Here we go again

[jpappl]

I don't get what you're saying; those people won't be any better off in any other state.

Well the answer to what we do to make sure those people have access to education is public schools.

You have to consider the numbers. Consider the percentage of people below the poverty line, barely at the poverty line, just above the poverty line compared to those who have money to send kids to private schools now.

Then reduce the costs of the schools say 50 %, and how many are left with no options because they still can't afford it.

So we have to spread the wealth.

The problems that educational facilities have is not in the rich neighborhoods, the problems won't be solved by private facilites alone, they will be made worse becuase there will be no reason to compete for those locations.

 

[WillNever]

People will be able to afford it; competiton will bring prices down and quality up.

Furthermore, it's in the best interest of the schools to make themselves affordable and offer options to make it affordable for those that can't afford it; not only for statistical purposes, but also because there's a huge demand for skilled labor.

For-profit schools are ludicrous. That will warp the curriculum even more than public schools can do. Most private schools in the USA are not for-profit, even religious ones. They are funded by payments from the parents as well as donations, and they make enough so that they stay afloat.

If public schools were abolished, competition wouldn't take place in an "education" market. People would cease to send their children to what school is the best for them, and instead send their children to whatever school is cheapest, which in the likely scenario, would also be the worst funded. It would turn competition upside down and education in the country would be *terrible.*

As for the majority deciding what should be taught in schools... the local townies *do* have a say in what is taught. In fact, they have a say in pretty much everything that is taught, as long as it isn't a whole lot of religious nonsense. I think you should know that public schools aren't only funded by the town they reside in. They are funded by state and federal funds too. Due to this fact, public schools cannot be dictated over by the local school board without surrendering their funding. Clearly, the majority of the USA have decided that we want our schools to have a secular purpose, just like our government does.

 

[Ro6]

So... Is that Peter Marshall also going to try and get homosexuals into history classes for being the true cause of why the Vietnam war started and also for why Hurricane Katrina was so devastating?

 

[jpappl]

So... Is that Peter Marshall also going to try and get homosexuals into history classes for being the true cause of why the Vietnam war started and also for why Hurricane Katrina was so devastating?

Don't give him any ideas.

I'm sure he teaches that to his kids if he has any.

 

[Norsefire]

Well the answer to what we do to make sure those people have access to education is public schools.

You have to consider the numbers. Consider the percentage of people below the poverty line, barely at the poverty line, just above the poverty line compared to those who have money to send kids to private schools now.

Then reduce the costs of the schools say 50 %, and how many are left with no options because they still can't afford it.

So we have to spread the wealth.

The problems that educational facilities have is not in the rich neighborhoods, the problems won't be solved by private facilites alone, they will be made worse becuase there will be no reason to compete for those locations.

To compete for poor neighborhoods?

I disagree. The school will earn money with students attending; therefore even in a poor neighborhood, the school can turn a profit, but the price will probably be lower.

There will be better quality schools, and worse quality, but that's just like with private universities today.

And the biggest bonus, people can choose what school they want, and things like religion taught in schools would be a non issue

 

[jpappl]

To compete for poor neighborhoods?

Yes, what's the incentive for a private school to go into the poorest neighborhoods and start a school when they will lose money had over fist.

Where nobody has the money to send their kids to the schools.

I disagree. The school will earn money with students attending

And if they don't attend. Because they see they can have a better chance of making it selling drugs and gang involvement. How is the private school going to track and enforce attendance.

And the biggest bonus, people can choose what school they want, and things like religion taught in schools would be a non issue

Give me a break. The bonus.

You really have never been to an impoverished inner city neighborhood have you ?

This is not idealism Norse, this is fantasy.

 

[Norsefire]

Yes, what's the incentive for a private school to go into the poorest neighborhoods and start a school when they will lose money had over fist.

Where nobody has the money to send their kids to the schools.

If there's no incentive, then why would a public school do any better?

If you look at public schools in the most impoverished areas, attendance is low, scores are low, and problems are high. Why? Because most of the people attending likely don't care or are delinquents; they're not doing anything in public school, and at least in a private non-compulsary system they don't have to go and clog up and waste everybody's time and money.

People going will be people wanting to go; and if there are bright people in a poor neighborhood, I'm sure there will be scholarships, vouchers, loans, etc and other plans just like there are for universities.

And if they don't attend. Because they see they can have a better chance of making it selling drugs and gang involvement. How is the private school going to track and enforce attendance.

