America's education system would be more effective if completely privatized.

Firstly, regarding the "unfair subsidies", I will just say in passing that there are reasons besides "political ties" to award a company additional funds. If political ties are the only reason for the subsidy, it should be admitted that this is considered wrong even in a strongly public system. Otherwise, it is only an additional dimension to the competition provide whatever characteristics are necessary for an application for such a govern subsidy. "Regarding accessibility, if 100% of the public has access to "free" education, and this education proves itself to be useless, accessibility means nothing. When I mentioned that private schools allow for nearly everyone to afford education, I was referring to access to helpful and effective education. (1) Currently, residents of poor areas in America are forced to attend their local public school. Public schools in poor areas are extremely ineffective, and dropout rates are sky high. " It should be pointed out that never was it said that in a public education system is education "free", but that doesn't mean it isn't available to all. Secondly, my opponent offers one example of a failing school and states that this is somehow a necessary characteristic of any not-completely privatized educatio system. Con is not defending the current system, there are certainly flaws with it, Con is attemting to show that privatization does not guarentee any increase in effectiveness. Pro ignores the fact that this area is also much below the national average, which would seem to suggest a failing on the local front and the need for state or national intervention, which later pro says is unnecessary. Pro also states that people are somehow "forced" be in subpar schools, however they all have the option of going to a different public school, if they do not it only follows this is because the demand is not there. Pro also ignores the many socio-economic reasons for these "sky high" drop out rates including but not limited to "Socioeconomic class, time spent in the U. S. , the presence of print and family factors. Students in wealthier families drop out less, those who have been here longer and who live in a more print-rich environment drop out less, those who live with both parents, and whose parents monitor school work, drop out less, and those who do not become teen parents drop out less. " (1) None of these issues are addressed by privatization and so Pro's argument-- that exclusively in a public system, schooling fails the poor--is at best a gross over-simplification. "in a relatively free market, educational donators would be plentiful. Private scholarships, loans, and grants would be abundant. Therefore, accessibility is neither a problem in public or private education. " This claim is unsubstantiated and unsupportable, given such, it should be completely rejected. "Regarding the Ford Pinto, opportunity cost must be evaluated. Whether Ford made a good business decision or not is shown through their success or failure. .. " My opponent misses the point. For Ford, it was a good business decision (as they are still around), but it shows that good business decisions don't always mean good quality for the consumer. It did hurt the company greatly, as they expected, but not enough to justify them making a better car. "Regarding fast food and the "dollar store" model, there is obviously a demand for it. For example, consumers get to choose between expensive nutritious food, and cheap non-nutritious food. .. In a relatively free market, restaurants must be honest and reveal appropriate nutrition facts if they wish to not loose customers and go out of business. " Yes, there is high demand for these products, that only goes to show that there can be high demand for a poor quality product. Just because the product cannot kill you does not make it good quality. There is no reason this principle wouldn't extend to education. My opponent doesn't seem to realize that the food companies did not release the nutritional facts until it became formal regulation. "The label was mandated for most food products under the provisions of the 1990 Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA), per the recommendations of the U. S. Food and Drug Administration. " (2) "The point that public schools would offer a wider variety of options to the students than private schools would in a relatively free market is a fallacy. There would be a demand for lower-level private schools to offer a wide variety of classes in order for the student to choose what interests him/her the most. Underage students do actually play a role in deciding what classes, interests, and professions they wish to pursue. " In a public school system, the students necessarily play a role because the system is meant for their good. In a private system, the only required roles are that of the supplier and the consumer. The consumer, after being given a choice, was specifically stated to be the parents. Again, I am not saying that the children would never have a role. I am saying that if they did have a role it would only be insofar as the parents allowed them to. This means that they have no formal role and are entirely at the whim of their parents because their parents have economic control. "Regarding the measurement of teachers' productivity in public and private schools, this measurement is taken from actual results from the teachers in private schools. The goal is not just to give the appearance of success, but actually show it without deceiving or lying. A deceiving private school would immediately loose business in a relatively free market. In contrast, the measurement of teachers' productivity in public schools is quite different. Public teachers are extremely hard to fire; therefore, their incentive to provide results is meager. Furthermore, public schools do not have to worry about going out of business from other competition. This also contributes to the lack of incentives for public schools to perform efficiently. Refer to the flow chart below to read how incredibly long and difficult it is to fire a public teacher. " It has already been shown that a private business is under no obligation to be honest if it is more profitable not to be honest. My opponent saying that any private school that only goes for the appearance of success will lose business is groundfless speculation. It is entirely counterfactual when one thinks of how long tobacco companies knew their product could cause cancer and did not reveal it to the public. The argument that teachers have no incentive to be efficient neglects the fact that a) efficiency isn't the goal of education and b) there are non-economic motivators (3) (See intrinsic motivation). Regarding your proof that private schools are cheaper, I have never denied this but "to be cheaper" is not included in the purposes of education so itdoes not mean education is more effective when private. Regarding your ACT measuement, that only measures one narrow college-bound life path. In conclusion, an effective business and effective education are two different things. While they might be compatible sometimes, on the whole there is no guarentee that this would be the case. The only way to guarentee a disinterested service that prepares children in a genuine manner is to keep education public. Con is affirmed. (1) . http://www.ncela.gwu.edu... (2) . http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) . http://en.wikipedia.org...