Incredibly low-priced private schools(boston.com)
boston.com
Incredibly low-priced private schools
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/05/09/class_difference/?page=full
5 comments
Don't beat yourself up too badly: the unions have already thought of this, and it is likely illegal in your jurisdiction. After you get past the homeschool exemption, which was a brutal battle to get approved in many jurisdictions, you'll enter a heavily regulated industry against an entrenched competitor who has a legal moat and a team of lawyers who will file papers contesting each and every one of the seventy three different approvals you'll need to open for business.
This is why actual private schools in the US require strong institutional backing (i.e. a church willing to subsidize them to the tune of millions) or effort commensurate with opening a new factory rather than a new salon.
This is why actual private schools in the US require strong institutional backing (i.e. a church willing to subsidize them to the tune of millions) or effort commensurate with opening a new factory rather than a new salon.
I call bullshit. I send my son to a private religious school (http://www.jcdsboston.org/) which is not sponsored by any synagogue of millionaires.
The Supreme Court declared in 1925 (Pierce v. Society of Sisters) that parents have the right to send their children to a private or religious school, and upheld in 1972 (Wisconsin v. Yoder) that parents could even get religious exemptions to state compulsory-attendance laws.
The Supreme Court declared in 1925 (Pierce v. Society of Sisters) that parents have the right to send their children to a private or religious school, and upheld in 1972 (Wisconsin v. Yoder) that parents could even get religious exemptions to state compulsory-attendance laws.
Your school's annual operating budget is $4.5 million dollars. (Of which ~$1.2 million is subsidized by your synagogue and other fundraising.)
That lets them afford a staff to do things like, e.g., keep immunization records and shuffle them around when students transfer. If they didn't, they would be shut down. One issue down, seventy two to go.
I am not seeing how this makes my contentions false.
That lets them afford a staff to do things like, e.g., keep immunization records and shuffle them around when students transfer. If they didn't, they would be shut down. One issue down, seventy two to go.
I am not seeing how this makes my contentions false.
We are not sponsored by any synagogue. (Trust me, the synagogues compete with the Jewish schools for donations.) “Other fundraising” is our fundraising.
I don’t have a breakdown of my particular school’s budget, but a sample budget for a Jewish day school (http://www.peje.org/docs/samplebudget.pdf) estimates that about two-thirds of a school’s expenditures are going to be for personnel, and about a third of the personnel expenditures are going to be for administrative staff. I really don’t think my school spends $500K a year paying someone to shuffle immunization records around.
I don’t have a breakdown of my particular school’s budget, but a sample budget for a Jewish day school (http://www.peje.org/docs/samplebudget.pdf) estimates that about two-thirds of a school’s expenditures are going to be for personnel, and about a third of the personnel expenditures are going to be for administrative staff. I really don’t think my school spends $500K a year paying someone to shuffle immunization records around.
It took you less than ten minutes to notice the reply and debunk its false claims. Don't you wish people would bother to see if they were, you know, right, before they tried to call you out on something?
and ten minutes after you posted this the guy posted a defense that at the very least passes the sniff test. You think maybe you should let an argument happen before you, you know, make snarky comments?
You underestimate the power of entrenched interests over municipalities, the largest of which is often zoning. Zoning regulations are fun in part because the government can (and often does) make ad hoc exemptions for public schools but provides very little leeway for public schools. http://reason.org/news/show/127456.html discusses a bit of the problem.
But to delve a little deeper: in California, nearly every municipality of any size requires a special-use permit or conditional use permit (CUP) to build a school. There is no "school" zoning code. Almost never are such permits granted in industrial use areas, despite sometimes being locations that might have little to no risk. That means the school functionally has to get a CUP in a residential zone. Which residents often don't like because, even for a small school, it means a substantial increase in traffic. This is doubly difficult because not only does the school have to fight to receive zoning, but trivial-to-place legal challenges can lead to a huge expense. For instance, challenging zoning for environmental reasons is nearly trivial but an extended environmental impact report alone can cost millions of dollars.
So there's a substantial risk involved in the launch without any option for a quick buyout. Remember, these are almost all 501(c)(3) institutions (I don't know of any that aren't, but I could imagine there are).
But to delve a little deeper: in California, nearly every municipality of any size requires a special-use permit or conditional use permit (CUP) to build a school. There is no "school" zoning code. Almost never are such permits granted in industrial use areas, despite sometimes being locations that might have little to no risk. That means the school functionally has to get a CUP in a residential zone. Which residents often don't like because, even for a small school, it means a substantial increase in traffic. This is doubly difficult because not only does the school have to fight to receive zoning, but trivial-to-place legal challenges can lead to a huge expense. For instance, challenging zoning for environmental reasons is nearly trivial but an extended environmental impact report alone can cost millions of dollars.
So there's a substantial risk involved in the launch without any option for a quick buyout. Remember, these are almost all 501(c)(3) institutions (I don't know of any that aren't, but I could imagine there are).
Neither of which address his point that creating a school is very costly, in part due to regulation and (possibly) external interference. In fact, your example supports this - the website for the very school you cited announces over $1M in annual donations to their scholarship fund alone - which is precisely the level of funding patio11 suggests is necessary.
Local caring and local responsibility are key to any system of quality education.
The public schools I grew up with in the American midwest (all lower middle class) were uniformly good but this was 50 years ago when such schools were widely funded by local sources (e.g., property taxes from the community), did not have to account to the distant bureaucracies or have to focus on prepping kids to meet minimum proficiency tests by which educational results could be measured with mirrors, and did not have to deal with unions whose goals seem to be as much about promoting the interests of their members via ever-expansive forms of public funding as they are about helping kids learn. The public high schools I attended in California in the late 1960s were also good, and it was naturally expected in that day that the vast majority of the kids would not only graduate but would also be literate and reasonably taught once they did so - there too, all funding was purely local.
The key is to have the schools, whether public or private, in the hands of people who care really care about what the kids learn and that means local people who know them and know their families. This element has largely been lost in modern America's public schools, and it is a real tragedy.
