These already kind of exist, orathaic -- school vouchers (and to some extent, charter schools, though these are not technically private).

Prisons are about incarceration and corrections officers are obligated to keep them running smoothly, but there is no "reform goals" or "no prisoner left behind" system out there. Schools are very different for the reason that maintaining the status quo isn't good enough. The are shaping our future, not just putting the bad elements of society in an indefinite holding pattern.

@semck - private schools and school vouchers... Vouchers don't pay for the whole education, so it isn't really in place as orathaic describes it (no cost to the student at all). But then public schools aren't that way either considering all the "pay to play" sports and other extracurricular activities. Even those with majors like band/music have a pay to play fee in some districts.

Public schools are about incarceration too. Seriously, has anyone here sat in on a high school class recently? It's a joke.

Sweden has for-profit schools in its voucher system

Does Sweden have high test scores, TGM?

The private prison business is one of the fastest growing industries in the United States -- any wonder that we have more incarcerated people than any other nation in the world? A significant portion of those in prison in the US are there for possession of narcotics. Can anyone tell me what prominent US family is one of the major players in the private prison industry? I'll give you a hint, this family has been accused, along with their political allies, of being a covert driving force behind the narcotics trade in the US. How about another hint, this family has produced two of the last four US Presidents.

What a great system these fascist bastards have created. 1) Make narcotics illegal in a free nation in which an adult should be able to do with their body as they please as long as they don't harm anyone else; 2) do away with federal sentencing discretion, thus making possession a crime with a disproportionate punishment; 3) own private, for profit prisons; 4) import the narcotics and make unfathomable profits.

The "War on Drugs" is a joke. It's more like a profit making scheme that earns billions off slave labor and the misery of other human beings.

Michigan, even if I don't buy the conspiracy theory about the Bushes I do agree that it's extremely alarming to have private citizens profitting from the incarceration of their fellow-citizens. Profit incentives have a way of promoting behaviors/policies in powerful if not conspiratorial ways.

I think that if the state is going to take away someone's freedom and lock them up even for a few months, the state needs to bear the responsibility of protecting what few rights that person still has, and the responsibility to make reasonable attempts to rehabilitate the convicted criminal.

Overall I agree with you wholeheartedly. The war on drugs is a joke.

"A significant portion of those in prison in the US are there for possession of narcotics."

Absolutely false. Provide stats or stop repeating this myth.

"1) Make narcotics illegal in a free nation in which an adult should be able to do with their body as they please as long as they don't harm anyone else"

Except most of these people are traffickers or repeat offenders who have long rap sheets, so they are harming other people. 25% of violent criminals report being on drugs at the time of their arrest.

"25% of violent criminals report being on drugs at the time of their arrest."

Which means that the clear majority of violent criminals were not on drugs at the time of arrest. Maybe we should outlaw sobriety - a nation perpetually stoned on cannabis would be a safe and peaceful one indeed (albeit not a prosperous one).

'In 2000, 22 percent of those in federal and state prisons were convicted on drug charges.'

The number of people in american jails has been increasing due to longer sentence and lack of parole options. The number of violent crimes has been decreasing (perhaps slowly, but i can't see of this is per capita or in total - ie while the population has been increasing)

Drug offences have lead to an increase in prison population - the 'war on drugs' has been one of the biggest justifications for these policy changes.

That is, no the majority are no in on drug offences. Also, violent crimes committed while 'high on drugs' are still violent crimes not drug crimes... It is the case that some violence is caused by drug use. However, sentencing for Violent offenders could be treated seperately to non-violent drug offenders.... That is to say, it is possible to have a smart policy which only punishes the violent drug offenders (and even if you don't treat drug addicts as people with a medical problem - you can treat the non-violent ones as minor offences, make them pay a fine and don't send them to prison... You can still decide to inprison people who you think are supplying drugs, while leaving the majority out on the streets...)

I'm honestly surprised there's any dissent on the issue. Here in Louisiana, the state with the highest incarceration rate in the US, there are multiple parishes where the sheriffs of the parishes have partial ownership of private prison companies. Conflict of interest much?

And orathaic hit the nail on the head. Sure, use of some drugs is the impetus for some violence, much as use of some automobiles is the impetus for some deaths. The answer is not to ban all drugs or automobiles, as the primary use for both objects is not to harm other humans. The morally wrong act being committed when someone uses PCP and gets the bright idea to go attack someone is not the use of PCP, but the attack on someone. Thus, you would punish them for attacking someone. Distinguish between the various actions being committed and ban the ones that result in harm.

'Distinguish between the various actions being committed and ban the ones that result in harm.'

You can even punish violence where drug use was involved - to send a message that 'i was drunk' isn't an excuse when you choose to get drunk... or whatever the drug in use happened to be.

"Does Sweden have high test scores, TGM?"

Sweden is in general above average, but doesn't score remarkably highly. By far the best system in terms of international test performance is Finland's. The major features of it are:

High Spending, to ensure every teacher is highly qualified.
No Streaming, with no gifted-and-talented type programs.
One major assessment at ~age 15-16
Heavy limitations on private schooling, to the point of making them irrelevant.

This guarantees that very few students fail, but isn't something I can support, because Finland also sees very few students excelling either. For me, it is a case in point as to why the international tables should be taken with a pinch of salt.

