's within our grasp. Then it's off to the stars.

And yet ... it's not going to be smooth.

It's bothersome that so many smart people, all across the political spectrum, are caught up in their poltiical ideologies, into which they force reality.
Getting a good education for everyone, at their level of natural ability, ought to be something that is relatively uncontroversial. And yet it's not.

 

It is where I live, here in the EU. Primary, secondary and tertiary education cost almost nothing. That is, only the Tertiary Level degree has an annual fee of less than $1K (generally) in the EU.

The only problem that I can see is that far too many are getting an MBA in the hopes of finding a job. That aint gonna work like they think it will. A cheery disposition and an MBA will get you a job, but that's not enough to keep you in your seat.

There's no will to do so, however, in the US to make tertiary education as low-cost as possible. Because the people don't vote the right party into power.

But, apparently, that's what the people want ...

 

Sadly, I don't know much about the state of education in Europe.

The question is the quality of the education, once you have made it accessible to everyone. I have read some disturbing things about the French secondary-school system, which -- according to what I read -- seems to be departing from their traditional methods in favor of trendy fads ... but that was just one article. And I've recently read some critical things about Finland, always held up as the model for the rest of us.

But in this field -- well, as in all fields -- you find very few people who even pretend to try to be impartial. So it's hard to find the truth. A book I've got and am intending to read -- one I've hoped to see written for a long time -- is Cleverlands, by a journalist who had a close look at countries who do well in education.

I tutor young people in science and mathematics (in the UK), and also take the opportunity to talk to them about other things. I have met very few -- out of hundreds -- who have the least grasp of history. Who was Cromwell? Who was Napoleon? When did Alexander the Great live? These might as well be the names of Sioux chieftains. (Okay, I exaggerate, but not by much.). Above all, they have no mental 'timeline' of history, something which it is extremely easy to impart, especially if you start early.

As for free tertiary education. However paid for, the question is: is it doing what it should be doing? I've also yet to read this book:
The Case against Education: Why the Education System Is a Waste of Time and Money, although the reviews of it which I have read make me think he makes a strong case.

[I've put links to Amazon for both of the books above, for anyone interested.]

International comparisons are very tricky in this field. You're never comparing like with like. America has special social problems, which Europe has not had, until recently. The demographics are different. (There is a Swedish Kurd, Tino Sanandaji who has done some interesting work looking at the comparative performance, in secondary education, of the US vs the rest of the world. His conclusions: America's Africans do better than Africa's, America's Europeans are about average when compared to their European counterparts, and America's Asians do better than Asia's Asians. Of course, these are based on PISA scores in science and mathematics, and don't address what in my opinion should be the central issue -- are our young people getting a liberal education, in the classical sense of that term?) (I also recommend Mr Sanandaji for sensible views on immigration.)

One trend I really deplore, since you mention the chase for MBAs, is the idea -- put forward very strongly by politicians of both Left and Right in this country -- that a university education is for the purpose of allowing you to make more money (and thus also enriching your country). So close the Department of Philosophy and open a new Department of Business Studies. Terrible. For an acerbic look at this sort of thinking, which will make you laugh out loud, see Stephan Collini's article called HiEdBiz.

You contrast the American with the European approach to higher education. But remember, America spends a huge proportion of its national income on maintaining a gigantic military apparatus, which the Europeans get the benefit of, for essentially free. This expensive apparatus is necessary, otherwise we would have been invaded and conquered by Iran or Cambodia long ago.

 

The French school-system has its "challenges" - mostly from people who want their kids to have a better education than they did.

What's important to note is that, regardless of graduating from secondary-schooling, the tertiary schooling costs less than $1000 a year (in euros). I asked my dentist how much it cost him? A wee bit more - $1200 dollars per year. (That same education in the US will cost a dentist close to $550K for the total! See here.)

I am surprised that anyone wrote a book about education. It is sooooooo variable around the world.

Southeast Asia and Japan have educational systems that are particularly good, but for only a select few who pass the exams to get to a higher level.

Meaning what? In Japan, if one is 18, graduated from secondary-school, and you are supposed to know what you want to do for the rest of your life? I just don't see that as best for the person. Let them work it out in higher-education whatever the cost. (They will likely be happier in the long-run.)

I generally harp about the 14% of Americans who live below the Poverty Threshold because I am dead sure that with a proper-education today they would not be there. But, in the US (and as you may know) a tertiary education is not almost free, gratis and for nothing as in Europe. In fact, it is so damn expensive ($14K per year) that those living below the Poverty Threshold (in the US, $25K per year for a family of four) cannot possibly send their children.

Obviously, if we wanted to do something/anything about reducing the number living below the Poverty Threshold (~45 million), we in the US should start there!

Even the most rudimentary vocational school betters anyone's lot-in-life with a higher than a minimum-wage salary.

Quote from the Amazon link regarding the book:

Some of the above is goodness? With other parts, I beg to differ. Why? Here's why:
*Because any instruction in the formative years is better than none. *Reading/writing/arithmetic all help even if they are not definitive educational points that gets one a job. But be able to continue on has become a fact of life as we enter the Information Age, having left the Industrial Age (that mostly remains in southeast Asia.)
*Getting an education is a long and sometimes arduous trial. People should be given "time" to find an area that interests them. They are far more likely to succeed.
*We should take our focus off jobs, jobs, jobs and put it on what we think we can do best. Then do best at learning that art/science/whatever. Education must help us make that choice, however!

Higher education is a mixture of "keeping up with the Joneses" (moneywise) and also finding a place that will accept you for a cost you can afford.

There is little that can be done about "the Joneses", which is human quality and depends upon income. It is a natural instinct to want-to-succeed. But, it can be dangerous too.

We should be able to help kids who don't really know which trade to pursue. Howzat? By allowing them FREE ENTRY to any subject-courses. In that manner, they don't fear "wasting mummy&daddy's hard earn money!

Yes, it spends (this year) 64% of its Discretionary Budget on the DoD, when its "discretion" should be most focused upon Healthcare and Postsecondary Education rather than toys-for-our-boys.

MY POINT?

What can we do? Americans love guns. The French love sex (with multiple partners). The Germans love cars, and the Brits lover breweries.

(De gustibus non disputandum est ... ! ;^)

 

“The right party”.

 

Is tofu really better than ground pork?