State Education VS Private Education

[Tony Stark]

The thing is that then those who put their kids in private schools would have to pay a double cost, one for the tuitition and one in taxes to the schools run by the government. Of course we could argue that then they should have no obligation to pay the specific tax that goes towards education, but after that it's a slippery slope where no one has to pay for anything that you don't use, thus demolishing the state apparatus completely.

Oh how I wish this were possible..

[nanon]

State education introduces State inefficiency and bureaucracy, and effectively charges everyone, even those who don't have children and never will, for the education of children. 'Choice' is also not a factor within the State system. Private schools pretty consistently perform better on average than State schools, and I don't think it's solely a question of money; money can't buy efficiency and effectiveness.

Private education also gets funded by the government. This is why they perform better, because they have so much more funding, they aren't obligated to keep children with bad behaviour, they can fire teachers, and they dont have to 'play by the government's rules'. If you think that people without children should not have to pay for education- do you think that ALL people should have to pay the amount of a private school? Many people cannot afford this amount, and the funding they recieve from the government allows their children to recieve an education.

I support private education should a parent choose to send their child there for personal reasons, but the government funding for private schools should, imo, be reallocated to public schools.

The thing is that then those who put their kids in private schools would have to pay a double cost, one for the tuitition and one in taxes to the schools run by the government. Of course we could argue that then they should have no obligation to pay the specific tax that goes towards education, but after that it's a slippery slope where no one has to pay for anything that you don't use, thus demolishing the state apparatus completely.

But it was there decision to not enrol their child in public education, no one made them go private. The same can be said about healthcare. Those with private healthcare still have to pay health taxes because they chose to opt out of the services the government provides.

[Ezak]

State education introduces State inefficiency and bureaucracy, and effectively charges everyone, even those who don't have children and never will, for the education of children. 'Choice' is also not a factor within the State system. Private schools pretty consistently perform better on average than State schools, and I don't think it's solely a question of money; money can't buy efficiency and effectiveness.

Private education also gets funded by the government. This is why they perform better, because they have so much more funding, they aren't obligated to keep children with bad behaviour, they can fire teachers, and they dont have to 'play by the government's rules'. If you think that people without children should not have to pay for education- do you think that ALL people should have to pay the amount of a private school? Many people cannot afford this amount, and the funding they recieve from the government allows their children to recieve an education.

I support private education should a parent choose to send their child there for personal reasons, but the government funding for private schools should, imo, be reallocated to public schools.

The thing is that then those who put their kids in private schools would have to pay a double cost, one for the tuitition and one in taxes to the schools run by the government. Of course we could argue that then they should have no obligation to pay the specific tax that goes towards education, but after that it's a slippery slope where no one has to pay for anything that you don't use, thus demolishing the state apparatus completely.

But it was there decision to not enrol their child in public education, no one made them go private. The same can be said about healthcare. Those with private healthcare still have to pay health taxes because they chose to opt out of the services the government provides.

But they did not choose to pay taxes in the first case did they? This is just a psuedo- choice.

[sarahlouise]

State education introduces State inefficiency and bureaucracy, and effectively charges everyone, even those who don't have children and never will, for the education of children. 'Choice' is also not a factor within the State system. Private schools pretty consistently perform better on average than State schools, and I don't think it's solely a question of money; money can't buy efficiency and effectiveness.

Private education also gets funded by the government. This is why they perform better, because they have so much more funding, they aren't obligated to keep children with bad behaviour, they can fire teachers, and they dont have to 'play by the government's rules'. If you think that people without children should not have to pay for education- do you think that ALL people should have to pay the amount of a private school? Many people cannot afford this amount, and the funding they recieve from the government allows their children to recieve an education.

I support private education should a parent choose to send their child there for personal reasons, but the government funding for private schools should, imo, be reallocated to public schools.

The thing is that then those who put their kids in private schools would have to pay a double cost, one for the tuitition and one in taxes to the schools run by the government. Of course we could argue that then they should have no obligation to pay the specific tax that goes towards education, but after that it's a slippery slope where no one has to pay for anything that you don't use, thus demolishing the state apparatus completely.

But it was there decision to not enrol their child in public education, no one made them go private. The same can be said about healthcare. Those with private healthcare still have to pay health taxes because they chose to opt out of the services the government provides.

But they did not choose to pay taxes in the first case did they? This is just a psuedo- choice.

No but that is because everybody pays taxes. Not everybody has enough money to go to a private school, even if they wanted to.

Funding private schools is funding a choice that only some people are actually able to make. I feel strongly against it.

