Public education advocates call on Alberta to axe funds to private schools

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

The point remains the same though -- even a prospective lack of exposure doesn't necessarily result in or may not even increase the likelihood that one might lose the ability to empathize with those less fortunate or able-bodied.

And I agree with that, I'm just thinking of potential consequences. I searched for some studies but haven't seen anything(and it's probably a tough thing to study). I know the person to ask though, I might have a subject for their next paper!

I did find this interesting bit out of the UK:

What particularly defines British private education is its extreme social exclusivity. Only about 6% of the UK’s school population attend such schools, and the families accessing private education are highly concentrated among the affluent.

The statistics also tell a story. The proportion of prominent people in every area who have been educated privately is striking, in some cases grotesque. From judges (74% privately educated) through to MPs (32%), the numbers tell us of a society where bought educational privilege also buys lifetime privilege and influence. “

So these positioning of power are highly populated by graduates of the private system. Thus, a distinct advantage.

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

Yes, and the kids attending public would benefit even more if private schools were not given any public funding. That’s my point. Each kid in the public system would then get $1111 and the 10 private school parents would pay $1000 more.

I don't think that would work out the way you think, though. Because in reality, it doesn't cost $1000 for funding. Funding in 19-20 was $10,460 per student on average. So 60% of that would be $6,276. Tuition at Webber/Rundle/STS are roughly 20k +/- a year already.

So there would be families would be priced out of private altogether. So now you'd have an influx of kids going into public and straining those resources even further as well.

Not to mention the fact that tax allocation isn't simply just taking from person A and allocating it towards school B. That's a taxation issue, not an educational system issue.

[CliffFletcher]

I used to be strongly opposed to public funding for private schools. But in recent years I know two families who are sending a child each (not all their kids) to Rundle Academy because they were struggling with learning disabilities and were willing to pay for the much smaller class sizes. One family is affluent, the other not.

While I’m still wary of Canada following the U.S. and UK down the road of private education hardening class divides into the elite and everybody else, I do think it’s more complicated than that. I don’t know that charging full freight for private education will make it any less elitist, or send many highly-ambitious, high-achiever families back to the public system.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

I don't think that would work out the way you think, though. Because in reality, it doesn't cost $1000 for funding. Funding in 19-20 was $10,460 per student on average. So 60% of that would be $6,276. Tuition at Webber/Rundle/STS are roughly 20k +/- a year already.

So there would be families would be priced out of private altogether. So now you'd have an influx of kids going into public and straining those resources even further as well.

I think that’s an assumption on your part, the influx of cash to those institutions would be increased by not having funds reallocated to the private/charter system.

As for parents getting “priced out” I think it’d have a minimal impact on overall enrolment when you consider they are already voluntarily paying 75% of what the cost would be to have their children attend private institutions.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I don’t know that charging full freight for private education will make it any less elitist, or send many highly-ambitious, high-achiever families back to the public system.

Yeah, the people paying $20k+ for Webber/Strathcona with their spare change would pay an extra $6 if it came to that, and so that would benefit the public system as that money could be redistributed.

On the other hand, the scrimp/save for private education crowd probably has a lot more people who do so because their child has complex learning needs. Some of those people won't be able to make an extra $6k/year payment. And some of that group won't cost $6k to educate in the public system, it'll be $30k. And that will end up taking aides and other resources away from kids who really need them.

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I think that’s an assumption on your part, the influx of cash to those institutions would be increased by not having funds reallocated to the private/charter system.

As for parents getting “priced out” I think it’d have a minimal impact on overall enrolment when you consider they are already voluntarily paying 75% of what the cost would be to have their children attend private institutions.

But I mathed this out in a prior post. 100 kids with 90 public and 10 private with $100,000 to go around.

With ten children in private, funding per student is now $1,044.44 rather than $1,000. If all ten private school children now in the public system, the funding is reduced to $1,000 per child. The same pot of money is available to everyone, except in the case of the private system, some families are willingly taking less of the pot, thereby leaving more for the rest. In a public-only system, that is no longer an option, so the same pot is split equally between all.

[malcolmk14]

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

I don't think that would work out the way you think, though. Because in reality, it doesn't cost $1000 for funding. Funding in 19-20 was $10,460 per student on average. So 60% of that would be $6,276. Tuition at Webber/Rundle/STS are roughly 20k +/- a year already.

So there would be families would be priced out of private altogether. So now you'd have an influx of kids going into public and straining those resources even further as well.

Pricing people out of private is probably good for the public system as a whole, though. If people want to leave the public system and pay for optimal "learning environments" (i.e. no children experiencing poverty or unsupported disabled/disruptive kids around their kids) then let them, but have them understand and bear the full cost of that choice.

I don't have any data to back this up, but maybe if people have to keep their kids in public education because they've been priced out of elite private education, they start holding elected officials accountable for funding the public system properly.

