Finland ranked seventh in the world in OECD’s student assessment chart in 2018, well above the UK and the United States, where there is a mix of private and state education

  • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    191
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I think private schools should be banned. Too easy for the rich or even upper income class to gut public schools when you don’t use them. Everyone getting the same education chance is what I call equal opportunity.

    • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      91
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Same for health care. If the rich had no other option but to depend on the public system, they’d be more likely to ensure it’s properly funded.

      • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Finland does actually have a private sector for health care.

        The difference tends to be in how fast you get appointments for non-critical health issues. If I have a cough I’m worried about, I can go to my employer provided healthcare and speak to a doctor via phone in literally 20 minutes.

        The public system atm would diagnose me with an automated quiz and determine my case to be “non-urgent”. I would eventually get a doctors appointment, if I’m persistent and find all the right numbers to call, online forms to fill in, etc.

        If the matter is urgent however, the public system takes things very seriously. And private sector doctors will even forward you to a public hospital in some cases, if they don’t have the staff or equipment needed to help you in a particular case. With concussions for example, I’ve just walked into the local ER and been taken care of right away. If you need an ambulance, you don’t need to weigh your life against bankruptcy.

        The public system is also efficient (except when it isn’t). That means you won’t always see staff spend their time on bedside manner. Their job is to keep you healthy, not happy (unless you’re there for mental issues). In my experience the private sector has a higher standard for customer service, because you’re not just a patient when you pay for your care. Your satisfaction matters more since they actually care about getting repeat customers.

        Meanwhile, public healthcare wold prefer you never come back, which is sometimes a good thing, and sometimes bad.

        I use both sides of the system, and as I already mentioned, the two sides inter-operate in many cases. While it’s been a huge mess at times, Finland is investing in a patient-data-management system called APOTTI which lets you switch doctors and care-providers seamlessly taking your patient-history with you. I once got x-rayd by my employee healthcare, then got sent to a hand surgeon in the public sector so I could get the diagnosis from those x-rays the same day. I left the private hospital and walked into the public one like they were operated by the same company. It’s amazing.

        • Quokka@quokk.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Poor Finland.

          Imagine if the funding being used so your employer could get you to see a doctor in 20 minutes, was available for everyone, as a public service.

          Instead you’ve split your healthcare in two, and as such you’re going to have people poached away from offering the best care to everyone.

          • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The system isn’t that split. In fact, it can work the other way around, in that a public doctor can send you to a private one when warranted, and the public system will then cover the cost.

            In emergencies you can also walk into the ER of a private hospital and have the cost covered under the public system.

            If you want to pay for a doctor to calm your hypochondria right now while small talking about something meaningless… Why not?

            Also, my employer providing me with healthcare, isn’t optional, it’s legally mandated. If you have a job, you have the option of going to whatever private provider your employer has contracted. This is to make sure whatever sick leave you end up needing, is taken care of in a timely fashion so you can get back to work asap.

            The only reason you can’t just walk into a public hospital and see a doctor the way you can with a private one, is that the public sector will actually make sure you need the care then and there before spending its resources on you. It’s triage, on a national scale.

            The private and public sectors are integrated and inter-operable. This means the private sector hasn’t become a price-gouging insurance mine-field. Instead it’s more like an extension of the public system, serving as a more expensive but expedited channel, used where warranted.

          • Srovex@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            I guess the rationale is that you give precedence to the people paying for the healthcare (middleclass workers) to get them back to contributing to workforce (and earning those tax euros) as soon as possible. Also the decision is done by the companies (trying to keep their employees in working condition, also a big perk when employees are comparing different employers) and not the government so you can’t just decide to move the money like you just described.

            • redfellow@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Companies are by law required to offer health care. So when you’re working, you can choose which to use. Often work place healthcare is for those more urgent, yet smaller things. If you get cancer, you go to the public system or pay for private care.

              But everyone here can get free care, which is the key take. You can just get some things faster via the workplace, or you can also pay to get a team of specialists or whatnot.

    • pousserapiere@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well, there are edge cases for private schools that would not make sense being solved by public schools. I moved a lot in my life (still do), and having access to schools in one of my children 's main language is an important thing for them. Those schools are still following local regulations though

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Even if nationwide absolute mediocre student body was a goal banning private schools wouldn’t achieve it.

      Next you would have to ban tutoring companies, after that you would have to ban test prep, after that private tutors, after that you would need restrictions on funding for all schools (which wouldn’t work since not all schools have the exact same funding needs), you would still have advantages. One kid is closer to the library, one kid has a parent who was a teacher, one kid has a stay at home parent with the resources to help them with homework, etc.

      Nothing short of an absolute police state of fairness would be able to achieve this.

      • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Next you would have to ban tutoring companies, after that you have to ban test prep

        Lol no you don’t have to. Nice slippery slope. You do what the government can do, which is fund schools. This is really easy, but you want to slippery slope that it must lead to all these other fearmongering things which it doesn’t. Like lol at, sorry to say, your absurdity.

        So back to schools. You fund them all the same. Where I live all public schools are funded the same in the whole province. This is really easy.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          It isn’t a slippery slope. It is me showing you what is needed to achieve the goal. A slippery slope is when someone argues that if A then B must follow and hasn’t justified it, it is not at all the same as me saying if your goal is X you will need to do what you just said and more.

          You fund them all the same.

          I highly doubt your province is doing that because it doesn’t freaken work. This school has more kids that have special needs, this other school has more kids whose parents speak a different language at home, this school needed a major boiler upgrade last year, this school has poor students so needs to provide more school supplies, this school is more remote so they had to pay extra to get X, this school is more urban so it needs to pay all teachers a bit more, this school had an unusually low number of 2nd graders this year…

          No government is so fucking stupid to try to do what you are saying. You can start with a baseline funding number and modify it as needed but you aren’t saying that. You are saying the equivalent of lawful stupid alignment for accounting.

          • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Dude it’s a slippery slope, you literally went off how you “have to” ban all these other things. And the answer is simple, no you don’t have to ban those other things.

            Oh I see what you’re doing, you’re making a bad faith argument ad absurdem. That it must be 1000000% equal, no adjustments for anything, ever!!! Wow and lol. If I really to spell it out, you fund based on number of students of each ____. Yes repairs and maintenance are funded as they are needed lol. Yes you have baseline funding for small schools.

            In the small chance that any of what you say is good faith, you seem to be stuck in this it must be 10000000000% equal!!! mentality. Ban everything!!! To make it 10000000% equal!!! mentality.

            Dude, this is really simple. Fund public schools well. See above. Peace.

            • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Nope. I told you what you need to accomplish your goals and I pointed out your lie about how funding is happening in your province.