Privatized education

[Amnesiac]

I think it's about time we shut down the public education system and started a privatized national education system. By the principles of free market capitalism, the new businesses that rise up from the 'rubble' of the federal and state education systems would compete and lower prices.

The current education system has proven itself inefficient and difficult to reform. With increasing restraints on government spending, the fate of millions of students looks bleak. With federal and state governments in near-fatal debt, education will fall to the bottom of the priorities list – it already has here in Texas.

I'm not saying we should do this tomorrow. It may take decades to draw down the massive public education system and encourage growth of a privatized system. However, the benefits such a plan presents merit putting it in action. If everything works properly, most every student should have access to an education, even if their family is cash-strapped. It could take decades, but an America with privatized education would bring high-quality learning without the restraints of government red tape to everyone.l

[Perseus]

You do realize that causes unequal learning and the people with more money get a better education?

[Amnesiac]

You do realize that causes unequal learning and the people with more money get a better education?

It's an unfortunate consequence, but it's arguably like that already. Those with more money go to private schools, and later the high-class universities, and get a better education. I'd rather have most people getting a higher-quality education privately instead of everyone getting one filled with red tape and bureaucratic bullshit.

A fully privatized education system would result in low costs and high quality education due to intense competition in the market.

[Perseus]

It's an unfortunate consequence, but it's arguably like that already. Those with more money go to private schools, and later the high-class universities, and get a better education. I'd rather have most people getting a higher-quality education privately instead of everyone getting one filled with red tape and bureaucratic bullshit.

A fully privatized education system would result in low costs and high quality education due to intense competition in the market.

But with public those who are poor and want to learn still can make it into college. With the private education everywhere, the low end schools will have the low end teachers with low end budget teaching with low end stuff. Though, that happens already. So I don't know. I live in a good school district. It's just doesn't seem right because there are homeless children who go to school in my district, and they could never afford a private education.

[Amnesiac]

But with public those who are poor and want to learn still can make it into college. With the private education everywhere, the low end schools will have the low end teachers with low end budget teaching with low end stuff. Though, that happens already. So I don't know. I live in a good school district. It's just doesn't seem right because there are homeless children who go to school in my district, and they could never afford a private education.

As you just said, the public education system is already unequal. I don't believe it's fair to subject every student to the same corrupt curriculums and budget cuts. It would cut back on the size of government, save billions of dollars, and give hundreds of thousands of students the opportunity to get an even better education than they have now.

There's nothing stopping charity organizations from opening ultra-low-cost or free schools, like many do already.

[Iceman]

Just wondering. What is your defenition of "Privatized education"?

[Amnesiac]

Just wondering. What is your defenition of "Privatized education"?

An education system that is entirely disconnected from the government. That means the federal Department of Education and all schools running primarily on government funding would be shut down and replaced with a universal private school system.

[Korashk]

But with public those who are poor and want to learn still can make it into college. With the private education everywhere, the low end schools will have the low end teachers with low end budget teaching with low end stuff.
Government granted school vouchers is the answer. I personally disagree with them, but it would be a huge improvement on public education.

[Sogeking]

While I do agree that a privatized school system would have better education, like others said it will only promote Social Darwinism. The richer get the better the poorer get the poorer. I think that a system that gives everyone an equal opportunity to get an education is the better system thus far. The opportunists can take advantage of this and the people who don't give a damn can just pay responsibility for their actions later on.

[Korashk]

While I do agree that a privatized school system would have better education, like others said it will only promote Social Darwinism. The richer get the better the poorer get the poorer.
Except this is a demonstrably false statement. Almost universally, the less government involvement there is in the economy, the richer people are. The rich get richer and the poor get richer.

"Poverty" here [America] isn't like poverty in the past or in most other places in the world. For example, starvation was a constant danger for most of humanity since time immemorial, but it is almost unheard of today in America even with all its three hundred million occupants. Most people "below the poverty line" here have access to running water, modern plumbing, electricity, refrigeration of food, a bed, furniture, air-conditioning, products for personal hygiene, cleaning products, cooking and eating utensils, plenty of warm clothing, and more than sufficient food to stay healthy. In addition to these goods that satisfy the more basic needs, virtually anyone can save enough to have access to modern goods like television sets, telephones, DVD players, washing machines, personal computers, books, radios, CD players, and microwave ovens.

