^ Yep.

1/19/2006 4:37:25 PM

^^^No, the thing that's wasteful is handing people of all economic strata the same amount of money. Just axe vouchers for the rich and spend the money somewhere more useful -- or just stop taking it to begin with.

[Edited on January 19, 2006 at 4:39 PM. Reason : ]

1/19/2006 4:39:37 PM

Why? I think everyone should be given the same right of education. Rich, poor, muslim, and baptist. I don't think we start cherrypicking who gets it... plus, that creates a whole nother bureaucracy that is at the root of our problem to begin with.

For primary education, everyone gets the same. What's better than equality?

1/19/2006 4:40:57 PM

What's better than equality? When shit makes some semblance of sense. The CEO of SAS down the road here does not need $10,000 a year in government hand-outs to educate his kid on the same level as anyone else who got the same.

Make the whole operation need-based. Whatever minor bureaucratic element that would necessitate would be paid for by not handing out needless grants. Add the costs of the grants themselves with any entity required to operate it and I bet you'd still have a surplus to give back to people to play around with.

[Edited on January 19, 2006 at 4:45 PM. Reason : ]

1/19/2006 4:44:51 PM

Quote :

"The CEO of SAS down the road here does not need $10,000 a year in government hand-outs to educate his kid."

But he gets it anyway right now (if his kid is, in fact, in public school).

1/19/2006 4:46:07 PM

If his kid is, in fact, in public school, he's getting (roughly, and in theory) the same education as everybody else. Whereas if we give everyone $10,000, SAS man's kid is going to be going to a much better school than the little kids that get off the bus here in crack town every day.

1/19/2006 4:52:22 PM

The worst schools in america after freeing the market will be much better than the average or even the good public schools now. So what if mr. sas ceo's son uses his $10000 and another $100000 to send his kid to Harvard Jr? This money should be an entitlement, and I am not for entitlements at all... but when it comes to education, that should be an entitlement for all who want it.

1/19/2006 4:54:00 PM

Grumpy, for goodness sakes. Nitpicking like that. Fine, so we don't give vouchers to the rich, so what? It isn't that big a deal, you are only suggesting we cut out maybe 10% of the families, right? Sure, whatever, we'll give you that all day. Can we put you down as a supporter now that we have addressed your one concern?

1/19/2006 5:07:24 PM

on page 3 now, and still the worst thread ever

1/19/2006 5:10:23 PM

Nah, 'cause we've still got other issues to deal with.

One, my beef with national education policy has always been that it has no business existing -- schools are left up to States. What I would support at this moment would be gutting the USDE and reducing federal taxation accordingly. If the state wants to come in and take that money right back out of the hands of its citizens and spend it on schools, fine. If the state wants to try your system, fine, just take things nice and slow.

I would much rather see this untested theory get some actual practice in, say, Rhode Island, than to impose it nationally and just hope that there isn't some horrible consequence that you all haven't foreseen in your mad rush towards libertarianism.

Quote :

"you are only suggesting we cut out maybe 10% of the families, right?"

Quite possibly not right. I would suspect that easily half the families in the country could afford one of these pseudo-private schools with little or no government aid, if they really do turn out to be as cheap as you claim.

Quote :

"but when it comes to education, that should be an entitlement for all who want it."

And it would be. CEO man is assured that, if he is ever unable to afford his kids' school, we'd be there to help him. But until that point, all you're "entitling" him to is a ridiculously high level of education rather than education itself.

1/19/2006 7:09:58 PM

Ok, sure rhode island? How about chicago, LA, and Philly? It's been done. These poor performing schools are being contracted out to management companies to reverse it.

The results? While these schools still underperform the national average (they were the poorest performing schools) the gains in education within those schools are steadily on the rise. They even shut down unnecessary schools (you pinch your penny when it's yours on the line, not the publics.)

This is a fair article. No, the solution isn't perfect, but it's too early to tell if this will be as great as an idea as some say it has the potential to be.

(article posted in the next reply... won't let me do over a certain character limit)

1/19/2006 7:24:27 PM

Quote :

