Private Schools

Here is an article I got for you folks from the Liberator Online e-newsletter, a service provided by the Advocates for Self-Government.  You can read about it and sign up here: 
http://www.theadvocates.org/publications/liberator-online.html


--------------------------------------


"Surprising Facts About Private Schools

Private schools are good for families, good for kids and good for America,
according to the Council for American Private Education (CAPE), an organization
that champions American private K-12 education.

But you may be surprised at just *how* beneficial and effective private schools
are. According to CAPE:

* One in four U.S. schools is a private school.

* One child in nine attends a private school.

* Private schools produce an annual savings to taxpayers estimated at more than
$48,000,000,000.

* Private school students perform better than their government school
counterparts on standardized achievement tests.

* Ninety percent of private high school graduates attend college, compared to
66 percent of government high school graduates.

* Private school students from low socio-economic backgrounds are more than
three times more likely than comparable government school students to attain a
bachelor's degree by their mid-20s, meaning that private schools contribute to
breaking the cycle of poverty for their students.

* Private schools are racially, ethnically, and economically diverse. Twenty-
three percent of private school students are students of color; twenty-eight
percent are from families with annual incomes under $50,000.

* Private secondary school students are nearly 50 percent more likely to take
AP or IB courses in science and math than government school students.

* The participation of private school students in community service projects is
significantly higher than their government school counterparts.

* Private school students feel safer in their schools, and *are* safer, than
students in government schools.

* A study by the National Center for Education Statistics found that more than
three-quarters of private school parents are "very satisfied" with their
child's school, compared with less than half of parents whose children were
assigned to a government school

.. and that's just the beginning, according to CAPE. (The statements above are
fully documented at the organization's Web site, at the URL just below.)

No wonder, then, that -- to cite another CAPE statistic -- a substantial
majority of adults believe private schools do a better job of providing a
quality education than government schools. And that belief, in turn, is fueling
increased demand among parents for alternatives to the government's education
monopoly.

(Source: CAPE report at: http://www.capenet.org/benefits4.html )"

Private schools generally mean that the parents care about the student's education and will pressure him to make the investment, abolishment of the public school system is not the brilliant idea you think it is, as school exists for another definate purpose: To keep kids busy for cheap. Private schools would be more expensive, whould only appeal to the wide middle class, and would do little to narrow the education gap between the poor and the middle class, which is infinately more important than you paying a little more money for taxes, considering how underfunded America's Schools are.

>>2
The focus shouldn't be on 'keeping kids busy.'  What do you want, pointless homework?

No, I think we should minimize the amount of time children spend in school.  Today's workload is enormous, and a good chunk of it isn't necessary. 

We shouldn't lose sight of what public schools were created for:  to prepare children to make educated decisions at the polls.  They weren't created to 'take up time' or some other bullshit like that, or to give children loads of redundant and or unnecessary work.

Private schools are a good alternative - and I think they should be looked at, and *possibly* we should push for slow, incremental change toward a more market-based  private-sector solution. 

>>2"Private schools generally mean that the parents care about the student's education"

This is the most important point.  It's not that private schools are necessarily much better than public (many are, some aren't) as plenty of intelligent and successful people came from public schools.  It's the parental involvement that is most important in fostering a child into becoming an educated person.  However parents today seem to expect everything to be taught to their children in the schools and that they are absolved of the responsibility of teaching them anything.

>>3
Actually, public schools were created (or at least, made mandatory to attend) to keep children from working in the factories as the adults were all losing their jobs to their kids.

>>5 I don't think so.  Jefferson advocated public education because he wanted everyone to have the right to vote, and participate in government like we do now.  At the time, many people disagreed with this 'extreme' position, and claimed that your average person was too stupid to make decisions affecting the rest of the country.  To counter this argument, Jefferson supported public education. 

>>6
Jefferson wanted a lot of things.

But the reason for public schools and making it mandatory are varied.  Along with the child labor and making more informed citizens, it was also a tool of assimilating all the various cultures of people together. 

"At the time, many people disagreed with this 'extreme' position, and claimed that your average person was too stupid to make decisions affecting the rest of the country."

Um... That's funny, because after all the "Four More Years!" bullshit, I'm fairly certain that your average person is too stupid to make decisions affecting the rest of the country.

>>8
As long as there are Kerry supporters and liberals, people like us *have* to vote Bush to make sure you shitheads don't take office.  If I didn't have to make a 'lesser of two evils' choice, I'd be voting libertarian.  Unfortunately, the democrats exist, and that isn't the case.  Maybe once they get solidly defeated it will be.

