I don't think the rich are sacrificing anything by this lottery. Some middle-class kids might have to go to a worse school to allow some poor kids to go to a better school but the rich are unaffected.
No. The rich and everyone else send their kids to the same public schools.
In the Netherlands people value the idea of living in a classless society. It would not be acceptable for certain people to have their own "special" schools where their kids get "special" education.
The way the rich try to get around that is by congregating in the same rich neighbourhoods and sending their kids to the same school. That is why the lottery exists, to distribute the kids evenly in a fair manner.
> No. The rich and everyone else send their kids to the same public schools.
Yes, The Netherlands has private schools (and international schools) but not many. Here's one example: Luzac [1]. Its an exception though, and its very expensive. I've been to one of these and seen the nephew of lawyer Bram Moszkowicz over there. Also, you can expect other of the higher echelons like monarchy on such a private school. But again, it is very much the exception.
Sure, but is such a school giving their child any actual advantage? They'll be in a foreign country taught by likely a lower quality teacher (esp. in US private schools, there is a reason our private teachers make $10k less a year).
> Sure, but is such a school giving their child any actual advantage? They'll be in a foreign country taught by likely a lower quality teacher (esp. in US private schools, there is a reason our private teachers make $10k less a year).
If they're rich, aren't they intentionally selecting schools to try to avoid the perceived "lower quality teachers"? I don't think money would be the limiting factor there (effectiveness in turning money into results is a different matter, but after all, school is as much about networking as anything else, and you're probably buying into a very powerful network).
No, usually they're going to a private school to be in a certain social clique. Its actually quite poisonous IMO, had a few upper crust friends who went to O'Dea or Bishop Blanchet for high school here in Seattle (despite not being Catholic), and ended up getting in with those social cliques while letting their old friendships drift.
Most of that group did not make it through college, even for an Associates.
I'm not sure the quality of the private schools you mentioned (O'Dea or Bishop Blanchet) are on par with what others consider as elite private schools. For one, those two schools have tuitions in the 10k-15k/yr range which is pretty low. Private schools in the northeast, like Milton Academy or Phillips Exeter are in the 45-50k/yr range. These schools also tend to have higher than average matriculation rates to elite universities like the Ivies as well. Teachers at those schools are definitely making more than their public school counterparts.
> Teachers at those schools are definitely making more than their public school counterparts.
I'm sure this is correct, but do you have a reference? Anecdotally, I have heard that teachers at top tier NYC private schools make less than teachers at NYC public schools. I don't have a source for that so I'm grateful for any information you can share.
Simple economics and public choice theory would say that, if parents are willing to spend lots of money to send their kids to a private school, rather than sending them to public school for free, then they believe (and most likely with good reason) that it is preferable to do so.
This "market" (if you could even call it that) is far from transparent, objectively measuring the effect of one school versus another is hard. The most concerning metric when I look at private schools is the severe pay differential. This isn't cause private schools are getting better deals on quality teachers, they've been self selecting for teachers that local school districts won't hire (for good reason) and get commensurate results. Being in the right social circle is the prime driver of going to private schools from what I've discerned and experienced. Most don't have diversity requirements or scholarships to ensure the classroom isn't a mono-culture of socio-economic status or race.
Pretty much, sending your kids to private school in the US all about connections and having them join the right clique, even if they come out with poorer skills overall.
I actually think that American boarding schools can be quite good academically (Andover, Exeter, etc.), but sending your kid to boarding school in Switzerland is likely not about academics in the least.
If they want to work in the US/UK/Switzerland? Or perhaps internationally more broadly? Probably. And I wouldn’t assume those private schools and their environment are giving a lower quality education.
There are a lot of schools with bilingual programs (English+Dutch) and the programs are of high quality. Seems simpler to go for such a program, no need to send your kid abroad.
Well, I am sure that they do other things. The government can't stop parents from giving their kids extra tutoring, or sending them to summer programs.
Educations is way more than what goes on inside a classroom, and there are many ways to get ahead.
Sociologist have often found that homogenous countries care more about being "classless" than more diverse countries. Why do you think that US politicians always characterize the safety net as helping minorities and people that don't look like their constituents?
Politicians have even convinced people that "entitlement reform" means getting rid of welfare and when someone call social security an "entitlement" people get offended.
I've had to explain on more than one occasion that by definition social security and Medicare are entitlements and that welfare isn't.
When politicians talk about entitlement reform they are referring to social security and Medicare cut backs but they keep getting voted into office because the very people who benefit or will benefit from the "entitlements" think they are referring to welfare.
