Corporate schools.

[murkrow]

Assume total lack of government support for schooling.
To get a free education you must either be noteworthy enough to be granted a scholarship, be lucky enough to be taught by a charity supported school or enlist in a corporate run school.

Would you have a problem with enlisting your children in a corporate run school knowing their skill set would be extremely limited and apply almost entirely to their line of work?


In an environment with no public education, where would you send your children?

 

[Oblivious]

I simply give them google. Works for me.

free education

I am sure corporate bonds of some sort can be arranged and agreed upon.

skill set would be extremely limited

Certain companies have vested interest in multi-skilled individuals, like game development companies. If you want a certain skillset its just a matter of finding the right company.

Besides, if you do well it almost guarantees a ticket to a job.

 

[murkrow]

I'm not denouncing the idea of corporate schooling, I support it wholeheartedly.

But unless your kid is exemplary the chances of him getting a balanced education are very slim.
It's likely that those kids destined for management or other non task oriented positions would be picked out at a young age, everyone would get a k-6 education (ish) in order to divine their strengths. Even if you give your kid to a gaming company, (and the chances of most gaming companies having the funds necessary to have their own schools is very unlikely, they'd rely on creatively minded kids who trained at the other computer company schools leaving after their first term of employment) only the writers, managers and conceptualizers would be given a balanced education, programmers would be knee deep in numbers and code as soon as they were picked out.

 

[Vrecknidj]

In an environment with no public education, where would you send your children?

I have been an educator for almost 20 years. I have worked as a tutor, a university professor (public), a community college teacher (public), and a high school teacher (private-military).

Despite all this experience, my wife and I have homeschooled our children. My oldest is now 19, he'll finish his associates degree this August and register as a junior at a university in the fall. He started taking college classes at 14.

Homeschooling doesn't always work--I've seen it fail. But, to directly answer your question, I would send them nowhere; I'd school them at home.

Dave

 

[Oblivious]

Have you written/read any notable books on the subject of homeschooling?

 

[whojgalt]

Would you have a problem with enlisting your children in a corporate run school knowing their skill set would be extremely limited and apply almost entirely to their line of work?

Why do you assume that would be the case? Private schools already exist, and without the monopolistic domination of the market by government, they would expand to fill the void. Unless you think parents don't care about their kids education, there would be a strong market demand for thorough, well rounded education.

The quality of education available would be far superior, and, when taxes are figured in, the cost would be far lower.

 

[Ermine]

And it would be nice for there to be a wide selection of private schools like that, as big, or bigger than, the selection of universities out there.

However, I do think that public school has its place, for people who couldn't afford education from a private school, in the same way that there's community college if you can't afford to go somewhere else. Public school just needs to step it up a few notches.

 

[murkrow]

Why do you assume that would be the case? Private schools already exist, and without the monopolistic domination of the market by government, they would expand to fill the void. Unless you think parents don't care about their kids education, there would be a strong market demand for thorough, well rounded education.

The quality of education available would be far superior, and, when taxes are figured in, the cost would be far lower.

There would undoubtedly be more "private" schools in a privatized education system, however I am sure that corporations would be responsible for the sponsorship of many schools as well.

Some people are simply too poor to afford any realistic tuition at a 100% private school and would need to go to schools were the funding comes from a source other than the parent's and alumni contributions.

Also many people wish for their kids to "follow in their footsteps" and would have no problem enlisting them in a school operated by their employers.

However, I do think that public school has its place, for people who couldn't afford education from a private school, in the same way that there's community college if you can't afford to go somewhere else. Public school just needs to step it up a few notches.

On my tax dollars? No, thank you.

 

[Ermine]

Well, if there were lots of private schools and most people could pay for it, there wouldn't be nearly as much tax money spent on public school. Just for people below the poverty line.

 

[murkrow]

that's what charity and corporate schools are for.

no taxation for education.

 

[CowSavior]

Screw the corps!
(I just wanted to say that)
=)

 

[Radioactive_Springtime]

I don't know. I would probably homeschool them assuming I could manage it. I don't really enjoy the idea of corporate schools. Maybe If the government cracked down on corporations. But I've always leaned more towards socialist Ideas. But I am speaking ideally on a matter of opinion.