It is nice to see the resourcefulness of parents who seek to overcome the resulting mess but this is a struggle that is often just plain desperate in light of the overwhelming problems that now beset the public schools. This piece reminds us that there is always hope where people really care.
The public schools I grew up with in the American midwest (all lower middle class) were uniformly good but this was 50 years ago when such schools were widely funded by local sources (e.g., property taxes from the community), did not have to account to the distant bureaucracies or have to focus on prepping kids to meet minimum proficiency tests by which educational results could be measured with mirrors, and did not have to deal with unions whose goals seem to be as much about promoting the interests of their members via ever-expansive forms of public funding as they are about helping kids learn. The public high schools I attended in California in the late 1960s were also good, and it was naturally expected in that day that the vast majority of the kids would not only graduate but would also be literate and reasonably taught once they did so - there too, all funding was purely local.
The key is to have the schools, whether public or private, in the hands of people who care really care about what the kids learn and that means local people who know them and know their families. This element has largely been lost in modern America's public schools, and it is a real tragedy.
It is nice to see the resourcefulness of parents who seek to overcome the resulting mess but this is a struggle that is often just plain desperate in light of the overwhelming problems that now beset the public schools. This piece reminds us that there is always hope where people really care.
>this was 50 years ago when such schools were widely funded by local sources
This is really the only significant part of the equation. The system is basically designed to fail. You pass a tax levy for X mills, which brings in X amount of money for the school system, and never a dollar more. Property values go up, but property taxes do not. The budget therefore shrinks every year due to inflation, and every 10-15 years the situation gets so dire that the district has to put a ballot issue up for a tax "increase" to get funding back up to the levels of 10-15 years ago.
In most areas of the Midwest, this poor voter understanding of how schools are funded has resulted in a steady decline in school expenditures, even as actual costs of education have outpaced inflation.
This is really the only significant part of the equation. The system is basically designed to fail. You pass a tax levy for X mills, which brings in X amount of money for the school system, and never a dollar more. Property values go up, but property taxes do not. The budget therefore shrinks every year due to inflation, and every 10-15 years the situation gets so dire that the district has to put a ballot issue up for a tax "increase" to get funding back up to the levels of 10-15 years ago.
In most areas of the Midwest, this poor voter understanding of how schools are funded has resulted in a steady decline in school expenditures, even as actual costs of education have outpaced inflation.
++
In Massachusetts, there's a cap of 2.5% for property tax increases without a ballot measure. This means that almost every year, local budgets are shrinking relative to inflation.
You know what the most common complaint I heard was when these issues went to ballot? "Screw those councilmen, they want to raise our taxes so they're holding these services hostage." What's the phrase about it being impossible to make people understand something that they don't want to?
In Massachusetts, there's a cap of 2.5% for property tax increases without a ballot measure. This means that almost every year, local budgets are shrinking relative to inflation.
You know what the most common complaint I heard was when these issues went to ballot? "Screw those councilmen, they want to raise our taxes so they're holding these services hostage." What's the phrase about it being impossible to make people understand something that they don't want to?
> In Massachusetts, there's a cap of 2.5% for property tax increases without a ballot measure. This means that almost every year, local budgets are shrinking relative to inflation.
Doesn't MA reassess on transfer? CA does, so property tax revenues grow faster than the cap.
Note that CA also does "catchup" - the bill goes up by the cap whenever the difference between the assessed and real value is greater than the cap, no matter what's happened to the real value. That's why property tax bill is going up this by the cap year even though the value of my house took a 30% hit last year. It's the same for anyone who has owned for more than 5 years.
Note that housing inflation has been more than other inflation, so trailing housing inflation doesn't imply that the local govt is losing ground.
> "Screw those councilmen, they want to raise our taxes so they're holding these services hostage."
Since that's how govts actually behave....
Look at what they do and don't threaten to cut and ask yourself if those are rational priorities. Or, do those two lists tell you that they're using the "cut" list to keep funding for the "don't cut" list.
Note - you have to look at both lists, not just the "cut" list. And you have to look at the amounts for the various items.
Doesn't MA reassess on transfer? CA does, so property tax revenues grow faster than the cap.
Note that CA also does "catchup" - the bill goes up by the cap whenever the difference between the assessed and real value is greater than the cap, no matter what's happened to the real value. That's why property tax bill is going up this by the cap year even though the value of my house took a 30% hit last year. It's the same for anyone who has owned for more than 5 years.
Note that housing inflation has been more than other inflation, so trailing housing inflation doesn't imply that the local govt is losing ground.
> "Screw those councilmen, they want to raise our taxes so they're holding these services hostage."
Since that's how govts actually behave....
Look at what they do and don't threaten to cut and ask yourself if those are rational priorities. Or, do those two lists tell you that they're using the "cut" list to keep funding for the "don't cut" list.
Note - you have to look at both lists, not just the "cut" list. And you have to look at the amounts for the various items.
Are you kidding me?
There was no money. It was a choice between raising taxes or cutting services.
And people like you respond to that with "You're such jerks for holding our services hostage!"
Arithmetic is not a jerk. It's just a fact. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
RE: the percentages, the deal is that the total local property tax take goes up by 2.5% a year. If your property increases in assessed value, you might see personal increase of more than that but someone else saw an increase of less to make up for it.
There was no money. It was a choice between raising taxes or cutting services.
And people like you respond to that with "You're such jerks for holding our services hostage!"
Arithmetic is not a jerk. It's just a fact. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
RE: the percentages, the deal is that the total local property tax take goes up by 2.5% a year. If your property increases in assessed value, you might see personal increase of more than that but someone else saw an increase of less to make up for it.
> > There was no money. It was a choice between raising taxes or cutting services.
0 money? Really? I'll bet that it was really just not enough to pay for what the pols wanted to do.
If the latter, they could fund some services. That's why I said to look at what they protected and what they said that they'd cut if they didn't get more money.
