Forcing people to pay higher salaries for teachers will result in schools being forced to fire a bunch of other teachers in order to afford the higher-paid ones, and/or a tax hike, which will result in everyday people keeping less of their earnings and thus spending less on goods and services, which will result in local companies making less money, and potentially having to lay off workers or raise prices, creating a ripple effect.
@9CJ6CB64mos4MO
Yet another reason that privatizing education below K-12 doesn’t, cannot, and must not happen. If the teachers are not being paid what they’re worth, their quality of teaching will drastically decrease, leading to nation-wide in efficiency, strikes, and teachers unions against this unfair pay. The end result even if you try this is the reinstatement of public education, because the government can actually afford to pay the teachers well enough.
@Patriot-#1776Constitution4mos4MO
Teachers will be paid what they're worth in the free market, under the price system, which determines wages based on the value of labor independently of government. The solution to inefficiency, strikes, and teacher unions is to fire inefficient teachers, fire strikers, and abolish teachers unions. I support the total privatisation of all education. Get the government out of it.
@9CJ6CB64mos4MO
Okay, fire inefficient teachers I’m more fine with, but if they have no voice, no power, and no representation, they have no ability to counteract a tyrannical company, and the free market alone cannot handle that unless the company is small in size. They aren’t paid what they’re worth, we know that, and privatizing the entire system is practically GUARANTEED to leave a large swath of children uneducated, not to mention that leaves the responsibility of paying for education to the already overworked parents, which isn’t helped by being in an extremely individualistic society.
@Patriot-#1776Constitution4mos4MO
NO, because if we privatise education at first there will be a voucher system to ensure that children can go to private schools – the same money will be spent on education, just WHERE that money goes will be up to the parent instead of the state. Then schools that are better will be chosen by far more parents, creating competitive incentives for greatness among the private schools, who will push their students to work hard and produce an astronomical leap upward in the quality of education in this country. Currently there is next to. no competition, as each school can count on funding… Read more
@9CJ6CB64mos4MO
The thing is, I’m not against the idea of private schools existing, and I’m honestly a fan of some charter schools and magnet schools, but I think the private area should remain as an option for experimentation, alternative paid opportunities, and perhaps even a way of making new ideas for public education to use. Public is more solid, private is more fluid, and I’m fine with both, but I don’t think private should be dominant if its success and universal access remains in question. Besides, I have severe concern about the extremely religious ones, those I have heard revolting stories about, from the kids espceically. (Don’t be a gay kid in a southern Baptist type private school, especially in WV or TX).
@9CJ6CB64mos4MO
There would be next to no competition anyway, there’s not many schools at close proximity to one another, leading to a lack of that competition at all, and that’s a movement and often increase of taxes towards vouchers that many parents may have a harder time paying for, while when funding is uncertain, quality remains the same way, leading to a lack of trust in educational funding worse than we have it now. Private schools have a long history of “behave or you’re out”, and extreme amounts of homogeneity in their schools. Bullying remains a problem, and in order to make it work, trying to fix it would require more resources that parents would have to pay more for than simply paying for it publicly.