Look, I'm not against private schools or charter schools. It's no secret that I'm an educator in the public system; my partner attended a charter school. I think they are great for some individual students who can access them and they do some incredible stuff. I did a practicum at Connect Charter and it is a beautiful school with passionate staff and what they do for students there is seriously amazing - it's just not possible to emulate in the public system. There's a chance in a few years when our kids are old enough that we explore that option for them as well, if we think that it is the best fit for them individually. It's certainly a discussion my partner and I have had. But to say anyone can access them and fail to recognize that there is privileged access is completely disingenuous. At the society level, more charter/private schools is bad for public education.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So these positioning of power are highly populated by graduates of the private system. Thus, a distinct advantage.

Well yeah, that's the whole point.

In other news, 100% of NHLers participated in (expensive) hockey programs throughout their childhood.

I know, I know... publically funded component to private education vs. discretionary spending choice by parents willing to shell out for hockey so lil' Johnny has a better shot at making the NHL.

But the point is, discretionary spending by parents on their children has is a clear cause and effect for the future of those children. Pay for hockey... Maybe make the NHL... Pay for ski lessons... Maybe make the Olympics... Pay for private education... Maybe become a judge. None of the outcomes are guaranteed - far from it - but if such a clear relationship can be drawn, can you really blame parents for making that choice?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by you&me

Well yeah, that's the whole point.

In other news, 100% of NHLers participated in (expensive) hockey programs throughout their childhood.

I know, I know... publically funded component to private education vs. discretionary spending choice by parents willing to shell out for hockey so lil' Johnny has a better shot at making the NHL.

But the point is, discretionary spending by parents on their children has is a clear cause and effect for the future of those children. Pay for hockey... Maybe make the NHL... Pay for ski lessons... Maybe make the Olympics... Pay for private education... Maybe become a judge. None of the outcomes are guaranteed - far from it - but if such a clear relationship can be drawn, can you really blame parents for making that choice?

I don’t blame parents, no. But on a society level, the streaming of high income and elite education is not good for society. It’s the primary reason why there’s less social mobility in the U.S. and UK than there is in Canada and Germany. Lower correlation between affluence and access to education = more egalitarian society = less social strife.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

But I mathed this out in a prior post. 100 kids with 90 public and 10 private with $100,000 to go around.

With ten children in private, funding per student is now $1,044.44 rather than $1,000. If all ten private school children now in the public system, the funding is reduced to $1,000 per child. The same pot of money is available to everyone, except in the case of the private system, some families are willingly taking less of the pot, thereby leaving more for the rest. In a public-only system, that is no longer an option, so the same pot is split equally between all.

Umm…no. If students in the public school system receive x in funding, that number is not decreased. You’re trying to frame it as the overall costs will increase but that’s not accurate either because the parents who were paying the higher tuitions at private schools wouldn’t be paying anywhere near that if they moved their kids to the public system.

Look at it this way, if you had $100k to go around for the 100 students in your example and we eliminated the amounts going to private institutions for those 10 students, the amount going towards public institutions would increase from $1044/student to $1100/student. Even if the parents of half of the 10 students going to private schools were “priced out” of affording private schooling and forced to go to public schools, the funding per student would still increase to $1052/student based on 95 student dividing $100k in funding.

We’re not helping the public system by subsidizing the private system. Full stop.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I don’t blame parents, no. But on a society level, the streaming of high income and elite education is not good for society. It’s the primary reason why there’s less social mobility in the U.S. and UK than there is in Canada and Germany. Lower correlation between affluence and access to education = more egalitarian society = less social strife.

This is true. But the UK doesn't fund private schools with tax dollars and we do, and our system works better than theirs for the purposes you're discussing. I think other factors predominate.

[you&me]

This post earlier in the thread indicates that the money received by private schools in 2016 was approximately $151 million dollars, out of a total education budget of nearly $9B, or 1.6%.

According to DionTheDman, 39,000, or 5.26% of students in Alberta attend private schools, out of a total student population of ~745k.

Assuming the budgetary ratio has remained consistent, eliminating the funding for private schools would result in an increase in funding of ~$160 per student, or enough to accommodate another ~10k students... Hopefully enough to cover the potential exodus from the private schools.

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Look at it this way, if you had $100k to go around for the 100 students in your example and we eliminated the amounts going to private institutions for those 10 students, the amount going towards public institutions would increase from $1044/student to $1100/student. Even if the parents of half of the 10 students going to private schools were “priced out” of affording private schooling and forced to go to public schools, the funding per student would still increase to $1052/student based on 95 student dividing $100k in funding.

I'm not following your math. A true equitable system providing $100,000 of public funding for 100 students equals $1,000/student. No private option at all in this scenario.

Now taking the system we currently have now, if you take 10% of the kids and reduce their funding allocation by 40%, that leaves the other 90 students with that extra 40%, being the $44.44 per student for the remaining 90, resulting in $1,044.44 per student.

So yes, putting those 10 kids back into the pool with the public children returns it back to the $1,000 per person.

EDIT: Ok, I get what you're saying, I think. At least partially.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by you&me

Well yeah, that's the whole point.

In other news, 100% of NHLers participated in (expensive) hockey programs throughout their childhood.

I know, I know... publically funded component to private education vs. discretionary spending choice by parents willing to shell out for hockey so lil' Johnny has a better shot at making the NHL.

