http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/JohnStossel/2006/01/18/182750.html

[/quote]Not enough money for education? It's a myth.

...The truth is, public schools are rolling in money. If you divide the U.S. Department of Education's figure for total spending on K-12 education by the department's count of K-12 students, it works out to about $10,000 per student.

Think about that! For a class of 25 kids, that's $250,000 per classroom. This doesn't include capital costs. Couldn't you do much better than government schools with $250,000? You could hire several good teachers; I doubt you'd hire many bureaucrats. Government schools, like most monopolies, squander money. [quote]

Competition, Free-Market Schools..End the grip of the teacher's union... that's the ticket!

1/18/2006 11:58:29 AM

you are a goddamned idiot if you think the math works out like that.

1/18/2006 12:05:23 PM

The government-run "school" system is diabolically brilliant.

You don't technically make public schools mandatory for children, but you force everyone to pay taxes to support them--thereby making it very difficult financially for all but the very rich to go to private schools.

Then, you use the public schools and indoctrination centers to achieve the aims of the elite. You indoctrinate children in secular humanism and the bogus theory of evolution, and make them believe (falsely) that if they speak about God or the Bible at school they'll get in trouble. All this goes to weakening and destroying young people's belief in a God.

You dumb down the curriculum to make sure that you're not producing people that are too knowledgeable and intelligent. So what if many people now graduating high school can't even read? That was the goal. And you teach the children to always obey authority. This way, you will produce dumbed-down obedient little "slaves" that won't rebel or make waves in the current slave economy and due to the loss of their liberties.

On top of all this, you squander vast sums of taxpayer money in the system....and even borrow huge sums of money in the form of "bonds", further burdening and indebting the general population.


[Edited on January 18, 2006 at 12:14 PM. Reason : `]

1/18/2006 12:09:03 PM

It's funny, I seem to recall doing exactly this math in another thread less than a month ago.

We don't need to get rid of public schools, but we do need to gut the USDE in a major way.

1/18/2006 12:12:23 PM

I have no idea what ^^ that shit is about, but

on to the topic

turning schools into competing entities bound by the rules of the free market would only make them a) of better quality and b) cheaper. If we take all the money that the government spends on education and return them in subsidies for privately held schools, I think we would be much better off.

How do you make a product better? Introduce competitors.
How do you mkae a product cheaper? Introduce competitors.

Government held monopolies are immune to both of those situations which would make the education system in this country a lot better.

[Edited on January 18, 2006 at 12:13 PM. Reason : .]

1/18/2006 12:13:28 PM

Quote :

"You indoctrinate children in secular humanism and the bogus theory of evolution, and make them believe (falsely) that if they speak about God or the Bible at school they'll get in trouble. All this goes to weakening and destroying young people's belief in a God."

i'm sorry for taking the bait, but I have to know - just WHO is it that's trying to keep these kids from believing in god? the government, which is primarily christian?

if we took the gazillions of dollars that the we use for "defense," and used it instead for food, healthcare, etc, we'd solve alot of those problems too

[Edited on January 18, 2006 at 12:16 PM. Reason : .]

1/18/2006 12:13:39 PM

oh boy... salisbury comes with the j00z


Thread over. Another thread ruined by salisburyboy.

1/18/2006 12:14:45 PM

Quote :

"the government, which is primarily christian"

The government is controlled by Luciferian Zionist "Jews."

1/18/2006 12:15:29 PM

told you. PredictableBoy strikes again.

1/18/2006 12:15:49 PM

jesus christ

1/18/2006 12:16:33 PM

was a Jew too.

1/18/2006 12:17:03 PM

No he wasn't. Jesus was a racial Israelite.

The modern-day "Jews" are not even racial Israelites. And many of the people in Palestine at the time of Jesus were not racial Israelites--including the Pharisees and those practicing the Talmudic "Jewish" religion.

