Schools

[Nick1911]

Let's talk about the education system.  I've been thinking about privatization, on the general principal that the free market almost always provides a better product at a better price then a government run system.  The general problem I run into is that the child, through no fault or dealings of their own, will receive a good or poor education entirely due to the financial situation of the parents.

This, in turn begs the question: Are children entitled to equal access to education?  Why or why not?  If so, how can a free market solution provide this?

[Northwoods]

I would LOVE to see a general privitization of education.  Problem is, we can't realistically go strictly private all at once.  There are too many people that would squawk at that idea to ever make it work in a society like ours. 

My idea is to issue something akin to vouchers equal to whatever would have been spent under the current system to parents of all school age children.  By doing this noone can claim an inability to pay for their kids schooling.  And even make it so that any money left over can be kept by the parents.  That way if parents make a cost conscious choice they benefit financially (think homeschoolers or people that search out the school that's best at teaching but at a low price).  If they'd rather send their kid to the "best" school (however they choose to define that) and it costs more than the voucher then the parents are wholly on the hook.  As competition drives the cost of schooling down the amount of the vouchers could be reduced at the same pace.  In that way every kid has access in a way little different to now, but over time the governments would save money and the quality of education would go way up.

[vaskidmark]

Without bothering to provide any citations, I'll take the challenge of explaining "free public education."

At one time in this country's history the idea of sending a potential farm worker off to some place in town to learn useless stuff like reading more than the Bible (an oversimplification) and how to cipher the farm accounts was deemed wasteful at best.

As the number of folks living in those newfangled "cities" increased, there were fewer opportunities to keep the rugrats off the streets and out of mischief (not quite as much of an oversimplification).  At the same time, those rugrats that managed to arrive at their teenagehood were discovered by many potential employers to be less than useful because they did not know how to do much more than cause trouble and hold up walls.  These newly emerging teens were, BTW, looking for employment because their parents were no longer willing to subsidize their existence without some return on investment.

The town fathers and the major employers got together and dreamed up "schools" and the concept that it would be better for everybody if rugrats were sent there.

At first these "schools" were private, for-profit enterprises.  But as westward expansion happened, the free land crap in the Northwest Terrortory [sic] came with the pricetag of a parcel of each section being required to be set aside for the creation of local government.  The folks who became the local government decided they needed to have stuff to do besides collect taxes and hold 4th of July picnics, so they decided that they could intrude in the lives of just about everybody by decreeing that the town would go into the business of schooling kids.  Even if you never spawned a kid you were impacted because you had to pay taxes to support the schools - if was, after all, for the children.  [There is speculation that was not the first time the phrase was used in America.]

Folks were too busy running their farms or trying not to trip over idle rugrats in town, so they pretty much went along with this newfangled plan as long as the kids could be sent out to the fields at harvest-time [now called "summer vacation" and slightly time-shifted at the request of the amusement park operators].

Some folks say the idea really came as an offshoot of Franklin's concept of every town needing to have a free public library so folks could edumacate themselves about stuff, and read up on politics and the like, without having to pay a penny each time they walked in the door of a private library.  [Franklin figured if you collected the equivalent of two cents per visit, but in a lump sum at a time when folks were bitching about all the other stuff money was being collected for, they would not see the scam for what it was.  Franklin got the idea from the previous rulers, who thought "taxes" were a gift from the gods.]

Anyhow, it was "for the chilllllllllldrennnnnnn."  That being the case, it was a good thing to do.

OK, class.  Civics is now over.  Take out your slates and flints, because we are going to practice ciphering.  Tommy - if a farmer buys a bushel of wheat at thrirty-five sents a peck off a train moving at 75 mph that left Cleveland at 6:30 last night ....

stay safe.

skidmark

[makattak]

Without bothering to provide any citations, I'll take the challenge of explaining "free public education."

At one time in this country's history the idea of sending a potential farm worker off to some place in town to learn useless stuff like reading more than the Bible (an oversimplification) and how to cipher the farm accounts was deemed wasteful at best.

As the number of folks living in those newfangled "cities" increased, there were fewer opportunities to keep the rugrats off the streets and out of mischief (not quite as much of an oversimplification).  At the same time, those rugrats that managed to arrive at their teenagehood were discovered by many potential employers to be less than useful because they did not know how to do much more than cause trouble and hold up walls.  These newly emerging teens were, BTW, looking for employment because their parents were no longer willing to subsidize their existence without some return on investment.

