Public Education is Better for Society than Private Education

First of all, I would like to apologize for mistyping $75 000 as $750 000. I"ve rechecked my calculations. Using the additional statistics from the Population Reference Bureau in America, the percentage of households with incomes of $75 000 which have registered for private school is close to 5%. A large portion of American wealth is concentrated in the top 5%. While there is no concrete link between the two statistics, the correlation could counter the my opponent"s use of this statistic as an indicator that private school do not promote social classes. Con states: "Also, pro states that richer students tend to do better than poorer students. That is true, but one factor could be that more richer kids go to private schools than poorer kids, and that creates a circular argument." I don"t see how that is circular reasoning, as I merely pointed out a confounding factor in pro"s argument. Also, my opponent also agreed that "more richer kids go to private schools than poorer kids", which also supports my premise that private schools divide society into "social classes". Con states: "Also, a teacher that gets paid less can actually be better because of the reason they're doing it. They aren't doing it as much for the moeny, but they actually care about their kids, and therefore they are willing to take less money to do their job.As I also said, teachers who teach at a religious school already have a connection with the kids. The reason private school teachers get paid less is not because they are worse, it's because they are willing to take less money to do their job the way that they think it should be done". That job is teaching kids, and a public school would get teachers that sometimes have to do some babysitting of the kids (5)" According to Con, the merits of a private school teachers are that they: Are altruistic (and are more dedicated to their teaching because they are payed less) Have a religious connection with students (at least some of them) Are better in their respective fields than public school teacher Additionally, Con throws in the fact that public schools have much larger class sizes than private schools, with people ranging from 35-40. I will refute these points one by one. Let"s assume that Con is correct in that private school teachers are motivated by altruism, and that lower pay is equivalent to more dedication. This claim is ridiculous. The same teachers that are altruistic in private schools can likewise be altruistic in public schools. Additionally, by Con"s logic, teachers in in Luxembourg, Switzerland, Germany, and Canada should be worse than teachers in America. Rather, they are better. 2. Con claims that religious connections can better teacher quality. This claim may or may not be true, but as I pointed out, there are religious public schools. 3. Con claims that private school teachers are better because "a private school hiring a Spanish teacher will want that teacher to have a degree in Spanish language and literature as opposed to an education degree with a minor in Spanish". But my opponent has no statistics to support this fact (I have checked his sources). Even if it were true, then it is the fault of the country"s educational institution, not the fault of the conception of public education. Here is Singapore"s teacher development: "After grade 12, all Singaporean pre-service teachers attend Singapore's only teacher training institution, the National Institute of Education (NIE), where they receive 100-150 hours of methods courses, 35 hours of mathematical content courses, 40 hours of math pedagogy (teaching methodology), and 25 hours of general pedagogy." "The average teacher" in Singapore is one of the best in the world, yet they focus more on the "educational degree" than degrees in their specific field. Public schools have more funding than private schools, and have the potential to train teachers to be better. Con states that student-to-teacher ratio is sometimes 35-40, but again, that is the fault of the institution as well. Public education has the potential to have low ratios. According to Con"s source "http://privateschool.about.com...;, the ideal student-to-teacher ratio is 15:1, but Singapore"s secondary public educational system has reached below that ratio. In 2012, their secondary school"s pupil-to-teacher ratio was 14:1, and they are bent on lowing it even more. Con states: ""then did you look at the chart I gave based on proficiency in different subjects? The private school kids did a lot better." The chart you gave me based on the proficiency in different subjects is written by the National Center for Education Statistics, at the system of evaluation is a joke. The NCES authors themselves warn that there are "Cautions in Interpretation" in their sections of report. Various individuals and organizations have used the report to discredit private school voucher programs. The NAEP does not even employ a random survey. Again, as I stated in my previous arguments, many of the marks of private schools are inflated, which makes it even more important to have a common standard of education via public schools. Con states: "We are not debating that only one is good for society." I never said that only one is good for society. Con states: "In the same way, public schools are cheaper, but they have less teacher attention to each student, they have bigger class sizes, and they have more bullying and teasing". There's much more weapon possession, alchohal use, and drug use at public schools, and some parents just want their kids out of that atmosphere, and their willing to pay big money to do so." Again, Con"s argument has a confounding factor. Richer kids tend to be more well-behaved than poorer kids. If the same students were put in private schools, they probably wouldn"t fare any better. Con states: "If one family sent their kids to a private school, those kids would be more prepared for college because the parents would feel obligated to get involved, the kid would feel guilted into working harder because of how much of a sacrifice it is to go there, and the public school kid wouldn't be as prepared for college." This may not necessarily be a good thing. As one private school student acknowledged, "at university it"s a lot more independent, a lot more about self-motivation", and he admitted that private school students would be unprepared for the "independence". As I pointed out in the previous round, public school students often do better than private school students when they are in the same environment (Con has not refuted my argument, so I extend it). In conclusion, public schools have several edges over private schools: They do not promote social classes, which private schools does. Public schools are essential for any meritocracy. Public schools are accessible to everyone (Con did not refute my argument from the first round, so I extend it), while private schools are selective. Public schools provide a common standard of education, which provide a more level playing field (Con again did not refute my argument from the first round, so I extend it), while private schools do not. Public schools foster independence, while its higher pay attracts better teachers. Public schools, unlike private schools, are not restricted by budget limits. With proper management, public schools can be more versatile than private schools and more beneficial for the "public". http://www.bloomberg.com... http://www.moe.gov.sg... http://www.theglobeandmail.com... http://www.heritage.org...