"The latest - and most dramatic - example of the continued privatization of the nation's urban public school districts came in June from the mouth of Chicago's Mayor Richard M. Daley. "We must face the reality that - for schools that have consistently underperformed - it's time to start over," said Daley, who proceeded to announce that the city's school district, home to nearly 450,000 students and 602 schools, would shut down 100 poor-performing schools, turning two-thirds of those schools over to private management companies. The private management companies, which operate charter and contract schools, "can shake things up and experiment with new approaches and new thinking," Daley says. Chicago, he believes, will become "the national laboratory of innovation for education - a place where the best ideas take root and bloom." He's not alone in placing his faith with private companies to turn around failing public schools. Boston, Los Angeles, New York and - most significantly - Philadelphia are some of the big cities that have turned over some of their schools to private managers in recent years. "There's a lot of pressure in large urban districts to do something different, and this is one of the things to do different," says Katrina Bulkley, an Assistant Professor of Educational Policy at Rutgers University, who studies the role of charter schools and Education Management Organizations (EMOs) in school reform efforts. Contracting schools out to private companies is "an idea that makes sense to a lot of people outside the education community and that gives it an inherent appeal," she says. In the case of contract schools, private management companies take over an existing public school with the understanding they can run it with greater efficiency and with better student performance results than the school district. The relationship between the school district and the management company is typically negotiated on a yearly basis. Charter schools, on the other hand, usually start from scratch with a five-year charter from their home school district. Free from some state and federal education mandates, charters traditionally have a less formal relationship with their school district than contract schools. While charter schools have certainly gained ground in recent years and show no immediate signs of retreating, it's the Educational Management Organizations (EMOs) - both for-profit and non-profit - that have made the biggest splash in the country's urban schools. Greg Richmond, head of Chicago Public Schools' Office of New Schools Development, says in the time since Daley's announcement several EMOs have already contacted him. "Those conversations have been very preliminary and until they advance further, I'd rather not be publicizing them by name," he says, via e-mail. The push toward privatization is, not surprisingly, coming from outside the education world, says Jeff Henig, a professor of political science and education at Columbia University's Teachers College. Henig is also a faculty associate at the National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education at Teachers College. "In a lot of instances, Chicago is the latest example, the movement toward reform and privatization is coming from the mayor and the business community," says Henig. "That's a reflection, in part, or made more feasible, by the increasing marginalization of the school board and the political isolation of education professionals locally," he says. Decision-making in a lot of large cities, says Henig, has shifted to a new set of actors, who are willing and interested to "shake things up." But other than offering to shake up what some see as a moribund education system, what if the EMOs can actually do a better job of educating students? The biggest player among the country's EMOs is Edison Schools, a for-profit firm establish in 1992 by entrepreneur Christopher Whittle. Edison currently operates 130 public schools in more than 20 states. Two years ago, Edison was given control of 20 Philadelphia schools - another 20 Philadelphia schools are divided between five other management companies. Philadelphia remains Edison's biggest single-city endeavor to date, says Edison spokesman Adam Tucker. And neither Richmond nor Tucker would say whether Edison was going to increase its presence in Chicago. (The company currently operates one charter school in Chicago.) When plans for Edison's 2002 take over in Philadelphia were first announced - and the number of schools was cut in half following protests from parents, students and educators - national education observers began watching the Philadelphia experiment closely. Even though Chicago is following Philadelphia's lead, most experts agree it's about one year too early to make any judgments on the success or failure of Philadelphia's model. That's good news for Edison and the other managers; the just-released test results in Philadelphia show the district's schools outperforming the privately managed schools. Last month, preliminary scores from the 2003-04 reading portion of the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA) test show 15.3 percent of Philadelphia's fifth-grade students in EMO schools scored at a proficient or advanced level, compared to 37.6 percent of fifth-graders in the district-run schools. (Results from individual schools were not available in time for this story.) The results from the math portion of the test show a similar gap between the EMO schools and the district schools, with 13.5 percent of fifth-graders in the EMO schools scoring at a proficient or advanced level, compared to 37.5 percent of fifth-graders in district schools meeting those levels. School District of Philadelphia CEO Paul Vallas defends the EMOs, saying they were given the poorest performing schools, and though the number of students meeting proficient levels in math and reading are still low, the test scores have climbed in the past year. (The fifth-grade PSSA results for EMOs improved 5 percent in reading and 4.2 percent in math.) "We didn't hire private managers to show that we're better," says Vallas. "We hired private managers because we wanted to improve those schools." And he's pleased with the gains that have been made. But Vallas bluntly adds that any privately managed school that doesn't continue improvements next year will find itself with a new boss - either a new private manager or the school district. Yet the question of whether the EMOs - which typically offer a by-the-book, scripted curriculum - are superior to district schools obscures the reality: This is the future of public school in America. The federal No Child Left Behind legislation has flung open the doors for private companies to operate supplemental programs as well as entire schools, says Henig. Though the number of EMOs was increasing in the years leading up to the 2002 passage of NCLB, the law reinforces the movement toward private managers, Henig says. For instance, part of the NCLB law stipulates that a school which fails to show improved test scores for three consecutive years is eligible for "corrective action" from its school district, and that could include being turned over to private management. As the law enters its third year EMOs, especially for-profit managers, are positioning themselves for a large market demand, says Henig. "The political and policy environment is set in a way that is conducive to expand [EMOs] in the near term," says Henig. "If NCLB stays, districts are going to be looking for partners and easy solutions," he says. "For schools that fail to make progress, for a lot of communities, this is the easy way out. You don't have to know a lot to hire someone to come in and run your school." Last year, Edison recorded its first operating profit ever, according to Tucker. The fee it receives to operate a contract school varies from district-to-district, he says, but typically Edison receives roughly the same per-pupil funding as a district-run school. In Philadelphia, Edison receives a $750 fee per student, that's on top of a district-standard $8,748 per pupil expenditure. The additional funds go into the classroom, says Edison's Tucker. "We try to eliminate waste at an administrative level," he says. At its Philadelphia schools, that means eliminating non-teaching positions, such as paid, adult hall monitors, and redirecting money to support its teachers. The risk of inviting private companies to take over public schools, says Henig, is that the EMOs could potentially control a large enough portion of an urban district to make cities dependent on them. "And then public officials would lose leverage to exercise their role as managers of the private companies," he says. In the end, Henig sees two divergent scenarios. One possibility is the addition of EMOs serves to strengthen the coalition of actors involved in urban education who want to see better data, who want to see more choices extended to lower income families and who want to try new ideas, he says. "And that could bring an expansion of middle-class families back into urban schools," says Henig. "That's the rosy scenario," he says. "The less rosy scenario is that as the for-profit managers gain a beachhead [in urban districts] they begin to use their muscle to reshape the game and keep control of information," says Henig. "So that the [EMOs] decide what kind of data goes out and what doesn't," he says. "And then you begin to lose public sector authority and oversight capacity.""

