FIXME: zero ideas in the dept. of education's open government idea board

http://www.openeducation.ideascale.com/

by rndmcnlly0 • 16 years ago

48 41 16 years ago

openeducation.ideascale.com

vyrotek• 16 years ago

How about the idea that there shouldn't be any public schools?

sshumaker• 16 years ago

What's the theory behind that?

natrius9• 16 years ago

Universal access to education doesn't mean that the government needs to actually run the schools. It just means that funding needs to be provided for those who can't afford it on their own. Bonus points if you can get people to voluntarily subsidize the educations of those who can't afford it rather than forcibly taking the money.

Competition is a pretty powerful force when it comes to improving products, and it seems likely that the quality of education would improve if everyone wasn't forced to purchase an education bundled with their housing.

tsally5• 16 years ago

Education is guaranteed under article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the US signed and helped author. Not providing a public option for education would mean redefining what we believe to be fundamental freedoms. How are you going to provide education to the poor without public schools? Will the government give the poor money for education? Will you subsidize the "private" schools with government money? That would defeat the whole purpose of having private schools as you aren't allowing them the operate in the free market. It's not clear 100% bastardized "private" schools would be any more competitive than the current hybrid system. Public schools and the belief that education is a fundamental human right are inextricably intertwined.

EDIT: I'm going to edit this comment to refuse the arguments below, as there are multiple posters with similar points of view.

The claim is that restoring "choice" to the educational market will increase the quality of education for all. This choice is already happening. Wealthy families choose to move to areas with high property taxes that fund excellent public schools. I grew up and was educated in such a neighborhood; when I was in HS the average salary of a teacher at my "public" school was $100k. Each year, students from inner-city Chicago try and register for the schools in my HS area. They are not allowed because the schools are full with residents. Therefore, they have to go the public school in the neighborhood they reside in.

In a private system, the same behavior happens, except the barrier to entry becomes price not the geographical location of your residence. Several people have suggested government vouchers to help defray the cost of education. Do you really think these vouchers will be able to buy a higher quality of education than what is current available? The best private schools will raise their price to the most efficient market point where they charge their students the most and enroll exactly enough students.

Now some might argue that we already have a private system by proxy. People are still paying for higher education, they are just doing it though home ownership. Why not just covert to a private system? The answer is this: the quality of the weakest school is far more important than the quality of the strongest school. People with money will always be able to find a way to get their kids an excellent education. As a society we don't need to worry about these kids. Society does need to worry about the bottom line. The long term cost of failed education to society is immense: increased crime rate which leads to prison costs, lower voter literacy which results in less qualified politicians, the list goes on. In a private system, the low end is forgotten about. The idea that a government voucher would be large enough for the bottom end is ridiculous. In the public system there is a constant struggle to push the low end higher. This is (part of the reason) why the public system costs so much. The public system has to bear an extra burden (for the good of society) that the private system eliminates through efficiency.

The bottom line: Choice is already taking place in the hybrid school system by proxy through property tax or expensive private schools. The 100% private system would be exactly the same, with the added disadvantage of a forgotten low end. Vouchers are just a half-assed replacement for the public part of the system already in place. If the vouchers were high enough to raise the low end to an acceptable level, the cost would be equal to the public part of the current system. In order to raise the low end of education above the fair market value, government regulation is by definition necessary. A small correction must be made for the failure in free market forces.

natrius9• 16 years ago

"Will you subsidize the "private" schools with government money? That would defeat the whole purpose of having private schools as you aren't allowing them the operate in the free market."

I don't understand this. The most common proposal I've heard is a voucher system that would allow people to defray the cost of an education at a school that has some sort of certification. In what meaningful ways is that not a free market? How will competition be any less effective?

It is clear to me that restoring choice to the education market will allow competition to occur, which will likely result in increased quality.

Nwallins• 16 years ago

> Public schools and the belief that education is a fundamental human right are inextricably intertwined.

This is not the rational conclusion. It is possible to provide for an education without providing the education.

> Will you subsidize the "private" schools with government money?

No. Funds come from tuition-paying students.

> How are you going to provide education to the poor without public schools? Will the government give the poor money for education?

Perhaps.

> How are you going to provide education to the poor without public schools?

Fund the poor with education credits that can be spent freely on education. The school is reimbursed by the Fed for its education credits.

natrius9• 16 years ago

In reply to your edit: Your entire argument rests on the assumption that private schools that poor students attend will be worse than public schools that poor students attend. You haven't presented any evidence for that, and it is contrary to what a naive analysis would suggest.

Today, poor students have absolutely no choice when it comes to schools. They live where they can afford, and they go to the schools they are zoned to. In a voucher system, poor students would actually get to pick schools, and one would assume that they'd tend to pick better schools after taking distance and other requirements into account.

Bad public schools continue in perpetuity because students are forced to pay for them. In an ideal world, bad private schools wither away when students choose better schools.

"In the public system there is a constant struggle to push the low end higher. This is (part of the reason) why the public system costs so much."

If that's the case, there's no reason that students who require extra attention can't be provided extra funding via vouchers.

"If the vouchers were high enough to raise the low end to an acceptable level, the cost would be equal to the public part of the current system."

If that's the case, who cares? Getting to choose the school your children attend is a good in itself, so you're suggesting that vouchers would be an improvement even with your incorrect assumption that current public school costs are necessary to achieve current public school quality.

You refer to a market failure several times, but you've never described it. How would the market fail to provide at least equal quality with equal funding per student?

walkon2• 16 years ago

Part of article 26, section 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory...

I simply disagree with this. It is not a right that everyone have a free education anymore than it is a right that everyone have a free pair of underwear, but people get confused because one seems noble and the other silly. Why do they use the word "free" here when obviously it isn't?

Also is this really a guarantee, as you state? If so, I am sure the UN (which gets 20-25% of its funds from the U.S.) is failing to back this guarantee, as I am sure there are millions around the world not receiving their compulsory elementary education. Perhaps the U.S. should focus on making their education system work and be well funded before signing declarations that "guarantee" every human, no matter how matter how exponential their procreation, receive a "free" elementary education?

johnnybgoode• 16 years ago

Exactly. Also see http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=580721.

jf2• 16 years ago

All "CFO Act" agencies have these pages, full list is here: http://www.usa.gov/webcontent/open/tool_poc.shtml

Real people at these agencies are using these pages to develop their prospective open government plans, in response to the Open Government Directive (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/memoranda_2010/m10-06.p...)

These agencies also have their own open government pages where you can find out about their respective plans. Here's NASA's page as an example: http://www.nasa.gov/open

TheThomas2• 16 years ago

I think it might be empty because ed.gov doesn't seem to actually link it anywhere on their site.

jf2• 16 years ago

They do, it's just hard to find.

http://www2.ed.gov/about/open-submit-idea.html via http://ed.gov/open

TheThomas2• 16 years ago

Thanks. Great catch. Admittedly, I'm still disappointed though. If they were taking it seriously, I'd expect something bright and shiny on that front page of theirs.

siegler• 16 years ago

We should dismantle the Department of Education. I suggest waiting until next year on February 6th, which would be fitting.

FIXME: zero ideas in the dept. of education's open government idea board

Related Stories