If you do that, you'll discover that they're protecting some things that should have a lower priority than things that they put on the "cut" list.
> And people like you respond to that with "You're such jerks for holding our services hostage!"
Since they're saying that they don't have enough money for police and fire protection but do for lesser things, why is it wrong to characterize that as "holding our services hostage"? What is an acceptable way to criticise that behavior?
Or, are you claiming that they should always get enough money for whatever they want?
> Arithmetic is not a jerk. It's just a fact.
Yup, it's a fact. If you have $100 and what you want costs $200, you need to scale back your wants.
The "jerk" behavior is to spend the $100 on lower priorities and whine that you don't have enough money to pay for higher priorities.
> Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
Huh? The fact that some govt wants to do something does not obligate me to pay for it.
0 money? Really? I'll bet that it was really just not enough to pay for what the pols wanted to do.
If the latter, they could fund some services. That's why I said to look at what they protected and what they said that they'd cut if they didn't get more money.
If you do that, you'll discover that they're protecting some things that should have a lower priority than things that they put on the "cut" list.
> And people like you respond to that with "You're such jerks for holding our services hostage!"
Since they're saying that they don't have enough money for police and fire protection but do for lesser things, why is it wrong to characterize that as "holding our services hostage"? What is an acceptable way to criticise that behavior?
Or, are you claiming that they should always get enough money for whatever they want?
> Arithmetic is not a jerk. It's just a fact.
Yup, it's a fact. If you have $100 and what you want costs $200, you need to scale back your wants.
The "jerk" behavior is to spend the $100 on lower priorities and whine that you don't have enough money to pay for higher priorities.
> Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
Huh? The fact that some govt wants to do something does not obligate me to pay for it.
I was one of the pols. I agonized over the budgets. What we "wanted to do" was continue to pay our teachers. There wasn't enough money for that.
It was simple arithmetic, a choice between letting teachers go or raising taxes.
What many people did for selfish reasons, and you're doing for ideological purity reasons, is attempt to change the debate to some abstract notion of "government spending my money". Hey buddy, it's your kids in the schools, and you even get to vote on the tax increase. Just don't call me a jerk or a liar -- I'm giving it to you straight.
Quote anamax : The "jerk" behavior is to spend the $100 on lower priorities and whine that you don't have enough money to pay for higher priorities.
Which lower priorities was I wasting money on here, exactly? You're the expert. And I'm sure there weren't any state or federal mandates involved, legal obligations or anything like that. "jerk" behavior is refusing to educate yourself on things and hand-waving away instead so you can keep your nice simple universe. Mental shortcuts will always lead to uninformed opinions.
It was simple arithmetic, a choice between letting teachers go or raising taxes.
What many people did for selfish reasons, and you're doing for ideological purity reasons, is attempt to change the debate to some abstract notion of "government spending my money". Hey buddy, it's your kids in the schools, and you even get to vote on the tax increase. Just don't call me a jerk or a liar -- I'm giving it to you straight.
Quote anamax : The "jerk" behavior is to spend the $100 on lower priorities and whine that you don't have enough money to pay for higher priorities.
Which lower priorities was I wasting money on here, exactly? You're the expert. And I'm sure there weren't any state or federal mandates involved, legal obligations or anything like that. "jerk" behavior is refusing to educate yourself on things and hand-waving away instead so you can keep your nice simple universe. Mental shortcuts will always lead to uninformed opinions.
> It was simple arithmetic, a choice between letting teachers go or raising taxes.
Somehow I doubt that teacher salaries were your only expense. I doubt that teacher salaries were even your only not-mandated expense. (As to "mandated", I've found that some of the "mandates" are an excuse. Yes, I've done this exercise before.)
A 20% reduction in income can be painful, but in a world where lots of people are taking a bigger hit....
Somehow I doubt that teacher salaries were your only expense. I doubt that teacher salaries were even your only not-mandated expense. (As to "mandated", I've found that some of the "mandates" are an excuse. Yes, I've done this exercise before.)
A 20% reduction in income can be painful, but in a world where lots of people are taking a bigger hit....
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink, I guess.
Which reminds me, I like your assumption that govt spending, specifically teacher salaries, are the most important priority.
Your tax base took a hit because people took a huge hit, yet for some reason you think that teachers should be spared. Other folks take a pay cut and lose jobs, but ....
Which reminds me, do those teachers have defined benefit pensions? Are they fully funded? Few folks in the private sector have such pensions and none of them have taxpayer guarantees.
And yes, I noticed that you ducked my questions about budget components. As I wrote, I've gone through this before.
Your tax base took a hit because people took a huge hit, yet for some reason you think that teachers should be spared. Other folks take a pay cut and lose jobs, but ....
Which reminds me, do those teachers have defined benefit pensions? Are they fully funded? Few folks in the private sector have such pensions and none of them have taxpayer guarantees.
And yes, I noticed that you ducked my questions about budget components. As I wrote, I've gone through this before.
You didn't ask a question, you threw out a bunch of assumptions, most of which were so far off base that I need a stronger word than "wrong".
You're still doing it here. Did you read my earlier comments about how the property tax is assessed and collected? If you had, you wouldn't be talking about how the tax base took a "hit".
You're still doing it here. Did you read my earlier comments about how the property tax is assessed and collected? If you had, you wouldn't be talking about how the tax base took a "hit".
Use Minnesota, which has a very different system of school funding, as a reality check on whatever you say about public policy and how it influences schools.
http://www.mnhs.org/library/tips/history_topics/18public.htm...
http://www.mnhs.org/library/tips/history_topics/18public.htm...
Property tax is a percent of property value or at least it is every where I have ever lived. Last I checked housing was ahead of inflation pretty uniformly until recently.
RE: unions, there are 2 issues I think.
A) (perception), unions are more concerned with benefits for their members than educating their kids. Uh... so? Who else is going to advocate for them? They have to eat too, and every small town in America trots out a bunch of reaganish bullcrap about how the school system should be able to do more with less but they all expect a raise in their private sector job if they're doing well. We drop our kids off at school for the day, drive to work on clean, safe streets, and then bitch about how the public sector employees should get by with no yearly raise, without even bothering to inform ourselves about our local budget.