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11490

1/19/2006 7:24:50 PM

Quote :

"What I would support at this moment would be gutting the USDE and reducing federal taxation accordingly."

Unrelated discussion.

Quote :

"I would much rather see this untested theory get some actual practice in, say, Rhode Island, than to impose it nationally and just hope that there isn't some horrible consequence that you all haven't foreseen in your mad rush towards libertarianism."

IMPOSED!?!? What fools do you take us for!?!? This is a county and city issue, not even a state issue. And you have the gaul to imply we wished to "IMPOSE" it nationally!?!?

Quote :

"Quite possibly not right. I would suspect that easily half the families in the country could afford one of these pseudo-private schools with little or no government aid, if they really do turn out to be as cheap as you claim."

Umm, they could, but I feel it is in the public's interest to subsidize education. The middle-class could then send their children to even more expensive schools than they otherwise would have. Besides, now who's being libertarian? You keep attempting to dismiss the idea as being "libertarian" when it is anything but. It is merely a different way of organizing public funded education. It is more market oriented but still rediculously government dominated.

That said, the purpose of offering vouchers to everyone is to acquire the public's approval of the scheme by making no one worse off. Middle class people currently sending their children to public school would suddenly be slapped with a bill for their child's education. And since I feel it is in everyone's interest for there to be a next generation, then I don't mind paying to educate the children of others.

1/19/2006 9:04:57 PM

Quote :

"....a switch to "free market education" would require an indeterminate period of market adjustment, leaving perhaps an entire generation of American schoolkids completely screwed over. Any change would have to be very gradual and very carefully considered at each step."

Current generations of kids are already being screwed up now with the system, so let's try something else.
And we have already been testing a successful voucher system in Maine for over 130 years...

Quote :

"Since 1873 Maine has financed the education of thousands of kindergarten through 12th grade students in private schools. In fact, the state pays tuition for 35 percent of all students enrolled in Maine's private schools. The tuition program enables parents in towns without a traditional public school to choose a school from a list of approved private and public schools, enroll their child, and have the town pay that child's tuition up to an authorized amount. The town then receives full or partial reimbursement from the state. In the fall of 1999, 5,614 students from 55 different communities attended private schools through this program, while 30,412 attended nearby public schools. Schools of choice ranged from regular public schools to local academies such as Waynflete School in Portland, Maine, to boarding schools ranging from Choate and Phillips Exeter in New England to Vail Valley Academy in Colorado. Data from the Maine Department of Education suggest that the tuition program costs roughly $6,000 per student, or 20 percent less than Maine's average per pupil expenditure for public education. Time and time again citizens have voted to keep this system that has been described as "the most valued attribute" of living in Maine. It's unfortunate that one of the best features of Maine's educational system is limited to students who live in the "right" towns. Maine's policymakers should seek to facilitate greater educational opportunities for all students, and policymakers nationwide should look to Maine's extensive experience with vouchers to inform their education reform efforts. --from Cato Institute"

My libertarian co-horts may scoff at the suggestion to keep education publicly funded. But locally-controlled and funded public education has been a rather uniquely American tradition. Adam Smith even discussed the need for an educated populace in Wealth of Nations.

The gov't is effective at collecting funding for projects, but the private sector is better at delivering goods and services.

[Edited on January 20, 2006 at 12:49 AM. Reason : .]

1/20/2006 12:49:32 AM

Quote :

"This is a county and city issue"

All I've seen so far is talk of what will be done with FEDERAL funds.