The town fathers and the major employers got together and dreamed up "schools" and the concept that it would be better for everybody if rugrats were sent there.

At first these "schools" were private, for-profit enterprises.  But as westward expansion happened, the free land crap in the Northwest Terrortory [sic] came with the pricetag of a parcel of each section being required to be set aside for the creation of local government.  The folks who became the local government decided they needed to have stuff to do besides collect taxes and hold 4th of July picnics, so they decided that they could intrude in the lives of just about everybody by decreeing that the town would go into the business of schooling kids.  Even if you never spawned a kid you were impacted because you had to pay taxes to support the schools - if was, after all, for the children.  [There is speculation that was not the first time the phrase was used in America.]

Folks were too busy running their farms or trying not to trip over idle rugrats in town, so they pretty much went along with this newfangled plan as long as the kids could be sent out to the fields at harvest-time [now called "summer vacation" and slightly time-shifted at the request of the amusement park operators].

Some folks say the idea really came as an offshoot of Franklin's concept of every town needing to have a free public library so folks could edumacate themselves about stuff, and read up on politics and the like, without having to pay a penny each time they walked in the door of a private library.  [Franklin figured if you collected the equivalent of two cents per visit, but in a lump sum at a time when folks were bitching about all the other stuff money was being collected for, they would not see the scam for what it was.  Franklin got the idea from the previous rulers, who thought "taxes" were a gift from the gods.]

Anyhow, it was "for the chilllllllllldrennnnnnn."  That being the case, it was a good thing to do.

OK, class.  Civics is now over.  Take out your slates and flints, because we are going to practice ciphering.  Tommy - if a farmer buys a bushel of wheat at thrirty-five sents a peck off a train moving at 75 mph that left Cleveland at 6:30 last night ....

stay safe.

skidmark

Well, that's a nice revisionist piece of history. It's as though you took the ideas and attitudes prevalent amongst people today and ascribed them to the actors of the past.

Any citations for your work?

Here's something to consider:

The first public school in America was established by Puritan settlers in 1635 in the home of Schoolmaster Philemon Pormont.

Hmm... 1635. Yeah... that's definitely the point when teenagers and children had no work and were causing mischeif.

[Standing Wolf]

The general problem I run into is that the child, through no fault or dealings of their own, will receive a good or poor education entirely due to the financial situation of the parents.

Some kids eat better than others. Some kids have more books. Some kids go on vacation trips, whereas some stay in Chicago. Some kids' parents read to them.

So-called "equalization" efforts merely force the workers and peasants to share the misery while the elite enjoy special privileges.

[Nick1911]

Some kids eat better than others. Some kids have more books. Some kids go on vacation trips, whereas some stay in Chicago. Some kids' parents read to them.

So-called "equalization" efforts merely force the workers and peasants to share the misery while the elite enjoy special privileges.

So you're saying that the parents should be responsible for the education of their child, not the state?  In the same way the parents must provide shelter and food?

[roo_ster]

First off, taxpayer-funded schooling is a state & local issue, IMO.  The federales need not get involved.

Second, if citizens of these lower-level governments decide that taxpayer-funded education is the way to go, I see no need that the gov't be both the collector of funding and provider of product.

The question then becomes one of who/how the education is provided.  Given citizen support for taxpayer-funded education, I think some sort of voucher or whatnot is the best route.  Let parents decide which education provider is best for them & their kids.

Homeschoolers, since they are their own providers, can exchange the vouchers for cash, just as any other education provider could.  If they do not use the entirety of the voucher for materials, they can use the remainder how they see fit.

[Balog]

First off, taxpayer-funded schooling is a state & local issue, IMO.  The federales need not get involved.

Second, if citizens of these lower-level governments decide that taxpayer-funded education is the way to go, I see no need that the gov't be both the collector of funding and provider of product.

The question then becomes one of who/how the education is provided.  Given citizen support for taxpayer-funded education, I think some sort of voucher or whatnot is the best route.  Let parents decide which education provider is best for them & their kids.

Homeschoolers, since they are their own providers, can exchange the vouchers for cash, just as any other education provider could.  If they do not use the entirety of the voucher for materials, they can use the remainder how they see fit.