You have to understand that the people now calling themselves "Jews" are NOT racial Israelites. They are false "Jews." Hence the term j00z.

[Edited on January 18, 2006 at 12:21 PM. Reason : `]

1/18/2006 12:20:59 PM

Oh that's right, calling himself the king of the jews actually meant, "king of the non-zionest, non-Luciferian, racial israelites."

1/18/2006 12:28:39 PM

Quote :

"Oh that's right, calling himself the king of the jews actually meant, "king of the non-zionest, non-Luciferian, racial israelites.""

OMG!!11 YOU TALKED ABOUT THE JEWS IN A THREAD ON EDUCATION!11 BAN!!!!!1111

anyway...

He's king of the REAL Jews...the REAL decsendants of Judah.

He's not the king of the FALSE Jews...the modern-day Talmudic Pharisees who call themselves "jews"

1/18/2006 12:32:50 PM

That's all fine dude. If you believe that, then fine. But this thread is not about jews. It's about turning the education system over to the free market and the pros and cons of doing that.

Can you please debate that?

1/18/2006 12:34:08 PM

so first it's

Quote :

"No he wasn't. Jesus was a racial Israelite."

Then you say he WAS king of the "real jews," right after abonorino said he was a jew, and you said he wasn't.

1/18/2006 12:34:17 PM

Quote :

"abonorio: [Jesus] was a Jew too."

Quote :

"salisburyboy: No he wasn't. Jesus was a racial Israelite."

Quote :

"abonorio: Oh that's right, calling himself the king of the jews actually meant, "king of the non-zionest, non-Luciferian, racial israelites.""

Quote :

"salisburyboy: He's king of the REAL Jews"

Sure.

[Edited on January 18, 2006 at 12:38 PM. Reason : .]

1/18/2006 12:37:53 PM

Quote :

"Then you say he WAS king of the "real jews," right after abonorino said he was a jew, and you said he wasn't."

Well, this confusion arises because the definition of "Jew" is so messed up.

My point is that Jesus is not of the same racial group as today's so-called "Jews" (who are not real Jews).

1/18/2006 12:41:46 PM

Redefining the definition of Jew to suit your biggoted and retarded arguments, by salisburyboy

1/18/2006 12:42:28 PM

i'd be really interested to meet his family

1/18/2006 12:46:19 PM

In a weird twist of irony, they'd all be Jews. Maybe he's a self hater...

[Edited on January 18, 2006 at 12:46 PM. Reason : .]

1/18/2006 12:46:48 PM

That 20/20 education thing last week talked about this somewhat.

1/18/2006 12:48:15 PM

don't get off topic or abornio will petition the moderators to have you banned

no, that's right...he just wants to censor me

1/18/2006 12:49:11 PM

I can't remember if John Stossel is ABC or not... but did he say anything? He's a big libertarian/free market capitalist.

The idea has merits, but I can see how, without some regulation, it could be a really really bad idea

(that is actually on topic you fucking retard)

[Edited on January 18, 2006 at 12:50 PM. Reason : .]

1/18/2006 12:49:29 PM

So, the question is: how do we do this? As most public school systems are administered at the local level, it behooves us to act locally. Are North Carolina schools over burdenned with beurocracy? Yes, but it hasn't resulted in school death, so odds are strongly against reform in North Carolina because the system has so far managed to avoid collapse through tax hikes. The only hope is to cut off the spigot of tax dollars and let the system collapse. Regretfully, it is a democratic controlled state (and thus teacher union controlled) so I guess the state should just be written off, reform cannnot take place here.

So, give up, stop talking about it, and start a terrorist campaign against public schools in hopes of forcing reform through violence.

1/18/2006 1:00:06 PM

Fuck John Stossel and his moustache.

People like him continue to pretend as if public schools didn't need to meet the needs of low-SES, SPED, and EC kids, and that having a universal education system doesn't require more fat than a single, selective private school.

Hell, let's compare the DOE to something like the DOD, and see just how much money it's swimming in.