[Tony Stark]

State education introduces State inefficiency and bureaucracy, and effectively charges everyone, even those who don't have children and never will, for the education of children. 'Choice' is also not a factor within the State system. Private schools pretty consistently perform better on average than State schools, and I don't think it's solely a question of money; money can't buy efficiency and effectiveness.

Private education also gets funded by the government. This is why they perform better, because they have so much more funding, they aren't obligated to keep children with bad behaviour, they can fire teachers, and they dont have to 'play by the government's rules'. If you think that people without children should not have to pay for education- do you think that ALL people should have to pay the amount of a private school? Many people cannot afford this amount, and the funding they recieve from the government allows their children to recieve an education.

I support private education should a parent choose to send their child there for personal reasons, but the government funding for private schools should, imo, be reallocated to public schools.

The thing is that then those who put their kids in private schools would have to pay a double cost, one for the tuitition and one in taxes to the schools run by the government. Of course we could argue that then they should have no obligation to pay the specific tax that goes towards education, but after that it's a slippery slope where no one has to pay for anything that you don't use, thus demolishing the state apparatus completely.

But it was there decision to not enrol their child in public education, no one made them go private. The same can be said about healthcare. Those with private healthcare still have to pay health taxes because they chose to opt out of the services the government provides.

But they did not choose to pay taxes in the first case did they? This is just a psuedo- choice.

No but that is because everybody pays taxes. Not everybody has enough money to go to a private school, even if they wanted to.

Funding private schools is funding a choice that only some people are actually able to make. I feel strongly against it.

The fact that "everybody pays taxes" is by no means a justification in and of itself.

[sarahlouise]

I'm gonna steal something that I read in the paper but which sums up the argument against government funding of private schools rather nicely.

Basically, say I created a private army, and used it to protect myself, because I didn't think the defence force was good enough. Then, could I demand that taxpayers help support it? I could use all the arguments for government funding of private schools to legitimise my demand. I should have freedom to choose what army protects me; then, I pay taxes, so some taxes should obviously support this army. Technically too, I’m saving the government money because they don’t have to protect me. Furthermore, I am so wealthy that I can entice all the best soldiers to my army, and then use this enhanced capability to present my army as superior to that provided by the government, luring others to pay for my army over the state option.

It's pretty ludicrous in my opinion. In any case, if no private schools were government funded, we'd end up with a pretty awesome state education system.

[Tony Stark]

Your analogy seems to support privatisation, funnily enough; it illustrates how privatisation leads to greater quality and the public has the option to opt into this greater quality.

Also, if one was paying for their own protection and thus had no need for state protection, why are they coerced into paying for something they neither want nor need? Particularly when they're paying so much more than others. For example, though the government doesn't provide itemised breakdowns of where each individual's tax contribution goes (apparently the UK is considering implementing such a method, interestingly), if someone was earning $1,000,000 and paying an average rate of tax of 41%, out of the four hundred and ten thousand dollars they're paying to the government, they may be paying for ten or twenty other people's kids to go to school. What do they owe those kids that demands such coerced giving?

It's pretty ludicrous in my opinion. In any case, if no private schools were government funded, we'd end up with a pretty awesome state education system.

You've totally lost me here. No reasoning given to support the claim, simply an assumption. Please elaborate.

Edited May 12, 2012 by Tony Stark

[Sandwich]

The thing is that then those who put their kids in private schools would have to pay a double cost, one for the tuitition and one in taxes to the schools run by the government. Of course we could argue that then they should have no obligation to pay the specific tax that goes towards education, but after that it's a slippery slope where no one has to pay for anything that you don't use, thus demolishing the state apparatus completely.

Oh how I wish this were possible..

In that case though, people whose parents were not well-off would have to send them into education of an even lower standard than at present, were it to be stripped of taxpayer funding from those who could simultaneously afford to send their children to a private school.

Poor people would therefore be doomed to a worse education. If you say (as I believe) that one of the main things about education is that it should be accessible to everyone and therefore enable social mobility, then I cannot imagine a worse move than to remove one of the fundamental tenets of an equal society: equality of opportunity.

People can make of themselves what they wish, with the correct start and education. You can choose to go for it or ignore it and make something of yourself or mess around, but it would be a messed-up place where people didn't have the chance at being properly educated. Academic people who'll go on to achieve great things can come from any strata of society, financially speaking, and people should be given the chance without financial impediment to go on to achieve. You can go to a state-funded school or a private school but you'll still get people capable of becoming doctors, lawyers, teachers, business people etc.