B) (reality) Unions are oftentimes more concerned with the preservation of power, access and position for the top union officials than they are with either the benefits for their members or the quality of education, except for cases where the latter two feed into the first (fortunately, fairly often). This is how it actually works. Unions have their problems but it's not because the teachers are greedy -- teachers are already doing a difficult job for low pay, presumably because they care about education. Anyone who whines about unions or about teachers expecting a fair pay check is free to try it for a few years - last I checked there's a huge shortage of qualified math and science teachers.
A) (perception), unions are more concerned with benefits for their members than educating their kids. Uh... so? Who else is going to advocate for them? They have to eat too, and every small town in America trots out a bunch of reaganish bullcrap about how the school system should be able to do more with less but they all expect a raise in their private sector job if they're doing well. We drop our kids off at school for the day, drive to work on clean, safe streets, and then bitch about how the public sector employees should get by with no yearly raise, without even bothering to inform ourselves about our local budget.
B) (reality) Unions are oftentimes more concerned with the preservation of power, access and position for the top union officials than they are with either the benefits for their members or the quality of education, except for cases where the latter two feed into the first (fortunately, fairly often). This is how it actually works. Unions have their problems but it's not because the teachers are greedy -- teachers are already doing a difficult job for low pay, presumably because they care about education. Anyone who whines about unions or about teachers expecting a fair pay check is free to try it for a few years - last I checked there's a huge shortage of qualified math and science teachers.
No one would complain about unionized teachers if they were doing a good job. All people see is vast sums of money going in and functionally retarded children coming out.
This could be because of bad teachers, bad parents, stupid/unteachable children, etc, but the unions' only solution is always "more money." Is it unreasonable to think, then, that the unions are acting in bad faith? The teachers are the only ones who get to elect the union leaders so they are responsible, directly or indirectly.
There's a huge shortage of qualified teachers because of the nonsense teachers ed requirements for certifying teachers. You've probably seen many articles on how ridiculous and shoddy these curricula are. These requirements exist at the behest of the unions to protect their members from competition.
This could be because of bad teachers, bad parents, stupid/unteachable children, etc, but the unions' only solution is always "more money." Is it unreasonable to think, then, that the unions are acting in bad faith? The teachers are the only ones who get to elect the union leaders so they are responsible, directly or indirectly.
There's a huge shortage of qualified teachers because of the nonsense teachers ed requirements for certifying teachers. You've probably seen many articles on how ridiculous and shoddy these curricula are. These requirements exist at the behest of the unions to protect their members from competition.
> Once upon a time there were four smart women named Louise Sivy, Helen Braun, Ethel Rew, and Patricia Troy who saw a need for an independent early childhood and elementary program offering small classes and a challenging multi-faceted curriculum. They had been colleagues at Wroxeter-on-the-Severn School and opened Chesapeake Academy in 1980, with just 36 students. They held classes at a space previously occupied, believe it or not, by a beauty parlor. The next year classes were held in a local church before moving to our present location in Arnold, MD just a few miles from Annapolis.
> The four smart women were resourceful. Moving from the beautiful castle-like school building at Wroxeter they found they were in need of basic furniture for classrooms and bartered for desks and chairs with local schools. They were conscious of fiscal needs and worked with generous families to administer the school’s financial resources.
> They wrote curriculum, taught classes and worked with their faculty to lay the groundwork for the individualized curriculum and the active learning philosophy Chesapeake Academy champions today. The four smart women were visionary. They embraced technology as an educational resource, while Apple® computer company was just finding its' way into the school marketplace.
http://www.chesapeakeacademy.com/podium/default.aspx?t=10367...
Patricia Troy is the mother of Dave Troy, a local entrepreneur, and she did exactly what you're proposing.
> The four smart women were resourceful. Moving from the beautiful castle-like school building at Wroxeter they found they were in need of basic furniture for classrooms and bartered for desks and chairs with local schools. They were conscious of fiscal needs and worked with generous families to administer the school’s financial resources.
> They wrote curriculum, taught classes and worked with their faculty to lay the groundwork for the individualized curriculum and the active learning philosophy Chesapeake Academy champions today. The four smart women were visionary. They embraced technology as an educational resource, while Apple® computer company was just finding its' way into the school marketplace.
http://www.chesapeakeacademy.com/podium/default.aspx?t=10367...
Patricia Troy is the mother of Dave Troy, a local entrepreneur, and she did exactly what you're proposing.
Even most private schools in America charge less per pupil than the government pays to educate a student in a public school. Governments are rarely efficient because they do not have to be.
>Governments are rarely efficient because they do not have to be.
I'm starting to develop a theory that governments are efficient, even very much so, except to another metric. The US Gov's Education Department metric seems to be "pleasing the teacher's unions", not financial efficiency. And at that, they are very good.
I'm starting to develop a theory that governments are efficient, even very much so, except to another metric. The US Gov's Education Department metric seems to be "pleasing the teacher's unions", not financial efficiency. And at that, they are very good.
Because No Child Left Behind is just every teacher's favorite legislature, and nothing makes teachers happier than 50 hour work weeks for low wages.
The two biggest problems any teacher I know can find with the current public school system are:
1. Over reliance on standardized test as the only metric of education. Making it difficult to teach kids engaging material in various subjects (Nope, can't cover history's 10 craziest revolutions, have to cover the civil war for the tenth time) because there is so much that they have to learn specifically.
2. A lack of any real power.
True story: My mom once gave a child an F in english, he had a course average of 20%, the child's mom came in complained that her child COULD NOT go to summer school because they had a trip to europe already planned and booked, threatened a law suit and the principle made my mom raise change it to a D.
Another: in Florida at least it had become so difficult to hold a child back a grade in middle school that freshman were coming into high school who hadn't passed 5th grade reading tests. 14% of the freshman one year were functionally illiterate.