The fact is we don't have enough teachers, the teachers we have aren't paid enough to retain them or attract new recruits, and school resources are slim. We either need more money, or someone needs to wave a magic wand and create a national entity designed to meet all the needs of all the children in America that doesn't require large overhead.


And this made me lol:

Quote :

"Chavis saves money by having students help clean the grounds and set up for lunch. "We don't have a full-time janitor," he told me. "We don't have security guards. We don't have computers. We don't have a cafeteria staff.""

G0 FR33 M4RK3T!!1


^Hahah, yes... the Democrats won't let school systems collapse. Those bastards.

[Edited on January 18, 2006 at 1:03 PM. Reason : .]

1/18/2006 1:01:12 PM

That's the result of the government destroying what it has touched. Go to any private school. I bet they have the janitor. I bet they have the cafeteria staff too.

Because they're run like a business. If they didn't have a janitor, people wouldn't patronize the place and they would lose buisness. If schools were made to run like a business with a "bottom line" of meeting needs in the most efficient manner possible, then they would run a lot more smoothly.

you have no idea what you're talking about when you're speaking of that FR33 M4RK3T

1/18/2006 1:04:18 PM

The charter school mentioned in the article is as close to the free market as schools can get without abolishing the public education system.



oops! I said "abolishing the public education system." The 20-something conservatives reading this board just simultaneously creamed themselves. Gross.

1/18/2006 1:10:50 PM

Is this salisbury guy one of those information whores and never actual 'does' anything (with the information that is)? I'm guessing he lives at home with mom and dad still, probably 23-28 years old?

1/18/2006 1:19:19 PM

Quote :

"People like him continue to pretend as if public schools didn't need to meet the needs of low-SES, SPED, and EC kids, and that having a universal education system doesn't require more fat than a single, selective private school."

OK, how about we fund those seprately, say at the double level, while cutting pork for everyone else?

1/18/2006 1:30:25 PM

Well the thing is that we spend a hell of a lot of money on students and every time we throw money at the problem, performance and scores aren't increased. Money isn't the problem. The apportionment of money is the problem. While a hs principle can make 6 digits, and he has 4 secretaries and the school employs 8 more administrators and leave the teachers making 25,000 a year... that's the problem. The problem is with the bureaucracy.

And boonedocks... I did cream myself.

1/18/2006 2:06:23 PM

boonedocks, you realize that no one wants to abolish the public education system. We system wish to abolish the public school system, big difference.

And abonorio, you completely forgot to mention the entire office building downtown, employing hundreds of administrators and not a single teacher.

Last I heard, teacher salaries constitute a fraction of total education spending. The vast majority goes to the salaries of administratiors that do nothing but sit around all day thinking up new ways of making life difficult for teachers.

Back in the day, it used to be the principle and vice principle answered directly to the school board and had wide latitude when it came to school purchases of supplies and teacher salaries. Hell, if a Principle felt he needed another teacher, he could hire one. If the school board objected, they could fire him.

Now, their are several layers of beurocracy between the Principle, which needs to make formal requests up through "channels" to buy a pencil, and the school board. Maybe this cuts down on illicit corruption, but it dramatically increased the institutional corruption. Eliminate the middle men, eat the bullet whenever a Principle imbezzles from the country, but in the long run you should have better Principles and greater financial-efficiency.

[Edited on January 18, 2006 at 2:23 PM. Reason : .,.]

1/18/2006 2:12:26 PM

Absolutely, I understand the need for administrators... but the proportion is way overboard... Teachers need more money for there to be an incentive to get better teachers.

The way the apropriation of money is currently, that's not going to happen.

1/18/2006 2:19:20 PM

Quote :

"Now, their are several layers of beurocracy between the Principle, which needs to make formal requests up through "channels" to buy a pencil, and the school board. Maybe this cuts down on illicit corruption, but it dramatically increased the institutional corruption. Eliminate the middle men, eat the bullet whenever a Principle imbezzles from the country, but in the long run you should have better Principles and greater financial-efficiency. "

Umm... are you sure about this?