>>9
And it's people like you that keep the libertarians from ever gaining ground.  People like you are cowards and weak willed.

>>10
No moreso than those who would prefer the left wins.

>>11 This is not a "U"-"No U" issue. Act your respective ages.

>>12 Instead of ostensibly voting for a party that won't get seats just to show your contempt, why not look at each respective candidate and look at whether he or she values her citizens over party ideology? Instead of hitting the system with a mallet and spending the rest grumbling in a cottage and masturbating to a picture of Lady Liberty, why not get a little surgical and make sure that your votes do as little damage and as much good as possible? Philosophy and macropolitics don't mix that well. The reason I stick with the dems is because I believe they cause less *net* damage, not because I find them to be ideological kin (the right is more anti-gov of course, but their method of transition towards laissez-faire and small gov is unacceptably crude and sweeping. Plus, red states take more tax money than blue states and do worse economically, so maybe they should start acting upon their anti-Washington rethoric instead of gobbling cash from more succesful blue states.)

>>13
"Instead of ostensibly voting for a party that won't get seats just to show your contempt, why not look at each respective candidate and look at whether he or she values her citizens over party ideology?"

You should know this by now.  Because I prefer the right to the left, its really as simple as that.  The left may have good *intentions*, but good *intentions* do not necessarilly entail good *results.*

"Instead of hitting the system with a mallet and spending the rest grumbling in a cottage and masturbating to a picture of Lady Liberty, why not get a little surgical and make sure that your votes do as little damage and as much good as possible?"

How am I hitting the system with a mallet? I am trying to save the system.  I'd be voting for the republicans for the same list of reasons as you have when you vote for the democrats. 

"Philosophy and macropolitics don't mix that well."

I see no reason we wouldn't be vastly better off if we followed a more libertarian philosophy on how the government should be run. 

"The reason I stick with the dems is because I believe they cause less *net* damage, not because I find them to be ideological kin (the right is more anti-gov of course, but their method of transition towards laissez-faire and small gov is unacceptably crude and sweeping."

And the left is not making any steps of transition to laissez-faire.  I know many of the policies of the right, and overall, I think they will cause the least damage and do the most good of any party that has a chance of winning in the near future. 

Libertarianism and conservatism are really quite similar.
http://reason.com/7507/int_reagan.shtml

"Plus, red states take more tax money than blue states and do worse economically, so maybe they should start acting upon their anti-Washington rethoric instead of gobbling cash from more succesful blue states.)"

Maybe the blue state people and liberals should stop voting for the people who make such 'gobbling' possible? Ok, lets see, which party is for higher taxes and more programs and spending? Hmm... tough question. 

Are the democrats really helping the blue states then? Maybe *they* should consider electing different politicians.

If the blue state people don't like pork barrel spending, they should stop voting for the people who make it possible (the liberals).  The libertarians are opposed to pork barrel spending.  Maybe you should support them rather than the democrats?

"Maybe the blue state people and liberals should stop voting for the people who make such 'gobbling' possible? Ok, lets see, which party is for higher taxes and more programs and spending? Hmm... tough question." Blue states do better economically, then the red governors spew populist hatred on the government while gladly receiving more money than the blue states get. The dems aren't hypocrites in this, case, the right is.
"Are the democrats really helping the blue states then? Maybe *they* should consider electing different politicians." So the people that make more money are at fault for not changing white house policy? Which they do not have any control over? How much spending has the republicans approved lately?
"If the blue state people don't like pork barrel spending, they should stop voting for the people who make it possible (the liberals).  The libertarians are opposed to pork barrel spending.  Maybe you should support them rather than the democrats?" I only vote democrat if they are more libertarian than left, like me. Pork-barrel spending has been a right-wing trait lately and the democrats would have to hurt their own citizens if they would diminish the red state spending (federal level, that is).

>>14

It isn't all about economics, you dense waste of fuck-space. Just shut the fuck up already, you make my stomach hurt with how fucking cheesy you sound. "The dems"! "reagan"! Lmao. Are you really this fucking stupid? Pick up a fucking book, stop watching scarborough's country.

>>16 Are you trying to unsettle people or are you really this stupid? With allies like you, who needs christianists!?

Voting for the lesser of two evils when you'd rather vote for a third party will ultimately fail.  You simply reinforce the Republicrat party.  When you vote for the Big Two, do you really think your vote is saving us from "zomg liberal fascists" or "zomg conservative assholes"?  No, it's a given that the vast majority of people in this country will vote for one of them and your vote will just go to maintaining the status quo and ultimate mean nothing.  But a vote for a third party ALWAYS matters.  Since there are so few that will, every single vote that stacks up for third parties sends a clear message to the ruling parties: QUIT FUCKING UP.  Eventually they will have to wise up and change their policies or risk becoming irrelevant.