You're acting like forced attendance is a good thing. Forcing people who don't want to go and don't care and won't co operate to go to school only wastes everybody's time and money.

This is not idealism Norse, this is fantasy.

No, what is fantasy is expecting good quality out of the government. Privatizing schools will result in an increase in quality, very likely a decrease in price, and ultimately, choice.

In fact, public schools cost more than private schools, on average, per child, according to this article it's nearly a 2:1 ratio

http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=1118

Furthermore, not all schools will be for-profit; communities will be free to organize and collectively fund a school. I'm sure this will be a great option for many neighborhoods.

 

[jpappl]

If there's no incentive, then why would a public school do any better?

There doesn't need to be an incentive, we fund it so it will be there.

If you look at public schools in the most impoverished areas, attendance is low, scores are low, and problems are high. Why? Because most of the people attending likely don't care or are delinquents; they're not doing anything in public school, and at least in a private non-compulsary system they don't have to go and clog up and waste everybody's time and money.

Which is exactly why you want to have education available to ALL.

What happens to those who don't get any education ?
What value are they to society ? What will be their only alternative ?

Think about it.

People going will be people wanting to go; and if there are bright people in a poor neighborhood, I'm sure there will be scholarships, vouchers, loans, etc and other plans just like there are for universities.

And there are bright people in poor neighborhoods, but if they don't get a chance to go to school at all because they have no money and no schools want to set up shop in some crappy gang ridden violent neighborhood, how are they going to get scholarships, how are they going to have the basics in place so they can compete and advance.

You're acting like forced attendance is a good thing. Forcing people who don't want to go and don't care and won't co operate to go to school only wastes everybody's time and money.

Giving up on them is a worse option.

No, what is fantasy is expecting good quality out of the government. Privatizing schools will result in an increase in quality, very likely a decrease in price, and ultimately, choice.

For the wealthier yes.

In fact, public schools cost more than private schools, on average, per child, according to this article it's nearly a 2:1 ratio

Estimated 2 to 1 because they don't know all of the costs beyond the tuition. The problem is not that private schools would be considered more effecient in some locations, middle class to rich. It's the lower class neighborhoods that will suffer, remember that we are funding all of the schools in the poorer neighborhoods now. If we don't fund them, there is no guarantee that any private school will fill the void.

If they don't then what ?

The other item worth mentioning is $ 2500 for just tuition per student.

So inner city family has 4 kids, they make 12,000 per year.

You do the math.

 

[WillNever]

I just feel like I should point out that good quality from public schools IS possible and indeed it exists. I was raised on Long Island, New York. The public schools there were so good that my mother decided to pull me out of catholic school when I was in the 3rd grade in order for me to go to the much better funded public school in my town.

The district there still shows up as one of the best in the country on those lists that people publish every now and then. Last I looked, the teachers there make six figures now... though their salaries were certainly less than that when I was there.

 

[Norsefire]

There doesn't need to be an incentive, we fund it so it will be there.

Doing nothing? That hardly seems efficient to me.

Which is exactly why you want to have education available to ALL.

What happens to those who don't get any education ?

Right, but you're missing the point. Not everyone who doesn't get an education couldn't get an education, they simply didn't care, were lazy, and didn't put any effort in. In which case we shouldn't be paying for them.

And there are bright people in poor neighborhoods, but if they don't get a chance to go to school at all because they have no money and no schools want to set up shop in some crappy gang ridden violent neighborhood, how are they going to get scholarships, how are they going to have the basics in place so they can compete and advance.

The school doesn't have to be in that neighborhood; and schools will want to provide scholarships and other financial aid. And not only that, but there will also be private financial aid institutions like there already are NOW, and there probably will be more, because there will be a greater demand for them.

I understand your concern for the poor, but privatizing schools and encouraging community will actually be better for everybody.

Furthermore communities will be able to freely organize and establish a fund to build a school or aid people in going to school if they choose to. This happens in many places today, and it would probably happen even more as people figure out "hey, let's think for ourselves instead of gov't doing everything for us"

Giving up on them is a worse option.

No, it isn't. Not if they continually refuse to listen to reason or put any effort in.

For the wealthier yes.

There probably will be schools aimed at the wealthy; but why would schools, in general, make themselves affordable solely by the wealthy? They'd never grow and they would make less money in the long run. Schools will be targeted at the mainstream and larger consumer base.

