The free market and education

Former Member

Shouldn't the private sector have a greater role in education? Why can't schools (without government funding) compete for students in a true free market?

Former Member

As a student, I find myself constantly grappling with my views on this topic. In a related theme, my city's university recently held *yet another* tuition increase protest, in vain.
Anyway, what worries me about (pardon my paraphrasing) 'privatizing' education is that I'm a firm believer in equal opportunity education. Call me idealistic, but I think it's something worth striving for, even if it will never be fully realized. Bringing the free market into it would completely disrupt this process. The theory of gov't funded education is that it aleviates some of the discrepancies that come from trying to learn while growing up in a lower income home, i.e. the rich usually have more free time to grant their children for a better, less stressful learning process, therefore the children in upper-class schools, to some extent, get better grades by default. If funding were granted exclusively through competition of student populations, we would once again be faced with the scenario that "it takes money/success to make money/success. We're surrounded by enough of that junk already. It seems like we'd be taking a step backward, not forward.

Former Member

Also, I just have to add one more thing. While I'm not completely clear on what kind of system you're envisioning, I'm getting terrible images of "McSchools", which is already begining to gain a foot hold in North America. It's bad enough that university/college students are faced with those hideous bathroom stall add campaigns that assult you as you're trying to take a piss. The idea of corporate sponsored education gives me chills. As if the system isn't infused with enough biases already, can you imagine 8 year olds having to learn about long-division, fractions and decimals through examples from stock market trade or something? Or having books by Tim Robins as required reading in high school?? Cause that's exactly what would happen once corporate interests sunk their teeth in far enough.

*shudder*

Former Member

Who says private education would be the preserve of the rich?

Prior to the 1970 Education Act (and the implementation of state run education in the UK) the poorer elements of society were educated by charities and the churches. Why can't that continue?

Also, take into account the free market. If one schools prices are too high, do you think they will attract custom if other schools have lower fees?

Former Member

Originally posted by monocrat
Who says private education would be the preserve of the rich?

Now, I don't know how the system works in the UK, but here in Denmark it's all down to priorities.

Former Member

Originally posted by monocrat
Who says private education would be the preserve of the rich?
Because those who can afford it always get better quality.

Prior to the 1970 Education Act (and the implementation of state run education in the UK) the poorer elements of society were educated by charities and the churches. Why can't that continue?
Because who ever controls the purse strings controls the values and belief systems that are instilled in the children. The gov't encourages, at least in theory, an objective education. At least more so than any church or charity could provide. This is especially important with today's population, which comes from a much more diverse socio-cultural background.

Also, take into account the free market. If one schools prices are too high, do you think they will attract custom if other schools have lower fees?
Yes, because the myth will always persist that higher prices suggest better quality. It would become a case of "the school with the most toys wins". Teachers would get shafted left, right and center because his or her school happens to be on the lower end of the food chain, creating a vicious cycle where the rich schools get richer and the poor schools get more degenerative, thus leading to "slum" schools, much like the ones of the States' inner cities, although probably much worse.

Former Member

Since the National Curriculum is set by the state how is that objective? Schools should be allowed to set their own curriculums and faith schools should be more prevelant.

Former Member

As a general rule it is a bad idea to get private companies to run public services. The smaller role they have in education, the better. There are already plenty of such schools and an increased share of the market by private companies would have a negative influence in the poorer kids and the standard of education they'd have access to.

It would be a terrible thing to delegate education for the poorest to charities and the church. The standard would be much worse, and the god-botherers would try to implement their religious agenda on the kids whether they like it or not.

Former Member

The private sector should have a greater role in public services.

It would be a terrible thing to delegate education for the poorest to charities and the church. The standard would be much worse, and the god-botherers would try to implement their religious agenda on the kids whether they like it or not.

Why? Charity is a better means of helping the poor than any governmental welfare.

Former Member

Because charity-run education is practically always going to have lower standards than government's. The only benefit would be for the greedy rich who are always looking at ways of paying less tax, regardless of how many people get screwed by the consequences.

Former Member

Originally posted by monocrat
Since the National Curriculum is set by the state how is that objective? Schools should be allowed to set their own curriculums and faith schools should be more prevelant.

Which is why some church run private schools in the UK teach creationism as fact then is it?

Former Member

Originally posted by Man Of Kent


Which is why some church run private schools in the UK teach creationism as fact then is it?

Why not? Is evolution a 'fact'?

Former Member

Originally posted by monocrat


Why not? Is evolution a 'fact'?

no. and it shouldn't be presented as such.

However, you claimed that the state set the curriculum, this proves that they don't. Not when it comes to private schooling.

Unless you want a large portion of the UK population to believe that creationsim is fact then church run schools aren't the way forward...

Former Member

Whether church run schools would solely teach religious based topics is besides the point. Schools administered by charities would be the perfect alternative for the poor if public education were lessened.

Former Member

Originally posted by monocrat
Whether church run schools would solely teach religious based topics is besides the point.

No it's not, it is precisely the point.

Education is all about preparing out children for the future. It is the foundation on which this country will be laid. We need to ensure that our children get a rounded education and not one purely based on the religious teaching of a particular sect.

Or hasn't Aisha taught you anything?

Former Member

Originally posted by monocrat
Since the National Curriculum is set by the state how is that objective?

YES Aladdin, and YES MoK!!!
Also, perhaps I should clarify what I meant by "objective education". I mean that a universal, state run program encourages dialogue, and therefore encourages objectivism in the learning/thought processes of students. It encourages students to ask questions, and not to internalize every idea as dogma. Schools run by a charity or church simply cannot do that, because they have a inflexible "party line" to preach in order for their rules to make sense.