But the point is, discretionary spending by parents on their children has is a clear cause and effect for the future of those children. Pay for hockey... Maybe make the NHL... Pay for ski lessons... Maybe make the Olympics... Pay for private education... Maybe become a judge. None of the outcomes are guaranteed - far from it - but if such a clear relationship can be drawn, can you really blame parents for making that choice?

I don’t think anyone is saying parents shouldn’t be able to spend their money on private education if they wish to do so, I think people take issue with the folks expecting money that is meant to offer a service to those who can’t afford it to be allocated to people who can already afford the service at the cost of the quality of service provided to those who can’t.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

This is true. But the UK doesn't fund private schools with tax dollars and we do, and our system works better than theirs for the purposes you're discussing. I think other factors predominate.

The UK massively funds private schools, it just does it indirectly, the schools pay no taxes and are considered a charity and the parents can also claim tuition fees as a tax deduction

[you&me]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I don’t think anyone is saying parents shouldn’t be able to spend their money on private education if they wish to do so, I think people take issue with the folks expecting money that is meant to offer a service to those who can’t afford it to be allocated to people who can already afford the service at the cost of the quality of service provided to those who can’t.

As usual iggy, we'll probably have to agree to disagree.

Everyone pays into a system, everyone gets the same back out and if someone wants to pay more for 'extras', that's their choice.

I honestly feel the system as it is, is quite fair (even if I'd prefer an equal dollar voucher system - that would be truly fair IMO). I feel the same about most things - there should be a reasonable, level starting point and from there everyone can allocate extra money as they see fit. Does this mean "the rich" get a leg up in some (or maybe all) situations? Maybe. But it's been like that since the dawn of time and I don't think challenging school funding in Alberta will be the genesis for changing that.

FWIW, I would support more funding for public education, even if that meant higher taxes... Raise that level starting ground for everyone.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

I'm not following your math. A true equitable system providing $100,000 of public funding for 100 students equals $1,000/student. No private option at all in this scenario.

Now taking the system we currently have now, if you take 10% of the kids and reduce their funding allocation by 40%, that leaves the other 90 students with that extra 40%, being the $44.44 per student for the remaining 90, resulting in $1,044.44 per student.

So yes, putting those 10 kids back into the pool with the public children returns it back to the $1,000 per person.

EDIT: Ok, I get what you're saying, I think.

In case it’s still not clear, here’s a an example of how funding private schools isn’t promoting equality. Say you have 2 people, one who has a sandwich because they could afford it and one who doesn’t have a sandwich because they couldn’t afford it. Giving them both a sandwich or even giving the one who doesn’t have a sandwich one and giving the one who already had one 60% of a sandwich is not going to make them equal, it’s a cash grab for someone who didn’t need one.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by you&me

As usual iggy, we'll probably have to agree to disagree.

Everyone pays into a system, everyone gets the same back out and if someone wants to pay more for 'extras', that's their choice.

I honestly feel the system as it is, is quite fair (even if I'd prefer an equal dollar voucher system - that would be truly fair IMO). I feel the same about most things - there should be a reasonable, level starting point and from there everyone can allocate extra money as they see fit. Does this mean "the rich" get a leg up in some (or maybe all) situations? Maybe. But it's been like that since the dawn of time and I don't think challenging school funding in Alberta will be the genesis for changing that.

FWIW, I would support more funding for public education, even if that meant higher taxes... Raise that level starting ground for everyone.

You wouldn’t need to increase taxes to increase public school funding if those who can afford private schools just paid for it out of their own pockets. What you’re looking for is a subsidy for those who in most cases probably don’t need one at the expense of the public education system which is already struggling because of the status quo.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The UK massively funds private schools, it just does it indirectly, the schools pay no taxes and are considered a charity and the parents can also claim tuition fees as a tax deduction

All of that is true here as well. Private schools take tax deductible donations, and the tuition is tax deductible for parents (although there is a limit and more expensive ones would be well over that limit).

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

In case it’s still not clear, here’s a an example of how funding private schools isn’t promoting equality. Say you have 2 people, one who has a sandwich because they could afford it and one who doesn’t have a sandwich because they couldn’t afford it. Giving them both a sandwich or even giving the one who doesn’t have a sandwich one and giving the one who already had one 60% of a sandwich is not going to make them equal, it’s a cash grab for someone who didn’t need one.

I think the disconnect is that I was discussing a reduced funding scenario where you are proposing a no-funding scenario for private school children.

I think it'd be more both Mr. Public and Mr. Private have paid entry (taxes) to get into the event and are given a vouchers for a meal (entitlement to public education). Mr. Private elects to use some of his vouchers and pay extra to get a nicer meal.Mr. Public can get a meal as he pleases.

What you're proposing is that since Mr. Private is willing to pay extra, he shouldn't get vouchers at all despite paying entry to get in in the first place. Why not? His entry cost just as much as Mr. Public.

This (admittedly silly) example doesn't even take into account that Mr. Private donates some of his vouchers so that Mr. Public can get more/better food.