The author of that article has one massive chip on their shoulder. Claims about how diverse the US is while criticising open European borders are a bit strange. Ranting at economic and social stagnation in Europe are also odd given how the US is faring. It’s amusing to criticise how European leaders look given current leadership in US - hell, half the photos in the paper this week of political events involving the US show actual family members rather than similar looking people.
That source is not good and doesn’t make a point, never mind the nauseating style.
> ... when someone call social security an "entitlement" people get offended.
I broadly agree with your overall points but I think it's worth examining this point a bit more. Social Security has been presented at various times (IMO dishonestly) as a pay-in pay-out forced saving system. This is why people unironically refer to it as "my money". The government even sends you periodic updates on how much of "your money" will be paid back to you upon retirement based explicitly on how much you've paid in. My sense, based on limited information, is that this was necessary to maintain some willful ignorance on the fiscal conservative side.
In practice US courts have ruled that SS works like an entitlement (government can rescind or modify at any time), and is not a property right in the conventional sense. But a very large portion of the population, especially during the 70s-90s period, was told that it was just a government operated retirement savings scheme where you pay in and you collect later.
So I think that this specific point about people viewing SS as not an entitlement has reasonable historical explanation. I don't view complainants as being openly hypocritical, since they were told it was not an entitlement but merely a government managed pay-in pay-out mandatory savings system.
The definition of entitlement is "the fact of having the right to something". I have a right to social security. I paid into it forcefully money I could have saved for myself.
Welfare is not an entitlement.
Politicians who want to cut social security and Medicare purposefully conflate it with eelfare so they can cut it and still get the approval of voters.
These are the same politicians who have people riled up about Medicaid and saying they need to get a job. Until I try to explain that Medicaid is also used to take care of granny in the old folks home. Are they going to tell thier 90 year old mom to get a job?
Edit: re-re-reading here, I now see I misunderstood your response and I'm sorry. I do think you're using "entitlement" in a way different from how most people understand it in a political context, but I also now understand that that seems to be part of your point. Apologies for the confusion (I'm leaving my original response here for context).
I understand what you're saying — and as I said I agree with the thrust of your post — but your use of the word "entitlement" is not universal.
The courts, in particular, disagree with your use, and specifically distinguish the concept of a property right from things the government has promised to give you. SCOTUS has ruled that SS is the latter and not the former.
The fundamental difference, in my lay understanding, is that the government needs to use an argument like eminent domain to deprive you of a property right, but can arbitrarily stop or reduce social security at any time if they so desire (as they can with welfare or medicare).
There are private schools of a sort. They're called "bijzonder onderwijs" (special education), and include religious (protestant, catholic and muslim) schools, Montessori, Dalton and Jena-plan schools, and a bunch of others. But they all follow the exact same rules as public schools, need to meet the same criteria, and are funded in the same way, which means they're equally accessible to rich and poor.
It depends on private in which sense. The Netherlands has "freedom of education" and equal funding for public and private schools. As long as you can get enough interest and meet quality criteria, you can start a private school and get public funding for it.
Additionally, there are some (but very few) private schools which don't take government funding and emphasize small class rooms, etc. Typically only the truly rich kids go to private schools, and only when they have difficulty achieving the standards parents want :)
Like in most countries, it is probably linked to social class.
I studied at a private school in Amsterdam when I lived in the Netherlands in the 70's. Most of my parents professional colleagues sent their children to private schools too. The reasons included quality of education, availability of certain subjects and the relative lack of troubled and disruptive students.
A relative recently married a Dutch man from near Rotterdam. He and his siblings went to private schools.
I recall nearby state run schools were pretty dismal.
Perhaps things have changed.
No idea about the Dutch school system, and my comment is not about the rich vs the poor.
My reflection is more about the general discussion: Is it OK that the court prioritizes "the greater good" over these two individual students? I think I sense different priorities between Europeans and Americans.
It's not so much "the greater good" that's prioritised, but fairness. They don't want rich or savvy kids to have an advantage that other kids don't get.
But I think it's possible to improve over these systems in a way that increases efficiency without harming fairness.
I see, I thought you were commenting on the implementation of the lottery in the first place vs. our North American system of rationing good schools using money (either directly through tuition or expensive nearby real estate).
I don't think the rich are sacrificing anything by this lottery. Some middle-class kids might have to go to a worse school to allow some poor kids to go to a better school but the rich are unaffected.