Sounds about right to me.....

[BrokenPaw]

The problem with a voucher program wherein the vouchers are redeemable for cash is that it will become a disincentive for greedy parents to get their kids a good education; Teech Ur Kids Cheep places will pop up, and the same people who spend welfare checks to buy wheel spinners and Escalades will send their kids to them, and pocket the difference (or buy more spinners and more Escalades).  Or (worse) they'll claim to be "home schooling", and pocket the entire voucher.

Any sort of publicly-funded education (whether it be government-run schools, or government-funded vouchers) is ultimately a form of wealth-redistribution.

I'm not a fan of any wealth-redistribution scheme, but if my money is going to pay for someone else's kids' education, then I should have a say in how that money gets spent.  Redeemable-for-cash vouchers will not and cannot provide that level of oversight.  So if it's publicly funded, it cannot (must not) be redeemable for cash.  Public schools aren't a great solution, but part of the problem with them is that they're run with little true input and oversight from the community; if the people paying the taxes that supported a school had an actual real say in the school's programs and staffing, we'd see a marked improvement in the public schools in short order.

But if we're going with a voucher scheme, make the vouchers have no cash value to a parent, but allow home-schooling parents to instead receive a tax break of some substantial amount to offset the fact that they're getting no benefit from the vouchers.  (And perhaps allow the vouchers to be used for the purchase of home-schooling textbooks and what-have-you).

If the vouchers have no cash value to parents, but only to the schools, the schools don't have an incentive to be as "Cheep" as possible; rather they have an incentive to be as good and as efficient as possible, so as to minimize costs while increasing the number of incoming vouchers.  Word of a good school spreads, and more parents will send their kids there.

-BP

[AZRedhawk44]

Sounds about right to me.....

The lib argument against this is that some localities are poorer than others.  Requiring the local tax base to fund education communally will result in rich areas getting superbly funded education while poor areas get poorly funded education.

But...

Looking at educational resources between AZ (~$5500 per student funding) and Minnesota (~$12,000 per student funding)... I never noticed any difference.  After a certain threshold, the money just gets grafted into "research grants, teachers-on-assignment" and other BS positions for teachers to not teach.

[BlueStarLizzard]

i'm gonna leave my comment to this. i don't care how it gets done. but i want my naighbors and people on the streets in my community to be able to read, comprehend history and civics, and do some basic math.

basically because i have to live and work around these people.

so i guess my point is that i want some sort of education avalable to all.

[Don't care]

.

[Werewolf]

Most of what the average Joe needs to know they can learn by the 6th grade. After that it should be off to vocational/tech school or college prep schools.

Let the goobermint pay for the 1 thru 6 part. Business can pay for votech thru scholarships, appreticeships, contracts that guarantee working for the sponsor for a number of years etc. Those bound for professional careers can work the same kind of deals with businesses, parents can pay, maybe even get student loans.

In any event the gooberming spends (read wastes) way too much money teaching kids stuff past the 6th grade  most of 'em will not remember or ever use as adults anyway.

The present system is broke. Almost anything else would probably be better. Unfortunately the goobermint is vested in creating good little sheep and will never give up public schooling.

[zahc]

Most of what the average Joe needs to know they can learn by the 6th grade.

I honestly agree. Because most high-school graduates don't learn anything anyway. 90% of public "education" is make-work. The level of education necessary to graduate from highschool is comically low. What we teach people in college should be taught in highschool and what we teach in highschool should be taught in grade school. Kids go to school for like a decade and learn astoundingly little. The whole system is a grossly inefficent government-sponsored daycare/indoctrination racket.

I homeschooled and worked astoundingly little, a shockingly small amount, that probably amounted to a few hours a week of actual studying. I spent the rest fishing, riding bikes, and building stuff. What ended up happening is I STILL learned more than my school-going contemporaries, who spent astoundingly little time learning, and spent the rest riding in busses, wasting time in hallways, doing 'sports', getting knocked up, and doing stupid programs, all at extraordinary public expense. While my parents were paying high property taxes to fund it all.

I also strongly oppose all voucher programs. Vouchers turn private schools into public schools, and make the existence of true private schools impossible.

[GigaBuist]

I started doing IT work for a charter school last year and I'm completely blown away at just how efficient they appear to be with their money.