[Sogeking]

Except this is a demonstrably false statement. Almost universally, the less government involvement there is in the economy, the richer people are. The rich get richer and the poor get richer.Sorry, I should had made it clearer. I was talking about the quality of education the students were to get not how their financial situation would end up being.

[Severus Snape]

I think it's about time we shut down the public education system and started a privatized national education system. By the principles of free market capitalism, the new businesses that rise up from the 'rubble' of the federal and state education systems would compete and lower prices.

No, they would not. Private institutions are expensive because they can be. Tuition prices for private schools in Georgia has increased in price by 30% in the past five years and scholarship funding is being cut. The first thing to either get more expensive or have less money funneled into it is education. A large number of families would not be able to support a $6,000+/child price tag for their education. The result will be a regressive trend of illiteracy and ignorance reminiscent of the 19th century.

The current education system has proven itself inefficient and difficult to reform.

NCLB drastically shifted and changed the public education system since it was ratified in 2002 and it continues to change as a living document aimed at improving educational standards nationwide. This comment just reeks of misunderstanding and possibly willful ignorance of the facts.

With increasing restraints on government spending, the fate of millions of students looks bleak.

Problem: There is a budget crisis in education.

Solution: Trash the public schools system and make it the responsibility of the parents to either homeschool or pay thousands out of pocket for private education?



With federal and state governments in near-fatal debt, education will fall to the bottom of the priorities list – it already has here in Texas.

Source?

most every student should have access to an education, even if their family is cash-strapped.

Um, how? Do you even have any experience with private education?

It could take decades, but an America with privatized education would bring high-quality learning without the restraints of government red tape to everyone.l

Government "tape" as you put it ensures a lot of educational privileges and rights private institutions do not afford. For example, mentally and physically handicapped students may be turned down at private institutions because the school is not legally required to provide for them. Public schools are. Relying on "the principles of free market capitalism" provides a very bleakoutlook for these students isn't very bright unless their parents are very, very wealthy (the cost to educate a handicapped student is roughly triple that of a non handicapped student)

I'm working towards my history degree and teaching certificate right now and as part of the education program's requirements I work with students from a low SES background, students with disabilities, and exceptional students. It is highly unlikely these students would be nearly as well provided for in private schools.

Not to mention you pretty much admit for a few decades education in the US would be rubbish, but I'm sure it won't matter too much if we raise a generation of idiots or two. :rolleyes:

There are so many flaws in your theory I don't have the patience to address them all.

edit- and I also find it disgusting you are willing to throw low SES families under the bus simply because you see flaws in the education system. I work with extremely bright kids who live in trailers, can barely afford to buy lunch at school and whose families would be unable to provide any education for them at all if it wasn't free. Public education is a cornerstone of modern civilization and a right.

[Severus Snape]

An education system that is entirely disconnected from the government. That means the federal Department of Education and all schools running primarily on government funding would be shut down and replaced with a universal private school system.

Also, schools are funded primarily by state and local governments. ~11% of public school funding in Georgia comes from the federal government.

[Amnesiac]

No, they would not. Private institutions are expensive because they can be. Tuition prices for private schools in Georgia has increased in price by 30% in the past five years and scholarship funding is being cut. The first thing to either get more expensive or have less money funneled into it is education. A large number of families would not be able to support a $6,000+/child price tag for their education. The result will be a regressive trend of illiteracy and ignorance reminiscent of the 19th century.

You're missing the point. It's a basic tenant of economics: competition reduces prices. Private institutions are expensive now, yes, but that's because they hold the position of being an alternative to public education. If private education were the only education, competition and the creation of schools oriented to different segments of the population would lower tuition fees dramatically.

NCLB drastically shifted and changed the public education system since it was ratified in 2002 and it continues to change as a living document aimed at improving educational standards nationwide. This comment just reeks of misunderstanding and possibly willful ignorance of the facts.