Quote :

"The middle-class could then send their children to even more expensive schools than they otherwise would have."

And if we taxed people 80% and handed out even more money they could send their kids to even better schools!

Quote :

"Middle class people currently sending their children to public school would suddenly be slapped with a bill for their child's education."

Sure, but they'd also be getting a smaller bill from the government. More people benefit my way (childless/elderly/etc. are paying less taxes along with everyone else), and everyone is still getting a better education.

Because, let's face facts here -- getting our kids the best education isn't really what we're shooting for. We have a minimum standard that we expect, and the current system isn't meeting that for a lot of people, so we're changing it, but only to meet that standard.

Quote :

"Current generations of kids are already being screwed up now with the system, so let's try something else."

Try something else, maybe. But do it slow. This is one of those "devil I know" situations. As things stand, it's not like we're facing national ruin because of our public schools. But try to do all of this at once and botch it and we'll have to learn Chinese from our new overlords 'cause there damn sure won't be a school to do it.

Quote :

"And we have already been testing a successful voucher system in Maine for over 130 years.."

Maine is a fairly well-off state, too. There a lot of poverty in Maine? A bunch of inner-city blacks running around Agusta that I don't know about?

1/20/2006 1:55:30 AM

Quote :

"All I've seen so far is talk of what will be done with FEDERAL funds."

Nope. I've been advocating for three pages now that the DOE at all levels should be reduced and minimized to the act of distributing grants amongst the populace.

Quote :

"The gov't is effective at collecting funding for projects, but the private sector is better at delivering goods and services."

I would agree with this. Keep the level of funding for all levels of the DOE. Let private management companies (like the one in the article above) handle how to spend the money.

1/20/2006 9:46:08 AM

Quote :

"Maine is a fairly well-off state, too. There a lot of poverty in Maine? A bunch of inner-city blacks running around Agusta that I don't know about?"

Gee, I wonder why that is...

Quote :

"childless/elderly/etc. are paying less taxes along with everyone else"

Fine, damn libertarian. But mark my words, it is in the interest of the childless/elderly/etc to have my kids educated. Even if I conceed that I would pay to educate them regardless, I may decide the financial burden of raising kids has been increased and therefore have fewer of them. Who is going to take care of us all in old age if the next generation is puny in number?

I wish more people were having more children here in America, so I don't mind subsidizing parents. I'd conceed not funding the truely rich because the voucher would be too small for them to even notice. To a family earning the national average of $60k a year with 2.6 children, paying an annual education cost of $10.4k a year ($4k per student) is substantial, eating up over 1/6th of the family income, not to mention they need to feed/house/cloth the children. After a certain point it would become cheaper for parents to quit their high-paying job for a lower-paying job just to get their children vouchers.

1/20/2006 11:15:45 AM

Quote :

"the DOE at all levels"

Unless my understanding of government offices is way off, "the" DOE only exists at the national level, and states have their own versions.

Quote :

"Gee, I wonder why that is..."

Well?

Quote :

"But mark my words, it is in the interest of the childless/elderly/etc to have my kids educated."

Yes, it is in their interest, but if that goal can be acheived without them having to pay for it, why not?

Quote :

"I may decide the financial burden of raising kids has been increased and therefore have fewer of them."

I'm not entirely sure that I want to subsidize the reproduction of any segment of the population who would think this way under the system we've proposed.

Quote :

"To a family earning the national average of $60k a year with 2.6 children, paying an annual education cost of $10.4k a year ($4k per student) is substantial, eating up over 1/6th of the family income"

They'd probably get a partial grant, then. Remember, if we were paying the full sum of $10,000 per annum that you all ludicrously suggested early on for each family to receive, they'd have a $20,000 surplus.

So give each kid, say, a $2,500 a year grant. That would reduce the costs to about $3,000 a year for the whole family.

Quote :

"I wish more people were having more children here in America, so I don't mind subsidizing parents."

This is a dangerous road to walk.

First of all, why do you want us to be having more kids? We have the largest western and third largest overall population on Earth. Our population is growing. There's only a couple of reasons you would want us to be having kids under those circumstances, and about half of the possibilities are some combination of xenophobic and racist, as is so often the case when people are talking population.

Maybe that's not you, but then, maybe it is.

1/20/2006 12:34:00 PM

In spending the last 6 months being educated on how to teach in public schools, I have a few overdue responses:

Quote :

"While I don't agree with everything else Salisburyboy says in this thread, he does have a point here. Public schools are set up so that the student learns to be obedient and subservient. Think about it, how many classes in high school actually encouraged open discussion (which means people have to actually think)?"

Historically this is correct, but in recent decades public educators have begun to push more student-centered "pedagogies" (methods of instruction). Encouraging students to think critically, explain things in their own words, and work collaboratively all have educational merits which now represent the core of the curriculum I'm currently learning.