Neither of those had anything to do with "government inefficiency." It's the mandate to educate everyone. A private school can have very specific terms and as long as they got a good lawyer to draw up the contract the parents don't have a leg to stand on if the private school kicks their kid out, flunks them, holds them back, gives the detention etc.
EDIT: note that when I a lack of power I mean over academic matters. Recently the supreme court said strip searching a 14 year old girl in front of the male principle because she had Tylenol in her purse was okay. That's some terrifying power.
The two biggest problems any teacher I know can find with the current public school system are:
1. Over reliance on standardized test as the only metric of education. Making it difficult to teach kids engaging material in various subjects (Nope, can't cover history's 10 craziest revolutions, have to cover the civil war for the tenth time) because there is so much that they have to learn specifically.
2. A lack of any real power.
True story: My mom once gave a child an F in english, he had a course average of 20%, the child's mom came in complained that her child COULD NOT go to summer school because they had a trip to europe already planned and booked, threatened a law suit and the principle made my mom raise change it to a D.
Another: in Florida at least it had become so difficult to hold a child back a grade in middle school that freshman were coming into high school who hadn't passed 5th grade reading tests. 14% of the freshman one year were functionally illiterate.
Neither of those had anything to do with "government inefficiency." It's the mandate to educate everyone. A private school can have very specific terms and as long as they got a good lawyer to draw up the contract the parents don't have a leg to stand on if the private school kicks their kid out, flunks them, holds them back, gives the detention etc.
EDIT: note that when I a lack of power I mean over academic matters. Recently the supreme court said strip searching a 14 year old girl in front of the male principle because she had Tylenol in her purse was okay. That's some terrifying power.
Teachers do not work 50 hour weeks. On average, teachers work 38 hour weeks. That's 24 minutes less per weekday and 42 minutes less per saturday than the average professional. They do this 9-10 months/year, the other 2-3 months a year they work dramatically less.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2008/03/art4full.pdf
Additionally, while their wages are low, their fringe benefits are excellent. They often get defined benefit pensions, earlier retirement than other professionals, tenure and 2-3 months vacation.
http://web.missouri.edu/~podgurskym/articles/files/fringe_be...
Incidentally, while it may be the case that private schools don't educate everyone, so what? If they can educate students in category X better than public schools, but schools can educate category Y better than private, isn't it best for everyone if private schools take the X students and public takes the Y students?
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2008/03/art4full.pdf
Additionally, while their wages are low, their fringe benefits are excellent. They often get defined benefit pensions, earlier retirement than other professionals, tenure and 2-3 months vacation.
http://web.missouri.edu/~podgurskym/articles/files/fringe_be...
Incidentally, while it may be the case that private schools don't educate everyone, so what? If they can educate students in category X better than public schools, but schools can educate category Y better than private, isn't it best for everyone if private schools take the X students and public takes the Y students?
I agree with everything in the above post except the one unevidenced claim: that teachers' wages are low. Teachers' wages are not low in the United States on average.
Quoth the BLS:
Median annual wages of kindergarten, elementary, middle, and secondary school teachers ranged from $47,100 to $51,180 in May 2008; the lowest 10 percent earned $30,970 to $34,280; the top 10 percent earned $75,190 to $80,970.
You can scroll down the list of occupations and see some folks who get paid less than teachers. It is an eye-opener in some cases (firefighters make less than middle school teachers? Really? Whoa.)
Quoth the BLS:
Median annual wages of kindergarten, elementary, middle, and secondary school teachers ranged from $47,100 to $51,180 in May 2008; the lowest 10 percent earned $30,970 to $34,280; the top 10 percent earned $75,190 to $80,970.
You can scroll down the list of occupations and see some folks who get paid less than teachers. It is an eye-opener in some cases (firefighters make less than middle school teachers? Really? Whoa.)
For the most part, wage is tied directly to the amount of education required for a position. Teachers have similar education requirements to high-tech fields (bachelors is not required, but not having it is considered a special case; bachelor's is the low end; master's is typical). Which high-tech fields are on that list?
In New York for instance as far as I know a Masters Degree is required.
That means that that top 10% $80,000 salary is being paid to a someone in the middle of NYC with 30 years of experience and a Masters degree (at least, probably a PHD).
Also yes firefighters earn terrifyingly low salaries, so do cops and a lot of other government funded position necessary for the continued survival of civilization
Also yes firefighters earn terrifyingly low salaries, so do cops and a lot of other government funded position necessary for the continued survival of civilization
First, a masters in teaching is not hard to get. You basically just need to show up.
Also, the base pay of a teacher in NYC with 20 years experience is $83,000 (with pay going up if they have degrees). $83k/year for 39 hours/week, 9 months a year is not bad, even by NYC standards. (It's equivalent to $99k/year working all year.).
http://schools.nyc.gov/Offices/DHR/TeacherPrincipalSchoolPro...
They also get to retire at 55 with a full pension, assuming they started work at 25. So you need to factor in the value of those extra years of pension, and fewer years of work to get it.
http://www.psc-cuny.org/PensionApermanentDecision.htm
Also, the base pay of a teacher in NYC with 20 years experience is $83,000 (with pay going up if they have degrees). $83k/year for 39 hours/week, 9 months a year is not bad, even by NYC standards. (It's equivalent to $99k/year working all year.).
http://schools.nyc.gov/Offices/DHR/TeacherPrincipalSchoolPro...
They also get to retire at 55 with a full pension, assuming they started work at 25. So you need to factor in the value of those extra years of pension, and fewer years of work to get it.
http://www.psc-cuny.org/PensionApermanentDecision.htm
38 hours a week implies that a total of maybe thirty minutes a day of after hours work, I'll go poke my head around but I'm pretty sure I've seen studies putting average work load at 16 hours a week after hours (+ 38h at school giving my 50). I like how the second link acknowledges that teachers spend time after hours grading and writing tests and lesson plans (including specialized 30 page reports for how they will personally ensure that billy will pass the state test this year) etc, but hand waves it with "a job that permits relatively more work at home is typically attractive."