It's also a piece of legislation that's been abused and harshly criticized (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_child_left_behind#Criticism), precisely the reason why Obama's planning to replace it this year.

Problem: There is a budget crisis in education.

Solution: Trash the public schools system and make it the responsibility of the parents to either homeschool or pay thousands out of pocket for private education?

Yes. This budget crisis will fall very hard (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35883971/ns/us_news-education/) on public education. I don't believe it fair that millions of American students should be subject to the effects of such changes. Also, as I said, competition in the market will lower prices. As long as the government is involved in education, tuitions will remain high. Take government out, and they'll drop like a rock.

Source?

Here's one, out of many. (http://www.mywesttexas.com/article_de3b0d0c-4370-11e0-acc7-001cc4c03286.html)

Um, how? Do you even have any experience with private education?

This isn't about my experience with private education. It's about the principles of free-market capitalism. When you remove government from the equation and increase competition, prices decrease. It's happened before. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_Deregulation_Act)

Government "tape" as you put it ensures a lot of educational privileges and rights private institutions do not afford. For example, mentally and physically handicapped students may be turned down at private institutions because the school is not legally required to provide for them. Public schools are. Relying on "the principles of free market capitalism" provides a very bleakoutlook for these students isn't very bright unless their parents are very, very wealthy (the cost to educate a handicapped student is roughly triple that of a non handicapped student)

There's a difference between removing regulation and enforcing basic law. If we deregulated the meat processing industry (which we have), that doesn't mean we wouldn't enforce food safety standards.

I'm working towards my history degree and teaching certificate right now and as part of the education program's requirements I work with students from a low SES background, students with disabilities, and exceptional students. It is highly unlikely these students would be nearly as well provided for in private schools.

Not to mention you pretty much admit for a few decades education in the US would be rubbish, but I'm sure it won't matter too much if we raise a generation of idiots or two. :rolleyes:

There are so many flaws in your theory I don't have the patience to address them all.

SIGH. I never said that education would be 'rubbish' for a few years. You think we can just shut down the public education system tomorrow? No. It takes time, and planning. And, of course, there are exceptions to everything. Not every change will rely on the principles of free market capitalism.

[Severus Snape]

You're missing the point. It's a basic tenant of economics: competition reduces prices.

Oh really? How has that worked out with healthcare?

It's also a piece of legislation that's been abused and harshly criticized (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_child_left_behind#Criticism), precisely the reason why Obama's planning to replace it this year.

What political document isn't harshly abused and criticized? Hell even I have problems with it, but that doesn't make me want to scrap the whole thing. And I swear to god if you link me to wikipedia again I will cry blood.



Yes. This budget crisis will fall very hard (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35883971/ns/us_news-education/) on public education. I don't believe it fair that millions of American students should be subject to the effects of such changes. Also, as I said, competition in the market will lower prices. As long as the government is involved in education, tuitions will remain high. Take government out, and they'll drop like a rock.

Look at the university system as a comparison. Private universities are still substantially more expensive than public universities and yet the cost for public universities isn't very cheap and rising. There is competition going on here and it has made the system more expensive, if anything.

This isn't about my experience with private education. It's about the principles of free-market capitalism.

So you are going to promote an institution you know nothing about because your 10th grade level economics class made it seem like a good idea. Fuck me, our education system is piss poor.

When you remove government from the equation and increase competition, prices decrease. It's happened before. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_Deregulation_Act)

You are honestly comparing airline travel to education?

There's a difference between removing regulation and enforcing basic law. If we deregulated the meat processing industry (which we have), that doesn't mean we wouldn't enforce food safety standards.

Fun fact: the government cannot control schools it does not fund. Private schools may apply for government funding, but there are strings attached to that. These strings act as regulatory devices. Of course, these are opt in. If education is going to be a legal requirement of citizens the government has to provide the service for them. You know what goes against the principles of capitalism? Forcing people to buy a product they do not necessarily want or cannot necessarily afford.