However, what you have to consider is that using student-centered learning requires teachers to have a very level of mastery over the material. AKA, if the teachers don't know their stuff, using these methods is very, very difficult. Also, older teachers often haven't been trained to use these methods either. It wasn't too long ago most education experts believed in complete teacher-centered authoritarian instruction.

Quote :

"And what about having to ask to go to the bathroom? Doesn't anyone find it odd that we have to ask to go relieve ourselves, which is a natural bodily function? I know you say its about order, but schools are centers of "learning", and order should be secondary to that. Can't learn if you thinking about how bad you need to relieve yourself, when a teacher DENIES your request to perform a NATURAL bodily function. "

Here's the problem, when a child struggles, who gets blamed? Ultimately poor scores reflect on the instructor in public schools. Additionally, I've watched kids ask to go to the bathroom EVERY DAY of class, and it's typically done to avoid being in class. Plus, I'm sorry, but these kids have school every day. For 45 minute periods, you shouldn't be having problems going between classes. Trust me, I did it, and I'm lazy as hell.

Quote :

"Dissent is looked down upon and those who DARE to question superiors are looked at as trouble students. I can't count the number of times I was yelled at for questioning a teacher on a particular issue. Students are taught to lock step in goose step with what their superiors tell them, and anyone who questions the order is "disciplined"."

Any teacher offended by student questions should be fired. Learning by critically delving into the unknown, and questioning what we do know often (1) finds errors or ommissions, and (2) helps us understand thing better. I dunno about anyone's personal experiences, but I can assure this is NOT what educators are taught to do, not anymore anyways.

Quote :

"First off, you should be required to have a 2.0 GPA or you get kicked out, much like here."

Honestly I'm all for this. Students who can't make a 2.0 aren't going to be able to succeed in their next round of classes, nor will they learn well enough to deserve a diploma. When kids are failing, if the instructions checks out fine, kick them out. Then maybe they'll see the value of education. It's the state's job to provide education, but it's the student's job succeed at it (under proper instruction).

Quote :

"my main two criticisms of public schools are 1) not enough school autonomy (too much of the whole standardized test thing for my liking) and 2) inequity of funding between schools in rich neighborhoods and poor neighborhoods."

I agree, on both counts. Property taxes fund schools, so rich neigborhoods get rich schools. Standardized tests are cheap, easy to score, and make great political tools. Nobody bothers to ask however if better test scores actually reflect better learning. Some testing is ok, a lot is a giant waste. End of Grade tests (EOGs) suck, just my thoughts.

Quote :

"Taxes would provide each child with, let's say, $10,000 that his/her family would use for school placement (perhaps even less, since private schools tend to be more efficient). Now parents would get mailings, and phone-calls. School representatives would want to meet with them to proudly show off their school's education results. Companies would be falling over each other to get that chunk of money. "

I think this is very optimistic at best. Private schools aren't more efficient, they simply have students with grater expectations to succeed. Private school students tend to be from richer families, so they have expectations for college and are better equiped to succeed (better home situation, school supplies, parental support).

Poor students however have lower expectations, worse family situations, and worse supplies to work with. Parents are less likely to have time to, much less want, to take part in their child's education. You think they don't do this same shit in public schools? They do, it's just a different crowd they're working with.

Quote :

"Just as with magazines and television, there would be specialization. You might see a chain of franchised rural schools established in the hinter-lands. Perhaps You could send one child to a specialized music school while the other kid goes to an engineering-oriented institution. Parents would demand and get a wide variety of school choices. The explosion of new education opportunities would be fantastic. "

They HAVE specialization in high schools today. If you'd like to teach engineering before students understand equation solving, you're in real trouble. The degree of specialization is why we have....say... UNIVERSITIES. Plus if you have this kind of specialization, wha about the kids what want a little of everything. What youre proposing would cost a shit-ton of money to create. Good luck finding a politician willing to try backing THAT tax hike.

1/22/2006 9:27:32 PM

IM SOLD

1/22/2006 9:40:00 PM

Quote :

"it works out to about $10,000 per student. "

Most private school tuition I know of is around 10k per student, plus they get a lot of money donated. I'm not sure what the point is?

1/22/2006 9:56:30 PM

HOW HAVE PUBLIC SCHOOLS FAILED? Like, I think it's really cute that some of you feel inferior to privately educated students. You shouldn't. I attended Lessville Road High School, and I was better prepared for college there than I could have been at any local private school.

There are some silly things being said in this thread:

You guys seem to think that private school teachers get paid more than public school teachers. This is not true. NOT TRUE. NOT TRUE. NOT TRUE.

Now I'm being serious here. How have public schools failed? It seems to me like society has failed, parents have failed, women have failed, etc...