But for those of you that avoid voting for the third parties for fear of "throwing your vote away" or to keep a Repub/Dem out are simply empowering the already powerful.

>>18
"Voting for the lesser of two evils when you'd rather vote for a third party will ultimately fail."

Possibly.. the other possibility is that the democrats will stop trying to stick their noses in our pocketbooks, and keep their hands off our guns.  I'll certainly consider voting libertarian though, I give you that much.

"You simply reinforce the Republicrat party."

I think it accomplishes more than you are letting on.. but maybe. 

"When you vote for the Big Two, do you really think your vote is saving us from "zomg liberal fascists" or "zomg conservative assholes"?"

Well, supposing I voted for the republicans, it would seem to be helping to defeat the liberals, yeah. 

"No, it's a given that the vast majority of people in this country will vote for one of them and your vote will just go to maintaining the status quo and ultimate mean nothing."

That's a decent point.  Certain issues won't budge unless I vote libertarian for sure.  But likewise, unless I want sweeping bans on everything from trans-fats to firearms, what choice does one have?  People who 'settle' for the democrats necessitate me 'settling' for the republicans.  Its a tough choice, and I live in a swing state. 

"But a vote for a third party ALWAYS matters.  Since there are so few that will, every single vote that stacks up for third parties sends a clear message to the ruling parties: QUIT FUCKING UP."

Very good point.

"Eventually they will have to wise up and change their policies or risk becoming irrelevant."

I doubt the main two parties will ever become irrelevant due to a tiny faction of libertarians, but with any luck, my voting libertarian would make the democrats more conservative, and the republicans less supportive of the patriot act and drug wars.

"But for those of you that avoid voting for the third parties for fear of "throwing your vote away" or to keep a Repub/Dem out are simply empowering the already powerful."

Well, ordinarilly, I'd think that this is often the case, but I live in a swing state that happens to have been decided on a very slim margin this past election.

>>19
"Possibly.. the other possibility is that the democrats will stop trying to stick their noses in our pocketbooks, and keep their hands off our guns."

They will not stop doing these things until they understand votes depend on it.  Voting for them while they continue to do this will make them think they are doing things right.  This is called enabling.

"Its a tough choice, and I live in a swing state."

As I do not live in a swing state, I suppose it is easier to denounce voting republicrat, but I still maintain that in the vast majority of cases this will accomplish little to nothing.  Sometimes it is better to vote for the strongest opposition candidate to avoid someone really nefarious, but I think this is rare.

"I doubt the main two parties will ever become irrelevant due to a tiny faction of libertarians, but with any luck, my voting libertarian would make the democrats more conservative, and the republicans less supportive of the patriot act and drug wars."

Yes, this is the true purpose of third parties that many people overlook.  It is not to become strong enough to replace one of the major parties, but to gain enough power and influence to make them stop and evaluate what's going on.  When the republicrats start realizing they are losing elections because third parties are getting votes, they will take on aspects of those thirds parties to draw these votes to them.

"Well, ordinarilly, I'd think that this is often the case, but I live in a swing state that happens to have been decided on a very slim margin this past election."

You have to think about this and how truly bad it would be if the other person were to be elected.  Recognize the difference between a gun grabber and someone who wants to place a few restrictions or taxes on buying.  Both are bad, but one is worse and one can be more easily remedied than the other.  If you think a candidate is not only a major threat to you, but has plenty of support, then it does make sense to vote against them.  But be intelligent about it.

Remember though, there are many people out there that think and hesitate to vote for third parties just like you.  You need to find these people so that you can vote en masse and send a strong message to the major parties.  Even if it might cost an election for your lesser evil, they need to get the message.

And I just remembered this thread is about private schools so: lol public schools r sux

>>20

"They will not stop doing these things until they understand votes depend on it.  Voting for them while they continue to do this will make them think they are doing things right.  This is called enabling."

Can't argue there.

"As I do not live in a swing state, I suppose it is easier to denounce voting republicrat, but I still maintain that in the vast majority of cases this will accomplish little to nothing.  Sometimes it is better to vote for the strongest opposition candidate to avoid someone really nefarious, but I think this is rare."

You see, I happen to live in a swing state with democratic senators who not only voted consistently anti-gun, but voted for the Patriot Act as well as numerous other bad things.  I think this warrants voting for a republican next election to punish them.  Don't worry, I don't vote blindly in favor of *any* party.  I pay attention to voting records, and *do* favor the libertarians.