That said while I feel that the people in charge of making sure the next generation is capable of progressing society should probably get paid more than they do, I'm not going to claim that doubling teacher salaries would really help anything. I only made that comment in response to the idea that the "Gov's Education Department metric seems to be "pleasing the teacher's unions"... And at that, they are very good."
>>Incidentally, while it may be the case that private schools don't educate everyone, so what? If they can educate students in category X better than public schools, but schools can educate category Y better than private, isn't it best for everyone if private schools take the X students and public takes the Y students?
I'm not arguing against private schools categorically, more so I'm sticking up for the public education system. That said 1. I'm generally a big proponent of heterogeneity in peer groups 2. It's not that public schools are better at educating Y, it's that private schools are often unwilling to.
That said while I feel that the people in charge of making sure the next generation is capable of progressing society should probably get paid more than they do, I'm not going to claim that doubling teacher salaries would really help anything. I only made that comment in response to the idea that the "Gov's Education Department metric seems to be "pleasing the teacher's unions"... And at that, they are very good."
>>Incidentally, while it may be the case that private schools don't educate everyone, so what? If they can educate students in category X better than public schools, but schools can educate category Y better than private, isn't it best for everyone if private schools take the X students and public takes the Y students?
I'm not arguing against private schools categorically, more so I'm sticking up for the public education system. That said 1. I'm generally a big proponent of heterogeneity in peer groups 2. It's not that public schools are better at educating Y, it's that private schools are often unwilling to.
With the result that votes for certain political parties are produced?
Sure, but there's also the issue that they have to educate the worst behaved pupils, who presumably cost an order of magnitude more to deal with because of all the disturbance they cause in class.
Governments also have a care of duty to disabled pupils as well, and I bet the private school equivalents are vastly more expensive.
The public schools are obliged to take just about every kid who shows up, including children with severe emotional, cognitive, or physical disabilities. In the US, they are also obliged to provide disabled children with education “in the least restrictive environment”, meaning that if a disabled child can be educated with special accommodations alongside non-disabled kids, that’s what the school has to provide, even if putting the disabled child in a specialized classroom all day would be cheaper.
Private schools, by contrast, have no obligation to accommodate disabled students. For that matter, they’re more or less free to say “there’s nothing wrong with your child, but s/he wouldn’t fit in to our school”.
Private schools, by contrast, have no obligation to accommodate disabled students. For that matter, they’re more or less free to say “there’s nothing wrong with your child, but s/he wouldn’t fit in to our school”.
Private schools, by contrast, have no obligation to accommodate disabled students
That depends on your jurisdiction. For example, you've indicated you live in Massachusetts. Two minutes of Googling found that 151C (e) makes it unlawful for private schools to refuse admission to the blind, deaf, and students requiring use of dog guides. That is one law. I would not wager it is the extent of regulations on the matter.
That depends on your jurisdiction. For example, you've indicated you live in Massachusetts. Two minutes of Googling found that 151C (e) makes it unlawful for private schools to refuse admission to the blind, deaf, and students requiring use of dog guides. That is one law. I would not wager it is the extent of regulations on the matter.
A private school can’t refuse admission to a deaf student, but if (for example) the student requires a sign-language interpreter to participate in class, the private school is under no obligation to pay for one. A public school in a similar situation would have to hire an interpreter.
According to http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_spe_per_pri_sch_stu-sp... the US spends about $6K per child for primary education.
I don't know about the US but private schools here in the UK are rather more than that (we pay a total of about $15K a year).
I don't know about the US but private schools here in the UK are rather more than that (we pay a total of about $15K a year).
Primary education (your source) is a little cheaper, for one thing. Regional variations matter a lot. And there are a lot of other factors.
According to the U.S. Census, U.S. public schools spent $9,138 per student in 2006. This varies from $14,884 in New York to $5,437 in Utah:
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/ed...
According to the council for private education, the average private school tuition in the U.S. for 2007-2008 was $8,549 at all levels, and $6,733 at elementary level. Non-religious schools were significantly more expensive than religiously-affiliated schools:
http://www.capenet.org/facts.html
It would be hard to directly compare spending because one school might offer more than another. For example, a private school in Orange County, California, may provide laptops to all students, expensive science labs, and fancy football fields (and would have to pay a lot for land), while a public school in rural Nevada may not have any of that stuff. That wouldn't prove that private education was more expensive or less efficient, just that the people in one region wanted different things and were willing to pay more for those things.
According to the U.S. Census, U.S. public schools spent $9,138 per student in 2006. This varies from $14,884 in New York to $5,437 in Utah:
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/ed...
According to the council for private education, the average private school tuition in the U.S. for 2007-2008 was $8,549 at all levels, and $6,733 at elementary level. Non-religious schools were significantly more expensive than religiously-affiliated schools:
http://www.capenet.org/facts.html
It would be hard to directly compare spending because one school might offer more than another. For example, a private school in Orange County, California, may provide laptops to all students, expensive science labs, and fancy football fields (and would have to pay a lot for land), while a public school in rural Nevada may not have any of that stuff. That wouldn't prove that private education was more expensive or less efficient, just that the people in one region wanted different things and were willing to pay more for those things.
"the US spends about $6K per child for primary education."
The cost for our children at a Catholic elementary school here in the U.S. is about half that.
The cost for our children at a Catholic elementary school here in the U.S. is about half that.
Religious schools are frequently subsidized by the sponsoring religious group, and Catholic schools tend to employ a lot of nuns, who cost the school very little.
This is very cool, but I can't help remembering that the Wahhabi schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan (incorrectly called "madrassas", which is just a generic Arabic word for "school") would also fall into this category of small, private, low-cost schools. I wonder what can be done to ensure that schools like this that are run by potentially less scrupulous proprietors provide a quality education. I know that's not well defined, but I do not think we don't want to go down the Wahhabi road of teaching only a corrupted religious/political doctrine to advance political ends at the expense of promoting reading, math, and science -- or any number of other educational scams that one could devise.