Estimated 2 to 1 because they don't know all of the costs beyond the tuition. The problem is not that private schools would be considered more effecient in some locations, middle class to rich. It's the lower class neighborhoods that will suffer, remember that we are funding all of the schools in the poorer neighborhoods now. If we don't fund them, there is no guarantee that any private school will fill the void.

As I said, there's going to be financial aid, for one.

And two, communities can organize and collectively fund a school, just like they might do with a park or a church. In a free market, people will actually have to co-operate and have community in order to solve collective problems, instead of the "gov't will do it for me" mentality.

If they don't then what ?

Then I am sure there will be financial aid institutions, scholarships, etc

 

[jpappl]

Doing nothing? That hardly seems efficient to me.

No doing something, they are there trying, good people trying their best with the challenges.

Right, but you're missing the point. Not everyone who doesn't get an education couldn't get an education, they simply didn't care, were lazy, and didn't put any effort in. In which case we shouldn't be paying for them.

And then what happens when they are illiterate and have no education. What choices do they have then. Aren't the prisons full enough.

The school doesn't have to be in that neighborhood

What, how are they going to get there.

And not only that, but there will also be private financial aid institutions like there already are NOW

For the private schools now, no guarantee there will be any funding for any school outside of the student tuition.

I understand your concern for the poor, but privatizing schools and encouraging community will actually be better for everybody.

Furthermore communities will be able to freely organize and establish a fund to build a school or aid people in going to school if they choose to. This happens in many places today, and it would probably happen even more as people figure out "hey, let's think for ourselves instead of gov't doing everything for us"

Well your making my point. They can do that now and it's not happening. They don't have the funds to do it effectively.

Your essentially asking for the same thing. In the end, the money has to come from somewhere else. Don't confuse a private school in a wealthy neighborhood filled with kids who see a future and a public school in a poor neighborhood where they don't.

As I said, there's going to be financial aid, for one.

No guarantee

And two, communities can organize and collectively fund a school, just like they might do with a park or a church. In a free market, people will actually have to co-operate and have community in order to solve collective problems, instead of the "gov't will do it for me" mentality.

They can do that now. What's stopping them ?

 

[Norsefire]

No doing something, they are there trying, good people trying their best with the challenges.

You mean like the bad teachers that are still employed because there's next to no competition among teachers in public schools?

And then what happens when they are illiterate and have no education. What choices do they have then. Aren't the prisons full enough.

:wallbang:

How can you force education on somebody that is not willing to learn?

What, how are they going to get there.

Yet another opportunity: there could be private transportation firms for school children, like there already are (and would be more if it wasn't for the anti-competitive practices of public schools)

Or, carpooling would be a good option, and a green one

For the private schools now, no guarantee there will be any funding for any school outside of the student tuition.

There are already financial aid institutions for students. The reason there aren't more is because public schools defeat the demand that otherwise would be there; there would be more, in fact, and the competition among them will bring prices down and quality up.

Well your making my point. They can do that now and it's not happening. They don't have the funds to do it effectively.

Wrong. It's not happening because there's no demand, because of the public schools.

Essentially, people don't bother with community projects because gov't does it for them. Not because they can't.

They can do that now. What's stopping them ?

See above.

 

[jpappl]

You mean like the bad teachers that are still employed because there's next to no competition among teachers in public schools?

There are bad teachers, but what is going to change when private schools step in and no one wants to work there.

Either way, the teachers who really want to try and make a difference will.

How can you force education on somebody that is not willing to learn?

You can't force it on them. But getting kids into the school system allows for a great many who would not have the opportunity AT ALL to get one.

Yet another opportunity: there could be private transportation firms for school children, like there already are (and would be more if it wasn't for the anti-competitive practices of public schools)

Or, carpooling would be a good option, and a green one

Sounds like more expense. What if they don't have a cars.

How does the "anti-competitive" practices of schools affect transportation.

If it isn't public funding, there is no reason or incentive for a private company to step in. What if they do it for a while and then change and nobody else fills the void ? Again, there is no guarantee from the private sector.

there would be more, in fact

No guarantee, ever deal with funding issues before ?

Wrong. It's not happening because there's no demand, because of the public schools.

Essentially, people don't bother with community projects because gov't does it for them. Not because they can't.

Ok, so a bunch of poor people who have no money are going to band together and create a school, then what.