@Putin, I am only responding to you to tell you that I will not respond to you. You're a moot point. Ta ta for now!

Back on track in this thread... Schools are different than prisons. Ignoring the debate of prison ownership being a potential conflict of interest (for judges, defense attorneys, and politicians in particular), prisons are about real incarceration. 24/7. Schools are an institute of creating future minds. Many corrections officers are just one step from *being* a prisoner in their own lives, but they aren't. As a resuolt, they aren't necessarily the best of the best and we, as a people, don't care if they are or not as all they are doing is keeping the animals from walking amongst us. Now, we don't want them abusing the animals just as we don't want our teachers abusing our children, but the animals just need to be contained on the whole where as the students need to be educated and prepared for life outside the school walls.

Now, I think for profit schools can do a good job, but I think the best job is done by private non-profit schools. Schools motivated to make better and more productive community members with the values of that community instilled as well as the knowledge to allow the students to get ahead in life. These schools recognize quality teachers and understand that different students learn in different ways. In prison, conformity is the means of control and correction, but in school you have to reach the students and understand how *they* work, not make them conform to the eway you intend to teach.

So a for profit school would need to minimize the cost (amount they spend to offer an education) while maximizing their number of customers (so more students - or their parets choose to send the kids to the school) with the government footing the entire bill - no kids left behind they just pay $100 per child per semester, lets say...

Total revamp of the education system. All kids have an equal opportunity and schools which want to charge more are banned....

But what if the parent wants to give their kid a better chance and improve the school by voluntering time or materials (it equpiment, books etc) this really puts the power into the parent's hands - and home schooling becomes profitable...

Ok, there is something like a social welfare program from the sound of it... But if prisons are run on this system why not schools? In theory i'm claiming that keeping kids out of prison is good for society and i you add the profit motive for schools they'd be more iterested in preventing their customers from leaving the education system and entering the prison system...

Prevention better than the cure, perhaps? (ok, sometimes i'm not being entirely serious, i am just asking why not... Does this kinda of system make sense? Is the current system actually better? Would you still require state exams which are not run by the schools - so the parents can then go and look at which schools actually produced the best results?

How about a franchise system for local schools taking on a curriculumn and brand name and teaching methods of a particular successful type of schools?)

But then what you get is teirs of private schools. those that offer just what the government vouchers will subsidize, cost wise, and those who refuse government vouchers and cater to the elite of society who can pay for it, sort of what many private schools do now. You are just privatizing public schools but not eliminating the disparity between the current public (turned private) and the current private (turned elite-private) schools.

Ok draug, so you are saying it is no better. But in my system the private, but government funded schools have a profit incentive to draw in customers, and the parents who can't afford elite schools can make a choice between the best one for their kids... Maybe including short summer courses, or internet tutoring, because the schools are now free to experiment just how to hock in and keep interested the kids. Anyone isfree to try and only the parents are holding the purse strings...

You also get a supply-demand thing, where the less the government is willing to pay the fewer schools will be able to supply education.

The demand being set by parents demanding increases in funding... (whether that should be federal or state level really should be up to the people too... I don't really know how school districts get their funding at present)

@Ora - I see how the choice of schools would be a boost, but the US is *big*. The cities of New York and LA are both bigger than all of Ireland. And sending kids to schools 10 miles away (or more in really rural areas) isn't feasible for us.

As far as parents demands, that exists in public schools to as our schools are funded at the local level by local property tax levies, not just federal or even state money. We have 3 or 4, sometimes more, levels of taxation here and the more local you get, the more goes to local services like fire, police, and schools such that more than half the money a school receives comes from those local tax levies voted on by the local populace and legally obligated to be used for schools.

Of course, that varies from state to state. Ohio uses local school levies to fund their schools. But that is under review as it results in affluent areas having better schools and being able to deny the poorer areas access to thsoe schools under the argument that the people who paid for it get to use it. We've had more than one case where someone lied about their address to get their kid in a better school without paying the taxes that accompany living in that schools community.

Just as a footnote, I'm unaware of any US jurisdiction that doesn't level a ton of fees upon the incarcerated. So, it's not as if prison is free for the user.

That's fair Draug. (I'm a little late responding, as I was away yesterday).

Bob genkins, how do the enslaved... Em i mean poor manage to pay these fees?

If they don't have the money you can't just let them out to earn enough... And if the money doesn't exist you can't pretend it does.

Also, regarding the 'animals' comment - we're all animals, these are just ones who are mal-adjusted, they jave behavioural issues. But focusing in violent crime; we usually put down animals which have proven to be a danger to their owners or the public... Not incarsarate them.

@ Druagnar

"Schools are an institute of creating future minds."

You mean schools are SUPPOSED to be institutes for creating future minds. America's public education system is a complete clusterfuck right now.

As for size - it is really population density that matter, i can't read the wikipedia table on my phone, but the US seems to have ~89 people per unit area, while Ireland has ~169.

I'm actually shocked how big the difference is, but it is less than double, unlike (say) the EU average or the UK figure...

Still size isn't as important and the distribution - as you say urban areas are sparsely populated in the US; but this is an increasing problem as urbanisation increases and people move off the land, affecting a smaller and smaller minority - who i hope will availe of distance learning solutions instead of continuing to commute.