To be honest I think state healthcare, policing and education are absolutely fundamental to a civilised society that values such things as everybody getting an equal chance in life, regardless of background, to do with as they will. Nobody should tolerate other people suffering or failing to be educated etc. for reasons of poverty. Stepping over those less fortunate than yourselves in order to save your own money (when you have some to spare) is not something I'd ever admire. In a society we have a responsibility to make sure that nobody ever gets trodden on or left behind. Not in a we'll-molly-coddle-you way, but just in a way that gives people chances in life.

[Tony Stark]

The issue that I find is that state systems are generally irrevocably inferior in terms of efficiency and effectiveness to private systems. It's not simply a matter of money (though money plays an indubitable part), but rather issues arising from centralisation and its resultant bureaucracy. Do I believe in equality of opportunity? Yes. Do I believe the State can deliver it? Hell no.

I would do away with the State education system entirely and replace it with a combination of both means-based and merit-based financial aid. Ideally, it would be the institutions themselves that offer this aid, much like in the tertiary system (though the US tertiary system is a poor example with its ridiculous fees); enticed by government grants, and tax credits and refunds for doing so. The reason for this would, once again, be decentralisation: the institutions, being in direct contact with the student, would be in a better position to asses their needs than a government that has to worry about millions of other kids as well. However it's unlikely that this system would be entirely sufficient, and government-based education grants would likely be needed to fill the gaps.

Therefore, all would still have the opportunity to receive an education, however the system that delivers it, due to free market competition, would be more effective and efficient.

I would apply the same system to general healthcare, however I believe emergency services should definitely be state-supplied in conjunction to market alternatives. There is a ridiculous double-standard in Australia where one can find a bulk-billing GP for a free medical certificate to get out of work, yet if one is in need of an ambulance one may well be hit with a four-figure bill after the fact.

Policing, the judiciary, and national defense, on the other hand, are things I don't think we can allow money to play a factor in (though, as is glaringly obvious, placing them in the domain of the State doesn't always prevent money from being a factor); they must be equitable, fair and impartial in the utmost.

Of course, I'm realistic enough to know that such an extreme libertarian viewpoint is one that we're very unlikely to return to; the concept of the welfare state has grown too large to rescind. A more realistic alternative for improving the efficiency of state systems would be to allow each individual institution more power over hires and employment, admissions, teaching methods etc., and allow individuals the freedom to choose which institution they prefer.

And, back to the original topic, as long as the wealthy are paying taxes (to a much greater extent than those less well-off), I don't see how one can justify them not receiving public benefits. I find it ridiculous how one can be paying the government six or seven figures in taxes, with the only recompense being in areas where one has no choice due to State monopoly like roads. Essentially, one is paying a fee to live. In a business sense, one could justify that if the State owned the nation itself, however the role of the State is to represent its people (all of them), not rule over them, therefore such a scenario amounts to a legalised tyranny of the majority enforced by the implicit threat of force (i.e. losing personal liberty by being jailed).

Not to mention it's not like all private school students come from wealthy backgrounds, either. I happen to go to a (horrible, utterly incompetent and laughably pathetic - yes, that can happen in the private system, too, but unlike in the State system one has the freedom to choose whether or not they wish to pay to receive the service, therefore there is a standard of quality applicable for financial success; hence why the school is in serious financial trouble at the moment) private school (on a merit scholarship, remitting the majority of my fees) which charges upwards of twenty four thousand a year. Yet, I'd estimate that approximately 50% of the student body comes from backgrounds at or below the national mean household income level. Sometimes they're here on some form of academic, sporting or creative arts merit scholarship, sometimes their parents just worked their asses off to get them a better life (I would suggest they picked the wrong school, but I have higher academic standards than most). Should we penalise those people, as well?

Oh, and from my experience in State education, I must say, they do molly-coddle quite a bit, at least in Victoria. So focused on positive reinforcement in lieu of academic development they render everyone more likely to under-perform.

Edited May 12, 2012 by Tony Stark

[sarahlouise]

It's pretty ludicrous in my opinion. In any case, if no private schools were government funded, we'd end up with a pretty awesome state education system.

You've totally lost me here. No reasoning given to support the claim, simply an assumption. Please elaborate.

Finland is a good example. 96% of their education system is free/state, and not only do they outperform Aussie kids, the gap between the highest-performing and lowest-performing student is lower than here, despite a similar expenditue-per-head. That system clearly (in my opinion) works better.

[Fani]

It really depends on the country we are talking about.

For example in Greece private education is FAR better than state (like, no comparison), while in Germany as far as I'm aware there are no private schools and the level in public ones is terrific

[Eastcoast93]

yeah in germany you hardly find any private schools, all are pretty much public and free of charge. and they are of very high quality. there are however different levels depending on ability to learn and what type of degree you want to get (whether you are planning to continue on to university or go directly into the business world).