SIGH. I never said that education would be 'rubbish' for a few years. You think we can just shut down the public education system tomorrow? No. It takes time, and planning. And, of course, there are exceptions to everything. Not every change will rely on the principles of free market capitalism.

Hopefully someone will pull a magical handbook out of their ass that will fix all our problems automatically.

[Amnesiac]

Oh really? How has that worked out with healthcare?

Healthcare is expensive because of multiple factors, one of which being a failure on the part of the government to enforce basic consumer protection laws (which is not 'regulation').

What political document isn't harshly abused and criticized? Hell even I have problems with it, but that doesn't make me want to scrap the whole thing. And I swear to god if you link me to wikipedia again I will cry blood.

NCLB is exceptionally flawed, though. Also, please, don't complain about Wikipedia, it's as reliable as most anything on the Internet.

Look at the university system as a comparison. Private universities are still substantially more expensive than public universities and yet the cost for public universities isn't very cheap and rising. There is competition going on here and it has made the system more expensive, if anything.

Universities are an exception to the rule. There's an exception to everything. Colleges don't compete with each other for-profit, rather, they compete for higher ratings. It's not the same competition that would take place in lower-grade schools, which would compete for profit to accommodate the "lower classes".

So you are going to promote an institution you know nothing about because your 10th grade level economics class made it seem like a good idea. Fuck me, our education system is piss poor.

There's no need to resort to personal attacks. I'm not even in 10th grade, and I'm not in an economics class. Please, respond in a lighter tone.

You are honestly comparing airline travel to education?

I am. When it comes to deregulation, they're similar situations.

Fun fact: the government cannot control schools it does not fund. Private schools may apply for government funding, but there are strings attached to that. These strings act as regulatory devices. Of course, these are opt in. If education is going to be a legal requirement of citizens the government has to provide the service for them. You know what goes against the principles of capitalism? Forcing people to buy a product they do not necessarily want or cannot necessarily afford.

Are you suggesting we mandate people attend school while deregulating it? Because that's not what I'm suggesting. As for-profit institutions, the government has some leeway in enforcing laws on private schools.

Hopefully someone will pull a magical handbook out of their ass that will fix all our problems automatically.

Sigh.

I can't take any more of this line-by-line 'debating' anyway, it takes all the joy out of ROTW. I'll leave the rest of this arguing up to the other economic conservatives here, I'm too busy to keep doing this anyway.

[huginnmuninn]

how about instead we reduce regulations on school systems and divert tax money from one area or a group of areas and move the money to go into the schools

[lengthy_brochure]

I have deleted the contents of this post

[Cosmic]

I don't quite understand why privatized education is the only alternative to a state-owned system that's not working. So many countries successfully manage a state system, why is the US an exception to this potential?

There are far too many issues with privatising it, which I feel have been largely expressed by Ryan. Money should very simply not determine someone's education - the moral implications are pretty obvious and self-explanatory. Money leads to exclusivity, and exclusivity leads to the majority being left behind... It doesn't matter how low you claim prices will go, they will at the very least need to sit at a level which is profitable, which is inevitably going to leave prices at a level which many still can't afford.

[Severus Snape]

I don't see how the answer to fixing something perceived as broken is to break it even more.

[Cosmic]

I don't see how the answer to fixing something perceived as broken is to break it even more.

Right, but sniping at people's suggestions in such a manner isn't particularly useful... which, given the context of this being a debate, makes your post entirely pointless.

[Korashk]

I don't quite understand why privatized education is the only alternative to a state-owned system that's not working. So many countries successfully manage a state system, why is the US an exception to this potential?
It's not the only alternative. It is, however, the best one. Unless the only thing about the government to go private in this conversation is education. That wouldn't work at all. Completely private can only work in a free market, which is something I'm not sure if Commander Awesome mentioned.

There are far too many issues with privatising it, which I feel have been largely expressed by Ryan.
Not really, I'll refute most/all of his claims right now:

Private institutions are expensive because they can be.
That's not how markets work. You can't simply charge whatever you want for a product and expect to and stay in business. This is an extremely basic fact about economics.

