The problem is you probably can't reasonably fund a school for disenfranchised segments of the population without resorting to massive busing. So you'd literally end up with a system where normal students get a decent, but probably not vastly superior eduction, and other students get no education at all.
This is why the current system is better that the one proposed. If you want to contribute to other people not getting an education, the govt shouldn't pay for it (hence private schools shouldn't be funded if they're going to select who they want to serve).
The other alternative is that funding is commensurate with things like family income. So rich kids aren't funded at all. Poor kids are funded at 5x their cost, or something like that. This works a little better as its slightly harder to game.
Because of how funding works. It's similar to the reason why if you remove all healthy people off of insurance plans, you can no longer afford to cover the sick. I leave the rest as an exercise to the reader.
Huh? Insurance is about hedging against low probability, high cost events. I.e., 1 million people (each with a 5/1,000,000 chance of getting a medical condition costing $200k) pay $1, and in the future approximately 5 of them get sick and receive $200k.
If one could see the future and determine who will become sick (as in Robert Heinlein's "Life Line"), it would indeed destroy the insurance business model. But I can't see what this has to do with education - near as I can tell, education is not about hedging risk in any way remotely comparable to insurance.
It's not just hedging risk, but also subsidizing costs. Education is similiar in that you can't create a school for 100 different schools, each of 10 students across multiple grade levels within a single school district. And furthermore it's very cost ineffective when they share 75% of the infrastructure that other children would use.
So you have one school with 1,000 students that has all the finances to have a building, janitorial staff, gym, new textbooks, have music teachers, etc... The schools with 10 students can barely afford lease for a single room office -- much less one general purpose teacher.
The healthy subsidize the unhealthy. This is why for healthcare reform insurance is mandatory.
I'm not against private schools per se, but I am against the public funding them. The implicit goal of private schools is to oppress those not in them, as much as to educate those in them. It's an anti-public good to fund them. With that said I do think private schools are consistent with the goals of capitalism, part of which is exploit others as best possible.
Comments
The problem is you probably can't reasonably fund a school for disenfranchised segments of the population without resorting to massive busing. So you'd literally end up with a system where normal students get a decent, but probably not vastly superior eduction, and other students get no education at all.
This is why the current system is better that the one proposed. If you want to contribute to other people not getting an education, the govt shouldn't pay for it (hence private schools shouldn't be funded if they're going to select who they want to serve).
The other alternative is that funding is commensurate with things like family income. So rich kids aren't funded at all. Poor kids are funded at 5x their cost, or something like that. This works a little better as its slightly harder to game.
How does a private school teaching Student A prevent student B from getting the exact same education as before at the old public school?
Because of how funding works. It's similar to the reason why if you remove all healthy people off of insurance plans, you can no longer afford to cover the sick. I leave the rest as an exercise to the reader.
Huh? Insurance is about hedging against low probability, high cost events. I.e., 1 million people (each with a 5/1,000,000 chance of getting a medical condition costing $200k) pay $1, and in the future approximately 5 of them get sick and receive $200k.
If one could see the future and determine who will become sick (as in Robert Heinlein's "Life Line"), it would indeed destroy the insurance business model. But I can't see what this has to do with education - near as I can tell, education is not about hedging risk in any way remotely comparable to insurance.
It's not just hedging risk, but also subsidizing costs. Education is similiar in that you can't create a school for 100 different schools, each of 10 students across multiple grade levels within a single school district. And furthermore it's very cost ineffective when they share 75% of the infrastructure that other children would use.
So you have one school with 1,000 students that has all the finances to have a building, janitorial staff, gym, new textbooks, have music teachers, etc... The schools with 10 students can barely afford lease for a single room office -- much less one general purpose teacher.
The healthy subsidize the unhealthy. This is why for healthcare reform insurance is mandatory.
I'm not against private schools per se, but I am against the public funding them. The implicit goal of private schools is to oppress those not in them, as much as to educate those in them. It's an anti-public good to fund them. With that said I do think private schools are consistent with the goals of capitalism, part of which is exploit others as best possible.