[Sandwich]

The issue that I find is that state systems are generally irrevocably inferior in terms of efficiency and effectiveness to private systems. It's not simply a matter of money (though money plays an indubitable part), but rather issues arising from centralisation and its resultant bureaucracy. Do I believe in equality of opportunity? Yes. Do I believe the State can deliver it? Hell no.

Well if the only two options are the state, which has as its goals whatever it thinks are important, and the private system, which has and will always have as its goal making money, I don't see how it's actually possible for the private system to deliver any things such as equality of opportunity, which relies fundamentally on NOT making money out of people who can't afford it because... well, they can't afford it.

I would do away with the State education system entirely and replace it with a combination of both means-based and merit-based financial aid. Ideally, it would be the institutions themselves that offer this aid, much like in the tertiary system (though the US tertiary system is a poor example with its ridiculous fees); enticed by government grants, and tax credits and refunds for doing so. The reason for this would, once again, be decentralisation: the institutions, being in direct contact with the student, would be in a better position to asses their needs than a government that has to worry about millions of other kids as well. However it's unlikely that this system would be entirely sufficient, and government-based education grants would likely be needed to fill the gaps.

Therefore, all would still have the opportunity to receive an education, however the system that delivers it, due to free market competition, would be more effective and efficient.

This has probably got to be my least favourite argument in the world right now Free market competition makes everything better, more effective and more efficient. Like hell it does. Or rather, yes it does if what you want as an outcome is money. At the end of the day there are certain captive markets such as healthcare and education where you literally have no choice which 'provider' you go to. They can set their own fees between themselves and by themselves, and what you can't afford, you don't get. Quality of service is completely pole-axed because actually quality of service and saving money do not go hand in hand in these kinds of market and really this is my major objection to 'free market competition solves everything'. This notion that competition breeds excellence is true in so many walks of life yet simply not true in fields such as healthcare. In the UK for instance, private healthcare providers base their prices on liasing with each other to see what they all think they're worth instead of competing to have the lowest price. Having the lowest price may bring more 'customers' but being ill shouldn't make you into a 'customer' (commercialising illness frankly sickens me) and basically the consequence of privatisation is inadequate treatment for those who can only afford the bottom rung because you can't have the lowest price but also treat somebody to the optimum standards.

Incidentally it is centralisation which makes the nationalised health systems significantly cheaper and more cost-effective to run than privatised systems (for instance the US health system versus the UK health system is private versus state and not only more expensive in the US on all levels but actually not of any greater quality for that money either). You can bulk-buy drugs, you can share highly expensive facilities, you can concentrate specialities, you can co-ordinate emergency services, ambulance routes etc. and various other economies of scale which are in fact beneficial, hugely money-saving (drugs for instance are a massive proportion of the healthcare bill) and not negative. Not only that, you can even integrate manufacture of your own drugs at such a time as those drugs go off licence and save money even more. So many things about a centralised system save cash, lower bureaucracy and improve quality of services.

In my opinion people wave the banner of 'freedom' and 'competition' like they're magic cure-alls for absolutely any system. Well, I disagree very strongly. Freedom and competition are not always more efficient. Equally not every single system should run on financial efficiency when quality is really the driver which matters to people who participate in the service and to become financially efficient is to screw quality up into a paper ball and stick it in the bin - unless you can pay extra to have a higher tier service. That's one of the best things about state-run healthcare, to be honest, that the highest quality CAN be found within the state and not privately - because of the centralised nature of it and its interests in sharing personnel, resources, financial burden, training and expertise, it actually breeds and distributes excellence. Especially in a system where it's run by professionals rather than by business people out to make cash, those professionals have a much greater interest in doing a good job than they do in seeing who can do the least work for the most money - and are evenly distributed because pay is standardised and not on the kinds of exponential grades you see in competitive sectors such as banking where executives get paid a small fortune - doctors are actually not that well paid publicly, whereas privately they can make and charge an awful lot of money with no controls or caps.

Anyway, that small healthcare-related rant over, I shall go and weep about what is being done to the British health service (actually almost exactly what you propose, presently with consequences suggesting it was the master plan of a retarded duck with GPs doing the jobs of managers and even getting to set their own salaries) quietly in a corner at a later date and try to get back on topic. In my opinion the reasons you propose for the state sector not being as good as the private sector would be far better solved by improvements in the state sector but maintaining a free-for-all system than blocking people out/drowning them in debt in a sink of private establishments. At the end of the day, we all have to go to school and have no choice in the matter. There's only so far we're all going to travel to go to school, so basically our choices are even more limited. Trying to make a free market competition system work when your target market has basically nowhere to go doesn't seem to me like generating choice, but rather creating a scenario in which people can make an awful lot of money by being the only choice and are no longer held to the standards of quality necessitated by a nationalised system but rather are held to whatever standards they want given that people have nowhere else to go.

