Schools and the profit motive, II

9 comments on “Schools and the profit motive, II”

1. Posted by Jill | Aug 15, 2007 12:51 pm

   Ah but you see? Even this tenet by Smith is under attack these days. Do you recall how just last month we heard about a study on altruism and people being hard-wired for that?

   I appreciate this post, Bryan - I think it’s fair re: this isn’t going to end, you’re not going to end it with saying, She’s wrong, I’m right - or whatever. I can accept that.

   But again, just to re-assert something here, because your opening sentence here is 100% related to your inferences of what I’ve written and in NO WAY reflects ANYTHING I believe about government (when you want to talk about what size gov’t should be, let me know - but you know and I know that I wasn’t writing about that and that it’s just your hook into the blog post, k? k):

   My world view couldn’t be further from acceptance of that statement by Adam Smith. That is NOT to say that I do not recognize that many people DO hold that viewpoint and in fact act in that manner.

   But it is not mine. Just as promotion of large gov’t bureaucracies is also not an idea I have ever written about, let alone endorse.

   Okay?

   I love a good debate, with intelligence and facts and passion. But not twisting and turning others’ words or intentions. That’s all.

2. Posted by Matt N. | Aug 15, 2007 12:58 pm

   When your response to the post is longer than the original post, methinks tis not Brian who is twisting and turning words.

   School choice would be beneficial for parents sending their children to private Jewish schools- But Jill prays at the altar of big government more than at her synagogue.

3. Posted by Jill | Aug 15, 2007 1:07 pm

   Matt, no government spending or private profit would ever be enough to contain, correct or otherwise treat or cure your malignant narcissism (see here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malignant_narcissism).

   I’ve given you advice privately, you don’t take it. You are stuck with yourself. Good luck with that.

4. Posted by Brian | Aug 15, 2007 1:16 pm

   Fair enough. I do say that you don’t put it that way. That’s my take. The govt handles education through a large bureaucracy, so to whatever extent you’re defending the status quo, you’re implicitly defending that. Unless you explicitly don’t. It’s not the main point anyway.

   And yes, a certain amount of altruism is hard-wired. But it’s not enough to support any endeavor on a large scale. If it was, communism would work. It’s effect diminishes with perceived distance.

   But I doubt there’s much difference in the altruism of teachers who work for the govt vs those who work for a for-profit company. The public teachers’ unions never say “no more pay increases for us, thanks- this job is its own reward.” The unions fight for every dollar in the selfish, material interests of their members. As they should.

5. Posted by Paul | Aug 15, 2007 3:40 pm

   There will be no resolution to this argument because it is about beliefs and philosophy, not facts and science. I’m okay with that.

   But I sure would like to do this experiment: to take one of the metro areas in Ohio and run it as single school system with open enrollment. The only function of the central office would be financial operations and transportation. Sets of school buildings would be free to band together in administrative and purchasing groups, or a building could choose to operate on its own. All schools would be required to offer the core subjects required in the current curriculum. Elective courses and extracurricular activities would be optional, but free if offered.

   No new money would be allocated from the State, but the amount of state money that follows each kid would be the same regardless of where the kid lives, or what school he elects to attend. Likewise property tax millage rates would be equalized across the metro district so that the same aggregate amount of money is raised as today, but the same amount of money follows each kid, just like the state money. The effect is that per-pupil funding is identical for every kid regardless of school selected.

   Special needs would have extra money that follows them. To be accredited in this new system, a school must accept special needs kids in proportion to their total student population. However, a school may form an alliance with one or more other schools satisfy this requirement.

   This is not exactly my best-case approach, but it is one which maintains the public school system to satisfy folks who feel like Jill, albeit at a metro rather than municipal level. There would be no charter schools, just free choice of any public school in the area.

   This doesn’t fix funding problems in agricultural areas, or Appalachia. I don’t think we can fix the suburban, farmland, and Appalachian situations with one bullet anyway.

   What objection do you have to this approach, Jill? Please don’t just say you don’t like it. Suggest what you would change about the experiment, understanding that it’s not exactly what I want either.

   PL

6. Posted by Jill | Aug 15, 2007 3:47 pm

   Actually, as hard or as unusual as it might be or seem, I completely compartmentalize a lot of these issues/topics, even though I do not see the bureaucracy issue as inextricable from education, though obviously it exists.

   I also would say that I’m not defending the status quo - although yes, I can understand how reading what I write about the for-profits could be seen that way, but remember - not all charters are for-profits. My objection to for-profits is just that - an objection to for-profits.

   I’m on the record repeatedly in favor of charters that run as originally intended and for the re-establishment of the oversight organization that the legislature created which was later abolished. Charters can fill niches and have success stories - I’ve said all that a few times in my blog and in other places.

   As I wrote before, I object to the provision of education as being directed by the motive to make money. I’ve not said anything in depth about big government or unions. If you want to debate those, that would be fine. But I was addressing one element of the education system: for profit charters. I think that was pretty clear and the rest extrapolation.

   Unlike others, perhaps, I’m really specific with my words. When I want to address those other elements, it will be very obvious.

7. Posted by Jill | Aug 15, 2007 3:50 pm

   Paul - I don’t think anyone would ever accuse me of saying “I just don’t like it” - that’s WAY TOO BRIEF for me.

   But I did just finish writing a post that has completely taken all my energy - which was lagging as it was at this time of day.

   Quick thoughts: someone I know was just talking to me about being able to send whereever and I cannot for the life of me remember who- I can even hear the conversation. Sorry I can’t remember it exactly.

   So - I think, maybe what you’re describing - doesn’t it exist even a little bit in some places? I am not up on what the reviews are of such arrangements. Isn’t even Columbus somewhat like that?

8. Posted by Paul | Aug 15, 2007 5:35 pm

   Jill:

   I concur that this whole discussion is a matter of degrees. I’d go all the way to free-market solutions, with the State Dept of Ed having the role of establishing minimum curricula, accrediting schools, and administering vouchers. I’ve yielded some aspects of that view to get what I think is the nucleus of the idea - free choice.

   The districts of central Ohio are most definitely not proponents of free choice (aka open enrollment). One cannot cross district boundaries without paying extra tuition. In most districts, including ours, you are not even allowed to pick schools within the district. We just went through a redistricting exercise, because an additional elementary and high school will soon come online, and one of the most vocal groups were those who wanted to be sure the kids from their affluent neighborhood didn’t have to be in the same building with the immigrant kids pouring into our district.

   To me, restricted choice is the same thing as segregation, and a return to the ’separate-but-equal’ educational philosophy. One would think we grew past that in the 1960s, but I’d argue that it’s worse now than ever. Our urban schools are certainly serving a blacker and poorer population than it did prior to the white-flight to the suburbs, instigated by court-ordered busing, and facilitated by Ohio’s municipal school district structure.

   PL

9. Posted by Columbuser.com » Teachers’ union: parlez this | Aug 21, 2007 11:18 am

   […] post: Schools and the profit motive, II) Trackback | Posted by Brian | Aug 21, 2007 11:18 am | Permalink | Bookmark Categories: […]

Leave a comment