I think some "industries" shouldn't work as a normal business, health, education, law / police. They just don't work as a business and will end up corrupt because money.
Anyway, the school system should be changed dramatically everywhere. The current paradigm is hurting children and should be abolished.
Not sure I follow. Busing was premised on the exact opposite of this?
I’m all for structural change on many fronts, but I’m not sure that private schools should even exist. It’s hard to build successful, high performing universal services, and especially for education, if the wealthy can just construct a separate, parallel system that becomes a social marker for perpetuating elite status.
More specifically, rich families put their kids through private schools and abandon the public school system. Without skin in the game, they vote to reduce the budget of the public school system. Rich families generally have more time and resources to spend being involved in the schools. They won't be spending those resources advocating for improving the public school systems. Additionally, their kids, who are well-cared for and come from a family who values education, do not form a peer group with the other less fortunate kids. This deprives those kids of better peers to model.
Now, you can argue that the freedom of and benefits to the rich families trumps the benefits that the poorer families would receive, but there is a greater good argument.
I've seen it argued that universal social programs are generally seen to work better and are more popular compared to means-tested ones. For example, Medicare and social security vs Medicaid and TANF.
1. Rural telecommunication is highly subsidized. People living in cities almost entirely fund the expensive infrastructure needed to connect those living outside them. 2. Rural electric is mostly done through semi-governmental agencies (co-ops) that are largely built using government-subsidized loans (small hand-out) and grants (larger hand-outs). Urban electricity is more (but still not completely) private. 3. Farmers (the basis of most rural economies) are generally protected by government-subsidized and run crop insurance programs, and have a number of programs that pay them to fallow their land at times (direct payments not to plant things to manipulate the market). There are also numerous subsidy programs to make direct payments to shore up effective commodity prices. 4. Social Security is just a baseline everywhere. Despite the system that is designed to fool you into thinking you pay for your later payments through wage taxes, most people who make it to retirement get out much more than they ever put in (even adjusted for interest and inflation).
So I would submit that those same people who talk about not being dependent are in face highly dependent.
No, but it is one of many problems.
The students are more likely to be facing food insecurity and odd parental schedules at home. The school may need to spend more keeping their student body safe. And one kid with a violent parent who reacts by being violent in turn can wreck havoc on the rest of the classroom. That kind of person might need an education that is more therapy than academic.
To see that publicly education can work very well. Look at Finland e.g. But there are also many asian countries showing good results with public education.
Based on my experience as a foreigner in the US, the US school system strikes me as something operating far more like private enterprise. Schools compete for students while there are no strong national standards and so you get insane grade inflation. I was shocked when I studied in the US how high grades where. Anything to please the "customers" I mean the students I guess.
So why is the common reaction to fund public schools even more? To me the logical reaction is to cut funding and try something different
There aren't that many schools on par with Stuyvesant or Thomas Jefferson or Bronx Science (all testing admission) in the world.
It has in most the rest of the developed world; maybe (as with healthcare) the problem is that the system has been deliberately compromised to benefit private providers for financial and (more for education than healthcare, though it's a factor in both) sectarian reasons by the same people that use the poor results to rail against the public system and for (usually, publicly subsidized) privatization to further benefit the same private financial and sectarian interests. And not a fundamental problem with the service being publicly provided, which plenty of countries manage to do quite well.
> Agree on health, law / police though
To be fair, public provision of both of those are pretty bad in America, too, though the private provision of the former is worse.
Everyone I have ever meant who want police reform, at their core, want accountability and a lesser reliance of lethal weapons as a primary tool.
There are other topics depending on where you come from, e.g. racial diversity, but I've yet to meet someone who wants the police to act like a private force.
https://timeline.com/rockefellers-hired-militias-to-shoot-at...