/really rambling, sorry!

[Tony Stark]

I'll keep it short as social commitments have me well behind on IB work at the moment, and also because this debate is enshrined in perpetuity and thus neither of us are likely to change our viewpoints.

The key to the free market is competition. If a local high school sets extortionate fees due to there not presently being any local competition, any entrepreneur worth his salt would seize the opportunity. Thus, inevitably a superior alternative to any odious choice shall be created, and in the long run a superior alternative to that, and so on and so forth, maximising efficiency.

A firm in proper open market competition can only maximise profits if they deliver the product the consumers want; if a firm delivers an inferior or overpriced product consumers will shift their preference to a competitor. I find it both humourous and perplexing that profits are villainised these days - it ignores the fact that in free market competition profits in the long run represent a benefit to the consumer (particularly because, in business terms, they are generally re-invested into further innovation and development). Schools are a good example here. Where I live, and from what I know in most places, Private Schools are non-profits, therefore any money made is invested back into bettering the education offered so as to improve their reputation and attract more students.

Yes, in the short run firms in certain types of industry may make profits by ripping off others, but by doing so they are only ensuring they will lose customers and therefore money in future. Plus, it is important to remember the objective of the firm: whilst a publicly-traded company's primary responsibility is to its shareholders, a private school run as a not-for-profit holds as its primary stakeholders the parents of the students at the school, as they are the source of the majority of the school's funding.

The staple to all this is the freedom of choice. In all free market cases, an individual freely makes the choice to engage in trade with another party. Therefore, if they lose money, they do so as a consequence of their own decisions. In the State system, however, this choice is not there. One does not have the freedom to evaluate the potential benefits of paying the State a determined amount in exchange for certain services; instead they are forced to on threat of imprisonment. Without this threat of individuals refusing to engage in trade with them, the State is free to be as inefficient, ineffective or downright extortionate as they wish, provided they do not incite outright rebellion. If I go to McDonald's and don't like their burgers, I can go to Burger King the next day. If I'm born and raised in the UK and don't like the State apparatus, it's rather more difficult to move countries.

Some here would argue the State has the best interests of the populace at heart, but considering the calibre of the average politician that is a weak argument in my opinion. One may also bring up the democratic process as a counter-argument, however the State does not refer to a political party or sitting legislative body, but rather the entire public sector. Yes, a government may be voted out, but the majority of government employees' jobs shall not be affected. Also, the idea that the State is both utterly altruistic and omniscient is dubitable in my view; it is unlikely that a body of a few dozen or hundred could effectively decide what is best for millions. In the free market, the collective will of all is taken into account, based upon where they spend their money.

The concept of Economies of Scale, in my opinion, is insufficient to counteract all of the above. There's also the issue of diseconomies of scale. Whilst this theoretical premise has never been proven in the context of business, a federal government monopoly may trigger this through bureaucratic and administrative inefficiencies, specifically because they are not guided by a bottom line. Whilst the idea that the State should provide certain services blind to cost, that is dangerously naive due to the omnipresent effect of scarcity. If 10 people in the UK died of a random disease every year, and saving their lives would cost 50 million pounds, would it be advisable? Remember, this is not your money you are talking about, but rather 'robbing Peter to pay Paul', so to speak. The money would come out of the pockets of the citizenry, in whose hands it may have saved the lives of others, or invented some new technological process to improve the standard of living of all. Any money spent comes with an opportunity cost. Businesses, with money in mind, take this into account and attempt to maximise profits by investing in the fields thought to have the highest RoI - meaning that the most people wanted that service enough to pay for it. The State is not bound by any such incentive, but rather solely on good faith.

Humans are not equal - some are faster, some are stronger, some are smarter, some are more attractive. If we were all equal, arguably we would all think the same way. It is our very differences (read:inequalities) that render us unique, and therefore permit discourse and innovation. The only way to render education and health care truly equal would be not by improving the State system, but rather by forbidding those with higher incomes from seeking private aid. A restriction of liberty, a tyranny of the majority, for naught but a propagandic victory. No matter how much the State improves healthcare, the Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerbergs of the world can find better.

Also, note that I did outline a scheme designed precisely for ensuring access to education based on both merit and need regardless of income, through a scholarship and financial aid system administered in joint co-operation by the State and the Schools themselves.