[sovnade]

Unfortunately hiring a private teacher to teach a small group of similarly-aged kids is reasonably affordable for families (less than half the price of private school), gives them a better education than public school (1:5 or 1:6 instead of 1:20), and takes a good qualified teacher out of the public school system (also while paying them more for working fewer hours).

We've always supported public schools but as a Florida resident, a private teacher is looking more and more like the better alternative.

[xyzzyz]

Why is it unfortunate? If the government organized government funded meals for children in government funded restaurants, ran by government employees, would you also find it unfortunate if regular people were able to afford feeding their own kids outside of the system, without depending on what government thinks is appropriate to feed to children? If the regular people can opt out of the system, and instead pick what their like at their own expense, why is it bad?

[ziddoap]

>Why is it unfortunate?

Because it's a strictly zero-sum situation. Removing one teacher from public teaching in favor of teaching 5 kids privately means those 15 other kids still in public school need to find another teacher. Since there's already a shortage of teachers, it seems unfortunate that the "smart move" on the individual level is to exacerbate the collective issue even more.

It might be great for your kid, sure, but overall it's pretty unfortunate.

[xyzzyz]

This is not a "zero-sum situation". There's no such thing as a fixed pool of teachers that everyone is competing against. The number of teachers, who count as a teacher etc, it all depends.

For example, public schools typically demand very specific credentials before they employ someone in a teaching position. Individuals or private institutions might have different demands here. I certainly know personally a lot of people who I'd gladly hire to teach my kids, but who do not fulfill the requirements the public schools set upon teachers.

Second, there's no such thing as "shortage" in absolute terms. There is only shortage at a given price point. If government finds it hard to hire people, tough shit, maybe it should pay more, or demand less at the current wages? Government is not entitled to artificially cheap labor, and if it finds itself unable to compete for the workers, who are poached by the private sector, maybe it should just outsource the entire enterprise to organization more capable at the task?

[ziddoap]

>"There's no such thing as a fixed pool of teachers that everyone is competing against."

Maybe the definition of zero-sum, in the economic sense, is the wrong phrase. But there's still only so many people who can be (or are willing to be, qualified to be, whatever) teaching class in a public school tomorrow.

>I certainly know personally a lot of people who I'd gladly hire to teach my kids, but who do not fulfill the requirements the public schools set upon teachers.

Cool. If that was the case for all of the private teaching pods, my opinion would probably be different.

>Second, there's no such thing as "shortage" in absolute terms. There is only shortage at a given price point. [...]

Yeah, I agree, and I have no idea why the rest of the paragraph is written as if I wouldn't agree. Teachers should get paid more (and/or reduced workload) given their importance. Whatever lets to largest amount of kids grow up with a good education.

I don't think going private with 5 kid pods is going to give the largest amount of kids a good education, and I think that's unfortunate, because that seems to be the best route for teacher's who are trying to live a decent life.

[xyzzyz]

As I said, I think the government should outsource the entire business. Just give parents education vouchers, and let them choose the education they want for their kids. I think every parent should be able to hire a private teacher, not only the wealthy ones.

Where I am, the good private schools charge about 30% less tuition than the public school district spends per student. This means that providing good schooling is very much possible at what government spends. Food stamps do not have to be spent on government-produced food in government stores. Section 8 vouchers do not have to be spent on government-owned housing. Why not just do the same with education?

[phlipski]

Just out of curiosity - do you have any examples of cases where the "government" outsourced a responsibility and it resulted in both a better outcome/results and at a cheaper cost?

[xyzzyz]

Have you heard about Soviet Union before? I hear that things have significantly improved in its former borders since it’s gone.

[phlipski]

So I'll take it that you do NOT have any examples of the private sector privatizing a function previously done by the government (in the US) and doing it better/cheaper.... Sounds to me like you've read some Ayn Rand books thought it sounded great, but haven't put forth the effort to imagine how a fictional tale translates to real life. I don't say this as someone who is pro-government. I'd love to see things done better/cheaper. I'm just someone who wants proof not promises...

[debacle]

Many states have made this model (teacher "pods") illegal, which is terrible because I believe it is the future of education.

[ndriscoll]

Sounds like a good life lesson for children: if you want to live freely, don't tell the state what you're doing.

[rayiner]

That sounds like “fortunately” not “unfortunately.” For everyone involved, including the teacher.

[sovnade]

Yep.

Unfortunate is for the public schools though as there are now fewer teachers available to hire. There's teacher shortages in almost every state in the country.

[hotpotamus]

I'd be curious to hear the numbers on that because 6 students doesn't sound like enough to cover one teacher unless maybe they're paying near $20K each or so.

[sovnade]

10-15k per student per year beats out nearly any public school system in my state. They only _just_ raised the starting salaries to a bit under 40k.

edit: also - homeschooling/private teachers are much more efficient. An elementary school day takes more like 2 hours instead of 7, and there's basically zero after-hours work. Do you know any teachers who would give up public school to work 2-3 hours a day for 70k a year with no all-night grading/etc? Cause my bet is it's a huge majority of them.

[ndriscoll]

120k/yr seems like it'd be more than teachers make almost anywhere. $10k/kid seems closer to average.

You could also get access to a larger pool of potential teachers (with STEM backgrounds even!): I don't think I'd ever consider teaching public school for any pay level at this point, but I could see myself teaching some of my neighbors' kids with mine in a few years for cheap/free if there were interest.

[hotpotamus]

I assume most public teachers total compensation would near $120k/yr when you factor in health insurance and pension benefits, and senior teachers with lots of time in in decent states are probably doing a bit better than that. I don't know how self employment tax works either other than it adds costs too.

[ndriscoll]

I thought teachers in the US mostly have 403b now (which as far as I know works like 401k), but I don't really know. A solo 401k would actually be more attractive if so, but probably not until above 60k gross income. Depending on state, family situation, and tax planning ability, they could also potentially get free or heavily subsidized Obamacare.

The small "class" sizes and much greater autonomy would be big non-tangible benefits though. And of course these arrangements can have more... flexible tax reporting.

[frumper]

The teachers I know in central California have 457 plans and defined pensions.

[ShroudedNight]

I don't know how reliable the data is, but the median total comp for a US based public school teacher is allegedly ~78k:

https://www.salary.com/tools/salary-calculator/public-school...