It seems that one of the advantages that a public program could have in volatile areas is some manner of centralized curriculum oversight. How are private schools in the US regulated to prevent similar situations (if they are at all)?
It seems that one of the advantages that a public program could have in volatile areas is some manner of centralized curriculum oversight. How are private schools in the US regulated to prevent similar situations (if they are at all)?
1. You're assuming your conclusion.
2. Curriculum oversight is just another way of saying state sponsored indoctrination.
3. If parents believe that the schools are better than the alternatives, what right does anybody else have to butt in? In the American case they already pay for them through (local property) taxes anyway so they probably have good reason to pay a second time for the private version.
4. Would you support the abolition of the Amish's special privileges under which children are withdrawn from formal education at ~14, in contrast to the normal school leaving age? Why are they even allowed to have their own schools? After all they're weird religious fanatics with a self-perpetuating sub-culture, shouldn't we break that up and force them to assimilate by making their children go to schools with normal children? [Not actually a USAn]
As to private school oversight, I imagine it varies by state like the position on homeschooling. But the big discipliner is that parents can take their children out. they have real right of exit, to a far greater extent than with public schools
2. Curriculum oversight is just another way of saying state sponsored indoctrination.
3. If parents believe that the schools are better than the alternatives, what right does anybody else have to butt in? In the American case they already pay for them through (local property) taxes anyway so they probably have good reason to pay a second time for the private version.
4. Would you support the abolition of the Amish's special privileges under which children are withdrawn from formal education at ~14, in contrast to the normal school leaving age? Why are they even allowed to have their own schools? After all they're weird religious fanatics with a self-perpetuating sub-culture, shouldn't we break that up and force them to assimilate by making their children go to schools with normal children? [Not actually a USAn]
As to private school oversight, I imagine it varies by state like the position on homeschooling. But the big discipliner is that parents can take their children out. they have real right of exit, to a far greater extent than with public schools
I don't think I'm making any assumptions -- these outcomes have been seen, as I've said, in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
I am not going to respond to your second point... I think that is a point of debate that you're making out to be far more black-and-white than it really is.
There is further complexity than you are admitting in your last two examples. There is a broad-reaching social impact that schooling, or lack thereof, has. This is true locally as well as globally, as seen by what the Wahhabi schools produce. Would I oppose the Amish exemption? No, because the vast majority of students in this nation have access to basic education. Would I oppose a private school system that was teaching violent fundamentalism at the expense of basic education, if that system was the only option serving a large area of my country? You bet I would, and that goes for government or private systems.
Again: this is a complicated issue -- and no one should pretend otherwise. It is a false dichotomy to declare that our options are "state sponsored indoctrination" and forcible assimilation, or a free-market utopia where parents pick what school works best for them. A non-trivial number of people would pick the degree mill school given the choice: I am trying to figure out how we disincentive that option in an areas that don't have the social infrastructure to stigmatize that decision.
I am not going to respond to your second point... I think that is a point of debate that you're making out to be far more black-and-white than it really is.
There is further complexity than you are admitting in your last two examples. There is a broad-reaching social impact that schooling, or lack thereof, has. This is true locally as well as globally, as seen by what the Wahhabi schools produce. Would I oppose the Amish exemption? No, because the vast majority of students in this nation have access to basic education. Would I oppose a private school system that was teaching violent fundamentalism at the expense of basic education, if that system was the only option serving a large area of my country? You bet I would, and that goes for government or private systems.
Again: this is a complicated issue -- and no one should pretend otherwise. It is a false dichotomy to declare that our options are "state sponsored indoctrination" and forcible assimilation, or a free-market utopia where parents pick what school works best for them. A non-trivial number of people would pick the degree mill school given the choice: I am trying to figure out how we disincentive that option in an areas that don't have the social infrastructure to stigmatize that decision.
You're working off of your terminal values, your moral judgement, that the outcomes in Afghanistan and Pakistan are bad. That's a value judgement, not a fact one. So you can't but assume your conclusion, you desire outcome x because you do.
As to the state sponsored indoctrination bit, whether it's explicitly planned or comes about organically through political bargaining between those with the power and those with the strongly held opinions who are willing to fight for it, it happens anyway. You cannot avoid having a value system, and if you do not perpetuate it, it will be outcompeted by one that will.
I'm not denying complexity, I'm providing extreme examples as aids to thought. Look at the two ends of the spectrum and ask "What does my previously implicit value system say in these extreme cases?"
Would I oppose the Amish exemption? No, because the vast majority of students in this nation have access to basic education.
But don't the Amish children deserve to have the option to partake in broader society? And won't they have more and better information upon which to condition that choice if they attend government run schools until the normal school leaving age? Aren't they being harmed by being denied that opportunity?
teaching violent fundamentalism at the expense of basic education
What's violent fundamentalism? What's basic education? If the violent fundamentalists are the only ones providing education of any sort, a minimum of literacy for example, isn't that better than nothing for the vast majority of those who receive it who never do crap with the violent bit of the fundamentalism but who can read and write and probably do arithmetic when their chances to do so otherwise would have been much less?
On degree mills; what's wrong with a solely instructional institution that certifies competence in a given area? Most people don't give a damn about education as growth for the soul, why should they subsidise those who do, and help perpetuate a costly signalling mechanism that is socially wasteful if an alternative exists?
As to the state sponsored indoctrination bit, whether it's explicitly planned or comes about organically through political bargaining between those with the power and those with the strongly held opinions who are willing to fight for it, it happens anyway. You cannot avoid having a value system, and if you do not perpetuate it, it will be outcompeted by one that will.
I'm not denying complexity, I'm providing extreme examples as aids to thought. Look at the two ends of the spectrum and ask "What does my previously implicit value system say in these extreme cases?"
Would I oppose the Amish exemption? No, because the vast majority of students in this nation have access to basic education.