A large number of families would not be able to support a $6,000+/child price tag for their education. The result will be a regressive trend of illiteracy and ignorance reminiscent of the 19th century.
If in Georgia the current average tuition is $6,000, in a completely private system, that price is [I]guaranteed to go down. It's only that high because private schools have to compete with FREE* public education (aka. they really can't) and a very limited number of other private institutions.

If all education is private, then schools need to compete with everybody. Well, not a lot of people can not afford $6,000 for tuition. They charge $6,000, they don't make money.

Um, how? Do you even have any experience with private education?
Government vouchers.

For example, mentally and physically handicapped students
Probably his best criticism. The most likely way it would be handled is via educational institutions that are ran as non-profits, scholarships for the handicapped, or private institutions that accept handicalled students at a price that the specific parent can afford.

Oh really? How has that worked out with healthcare?
It's less expensive than it would be with more regulation. It's not like healthcare isn't crazily regulated as it is. There also isn't much real competition in the industry because most people get it through their jobs.

/offtopic

Private universities are still substantially more expensive than public universities and yet the cost for public universities isn't very cheap and rising. There is competition going on here and it has made the system more expensive, if anything.
That's mostly because public universities are funded by the government and do not operate on a for-profit basis. Basically, there are way more public than private schools and they are not really allowed to fail.

Fun fact: the government cannot control schools it does not fund.
L-O-L, I agree that they shouldn't be able to, but yeah, they kind of do. At least if that school wants accreditation.

You know what goes against the principles of capitalism? Forcing people to buy a product they do not necessarily want or cannot necessarily afford.
Completely agree, but the solution for me and those of like minds is not to provide school for everyone. It's to stop forcing people to get an education.

Money should very simply not determine someone's education
Why not?

the moral implications are pretty obvious and self-explanatory.
Not really.

Money leads to exclusivity, and exclusivity leads to the majority being left behind... It doesn't matter how low you claim prices will go, they will at the very least need to sit at a level which is profitable, which is inevitably going to leave prices at a level which many still can't afford.
If prices remain at a level where most people can't afford them, then schools go out of business. It is not in a company's interest to make a product that is not affordable. "Profitable" is not an absolute concept. Prices fluctuate, so does profitability.

[sports fan1]

you could create more public schools. more jobs, less students per class.

[Cosmic]

It's not the only alternative. It is, however, the best one. Unless the only thing about the government to go private in this conversation is education. That wouldn't work at all. Completely private can only work in a free market, which is something I'm not sure if Commander Awesome mentioned.

I would argue that this discussion is far too early in it's development to be making claims about what's best, when I see little or no evidence of your consideration for a well-designed state program.

Not really, I'll refute most/all of his claims right now:

We'll see...

That's not how markets work. You can't simply charge whatever you want for a product and expect to and stay in business. This is an extremely basic fact about economics.

That's rather presumptuous, particularly when something as exalted and heralded as education is concerned. Of course there'll be a limit, to ensure customers, but there is absolutely no rule to say that that limit will be set at a level where-by the majority can afford it.

If in Georgia the current average tuition is $6,000, in a completely private system, that price is [I]guaranteed to go down. It's only that high because private schools have to compete with FREE* public education (aka. they really can't) and a very limited number of other private institutions.

Surely, without the competition offering free education any more, the price has room to go up, not down.

If all education is private, then schools need to compete with everybody. Well, not a lot of people can not afford $6,000 for tuition. They charge $6,000, they don't make money.

There are MILLIONS of people who can not afford $6000. They certainly won't make much money at the moment, because they're competing with non-profit institutions, but when that changes, so too will the philosophy on profit.


Probably his best criticism. The most likely way it would be handled is via educational institutions that are ran as non-profits, scholarships for the handicapped, or private institutions that accept handicalled students at a price that the specific parent can afford.

In order to do things like that, they'd need surplus money to sink into those funds - thus, it would require a price-rise in fees immediately for parents just so that the handicapped can be funded appropriately. Your solutions are admirable (well, considering you're implementing left-wing policies into a free market system), but the results would surely prove a burden on everyone else, and since this isn't a taxation, the payments would hit everyone to varying levels of significance, based on their income, of course.