"Yes, this is the true purpose of third parties that many people overlook.  It is not to become strong enough to replace one of the major parties, but to gain enough power and influence to make them stop and evaluate what's going on.  When the republicrats start realizing they are losing elections because third parties are getting votes, they will take on aspects of those thirds parties to draw these votes to them."

I didn't overlook that, and I can't disagree.  But again, I live in a swing state where the elections have recently been being decided on very slim margins - under one percent if I'm not mistaken.  On top of this, our senators are not representing anything I am wanting.. and the choice right now is a spineless statist democrat, or a pro-gun conservative republican.  I'd prefer a libertarian over either, but I'd rather the latter than the former, and the former needs to be punished for being so excessively statist.  I don't know of a single big-government proposal our dem representatives voted against, and of course the NRA is wanting the overthrow of these incumbents as well.

"You have to think about this and how truly bad it would be if the other person were to be elected."

Part of it is that the republican candidate is more or less just another conservative (but extremely pro gun, and anti-tax!), and that the incumbents have been nothing short of statist imo.

"Recognize the difference between a gun grabber and someone who wants to place a few restrictions or taxes on buying.  Both are bad, but one is worse and one can be more easily remedied than the other."

This is an excellent point.  Outside of the assault weapons ban, what gun control have we gotten rid of recently? It seems that once it is in place, it doesn't want to go away.  Of course, there is an argument to be made her for voting libertarian to make the repubs take a tougher stand on being pro-gun.

"Remember though, there are many people out there that think and hesitate to vote for third parties just like you.  You need to find these people so that you can vote en masse and send a strong message to the major parties.  Even if it might cost an election for your lesser evil, they need to get the message."

I generally agree with this - but I have to say I think it depends on how bad the evil is, and on how much less evil the lesser evil is.  If a statist candidate who is against all libertarian values is running, I think it warrants voting against them.

"And I just remembered this thread is about private schools so: lol public schools r sux"

I can't disagree here either.  >>1 had a good article.

>>21
If a republican's main platform points was pro-gun and anti-tax I'd probably vote for them too.  Problem is the vast majority of them don't seem to believe in the small state anymore, if any really did.  Not to mention all the Jesus dick sucking.

Hey, private health care vs. communist health care input. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1376238-3,00.html

>>23 You need to understand that my reason for being more left than right and a moderate libertarian is that American conservatism has been hijacked by,  apart from social conservatives,  people that simply do not want America to be privatized in a stable, acceptable manner.

>>24
How about being neither left, right or moderate?

>>25 I am coagulating. Stop with the whining.

>>26
Go see a doctor before you get a heart attack.

Private education owns. 

bump for defeat of spammer

bump for defeat of spammer

most of those stats can be attributed to the fact the parents have to individually pay for those kids to go to that school, as opposed to collectivly through taxes. this means that the kids are going to be made to go to school and to make use of the school (no one wants to lose their investment). not only that, but if you've got money to send them to private school in the first place, you're that much more likely to be able to afford college in the first place. and because you have to pay to enroll, the number of students from less well off areas wont be able to attend, so voilence and deliquency is down by default. It's filtering out the unwated aspects of public schools through money, and not much else. I'm sure own own presonal physision would be highly benificial to all of us, but we dont have that kinda money, so we go to the hospital like everyone else (and even that is a privilage).

>>31
Assuming the doctors in the hospital and the hospital owners will take you and treat you voluntarilly, and you have money to pay them, it is not a 'privilage', it is a right.  You are engaging in voluntary trade.

>>32
medical treatment as a whole should be a right, not something you need to exchange money for individually. of course hospital workers need payment, but to think if you have a medical condition that cannot be performed on because you havn't the fund to pay for the procedure is wrong. no person should be turned away from medical treatment of any kind simply because they lack coverage. if i break my leg, or i have a tumor, i want to know it'll be taken care of, rather than worrying about how i'll pay for it.

>>33
"medical treatment as a whole should be a right, not something you need to exchange money for individually."

So you have the right to enslave doctors and force them to care for you? Now you say:  'no stupid, taxes will pay for that, lol', and then I say, 'so you are going to enslave the rest of the population and make *them* pay for it for you?'

You see, a right is a freedom of action.  The right to medical care means you have the right to go earn your own money, and buy it.  The 2nd amendment says I have the right to keep and bear arms.  This doesn't give me the freedom to take someone's money so I can buy a gun.  It does give me the freedom to buy a gun in a voluntary private manner with money I've earned myself. 

You cannot have the 'right' to medical care.  In a free society, there is no such thing as the 'right' to enslave.

