orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (09/12/85)
I think Mike Huybensz had an excellent point about the potential problem of private schools: > > There is also the danger of forming a powerful industry, which would > lobby in its own economic interests, rather than in the interests of > the students or the public. You would see the rise of industry giants, > as we see in automobiles, fast-food, hospitals, etc. Do you want the only > nearby school to be as responsive as a McDonalds? Once again we find the conflict between the extremist libertarian demand for all enterprise to be privately owned and controlled and democracy. In the present public school system, despite its problems there is a KEY element of responsiveness: namely local school boards elected by those who live in the school districts they serve. These school boards have not necessarily always made the best decisions-some have banned books, and others have tended to persecute those who are different. But as Winston Churchill put it "Democracy is a very *bad* form of government - but it is the best form of government ever found." Once schools became another industry like McDonald's or General Motors decisions would be made by the schools owners for the school's owners profits and for *no other reason*. People who object will have no more influence over such decisions than they now have over decisions of General Motors. If the school's owners decide that it would be in their corporate interests to begin propagandizing children to use their products (there is already much corporate advertising sent to schools as a "free service") and advance the cause of their corporation, who will stop them? The only way to stop this would be for parents to withdraw their kids from such schools and setup their own schools, owned and controlled by them- i.e. essentially the public schools system as we have it now controlled and owned by local school boards elected by local citizens. If there are problems with the public school system then *do something about it*! Volunteer to help local PTA's and literacy groups. Such volunterism is greatly appreciated by the current system owned and controlled by local citizens and many local citizens feel motivated to aid in this *public* effort. I personally, and I am sure others would agree, would feel much less motivation to help a corporate school already making profits off children's need to learn basic skills. tim sevener
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (09/13/85)
In article <703@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >I think Mike Huybensz had an excellent point about the potential >problem of private schools: >> >> There is also the danger of forming a powerful industry, which would >> lobby in its own economic interests, rather than in the interests of >> the students or the public. You would see the rise of industry giants, >> as we see in automobiles, fast-food, hospitals, etc. Do you want the only >> nearby school to be as responsive as a McDonalds? > >Once again we find the conflict between the extremist libertarian demand >for all enterprise to be privately owned and controlled and democracy. >In the present public school system, despite its problems there is a >KEY element of responsiveness: namely local school boards elected by >those who live in the school districts they serve. These school boards >have not necessarily always made the best decisions-some have banned books, >and others have tended to persecute those who are different. > .... The danger Mike is talking about is not inherent to the rise of private schools. The National Education Assoc. (NEA) Has tremendous political clout, for example. I don't think the public schools provide any hedge against the abuses Mike is talking about. Large influential organizations like the NEA have very significant influence on both the national and local level. I would not think that the public school board would have much more reason to be responsive to the community than the local private school. Private schools may be more sensitive. Their funding depends on it. Private schools are much more numerous when we get into higher education. Have we seen Mike's fears realized in this segment of the educational system? -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
wjr@x.UUCP (Bill Richard) (09/16/85)
<taxation> Make my day, lineeater! Note: This is STella Calvert, a guest on this account. In article <703@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >I think Mike Huybensz had an excellent point about the potential >problem of private schools: >> >> There is also the danger of forming a powerful industry, which would >> lobby in its own economic interests, rather than in the interests of >> the students or the public. You would see the rise of industry giants, >> as we see in automobiles, fast-food, hospitals, etc. Do you want the only >> nearby school to be as responsive as a McDonalds? That's the case now. The educational establishment does NOT work in the interest of the students or the public. Perhaps the best statement of the goal of the public education industry is the motto over the entrance to a junior high in Ann Arbor, MI, "The foundation of the state is the education of its citizens." The one question I guarandamtee you will not find covered in government classes in any public school is, "Is government necessary?" >KEY element of responsiveness: namely local school boards elected by >those who live in the school districts they serve. These school boards are often elected by a bare majority of the people who bothered to vote. Not a majority of the people who have children in schools, or of those who are taxed to support the schools, but a majority (sometimes of VERY few votes) of the people who accept government as a legitimate vehicle for their views. >But as Winston Churchill put it "Democracy is a very *bad* form of >government - but it is the best form of government ever found." "Of government!" Democracy is a very bad form of settling grievances, but it is the best form yet implemented. That, however, does not mean further improvement is impossible. >If the school's owners decide that it would be in their corporate interests >to begin propagandizing children to use their products . . . and >advance the cause of their corporation, who will stop them? This is already the case. The government schools do propagandize for the continuation of government. I offered, many years ago, to present the other side of the story to a friend's junior high history classes. She was in favor of this at first, but later phoned me, embarrassed, and disinvited me. Suggesting that the government was unnecessary was "not a worthwhile educational issue". What about taxation without representation? >I personally, and I am sure others would agree, would feel much less >motivation to help a corporate school already making profits off >children's need to learn basic skills. Does that tell you why I don't bother with the school board? If I am ever responsible for the education of a child, I will send it to public school for the same reason I will get it inoculated against other life-threatening diseases. And at the end of each year, I will give it the choice between continuing to attend government-controlled schools and some combination of home study and private schooling. And, yes, I will be a cranking nuisance at PTA and school board meetings (the child's reactions to the (lack of) response I get should be more educational than the formal curriculum). STella Calvert (guest on ...!decvax!frog!wjr) Every man and every woman is a star.
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (09/16/85)
In article <5889@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) writes: > >> There is also the danger of forming a powerful industry, which would > >> lobby in its own economic interests, rather than in the interests of > >> the students or the public. You would see the rise of industry giants, > >> as we see in automobiles, fast-food, hospitals, etc. Do you want the only > >> nearby school to be as responsive as a McDonalds? > > The danger Mike is talking about is not inherent to the rise of private > schools. The National Education Assoc. (NEA) Has tremendous political > clout, for example. I don't think the public schools provide any hedge > against the abuses Mike is talking about. Large influential organizations > like the NEA have very significant influence on both the national and > local level. Of course public schools provide the hedge I am talking about: they are not members of the NEA or any other industry association. Nor do they provide funds for them. > I would not think that the public school board would have much more > reason to be responsive to the community than the local private school. > Private schools may be more sensitive. Their funding depends on it. The public school boards have to be responsive because they are elected. Their membership changes if they are not responsive. Private schools may not be as responsive for a variety of reasons. For example, if the school's customers are geographically distributed, it may be impossible to organize opposition to school policies which may be more profitable than the loss of one or two "troublemaking" customers (who won't be able to organize or even locate the other parents.) If the school is the only one locally, there is no alternative for the parents, so they cannot vote effectively with their dollars. There are some cases where the schools would be responsive: but I am reluctant to create new avenues for systematic abuses like the two mentioned above. > Private schools are much more numerous when we get into higher education. > Have we seen Mike's fears realized in this segment of the educational > system? The cases are not analogous for a vast number of important reasons. First, because of government tax incentives, nearly all private colleges are non-profit. Second, nearly all private colleges are resident colleges, not community colleges: thus their student base IS mobile and unconstrained in its choices. Third, because of competition with highly subsidized public colleges, it is not very profitable to run a college. Fourth, the students at college age are fully franchised adults, who can make a much more serious stink about conditions at college than younger students (because they know more about their rights, have higher expectations, more status, etc.) I could go on. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh