So I've had a bit of a crazy week. Things have finally calmed down some and I can get back to writing here and responding to all of the thoughtful comments that I've received. There were so many comments on my post on education and healthcare that I thought I would respond to them all in a post. I'll start with healthcare.
Doughnutman: We probably pay the most and have one of the worst returns because we have the worst of both worlds. I would not be surprised if a completely socialized system of healthcare was actually better than what we have now. We pretend that we have a market system of medicine, so high costs are blamed solely on capitalism. Corruption, patronage, and laziness are thus easier to get away with. If we have an entirely socialized system, there will be no one else to blame. A good analogy would be Hamas before achieving government power in Palestine. As long as they were not part of the system, they could avoid accountability.
You make valid points about the weaknesses of our system, but I do not accept the premise that things would improve under socialized medicine. Look how government subsidy of any industry works. Sure, access improves: more people are able to receive the service or good that is being subsidized. But, quality plummets. Move to Canada, where you'll wait online for months for access to basic medical care because bureaucracy and inefficiency are rampant. And doctors will be happier?! Give me a break. Their freedom to practice medicine as they see fit is completely taken away and their hands are tied behind their back. Under socialized medicine, doctors become slaves. Yes, I do not exaggerate. Slaves. If I granted the assumption that socialized medicine was more effective (which I do not), nothing, would make it ok to violate the fundamental rights of EVERY individual, including doctors. I do not care if socialized medicine would save 1,000 babies per year, or any other ridiculous statistic. It does NOT justify trampling on anyone's rights.
As for the comments by Anonymous and Mark, Cheers!
Now onto education. I'm very happy to see comments by two public school teachers! Miss Judice, you are absolutely right about the fundamental problem of teachers who focus almost solely on preparing their students for standardized tests. I'm sure that you recall studying for a test that you did not care anything about, memorizing what you needed to know, and then forgetting most of the material shortly after. At least, I remember much of my public school education being this way. When teachers do not have to worry about the satisfaction of parents (who are paying for the education), but rather "teaching" their students to parrot out enough material for a meaningless federal test, it's no surprise that the quality of education suffers. Parents and other individuals that are forcibly paying into a public education cannot withdraw their support when they think the education being offered is poor. Thus, there really is very little economic pressure for educational reform. Now, I do not make the claim that infusing more economic pressure through the free market would completely rehabilitate educational philosophy. But, at the very least, it would make some improvement. Parents who are paying directly for their child's education are going to have a more vested interest in whether their money is being well-spent. I'm preaching to the choir here with you I think, but it's good to reiterate.
You make another great point about the length of education. Did you ever feel in high school that you were being taught the same things that should have been taught a long time ago? I felt this way a lot, particularly in English and History classes. If earlier education were much improved, the kind of branching off that you talk about would definitely be a possibility, and quite beneficial to many students. If school curriculums (curriculi?, lol) were ordered like Lisa VanDamme suggests, students would be much better off.
Justin, it's going to be extremely difficult to transition from what we have now to a good educational system. Our system right now is so abhorrent and pitiful in my eyes right now, that I see any improvement as a very long-term process. As with most government programs, simply pulling the plug is probably not a good idea. It's like trying to get off a drug addiction to heroin. Going cold turkey is usually more harmful than being on the drug, so rehab centers first put their patients on lesser drugs to gradually make them better. What exactly the "lesser drug" is for our educational system, I do not know. But perhaps the best course is to create a new kind of private school that can eventually replace our failing public schools. Lisa VanDamme has done just that. Her educational philosophy is essentially that there is a necessary order to conceptual knowledge that must be followed in order to actually teach children. Take science for example. In most classrooms, Newton's Laws of Motion are explained in the following way. The teacher takes a piece of chalk, goes up to the blackboard, and writes down the laws. The students are told to copy these laws and memorize them. There will be a quiz tomorrow. What is actually learned here? There is no understanding about why Netwon came up with these laws or the logical progression from earlier science. They are to be taken as floating abstractions, accepted as truth by faith. To boot, students are asked how they "feel" about this knowledge. On what basis could they have any valid opinion, given how the material has been taught? Sadly, this pattern is followed not only in science but in just about every academic field.
As for teachers, a fully private educational system would hurt some teachers and benefit others. Success in the field would be largely based on merit, not the circumstance of which school district has the most political pull via unions or school boards. Given how incredibly valuable education is, I think good teachers would be well-rewarded for their efforts, most likely more than they are now. Having a private education system would force parents to readjust their economic priorities somewhat - spending less on luxury items and more on what is really important. As it stands now, they take it for granted that their kids will receive an education, since they are forced to pay anyway. But when forced with the possibility that their kids will not be educated, they will focus more of their money on rewarding those who do educate well. Also, if I was running a school, I would definitely do away with the nonsensical standardized testing that goes on there now. Multiple choice?! This rewards only what the child can memorize best, and leaves no lasting knowledge at all. I would make all tests short answer and essay. As for your criticisms of No Child Left Behind, they are dead on. Republicans (or Democrats) in charge of educational philosophy and administration...terrible idea.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Please explain to me why the cost of education will drop in a totally private system.
In a completely private education system, the cost of education would not immediately decrease, in fact it would probably go up since parents would have to pay the full cost of education.
But, if we applied the free market to education, I have little doubt that increasing demand would cause prices to fall. But more importantly, the realities of a market system would force schools to become much more efficient. The tenure system for example would likely be scrapped. Any business that rewards seniority with little attention to merit is bound to fail.
Here's a little statistic for you from Capitalism Magazine, “According to the U.S. Department of Education, the average private school charged $4,689 per student in tuition for the 1999-2000 school years. That same year, the average public school spent $8,032 per pupil.” Somehow, private schools are able to out-perform public schools when it comes to imparting knowledge and skills despite the fact their students have less than half as much funding as public school students and the success of home-schooled students over their contemporaries is already legendary."
One last point. I think that charitable donations to private schools would increase in a totally private system. We already see large donations being given to schools by alumni or local businessmen for a variety of reasons. One big reason is that it's within one's rational self-interest to want to live in an educated society. Plus, when people are not being forced to support their local education, they are more likely to be willing to give.
"Somehow, private schools are able to out-perform public schools when it comes to imparting knowledge and skills despite the fact their students have less than half as much funding as public school students "
There is a sample bias here. Wise businesses practices may be partially explain the competitiveness of private schools but certainly not all. Private schools tend to have families with higher levels of education, more resources, are able to be selective in terms of which students they accept etc.
Post a Comment