The founding fathers of the USA were very careful in their wording.  For example, note the wording in the right to the pursuit of happines.  The phrase says one has the right to *pursue* happiness.  It does not mean that everyone else must make one happy.. or provide goods and services for him against their will. 

"of course hospital workers need payment, but to think if you have a medical condition that cannot be performed on because you havn't the fund to pay for the procedure is wrong."

Many hospitals will take you in and treat you anyways.  Regardless, they don't have to if they don't want to.  Each individual should have (more or less) the right to be free from coercion, violence, force, or fraud, with the sole exception being when paying taxes for things that are necessary for the preservation of this relatively free state, such as the police, military, court system, etc.  The essential government functions.

"no person should be turned away from medical treatment of any kind simply because they lack coverage. if i break my leg, or i have a tumor, i want to know it'll be taken care of, rather than worrying about how i'll pay for it."

So naturally, the solution is to vote to have your government extort money from your neighbor to pay for your operation.  Remember, you have the 'right' to medical care! Forget your neighbor's property rights, lol! He has the duty to make you all better, even if you have all sorts of stupid and unhealthy habits which may have caused it to begin with, and even if he recieves absolutely no compensation whatsoever.  He should be made to PAY!

>>34
So i'm assuming you're against social security? why should the generation before pay for the retireing generation now? how dare they take money from me and give it to some old geezer, even though it'll work in my favor when i need it when i retire, whether or not i've made a nestegg for myself!

Universal medicare works the same way, it says that though you may not be injured now, at any point you are, taxpayer money will take care of it, no matter how small or how severe. and those who pay those taxes, you including (who also pay into the system), are also covered. it's not like the people paying the taxes dont benifit from this. everyone gets sick, everyone gets injured. it's not like we're charging tax payers in mississippi for earthquake insurance in california.

That's why we have insurance in the first place. we may or may not even make use of it, but we pay into it nevertheless. because incramental car insurance payments will pale in comparison to the amount needed to be covered in an accident. fender benders can easily cost upwards to a few thousand dollars depending. wouldn't you rather pay a little for any amount of compensation should something happen, rather than save your pennies and hope to god whatever happens to you is within your budget?

We arent even talking about a whole lotta money considering. the ratio between educational spending and military spending is like comparing a chrumb to the whole pie, and that pie is mostly crow.

>>34
"So you have the right to enslave doctors and force them to care for you? Now you say:  'no stupid, taxes will pay for that, lol', and then I say, 'so you are going to enslave the rest of the population and make *them* pay for it for you?'"

Doctors are 'enslaved' already. they preform a service, for which they are paid a salary. a salary which comes from the collective payment of individuals and insurance companies. those who have medicare and/or the money to pay for medical procedures HAVE to be serviced by a doctor, whether or not the doctor wants it, it's their job. same as with soldiars, they HAVE to bomb a city, kill a man, shoot a gun, because that's their job and that's what their paid for. in a universal healthcare system, the doctor HAS to provide medical treatment to the paying patient, who would be everyone because everyone pays into the system through taxes. again, these services are for everyone paying into the system. the amount to lance that mole or fix that broken arm are fractions of fractions of fractions of a penny per person. just like our taxes as a whole allow for the fix of a pothole in the road, tax dollars would be put to treating the ill and injured. do we bitch that we pay taxes for fixing a pot hole on a road we'll never drive on? or a piece of public property that's been damajed by an individual? no. so why should we be mad that our tax dollar went to helping the life of a sick person, and in return, can have the same treatment as said sick person.

>>34 "So you have the right to enslave doctors and force them to care for you? Now you say:  'no stupid, taxes will pay for that, lol', and then I say, 'so you are going to enslave the rest of the population and make *them* pay for it for you?'" I'm still for single-payer, national health care.

I don't know about this really, but I came from country where both public and private schools are common. Same with healthcare. Public ones tend to be pretty crowded and they suck really. I'm not sure if it's so in all countries, but I suspect it's so. Public enterprises IMO encourage people to do their work sloppy. Usually there's no fear of getting kicked out or anything. Not to mention that while customer doesn't really pay you and your salary kinda sucks too it's not very encouraging. That's why I value private enterprises over them.

>>38
lack of proper funding is the down fall of public education, that, and the money barrier not being there. simply having an enrollment fee such as private schools do tends to keep out delinquents not only because you have to pay to get enrolled, but those going to private schools are going to be coming from a slightly more privilaged environment, and are going to be pushed harder to make the investment worth it.

>>37
"I'm still for single-payer, national health care."

I'm still for slavery.