Also, I object to the idea that somehow paying teachers more automatically boosts the quality of education those teachers offer, or that somehow paying teachers more automatically attracts well-qualified folks to the profession of education. TEACHING, LIKE BRAIN SURGERY, CANNOT BE DONE BY ALL. Just because you're smart and did well in school, it doesn't mean you're set to be a good teacher. As it is, teachers don't teach for the money so how is throwing out more of it going to change anything?

YOU WANT ALL KIDS TO LEARN AND DO WELL IN SCHOOL, THEN YOU START THEM ALL OFF ON THE SAME FOOT:

PUBLIC DAYCARE FOR ALL THOSE WHO DESIRE IT!!! FROM DAY FUCKING ONE. AND THIS TIME AROUND, WE'D MAKE PUBLIC SYNONYMOUS WITH QUALITY.

[Edited on January 23, 2006 at 1:22 PM. Reason : sss]

1/23/2006 1:20:18 PM

Please read threads before you post. We discussed almost everything you asked in this thread and you're rehashing arguments that have already been addressed. If you still have problems iwth those arguments, bring it on, but I don't feel like typing agian what I already wrote on page 1 and 2.

And the reason I say that is because no one has voiced a concern over being inferior to private school kids. What I'm saying is that the public education system is grossly inefficient with too much waste. Private industry is the epitome of efficiency because they have a bottom line. Public funds never have bottom lines. Only growing budgets.

[Edited on January 23, 2006 at 1:24 PM. Reason : .]

1/23/2006 1:22:30 PM

I READ THIS FUCKING THREAD. I [THINK] I READ EVERY LAST FUCKING WORD OF IT. I'M NOT REHASHING ANYTHING.

THERE HAS BEEN NO DISSENT IN THIS THREAD AT ALL BUT FOR A FEW POSTERS.

THE REST OF YOU HAVE JUST BEEN BASKING IN THE GLOW OF YOUR PRIVATIZATION RHETORIC (CAN YOU SAY "BOTTOM LINE" THREE TIMES FAST?).

YOU READ MY POST AND RESPOND TO IT, BITCH. DISMISSAL IS NOT A RESPONSE.

[Edited on January 23, 2006 at 1:27 PM. Reason : SSS]

1/23/2006 1:26:50 PM

Dismissal is not a response.

Quote :

"And the reason I say that is because no one has voiced a concern over being inferior to private school kids. What I'm saying is that the public education system is grossly inefficient with too much waste. Private industry is the epitome of efficiency because they have a bottom line. Public funds never have bottom lines. Only growing budgets."

That is. You must've been a product of public education, aren't you? GrumpyGOP was a lead dissenter in this thread.

You must've [/thinking] a long time ago.

1/23/2006 1:28:25 PM

HERE'S THE MESSAGE I'M GETTING:

Efficiency is more important than quality.

I'll not stand for that notion. If there's any arena where quality is important, it's the education system.

FREE MARKET DOES NOT EQUAL QUALITY.



[Edited on January 23, 2006 at 1:40 PM. Reason : sss]

1/23/2006 1:39:06 PM

Holy shit someone doesn't understand markets. Ok, here it is real simple and slow.

Efficiency is tied to quality on almost every level. In a true, free market, if you're inefficient (thus spending more money than you have) you don't make your bottom line, you don't impress investors, and you go under. If your product is not quality (like a restaurant with poor food) you don't stay in business.

IF A SCHOOL IS NOT OPERATING EFFICIENTLY, THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO STAY OPEN. IF THAT SCHOOL IS NOT QUALITY, A PARENT WILL HAVE THE CHOICE THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE NOW TO PUT THEM IN A DIFFERENT SCHOOL.

Once again, please go read the thread. I'm not bashing you, but I'm tired of repeating arguments. If you have read it, read it again. once you're done with that, read it one more time. Then we'll talk. k? thx.

Quote :

"FREE MARKET DOES NOT EQUAL QUALITY."

And that's lol'able. The market does mean quality. Public subsidy is what means the opposite of quality. A public institution or something that gets all their money exclusively from the government doesn't give a fuck about quality. THey don't have to. Their money comes in anyway. Go see how nice those DMV folks are to you next time you're there. How about the service with a smile you get down at the courthouse when you pay your car taxes.

[Edited on January 23, 2006 at 1:52 PM. Reason : .]

1/23/2006 1:46:59 PM

See, I disagree with all your assertions. Sorry, dude, I just don't buy into the idea that free market competition yields quality goods and services. I UNDERSTAND HOW IT IS SUPPOSED TO WORK. NO NEED TO EXPLAIN IT TO ME AGAIN. I JUST DON'T BUY IT.

Furthermore, I think the means of education should be shared, not hoarded by a select group of capitalists.

AND HOW COME NOBODY HAS MENTIONED THE FACT THAT PRIVATIZED EDUCATION MEANS SEGREGATION?