Last time I checked, the principals could still do what they want, as long as it made sense, and they got approval for it at some point. If they want to buy a pencil, they can do it, and get reimbursed later on.

1/18/2006 2:27:36 PM

The real problem is choice. If a school fails a child (not as in gives them an F in chemistry, but literally fails to teach the child) there is no option. What we do as a society is throw more money at it in hopes that it doesn't happen again. meanwhile, the failed child quits and gets a GED. If there were choices that parents could make to reverse that, to see that their child is not being taught and to constructively put them somewhere else, then that would be something different.

The further problem is that we're funding these failing school systems who fail the students. If the schools were to open up to the laws of the free market, it wouldn't happen. And if it did, it wouldn't happen habitually. Just like a restaurant. Get audited by the health folks more than once, and you're shut down. Word of mouth gets around that your food is nasty and no one likes it, people stop paying for your service and take their business somewhere else.

Currently, a school system can fail year after year after year and what do they get.... More money. That's a huge problem.

[Edited on January 18, 2006 at 2:34 PM. Reason : .]

1/18/2006 2:33:32 PM

So would you say that the public school system, in essence, gets rewarded for failure? Like, if just enough students keep doing poorly every year that school will get more money to "fix" the problem?

1/18/2006 2:38:51 PM

That's what is happening. THe solution to any government made problem is more government money. To use the word "business" in here is probably bad, but schools ought to operate like a business instead of a public service. Business want your patrionization, they want you to come to their establishment and be satisfied with the level of service you get. Public "dis"service doesn't. Who the fuck cares at the end of the day if the patrons are happy? They have their money coming in regardless if the folks are happy or not because there are lobbyists and unions to protect the money that they have coming in.

If schools were held to the standard that if they didn't operate to a high enough standard, they get shut down (due to people taking their kids elsewhere). Instead if a school doesn't do well on test scores, the bureaucrats say, "oh well, you have 4 years to suit up." Meanwhile, those kids who just spent 4 years in a school that failed them are basically done a disservice. And that's a shame.

1/18/2006 2:42:44 PM

Quote :

"Competition, Free-Market Schools. End the grip of the teacher's union... that's the ticket!"

I agree 100%.

Public schools should be abolished.
Plain and simple.
I think a gradual increase in the use of vouchers would be a good way to accomplish this within the next decade or so.

1/18/2006 2:47:37 PM

unions

/thread

1/18/2006 2:47:49 PM

I would agree that public schools, including this one, blow money like it's going out of style.

1/18/2006 2:49:51 PM

and the reason is there's no accountability. The accountability that does occur is internal and subject to no say of the patrons (minus the elections being held to give other bureaucrats a paycheck).

You can't fire a teacher unless they ahve sex with students, and even then, there's hurdles. If it were run like a business and I can fire you under my discression (and according to the law) then you get rid of the bad teachers pretty easily.

[Edited on January 18, 2006 at 2:54 PM. Reason : .]

1/18/2006 2:53:45 PM

I realize school systems have a large bureaucracy.

What I'm saying is that most of it is needed when you consider all the crap that public schools are responsible for. Crap that will get the school system sued if they don't fully address it.

Not completely meeting the needs of SPED, EC, handicapped, and low SES students, for example.

Or not having transportation and free food for those guaranteed it.

Or taking care of thousands of employees.

Responsibilities that a private school will never have.


I know there's fat, but stop pretending like any comparison between public and private is valid, or that you have any idea what the proper amount of bureaucracy for a school system is.


^If school's were run as businesses, they would also be very selective when it came to which students they selected. This is why they are run by the gov't.

[Edited on January 18, 2006 at 3:02 PM. Reason : .]