 

[loveofreason]

Another vote for home-schooling here!

Corporations need slaves. Let them enslave some one else's kids .

 

[sloperdude]

I seriously doubt the premise of having nothing but corporate schools to choose from, but OK, if Dick Cheney became Secretary of Education...

Seriously, I disagree with those who think they would save any money compared to public schooling. Look at private schools - almost all spend more per pupil than public schools do, and the best spend much more. It defeats the argument that you can't improve education by throwing money at it, when private schools do.

Some think that parochial schools are cheaper than public schools, which often seems true, but parochial schools are funded not only directly by tuition, but indirectly by the church, which of course is funded by its parishioners and the investments made possible by them. They may also receive funding from the mother church, which is interested in more adherents.

Meanwhile the purpose of a corporation is to make a profit. If the purpose was to obtain skilled workers, most non-service corporations would be likely to obtain them from other countries that paid for their worker's education. If they managed to create a monopoly on education and their purpose was to profit from it, they would extract every dollar they could from parents, educate students to meet the corporation's needs and brainwash them with corporate propaganda. Anyone who thinks that large corporations have anyone's interests at heart but their own should either have their head examined, check out an overseas sweatshop or read history.

As for for-profit schooling that is not aligned with industry, we've already tried it in the U.S. with the Edison Schools, and that went over swimmingly. They ran out of money trying to compete with the public schools while earing a profit. Newt Gingrich used to tout the Edison Schools often in the 1990's as the school of the future, but went silent on the subject once things went sour.

Personally, if the U.S. ever switched wholesale to corporate schooling I would make every effort to move my family to a more enlightened country.

 

[Privateer]

Corporations are interested only in what directly benefits them. Ergo, they cannot be trusted with law, healthcare provision or education. Corporate interference in education would lead to a nightmare society of brainwashed consumers educated to a high degree of specialisation in order to be more useful to the corporations at the expense of society as a who...oh, wait a minute...too late, never mind.

 

[murkrow]

I seriously doubt the premise of having nothing but corporate schools to choose from, but OK, if Dick Cheney became Secretary of Education...

Seriously, I disagree with those who think they would save any money compared to public schooling. Look at private schools - almost all spend more per pupil than public schools do, and the best spend much more. It defeats the argument that you can't improve education by throwing money at it, when private schools do.

Some think that parochial schools are cheaper than public schools, which often seems true, but parochial schools are funded not only directly by tuition, but indirectly by the church, which of course is funded by its parishioners and the investments made possible by them. They may also receive funding from the mother church, which is interested in more adherents.

Meanwhile the purpose of a corporation is to make a profit. If the purpose was to obtain skilled workers, most non-service corporations would be likely to obtain them from other countries that paid for their worker's education. If they managed to create a monopoly on education and their purpose was to profit from it, they would extract every dollar they could from parents, educate students to meet the corporation's needs and brainwash them with corporate propaganda. Anyone who thinks that large corporations have anyone's interests at heart but their own should either have their head examined, check out an overseas sweatshop or read history.

As for for-profit schooling that is not aligned with industry, we've already tried it in the U.S. with the Edison Schools, and that went over swimmingly. They ran out of money trying to compete with the public schools while earing a profit. Newt Gingrich used to tout the Edison Schools often in the 1990's as the school of the future, but went silent on the subject once things went sour.

Personally, if the U.S. ever switched wholesale to corporate schooling I would make every effort to move my family to a more enlightened country.

the premise wasn't that the only option of schooling would be corporate, I was only asking whether you would ever consider it.

I assume the options in a totally privatised education system would be something like
"private schools" supported by tuition and fun raisers, tuition is high
"public schools" supported by charity, tuition is low/free
"religious schools" supported by church, tuition is free/low
"corporate schools" sponsored by corporation, tuition is free/low (possibility of boosted tuition to have your kid fast tracked)

and then several combinations of those types, semi corporate-semi private schools and stuff like that.


personally I don't believe that corporate controlled school would be any less mind controlling than government controlled school.

 

[mm1991]

I would homeschool.
Even if it ended up to be illegal, I still would.