1/23/2006 3:01:00 PM

Quote :

"IF A SCHOOL IS NOT OPERATING EFFICIENTLY, THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO STAY OPEN. IF THAT SCHOOL IS NOT QUALITY, A PARENT WILL HAVE THE CHOICE THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE NOW TO PUT THEM IN A DIFFERENT SCHOOL."

See...I just don't see the link, especially when it's applied to something like education.

PROVE TO ME THAT PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE FAILING IN THE FIRST PLACE.
SHOW ME HOW THE PRIVATE SECTOR WOULD DO BETTER.

1/23/2006 3:09:23 PM

HOLY SHIT PAGING ADAM SMITH! BRIDGETSPK DOESN'T BUY YOUR THEORIES THAT HAVE HELD UP FOR 300 YEARS NOW! SHE MUST BE ON THE INNOVATIVE END OF ECONOMIC REASONING!

So what if it gets segregated. So what if I want mykids to go to a christian school and yours a jewish. So the fuck what. As long as the government does not discriminate with its vouchers, we cannot complain about how humans decide to behave as long as they're hurting no one else. Plus, there are already laws against racial discrimination, so it would be unlawful for any private school to segragate based upon *sigh here we go* race, ethnicity, national origin, veteran status... blah blah blah blah.

When there's a choice in the market, entites are forced to compete. How do you compete? Make your product better (i.e. quality). That is at the very basis of economics. Please learn.

1/23/2006 3:11:19 PM

nm

part of the beauty of the public school system is that it forces you to interact w/ all kinds of people, like you would in a job.

[Edited on January 23, 2006 at 3:18 PM. Reason : .]

1/23/2006 3:16:45 PM

^^^ If you need proof that public schools are failing, go to Baltimore. DC. LA. New York. Atlanta. Detroit.

Get out of your white establishment neighborhood and see how public education is failing. (That translates to get your head out of your white ass)

[Edited on January 23, 2006 at 3:22 PM. Reason : .]

1/23/2006 3:22:37 PM

Quote :

"When there's a choice in the market, entites are forced to compete. How do you compete? Make your product better (i.e. quality). That is at the very basis of economics. Please learn."

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

No, I thought the "basis of economics" looked more like this: people are self-interested, rational maximizers.

Now onto how we compete...

We undercut competition through crafty means, we pay our employees as little as possible, we take the shortcut whenever it's available, we advertise unscrupulously, etc...

Don't you dare turn a blind eye to the flaws in the free market.



[Edited on January 23, 2006 at 3:26 PM. Reason : sss]

1/23/2006 3:25:32 PM

Quote :

"Get out of your white establishment neighborhood and see how public education is failing. (That translates to get your head out of your white ass)"

I've been to DC, Baltimore, Manhattan, etc... Prove to me that it's the schools that are failing, and not the parents and not society...

1/23/2006 3:27:36 PM

society includes public school system.

good try tho

1/23/2006 3:29:15 PM

That's not a blind eye. When you pay the lowest wage that people are willing to work to do a certain job, that's efficiency. When you pay the least amount you can for the necessary supplies to perform your business, that's efficiency.

When you undercut your competitor (one of those ways, and the primary way, is to make your product better and thus differentiate yourself from those competitors) you're enforcing the laws of the market.

People are rational maximizers. Which is why the market works. You will choose the best product you can for the best price you can get. When you minus out the latter equation (the money, you will have that from vouchers) you will choose the best product you can. When schools have to compete for the money that people already have they have to do so through quality, because cost no longer becomes an issue.


and instead of double posting, I'll just use that nifty edit button.

So you're blaming parents? Society (and schools don't fit in that equation how?) Hands down it is the kids that get cheated. We can't control how people parent, but we should be given options on where kids can get education and the quality of that education.

[Edited on January 23, 2006 at 3:30 PM. Reason : .]

1/23/2006 3:29:24 PM

Quote :

"So what if it gets segregated. So what if I want mykids to go to a christian school and yours a jewish. So the fuck what. As long as the government does not discriminate with its vouchers, we cannot complain about how humans decide to behave as long as they're hurting no one else. Plus, there are already laws against racial discrimination, so it would be unlawful for any private school to segragate based upon *sigh here we go* race, ethnicity, national origin, veteran status... blah blah blah blah."

Segregation is bad. VERY, VERY, VERY BAD. IT IS NOT A "SO WHAT" MATTER. And don't act like those laws would actually make a difference. We would definitely have segregated schools if we privatized education. Of course, the government could come in and force integration, but that wouldn't be so private represent the free market at all, now would it?

[Edited on January 23, 2006 at 3:34 PM. Reason : sss]

1/23/2006 3:30:08 PM

Go to the black fraternities house and tell them that same thing. Go ahead. Segregation is VERY VERY VERY BAD, so end it. Tell that to all fraternities. All sororities. All churches (they're christian segregationsists).

