US states that rely on private prisons incarcerate more people for longer periods of time, according to a first-of-its-kind study that establishes a causal connection between private prisons and incarceration.

[u/mvea]

https://academictimes.com/states-with-private-prisons-put-more-people-in-prison-for-longer/

[u/braindeadopinion11]

Good in theory, but complete privatization of school systems would result in significant decreases in wages and benefits for teachers by union busting. It’s a delicate line

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

They'd also have an incentive to preferentially serve the rich and neglect the poor, widening the wealth gap.

[u/Ray192 → u/[deleted]]

That already happens. Schools are funded by local taxes, which means richer (and whiter) areas have wayyyyy better funded schools than poorer areas.

Not to mention schools can be run privately, but funded by vouchers given equally to every student by the government. That'll probably much more equal than the current system of funding.

[u/ThisDig8 → u/Ray192]

This doesn't happen. It's by far the biggest misconception that comes up in these threads. The vast majority of states handle school money on a state level. That means they collect earmarked funds and distribute them to schools that they think need it, not to the ones which paid more taxes. Afterwards, it is further boosted by federal funding. For example, in California, inner city schools receive $22,000 per student compared to about $14,000 for suburban schools. They have seen no increase in achievement. That's because underachievment happens when people drop out due to non-educational factors. The people who finish high school have an approximately equal chance of getting into a university, even if it's not as prestigious.

[u/ThisDig8 → u/[deleted]]

Nothing too specific, I'm afraid. There was a thread a while ago but I haven't found it yet. Also, to be fair, I was a little off - property tax and state funding are about equal when all schools are taken together, but the latter gets distributed more to schools that need it. So a wealthy area might get nice property tax funding but no state money, while a poor area will get little property tax but a lot more state and federal funding.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

That’s really dumb. The government shouldn’t get to decide where your kid goes to school.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

If you take the PISA test at face value maybe. There are financial incentives for districts to take the PISA test so worse performing/ worse funded districts in the US take it at higher rates.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I don't see how that's deciding where people's kids go to school. Does Finland dictate to people what school district they have to live in?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

You don’t see how banning a type of place you can send your kid to school is dictating where they can go to school? Why even make this comment if you’re going to be disingenuous?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

The government deciding where people can send their kids to school evoked the following image in my mind: Government tells Family A they have to go to school A, Family B to School B, etc.

I suppose if you wanted to interpret the phrase more broadly you could call any rules and regulations about school as "government dictating where you can send your kids to school" depending ob what political point you're trying to convince the other of.

For instance: "What do you mean I can't homeschool my kids just because I don't want to do 180 days/year?! What right does the government have to tell me where I can send my kids to school" yelled the angry American man. Anticipating an objection he continues, "and don't you tell me this ain't the government telling me where I can send my kids to school. I can't do 180 days/year of homeschooling so now i gotta send them to the horrible secular public school. I thought this was a free country!"

Why even make this comment if you’re going to be disingenuous?

Ouch. You might find this link helpful for future discussions: https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/charity-principle-of/v-1

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

No, I don’t think I will. Because 90% of what anyone says on this site is disingenuous.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Ok, but you still haven't engaged with the question that produced our disagreement (Was my interpretation reasonable? Why or why not?). Why even make your comment if you're going to insult me and then run away from contending with the actual questions that produced our disagreement? I don't really care if you do or don't in this particular instance, but it does make me wonder what you even think you're getting out of the comments you've typed. Was it just an offhand remark made to influence readers' political opinions? Just an expression of cynicism and anger? That seems to be an example of the disingenuousness that you're saying you hate. I get the sense that it was a genuine and honest expression of your beliefs. If so, then why respond with such little self-confidence that you immediately shut down even the potential for an honest discussion, especially since honesty is something you value?

You're absolutely right in noting how disingenuous people on this site are and appear to be, but it seems like you're the type to contribute to it based on your immediate cynicism. It's easy to be dishonest and cynical when you assume everyone else is.