> It at least provides an opportunity for poor kids to complete schooling.
It is other way round actually. What I can see is that in areas like Palo Alto where Asian parents figuratively hold Principal's feet to fire the good teachers get transferred there. The South of San Jose on other hand gets all the worse teachers where the poor parents don't have much time to wonder about the quality of teachers.
Those kids are perpetually into poverty because of the lousy education. Give them a check of $500 month for schooling and they will chose better schools.
> Private schools were expensive and public schools in India are a joke.
The quality of education in private schools is higher and the expensive part is related to that. However in terms of "cost to society" private schools are way cheaper than public schools.
To give you concrete numbers. Goa spends 40K per student per year but a private school that spends 8k per student per year delivers better result. Goa could afford to educate 5 kids with better education only if the money was given to the kid or the private school.
> An education system purely relying on private schooling will be a complete disaster like India's, where poor students simply giving up on education, creating generational poor.
It conflicts with what you are saying. Private schools have better retention and better outcomes. Public schools are where students drop out. Don't you think if we have more students going to public schools more students will give up on education ?
I think you misinterpreted what I was saying a little bit. If you have only private schools that are not affordable to a significant portion of the population, then you will have an uneducated population. A well funded, and well run public education system actually works pretty well.
> A well funded, and well run public education system actually works pretty well.
Not it does not. Public schools by definition will be run by government which will always be incompetent and provide worse education. A typical public school in India spends 5x the money to achieve lower learning outcomes that private schools.
> If you have only private schools that are not affordable to a significant portion of the population,
Unless government creates regulations that prevents people from starting schools for poor people there will be more and better private schools for poor people as they are now.
It is other way round actually. What I can see is that in areas like Palo Alto where Asian parents figuratively hold Principal's feet to fire the good teachers get transferred there. The South of San Jose on other hand gets all the worse teachers where the poor parents don't have much time to wonder about the quality of teachers.
Those kids are perpetually into poverty because of the lousy education. Give them a check of $500 month for schooling and they will chose better schools.
> Private schools were expensive and public schools in India are a joke.
The quality of education in private schools is higher and the expensive part is related to that. However in terms of "cost to society" private schools are way cheaper than public schools.
To give you concrete numbers. Goa spends 40K per student per year but a private school that spends 8k per student per year delivers better result. Goa could afford to educate 5 kids with better education only if the money was given to the kid or the private school.
> An education system purely relying on private schooling will be a complete disaster like India's, where poor students simply giving up on education, creating generational poor.
It conflicts with what you are saying. Private schools have better retention and better outcomes. Public schools are where students drop out. Don't you think if we have more students going to public schools more students will give up on education ?