But don't the Amish children deserve to have the option to partake in broader society? And won't they have more and better information upon which to condition that choice if they attend government run schools until the normal school leaving age? Aren't they being harmed by being denied that opportunity?
teaching violent fundamentalism at the expense of basic education
What's violent fundamentalism? What's basic education? If the violent fundamentalists are the only ones providing education of any sort, a minimum of literacy for example, isn't that better than nothing for the vast majority of those who receive it who never do crap with the violent bit of the fundamentalism but who can read and write and probably do arithmetic when their chances to do so otherwise would have been much less?
On degree mills; what's wrong with a solely instructional institution that certifies competence in a given area? Most people don't give a damn about education as growth for the soul, why should they subsidise those who do, and help perpetuate a costly signalling mechanism that is socially wasteful if an alternative exists?
> You're working off of your terminal values, your moral judgement, that the outcomes in Afghanistan and Pakistan are bad.
Yes, the particular systems I'm referring to are bad, in my opinion. My base principles for making that assumption is that educational systems should not deny education to women, promote violence, or provide educations based on faith and mythology. If that is a purely moral viewpoint, so be it: we do not live in an objective world, and you're free to disagree with me.
But that is /not/ the point I'm trying to make here. Moreover, these are just an example of a potential failing of private schools. I could imagine several ways to defraud parents of the education they think they're paying for. My conclusion it's unclear what the incentive system for private schools to provide "quality" education (from the point of view of parents, students, and society as a whole) in an area where little or no educational institutions have existed before, and where institutions (public or private) do not exist to allow families to make informed decisions about the schools they're sending their kids to. It's a basic problem of incomplete information available to clients of these schools, that's all: can we (or someone else) come up with a way to allow families in these areas to make sure that the school they're paying is actually providing the education they're expecting to receive?
> what's wrong with a solely instructional institution that certifies competence in a given area? I am referring to fraudulent organizations that award degrees based solely on payment, and provide no actual education, classes, instruction, etc. The system we have may be flawed but these do not do anything constructive to change it.
Yes, the particular systems I'm referring to are bad, in my opinion. My base principles for making that assumption is that educational systems should not deny education to women, promote violence, or provide educations based on faith and mythology. If that is a purely moral viewpoint, so be it: we do not live in an objective world, and you're free to disagree with me.
But that is /not/ the point I'm trying to make here. Moreover, these are just an example of a potential failing of private schools. I could imagine several ways to defraud parents of the education they think they're paying for. My conclusion it's unclear what the incentive system for private schools to provide "quality" education (from the point of view of parents, students, and society as a whole) in an area where little or no educational institutions have existed before, and where institutions (public or private) do not exist to allow families to make informed decisions about the schools they're sending their kids to. It's a basic problem of incomplete information available to clients of these schools, that's all: can we (or someone else) come up with a way to allow families in these areas to make sure that the school they're paying is actually providing the education they're expecting to receive?
> what's wrong with a solely instructional institution that certifies competence in a given area? I am referring to fraudulent organizations that award degrees based solely on payment, and provide no actual education, classes, instruction, etc. The system we have may be flawed but these do not do anything constructive to change it.
The Netherlands is an example of a country with a vigorous system of publicly funded, privately operated schools of diverse backgrounds.
http://www.onderwijsinspectie.nl/english
http://www.onderwijsinspectie.nl/english
This is exactly what teachers unions have said in court briefs opposing schools opened by noted extremist religious groups like Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Reform Jews, etc. (There are constitutional amendments in some states which were written for the express purpose of making it harder for Catholics to open schools. Guess why they'll never get repealed?)
> How are private schools in the US regulated to prevent similar situations (if they are at all)?
In practice, market forces do a decent (though not perfect) job: most private schools want to produce students who have a chance of getting into a good college, and one of the more effective ways to convince colleges you aren't insane is to: 1) have your students do well on standardized tests like the SAT; and/or 2) be accredited by an organization like the National Association of Independent Schools.
In practice, market forces do a decent (though not perfect) job: most private schools want to produce students who have a chance of getting into a good college, and one of the more effective ways to convince colleges you aren't insane is to: 1) have your students do well on standardized tests like the SAT; and/or 2) be accredited by an organization like the National Association of Independent Schools.
The caveat is that this works now because most parents who pay to send their children to a private school do so to improve academic outcomes, and because getting into a good college is considered a very positive academic outcome.
Yeah, that's true, and there's also a possible negative feedback loop if strongly religious colleges that weren't as interested in secular education made a revival. Super-Christian private high schools feeding into super-Christian colleges won't have the same sort of check on whether the student got any sort of decent secular education, because right now, the need to look good to a college with a mostly secular admissions process (even schools like BYU look at secular academics in the admissions) is one of the main motivators for religious high schools to do a decent job on their secular education.
Thanks, I wasn't aware of the NAIS.
It is somewhat sad how transparent your bias is. You seem to be painting all low cost private schools with the same brush as institutions where the rote learning of religious texts is the main goal by calling it "the Wahhabi road of teaching".
[deleted]
If this were an article about poor people in India hiring their own militia because they couldn’t get adequate protection from the local government-sponsored police force, would anyone be considering this a model for the US to emulate?
No, because in the US the people are the militia, and outside of a few states and D.C. are allowed to provide their own protection.
And of course in those nasty state the powerful hire their own militia (private security) anyway.
And of course in those nasty state the powerful hire their own militia (private security) anyway.
Not sure why people are down-voting this. This seems like a reasonable effort at argument by analogy. In point of fact, it is not uncommon in many parts of the world to pay for protection. Unfortunately, this creates an incentive for those providing the protection to also encourage the perception that protection is needed (possibly by committing crimes themselves). This is where the analogy seems to break down, as it is hard to see how private educators can foster the perception that public schools are failing (unless they are the people promoting standardized testing!).
20 kids' worth of parents can afford to employ a teacher at a very attractive rate for both parties I suspect.