1/18/2006 3:00:20 PM

I'm not saying that I'm an expert and that I know how large the bureaucracy should be. But I can say with 100% confidence that there's too much right now. We can't continue to let the DOE fail the students by protecting the bureaucracy. That's completley not fair.

And those regulations... alot of place have regulations. For a commercial building you have regulations on where you can build it, the strength of the building, plumbing and sewage, health laws with the air conditioning/heating, etc, but they make it work.

I think the DOE should be reduced to a regulatory commission. Basically setting test scores and standards (kind of like local health departments' realtionship with restaurants). Right now, it's too much, it's too large and when you hvae that many hands in the same pot, there's bound to be boundless corruption.

1/18/2006 3:04:35 PM

Quote :

"^If school's were run as businesses, they would also be very selective when it came to which students they selected. This is why they are run by the gov't."

Let them be selective! THe rules of the free market is where there's money to be made, there's someone to make it. There will be schools for the dumb kids (see ECU and App). If there are willing "buyers" there are willing "sellers."

The only barrier that should not be a factor is cost. If a kid is poor, but smart, he should have the right to go to the better schools (that should be one of the parts where the DOE would regulate to ensure that discrimination is held to a minimum). All that money that is given to the DOE, if you were to dish that out into grants for schools, hell, man, everyone would have a better education.

[Edited on January 18, 2006 at 3:07 PM. Reason : .]

1/18/2006 3:06:36 PM

Quote :

"I'm not saying that I'm an expert and that I know how large the bureaucracy should be. But I can say with 100% confidence that there's too much right now."

O RLY?

Quote :

"We can't continue to let the DOE fail the students by protecting the bureaucracy. That's completley not fair."

The bureaucracy needs to be there. I know that you have an inherent hatred for it, but abonorio, meet reality. Reality states that school systems are responsible for thousands of things that individual schools can't handle on their own.

Quote :

"And those regulations... alot of place have regulations. For a commercial building you have regulations on where you can build it, the strength of the building, plumbing and sewage, health laws with the air conditioning/heating, etc, but they make it work."

But none of them have the regulations that I actually mentioned in my post.

Quote :

"I think the DOE should be reduced to a regulatory commission. Basically setting test scores and standards (kind of like local health departments' realtionship with restaurants). Right now, it's too much, it's too large and when you hvae that many hands in the same pot, there's bound to be boundless corruption."

OMG, there will be bloating! Let's shut down the DOD, too! There couldn't possibly be advantages to a federal agency that would outweigh the inevitable possiblity of corruption!

1/18/2006 3:14:08 PM

Quote :

"If a kid is poor, but smart, he should have the right to go to the better schools "

Agreed. And if the kid is rich and stupid, he/she goes to the dumb shack.

1/18/2006 3:15:09 PM

What if the kid's LD, and poor.

Sucks for him.

1/18/2006 3:16:39 PM

Quote :

"Reality states that school systems are responsible for thousands of things that individual schools can't handle on their own."

Those damn private schools do a shitty job at being responsible for those same things. Such a shame. They just need a bureaucracy. It'll all be fixed over night.

1/18/2006 3:17:52 PM

Quote :

"Let's shut down the DOD, too! "

And that's ridiculous. Defense is one of the few rights (actually two) that the constitution gives explicit right to the central government to handle (the other is regulation of the economy via currency). Those are two "monopolies" that the government ought to have. Having private militia would lead to headache and private currencies would do the same. But private education... well, that already works... and quite splendidly.

I don't hate bureaucracy, I hate unnecessary bureaucracy, and there's a huge difference. Unfortunately, 99% of buraucracy is unnecessary.

[Edited on January 18, 2006 at 3:21 PM. Reason : .]

1/18/2006 3:21:23 PM

John Stossel is a moron.

I watched a special he had on the environment.

He was basically saying that there were no environmental problems at all. He would literally say shit like "what has nature ever done for us?".

1/18/2006 3:21:43 PM