Quote :

"Of course, the government could come in and force integration, but that wouldn't be so private, now would it?"

SEE YOU DIDN'T READ THIS GODDAM THREAD. PRIVATE DOESN'T MEAN NON-REGULATED YOU GODDAM CHOTCH!

[Edited on January 23, 2006 at 3:32 PM. Reason : .]

1/23/2006 3:31:43 PM

anecdotal evidence, but...

every teacher ive know (friends, family, etc) agrees, its the stupid parents that ruin kids and thus cause them to be such idiots at school.

actually, i shouldnt apologize for this being anecdotal evidence. its the fucking truth. stupid fucking white trash, black trash, whatever parents are a BIG reason for these issues you think privatization could fix.

^theres no monetary factor at play in those situations.

[Edited on January 23, 2006 at 3:34 PM. Reason : .]

1/23/2006 3:33:11 PM

I JUST HAD A HUGE REVELATION, THANKS TO EXCORIATOR. THE FREE MARKET IS PART OF THE DYNAMIC THAT'S UNDERMINING OUR NATION'S YOUTH IN THE FIRST PLACE.

HOLY SHIT!!!

1/23/2006 3:33:41 PM

^^ *SIGH* go read that article I posted. Those private schools that used to be public are making upward trends. Evidently it's working somewhat. Better than what it was.

^ yeah, go to soviet russia and see what the absence of the market does to youth.

[Edited on January 23, 2006 at 3:35 PM. Reason : .]

1/23/2006 3:34:19 PM

I understand that the public school system is part of society. Thanks for pointing that out, Excoriator.

On to what Pinkandblack is talking about...I agree that parents are responsible for a lot of this mess, but I just made the realization that they are not entirely responsible.

We have a somewhat free market, right? This market encourages advertisers to cross the line, to do whatever it takes to get the job done efficiently. They'll sell candy, porn, toys, video games, clothes, cell phones, etc...to children. They're not morally bound to do right by the children because it is just too profitable to do wrong by them. The media also is not bound to do right by the children. Now you can say, "Oh, well, maybe then the parents should do their job and take care of their kids, instead of leaving it up to the TV." But the free market has had another effect on us. DOUBLE INCOME HAS BECOME A NECESSITY. Employers are not morally bound to pay employees a living wage; in fact, they are encouraged to pay as little as possible in the name of efficiency. This means that both parents must work, leaving less time for the kids. The kids are all fucked up, running wild in the public education system, and you tell me that the fucking free market will fix it?

you're full of shit.

1/23/2006 3:45:20 PM

again, econ 101.

The wage that is determined by employer and employee is a fair wage. You get what you're worth. Why pay somone more than what they're worth. If the salary is too low, they'd go get another job. If it was too high, the company would figure that out and realize they could lower the price and still have people work for them.

JUST LEAVE THE FUCKING MARKET ALONE, IT WORKS, IT ALWAYS HAS. But go ahead and do your communist experiments because we don't have enough failed examples yet to show just how bad of an idea it is to have the government regulate all aspects of the economy.

Also you may want to go read the minimum wage thread. You might learn. But you probably won't.

1/23/2006 3:48:19 PM

I made an A in Microeconomics. I understand how the market works. I also understand how the market is set up so that the means of production lie in the hands of the few, and the rest of us must serve.

Your concept of wages is way off. You get paid what you're worth? How is pumping gas not worthy of a livable wage?

1/23/2006 4:02:14 PM

Because I can do it myself you stupid bitch! How is that worth anything more than what I'm willing to pay (tip you $2)?

JESUS CHRIST YOU HAVE TO BE RETARDED.

That A in micro sure means bunches too! You're so smart!

1/23/2006 4:06:09 PM

Serving food? Working a register? Answering phone calls? Preparing food? Customer assistance?

AGAIN, HOW ARE THESE JOBS NOT WORTHY OF A LIVABLE WAGE?

1/23/2006 4:07:58 PM

I PISS ON YOU, YOU PUNY HUMAN

1/23/2006 4:10:21 PM

People are living. If you're working for minimum wage and you're older than 16, you're a fucking moron. McDonald's pays $8 an hour at most places.

1/23/2006 4:10:39 PM

abonorio, you're just plain wrong. Sorry, dude.

Furthermore, some people are living a lot better than others. How are they doing this? They're controlling the means of production and paying employees as little as possible.

And how can you trust the concept of wages when there are so many illegal employees working for substantially less than a legal one? Doesn't that unnaturally drive wages down?

[Edited on January 23, 2006 at 4:17 PM. Reason : sss]

1/23/2006 4:14:21 PM

That sure is compelling evidence. Go look at my "women" thread.

1/23/2006 4:15:09 PM