Private education is only a threat to public education when it’s not as good. There is a finite supply of funding allocated to education. Spending less on students that pay their own way by choice and more on students that need it seems a better use of resources.
With that same analogy, we would have to ban tutors, online courses, extracurricular activities etc too, I assume?
Or in my equivalent analogy, restaurants, farmers markets, independent food shops, butchers, greengrocers, cafes etc.
No, we don’t need 20 choices for every product, but the reason supermarkets price gouge is a lack of competition. You’re calling for less competition, completely at odds with your stated goal.
Private education exists to be at odds with public education. As long as it is around, rich people will try to use it and when they are using it they will not have a reason for public education and dismiss it’s importance. Not letting money be a factor in access to education at all seems the best outcome, and we have more than enough money for education if we actually wanted to use our national resources effectively instead of letting them be sold off for corporate profits.
I’m calling for no competition, access to education or food isn’t a game where your goal is to get the most money out of people, it’s about providing for citizens needs in life.
But are we “spending less” on students that “pay their own way”? Private schools are getting massive amounts of taxpayer money, and can use their funds to pay better salaries (therefore drawing teachers out of the public system), build better facilities, and so on. Meanwhile they are academically selective and therefore don’t act as a catchment for capacity that the public system can’t handle. Public schools however have to scrounge for the essentials and can’t compete when it comes to salaries and facilities. That’s just not right.
Private education is only a threat to public education when it’s not as good. There is a finite supply of funding allocated to education. Spending less on students that pay their own way by choice and more on students that need it seems a better use of resources.
With that same analogy, we would have to ban tutors, online courses, extracurricular activities etc too, I assume?
Or in my equivalent analogy, restaurants, farmers markets, independent food shops, butchers, greengrocers, cafes etc.
No, we don’t need 20 choices for every product, but the reason supermarkets price gouge is a lack of competition. You’re calling for less competition, completely at odds with your stated goal.
Private education exists to be at odds with public education. As long as it is around, rich people will try to use it and when they are using it they will not have a reason for public education and dismiss it’s importance. Not letting money be a factor in access to education at all seems the best outcome, and we have more than enough money for education if we actually wanted to use our national resources effectively instead of letting them be sold off for corporate profits.
I’m calling for no competition, access to education or food isn’t a game where your goal is to get the most money out of people, it’s about providing for citizens needs in life.
But are we “spending less” on students that “pay their own way”? Private schools are getting massive amounts of taxpayer money, and can use their funds to pay better salaries (therefore drawing teachers out of the public system), build better facilities, and so on. Meanwhile they are academically selective and therefore don’t act as a catchment for capacity that the public system can’t handle. Public schools however have to scrounge for the essentials and can’t compete when it comes to salaries and facilities. That’s just not right.