That's mostly because public universities are funded by the government and do not operate on a for-profit basis. Basically, there are way more public than private schools and they are not really allowed to fail.

That doesn't explain why a non-profit organisation would need to raise prices, which is inevitably what's happening.

Completely agree, but the solution for me and those of like minds is not to provide school for everyone. It's to stop forcing people to get an education.

That is where you are most flawed, suggesting something as arbitrary as money should determine whether one gets an education or not. By forwarding the system you suggest, the income of a family is what'll determine who gets educated, and that will create a strict social class structure (even more so than currently) with little to no social mobility. The rich, with the educations, will control the poor, without education. It will become cyclical.

It is an entirely immoral, and poorly justified way of looking at education.

Why not?

Because it's entirely unrelated TO education. Why should the assets of one's parents have anything to do with whether somebody gets educated or not? Why are they more deserving than those without such disposable income? Surely that's counter-intuitive, if anything. Surely those with lots of money can afford to go without education and instead be supported by their rich parents, whereas those who are poor could do with a good education in order to be more productive and be lifted out of poverty.

So why not? Because inequality is immoral and selfishly driven. I am not entirely selfishly driven, and I will violently reject any argument that says it is inherent or a good thing to be so. Your moral compass is WAY off if you think this is an acceptable line of thought.

Not really.

Read the above.

If prices remain at a level where most people can't afford them, then schools go out of business. It is not in a company's interest to make a product that is not affordable. "Profitable" is not an absolute concept. Prices fluctuate, so does profitability.

What makes you think there'll be any desire to keep many schools in business? It certainly wouldn't be the first "service" to become extremely expensive and exclusive... in fact, compare it to something like designer clothing. Everyone needs, or wants clothes, just as everyone needs (to a certain level) some education. Yet, those with lots of money can spend extortionate amounts of "special" designer clothes. What's stop this happening with education? Either we will end up only with "special" schools, or we will end up with the majority going to poorly funded, under-performing schools whilst the elite get only the best.

[Perseus]

Your solutions are admirable (well, considering you're implementing left-wing policies into a free market system),

OK, I don't care if this is going off topic or not, but I need to say this: Capitalism is a left wing ideology. dealwithit.jpg

[Cosmic]

OK, I don't care if this is going off topic or not, but I need to say this: Capitalism is a left wing ideology. dealwithit.jpg

...How on earth is free-market capitalism anything further left than central?

[Perseus]

...How on earth is free-market capitalism anything further left than central?

It encourages individualism, which is left.

[Cosmic]

It encourages individualism, which is left.

Leftist economics typically supports regulation, and the general theme of left-wing sociality is that of egalitarianism. I don't know where you got the idea that The Left encourages free-market capitalism... that is simply untrue.

[Perseus]

Leftist economics typically supports regulation, and the general theme of left-wing sociality is that of egalitarianism. I don't know where you got the idea that The Left encourages free-market capitalism... that is simply untrue.

I'll start a new thread.

[Korashk]

That's rather presumptuous, particularly when something as exalted and heralded as education is concerned. Of course there'll be a limit, to ensure customers, but there is absolutely no rule to say that that limit will be set at a level where-by the majority can afford it.
It's not "rather presumptuous," it is expressing my knowledge of a very basic economic concept. Pretty much 100% of the time, you CAN NOT simply charge whatever for a product/service and expect to remain in business. Ignoring market factors almost always bad for a business.

I only say almost because economics isn't science, there will be exceptions.

Surely, without the competition offering free education any more, the price has room to go up, not down.
You sort of misunderstood me there. Private education is not competing with free public education. They can't. They are only competing with the other private schools, of which there are comparatively few. If education is privatised the number of competitors in the market would increase by a humongous amount.

Small example:

There are 1000 schools. 950 of those are free public schools. 50 are private schools. One private school is currently competing with the other 49, because public school is essentially a different industry. There prices are determined by how much those other 49 charge and various other factors.