Who is going to pay the teachers, who is going to maintain the school, who decides the curriculum, who and how. What guarantee is there to continue the project.

“ They can do that now. What's stopping them ? ”

See above.

"They" are the sources of funding along with the community. What is stopping these private entities from doing that right now ?

Public schools. Right, sure.

 

[Norsefire]

There are bad teachers, but what is going to change when private schools step in and no one wants to work there.

Then we can assume these schools are of poor quality and poor practice and in a free market the better will come out on top.

Either way, the teachers who really want to try and make a difference will.

And they'll make more of a difference in a private school where they can get promotions and be more succesful.

You can't force it on them. But getting kids into the school system allows for a great many who would not have the opportunity AT ALL to get one.

Why not?

Sounds like more expense. What if they don't have a cars.

How does the "anti-competitive" practices of schools affect transportation.

Public school buses, like public anything, renders private provision useless. And people just go along with it, "gov't will do it for me". Since they're paying whether they use it or not, the gov't essentially makes using the private company/entity a more expensive decision.

If it isn't public funding, there is no reason or incentive for a private company to step in. What if they do it for a while and then change and nobody else fills the void ? Again, there is no guarantee from the private sector.

No surprise there, the socialist likes to believe "If the gov't doesn't do it, how can we possibly do it ourselves"

People co-operating will solve these kinds of problems.

Ok, so a bunch of poor people who have no money are going to band together and create a school, then what.

Who is going to pay the teachers, who is going to maintain the school, who decides the curriculum, who and how. What guarantee is there to continue the project.

Teachers can be volunteers from the community. The curriculum will be determined by the community, or they could adopt mainstreamed curriculums like that of other schools.

People left to their own devices will co-operate and work together; don't assume that if gov't doesn't do it it can't be done. Communitarian provision will help the lower income people be able to afford something like education.

"They" are the sources of funding along with the community. What is stopping these private entities from doing that right now ?

Public schools. Right, sure.

Right.

Don't you get it? The gov't provides it, why would the people bother actually doing it on their own? This is the typical viewpoint of big gov't people, "let the gov't do it, we can't possibly do it on our own"

We can, and we should, and we'd be better off if we did.

 

[jpappl]

Then we can assume these schools are of poor quality and poor practice and in a free market the better will come out on top

We can't assume all of that. There are plenty of good teachers trying very hard to help. The free market won't change any of it.

It's like you saying that everyone who works for a government organization is an idiot and everyone who works for a private institution is brilliant.

It's just not reality.

And they'll make more of a difference in a private school where they can get promotions and be more succesful.

Promotions to what, no longer a teacher. They can get promotions in the public schools as well, many people who get promoted in either public or private institutions are kiss asses.

“ You can't force it on them. But getting kids into the school system allows for a great many who would not have the opportunity AT ALL to get one. ”

Why not?

Because there wouldn't be very many schools if any at all that they could attend. The whole point of contention here between us. I am saying that if we stopped funding public schools in these poor communities, they would not be replaced to fill the void.

Public school buses, like public anything, renders private provision useless. And people just go along with it, "gov't will do it for me". Since they're paying whether they use it or not, the gov't essentially makes using the private company/entity a more expensive decision.

Again, would you want to run a private transportation service into the Watts area or Bel-Air.

No surprise there, the socialist likes to believe "If the gov't doesn't do it, how can we possibly do it ourselves"

People co-operating will solve these kinds of problems.

yes, so consider what they would do to solve them and then think about where we are now. What do you think they would do. Create a system like we have now.

Teachers can be volunteers from the community.

You mean your not going to pay them ?

People left to their own devices will co-operate and work together; don't assume that if gov't doesn't do it it can't be done. Communitarian provision will help the lower income people be able to afford something like education.

Yep, they create Gov't do organize it all.

Right.

Don't you get it? The gov't provides it, why would the people bother actually doing it on their own? This is the typical viewpoint of big gov't people, "let the gov't do it, we can't possibly do it on our own"

We can, and we should, and we'd be better off if we did.

Right, and they would end up creating the same damn types of institutions to organize it all. I am not a big government type, but I am also not a no government type. In some cases it's better, in some it's worse.

There are some things that government does that would be difficult if not impossible for the private industry to duplicate for a variety of reasons.

Reasons that obviously, if there were not there would make it less neccessary to have the government involved. Like masses of people who are poor.

 

[Norsefire]

We can't assume all of that. There are plenty of good teachers trying very hard to help. The free market won't change any of it.

