Do you think schools should be privatized?

Question

by privatized, i mean the states still pay schools money like they do now, its just there are no Unions running them. So far, my past high school, i found one competent teacher who actually wanted the Union out because he was surrounded by idiots.

Personally, i believe so. Schools would work harder to find better teachers because they would want your business, and instead of bringing everyone down to the bottom child, they would try to bring everyone to the top child. I know there are draw backs however

Whats your opinion?

orderlylogic, when unions force schools to hold onto teachers even when they are bad and force certain wages no matter what onto the schools, yes, they run the schools

Answer 1

Yes, the problem is monopoly. You will find those who generally oppose monopolistic practices in business support it in education.

I think school vouchers are the way to go. Put the public and private schools on a more equal footing and let the best educators win.

Answer 2

The thing that makes American great is something we call 'social mobility'. No matter how poor your parents are, you can still get an education and be a doctor or a CEO or president. Anyway that's how it's -supposed- to work.

The problem is that richer kids just get better chances in life. A lot of Americans don't want to help the less fortunate get ahead, they want to reinforce existing privilege. And privatizing schools is in this category.

With private schools, the education your kids get will depend directly on how much money you can spend. Kids growing up with parents on minimum wage will be lucky even to learn to read and write. Kids whose parents are well to do will get everything they need. Is that a good idea?

It's so easy to blame everything on the teachers' unions. I think that's a cop-out.

Here in California we had a ballot initiative for a 'voucher' system. I read the initiative and it said it wanted to make public schools compete. But under the rules of the initiative, public schools could take only the voucher amount while private schools could take that plus whatever else they could get out of the parents. Public schools had to hire certificated teachers and pay them the going rate but private schools could hire -anyone- and pay them whatever they'd work for. Finally--and I think this is the most important thing--public schools had to take anyone who applied but private schools could pick and choose. They could look at their applicants' scholastic records and cherry-pick the high achievers. In other words the phrase 'school choice' means it's the SCHOOL that makes the choice.

The initiative was defeated, but it came up again, almost the same exact initiative, and it was defeated again. I can't think of a better way to enforce a rigid class structure on our society, dooming 80% of kids to Wal-Mart jobs while the richest 10% slide directly into good colleges and management.

The NICs, the Newly Industrialized Countries that are eating our lunch right now--Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, etc.--their people not only work cheaper than Americans but they're better educated! THEY know that education is the key, education of the workforce, not just privileged kids.

Answer 3

There is no place in our society where the unions do more damage than in our school system. It's not just the teachers. The building maintenance unions make a mess too. They rarely come to work and all run a business on the side using supplies and equipment stolen from the school. They come to work in the schools at night and get paid to sleep.

There is little chance that liberal academia will surrender their no-show jobs by voting out the union. Is there any other work place where there is such a thing as tenure?
But if you can do it, I'm with ya man.

Education reform will not be successful unless the public begins to pay more attention to the activities of teachers' unions and challenges the unions when their actions threaten our children's education.
Teachers' unions oppose plans that empower parents to demand accountability and choice, which they see as a threat to the jobs of underperforming teachers. For the unions, many innovative reform proposals are just unacceptable.
This is hardly a recent state of affairs. The National Education Association (NEA) was founded in 1857 to improve education at the local level. Within just a few years, it shifted its focus to teacher pay. Today, with approximately 3.2 million members, the NEA is one of the largest unions in the United States and has immense political influence.
The NEA's executive director stated its goal at its 1978 convention: "to tap the legal, political and economic power of the U.S. Congress. We want leaders and staff with sufficient clout that they may roam the halls of Congress and collect votes and reorder the priorities of the United States of America."
Under current union regulations, writes Paige, our children are not the only ones suffering-our teachers are as well. Due to union rules, teachers may be rewarded based only on seniority and the number of college courses completed. Teachers with 30 years of experience in the classroom who lack a master's or doctorate degree will never max out the pay scale. As Paige puts it, "a fifteen-time ‘Teacher of the Year' in physics that spends several hours after school preparing illustrative lab demonstrations cannot be paid as much as a home economics major teaching with an MBA earned at night school."

Answer 4

Unions are there to protect worker job security and rights, unfortunately they also protect idiots. Government business and institutions in my country (phil.) don't have union only private businesses. the idea behind this is that the government are the ones who look after their rights so they shouldn't have any complaints. government workers are also not allowed to strike and since public school teachers are gov't employees no strike, unfortunately they also get the lowest pay so the quality isn't there. As they keep on saying you get what you pay for, so you get idiots for free.

Answer 5

I do agree with you in the sense of more/better funding for schools all-around (books, educators, etc.) But, (not that I want to be like Canada) why not allow business' to 'buy' schools, or at least their name? A company in Canada (either did or wished to) purchase a school and call it "XX High School", as Verizon did when it purchased the Baltimore Arena in MD. (FedEx field, Verizon center, etc.) This would probably allow a 'write-off' for the company, increase advertising, and allow MUCH needed funding for certain schools.

Any thoughts?

Answer 6

Look at America and it's privatized health system - that should be evidence enough. Look at all other developed countries far better PUBLIC health systems. The rich would get a great education and the poor would get a shocking one.

Answer 7

Privatized is not the same thing as non-union. Besides, regardless of your FEELINGS, unions don't run schools (businesses). Unions are organizations for workers.

Answer 8

Yes, privatize education. Give vouchers to families so they can decide for themselves what school is best for their childrens education and future. Not what some government run bureaucratic union thinks. Let the marketplace and competition weed out the unproductive schools. So our education isn't at the bottom of the world education list.

Answer 9

Let there be competition! Once there is competition perhaps our public school system will pick up the slack, start implementing better programs, crack down on the waste spending and pay our teachers better....Oh it would be sweet to see privatization happen.

Answer 10

We already have private schools. If you don't like the public ones, don't send your kids there. If you don't like the quality of teachers maybe people should stop b!tching about taxes. You get what you pay for.