Now, everything is privatized. Instead of only having 49 competitors, that private school now has 999. With these new competitors comes all of the consumers that used to use the free schools. Prices CAN NOT rise if schools want to stay in business.

There are MILLIONS of people who can not afford $6000. They certainly won't make much money at the moment, because they're competing with non-profit institutions, but when that changes, so too will the philosophy on profit.
I don't exactly know what you're saying here.

In order to do things like that, they'd need surplus money to sink into those funds - thus, it would require a price-rise in fees immediately for parents just so that the handicapped can be funded appropriately.
Again, don't know what you're saying here. Charities typically help people for free.

Your solutions are admirable (well, considering you're implementing left-wing policies into a free market system),
Do you think that the free market means no more charities/welfare/etc.? If you do, then you're misinformed about what the free market is. It's letting people do what they want as long as they don't aggress against other people.

but the results would surely prove a burden on everyone else, and since this isn't a taxation, the payments would hit everyone to varying levels of significance, based on their income, of course.
Again, not sure what you're saying here. How would charities or anything else I mentioned "prove a burden on everyone else" and payments "hit everyone to varying levels of significance, based on their income," The charities and scholarships would be funded by voluntary donations, and the

That doesn't explain why a non-profit organisation would need to raise prices, which is inevitably what's happening.
I suggest researching it on your own.

That is where you are most flawed, suggesting something as arbitrary as money should determine whether one gets an education or not. By forwarding the system you suggest, the income of a family is what'll determine who gets educated, and that will create a strict social class structure (even more so than currently) with little to no social mobility. The rich, with the educations, will control the poor, without education. It will become cyclical.
Not according to the Austrian school of economics. Yes, the income of a family would for the most part determine where a person goes to school. However, you're incorrectly assuming that only the rich will be able to afford decent schools. This (according to theory) is simply incorrect BECAUSE if a free market is instituted then EVERYONE will have more actual income, EVERYTHING* will be cheaper, and EVERYTHING* would be of better quality. Including education. Basically, those of lower income will be able to get education.

It is an entirely immoral, and poorly justified way of looking at education.
It's entirely immoral according to you. According to me, education funded by theft is immoral.

Because it's entirely unrelated TO education. Why should the assets of one's parents have anything to do with whether somebody gets educated or not?
Because unless someone is willing to provide education for free somehow, money is how it's going to get done. I do not believe education is a right. I do not believe that anyone has a right to anything except the right to be left alone. Positive rights (the right to have something) necessarily violate negative rights (the right to be left alone provided you're leaving others alone).

Why are they more deserving than those without such disposable income?
Nobody deserves anything. If you have money or other things people value, you can get other things that you value.

Because inequality is immoral and selfishly driven.
I agree to an extent. Formal equality is moral. However, forced equality is VERY immoral. Why is some people being better at some things than others immoral?

I am not entirely selfishly driven, and I will violently reject any argument that says it is inherent or a good thing to be so. Your moral compass is WAY off if you think this is an acceptable line of thought.
If you think that economic freedom is inherently greedy, and that is what you're using to base this judgment on, then you'd be wrong. Economic freedom universally* leads to better conditions for all those involved.

What makes you think there'll be any desire to keep many schools in business?
People want education, and giving people what they want is a great way to make money. Plus it is in a company's interest to make sure that the public is educated so that they can continue to remain in business after a few generations.

It certainly wouldn't be the first "service" to become extremely expensive and exclusive... in fact, compare it to something like designer clothing. Everyone needs, or wants clothes, just as everyone needs (to a certain level) some education. Yet, those with lots of money can spend extortionate amounts of "special" designer clothes. What's stop this happening with education? Either we will end up only with "special" schools, or we will end up with the majority going to poorly funded, under-performing schools whilst the elite get only the best.
Comparing education to clothing is not really an apt one. Yeah, people may want designer clothes, but a lot of people not getting designer clothes doesn't really negatively affect the designer clothes companies. However, most people being poorly educated is absolutely bad for companies across the board.

To put it simply: because people want to make money, the public will continue to be educated.

*pretty much