It's like you saying that everyone who works for a government organization is an idiot and everyone who works for a private institution is brilliant.

No, but in a free market bad teachers would likely not be employed.

Because there wouldn't be very many schools if any at all that they could attend. The whole point of contention here between us. I am saying that if we stopped funding public schools in these poor communities, they would not be replaced to fill the void.

I've already explained this to you; private schools would become more affordable, there would be financial aid and scholarships (like there are now), and communitarian efforts could help for the poorer communities. Charity, church efforts, and organizations like the negro college fund could all help too.

Again, would you want to run a private transportation service into the Watts area or Bel-Air.

I would want to earn a living; why would I care what neighborhood I'm going into? Unless I'm going to be shot, then sure.

yes, so consider what they would do to solve them and then think about where we are now. What do you think they would do. Create a system like we have now.

Wrong. It's extremely foolish to think that gov't in the sense as we have it now is anything comparable to voluntary, private charitable organizations or anything similar. Gov't is a monopoly and everybody is forced to pay. Don't you understand?

Left to their own devices in a free market, the people sure will be free to contribute to education if they want to, and they'll co-operate on their own to solve collective problems.

You mean your not going to pay them ?

If their best interest is educating their community then why would they worry about payment?

Nuns don't get paid/barely get paid.

There are some things that government does that would be difficult if not impossible for the private industry to duplicate for a variety of reasons.

Why not? Because they wouldn't be able to extort money out of people any more?

If something can't survive in a free market, then it doesn't deserve to exist, because if it can't survive in a free market (it could be a charity, for instance, or a company) then this shows there is no demand for it.


Again I've already explained how gov't is monopolistic and public schools are no where near as good as private schools. And the teaching of religion would be a non-issue.

 

[jpappl]

No, but in a free market bad teachers would likely not be employed.

Not in a crappy inner city school with no money, who is just trying to get by and can't afford a teacher who would want more money.

I've already explained this to you; private schools would become more affordable, there would be financial aid and scholarships (like there are now), and communitarian efforts could help for the poorer communities. Charity, church efforts, and organizations like the negro college fund could all help too.

This is your idealistic vision yes. But the reality is there needs to be a guarantee to accept the risk. Since there is no guarantee it's not acceptable.

I would want to earn a living; why would I care what neighborhood I'm going into? Unless I'm going to be shot, then sure.

Exactly, and you have a far better chance of getting shot in Watts then in Bel-Air. I delivered all of the LA area for three years. Been in places where gang members told us we better be off the street before it got dark.

Wasn't fun driving around with gang graffiti on the side of the truck from one gang into anothers territory.

Wrong. It's extremely foolish to think that gov't in the sense as we have it now is anything comparable to voluntary, private charitable organizations or anything similar. Gov't is a monopoly and everybody is forced to pay. Don't you understand?

Left to their own devices in a free market, the people sure will be free to contribute to education if they want to, and they'll co-operate on their own to solve collective problems.

I understand. What you are not understanding is that it is pure idealism.

What if I don't want to pay. What if my neighbor doesn't want to pay. How do we secure funding so that it will continue and have organization.

Once again, you have no guarantees and no consistency to plan with. No planning, dis-organization.

It's extremely foolish to think that people will pay when they don't have to. Many won't and then what.

If their best interest is educating their community then why would they worry about payment?

Nuns don't get paid/barely get paid.

And one of your arguments is that in a free market the best will rise to the top and be better paid for it.

So in the system you are proposing what kind of teachers will you get if you don't pay them, or pay them very little.

Why not? Because they wouldn't be able to extort money out of people any more?

If something can't survive in a free market, then it doesn't deserve to exist, because if it can't survive in a free market (it could be a charity, for instance, or a company) then this shows there is no demand for it.

Just a new, different extorter I suppose. Right.

Then we should let the poor communities have no education available because there is no incentive for the private free market entity to take such a financial risk. Great.

Again I've already explained how gov't is monopolistic and public schools are no where near as good as private schools. And the teaching of religion would be a non-issue.

You haven't proved that private schools are better. You haven't shown how private schools would compare because you are comparing apples and oranges. Public schools in wealthy areas do great. Public schools in poor areas suffer. It would be the same with private schools.