They know what things cost.  Just today I learned that the internal SPAM filter is tossing reports into the junk file.  Not a huge deal, right?  Apparently it is.  It costs them $5k a year dealing with that issue in lost productivity.  There's 90 schools in the system, so that breaks down to $55 per school per year in lost productivity.

What impressed me is:
a)  Somebody had a dollar value on that one immediately (must have come up in a year-end review I guess)
and
b)  They care about $55/school/year.

That's not petty. That's impressive.  It won't cost $5k to fix it, so fix it!

Found out over New Years that my uncle works for the construction company that builds their schools.  They don't waste any money there either.

Oh, and they've got an entire team of statisticians going over numbers to make sure teachers are doing their jobs.  If they don't preform their charters will not be renewed.

I'm quite impressed by what I'm seeing there.

[Strings]

Butbutbut... if we change the current system, how are kids going to learn to be good sheep citizens?

[KD5NRH]

The level of education necessary to graduate from highschool is comically low. What we teach people in college should be taught in highschool and what we teach in highschool should be taught in grade school.

One of the most amusing things about hanging out at Starbuck's is watching college professors grade quizzes.

Even more amusing is hearing the liberal ones complain about how dumb their students are.

More amusing still is hearing them splutter and make excuses when you ask why, then, they couldn't climb down from their ivory towers and teach high school, thus actually doing something about the problem.

[KD5NRH]

They know what things cost.  Just today I learned that the internal SPAM filter is tossing reports into the junk file.  Not a huge deal, right?  Apparently it is.  It costs them $5k a year dealing with that issue in lost productivity.  There's 90 schools in the system, so that breaks down to $55 per school per year in lost productivity.

$5,000/year to give somebody access to the junk mail folder so they can spot check it a couple times a day?

For that matter, what system are they using that doesn't allow whitelisting all the internal addresses?

[seeker_two]

I believe that every child should have access to a public primary (1st-6th grade) school education---once. If, due to non-psychological/psychiatric behavior problems, that student or family messes it up, the school can terminate that access. After that, it's the parents' responsibility to make sure their child is educated...either through the public school or other means.

As for vouchers, I don't think that the parents should ever recieve a cash-in-hand voucher. If they choose to send their child to private school, they notify the school district of which private school the child has been enrolled, and the district sends the per-student funding directly to that school. If the child is home-schooled, the family notifies the school district and receives a suspension of their property tax (or its credited toward the rental owner & can be used to negotiate rent reductions).  Twice a year, ALL students (public-, private-, and home-schooled) are tested at the grade level reported by the educator. If the child passes, then funding continues. If the child fails two tests in a row, the educator has to refund the money for the last year and the parents have to enroll the child with another educator.

It's not a perfect plan, but it's a lot better than what we have now.....

[Don't care]

.

[makattak]

I agree that a sixth grade education is all someone needs to marginally function in normal life. Such everyday skills as reading prescription bottles, maps, and newspapers, as well as performing simple math, would on the surface, seem adequate.

While it is not my intent to bash vocational training, what is the quality life without enrichment? I cannot imagine sending a child off to learning a trade, without at least an adequate exposure of more than what one needs to function in the normal course of life. Most 18 year old high school graduates have little idea of a career path, lest a 12 year old.

If they want enrichment, they can seek it themselves. There is no reason to foist such things upon and unwilling public (and trust me, many are VERY unwilling).

For that matter, how much "enrichment" happens in school these days?

If I only read what was assigned, I'd have not touched anything beyond "Romeo and Juliet" and "MacBeth" for "high" literature in high school.

Let alone Aristotle, Aquinas, Milton, Dumas, et al...

[mckormicnavistar]

We live in a rural area and the school system is below avarage at best. The parents do not care about their childrens education(not all). These parents need to be taught to disipline their wayward charges and allow the teachers to do so within reason. The children need to be failed when their school work is failing. There needs to be far higher standards in our schools. For those that can't suceed in getting a sound education the idiot government gives them welfare.    

[Don't care]

.

[makattak]

Unfortunately, your view is rather consistent among many other people, including those of a number of parents of students who really don't see the potential benefits of a liberal arts education.

I will simply say that without such, it's not only the child who will eventually suffer the consequences of ignorance, but our country as a whole as well.

Soooooo, you're ignoring the fact that already there isn't any "enrichment" happening?

[Don't care]

.