 

[jpappl]

Just for reference

Watts, Los Angeles

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...s+california&ndsp=20&hl=en&sa=N&start=20&um=1

Bel-Air, Los Angeles

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=bel-air+california&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

Between 1985 and 2005 LAPD reported 20,000 gang related homicides in the Watts area.

 

[Norsefire]

Not in a crappy inner city school with no money, who is just trying to get by and can't afford a teacher who would want more money.

How would they open up if they can't afford a teacher? Besides, as I said the demand will mean there will be schools.

This is your idealistic vision yes. But the reality is there needs to be a guarantee to accept the risk. Since there is no guarantee it's not acceptable

The only way to have "guarantees" is to sacrifice your freedom, just like getting a guarantee that you'll go to heaven when you die....if you are a sheep in life

Sorry, but no. The co operation of human beings in a free market is the way we're going to solve problems, not throwing money around

Exactly, and you have a far better chance of getting shot in Watts then in Bel-Air. I delivered all of the LA area for three years. Been in places where gang members told us we better be off the street before it got dark.

Wasn't fun driving around with gang graffiti on the side of the truck from one gang into anothers territory.

Look, transportation, like school and everything else, will be provided on the free market, more efficiently and with better quality. If there's a demand, there most likely will be a supplier.

understand. What you are not understanding is that it is pure idealism.

No, it isn't; almost all of the wealth you see around you was made possible because of capitalism.

Unless you wanted to go live in East Germany, which is your paradise, right?

What if I don't want to pay. What if my neighbor doesn't want to pay. How do we secure funding so that it will continue and have organization.

If nobody wants to pay, then they can force others to pay?

If they want it they'll pay, if they don't want to pay then they're not getting something for nothing.

Again with the "if gov't doesn't do it it can't be done" attitude; people freely contributing and organizing will be better than any forced, inefficient, bureaucratic gov't program.

Once again, you have no guarantees and no consistency to plan with. No planning, dis-organization.

This is tiring.

You never have "guarantees" of anything working; we have to take risks sometimes. And why would there be disorganization?

It's extremely foolish to think that people will pay when they don't have to. Many won't and then what.

Really?

People pay for cable, and they don't have to.
People pay for going to a theater, and they don't have to.
People pay to go to a restaurant, and they don't have to.
People pay for taxi cabs, and they don't have to.
People pay to go to college, and they don't have to.

If people want something we can safely assume they will be willing to pay for it. If they don't want it, then they don't have to pay, but if nobody wants it in a capitalist society such wasteful and inefficient entities will not exist. Capitalism builds from demand.

And one of your arguments is that in a free market the best will rise to the top and be better paid for it.

Right, because the best will be more successful.

So in the system you are proposing what kind of teachers will you get if you don't pay them, or pay them very little.

Schools established collectively by communities wouldn't be for-profit, so pay isn't that relevant. Teachers would be volunteers, most likely.

Just a new, different extorter I suppose. Right.

No, you're wrong. Nobody is forced to pay for anything in a free market.

Then we should let the poor communities have no education available because there is no incentive for the private free market entity to take such a financial risk. Great.

There is incentive! Just like Mc Donald's opens up in poor areas too, because there are people that want food. Assuming people still want education in poor areas, there most likely will be provision of it either by private for-profit schools (they'd want to expand in order to be more successful and build a better base), or by communitarian efforts.

You haven't proved that private schools are better. You haven't shown how private schools would compare because you are comparing apples and oranges. Public schools in wealthy areas do great. Public schools in poor areas suffer. It would be the same with private schools.

Private schools almost always tend to outdo public schools.

It sounds to me like you're just a marxist. So much for being a "rational atheist", huh?

 

[WillNever]

Private schools don't outdo public schools as much as you guys might think. It is true that more private school graduates go on to college and perform better on standardized tests... but that's not due to private schooling. It is an absolute fact that on average, people whose kids go to private school are wealthier than people whose kids go to public schools. Wealthier people go to college more often... and so do their kids. Perhaps the single greatest demographic predictor if someone will go to and graduate from college is if their parents did, because they live under the shadow of people who taught them to aspire to ardently seek higher education. That isn't the private school's doing, and as I've already demonstrated, my public school on Long Island was way better than all the private schools in the area. That was because Long Island is a pretty expensive place to live.

In most places, public schools are just fine. Their reputation is brought down by inner city schools, full of blacks who drop out without a diploma and fail out of tests due to a cultural jailhouse mentality that has developed amongst their communities.

Let's place the blame where it belongs, folks.