Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

No I live in Clveland and I don't believe in sending only a few students to private schools and let the rest fend for themselves. Also most of the voucher schools in Cleveland are religous schools. Now I don't know why they just don't spend money to fix up the schools. I also believe that it's not the amount of funding, it's the administrations that spend the money because Cleveland has one of the highest amount of funding in the state. Yet, they have the lowest test scores in the U.S. Any thoughts?

At 3/16/08 12:48 PM, Lindione wrote:

At 3/16/08 12:14 PM, SevenSeize wrote:

At 3/16/08 04:25 AM, MattZone wrote: Give out vouchers and let schools compete for students. The end.

Not the end. There would never be enough money and the children with low socio economic status would fall through the cracks.

I agree, everyone would be going for the one good school and that would be too overcrowded no matter how many teachers they hire. It would create just a large competition and we would have sports teams with 50 kids none of which get to play that much.

You obviously have no idea how competitive markets work.

If a school is obviously the best, to the point that everyone wants to send their kids there and there is no way the school has the capacity to handle everyone, the school has three options of dealing with the situation: 1.) It can increase capacity. Buy more land, build a bigger school, hire more teachers, etc. 2.) It can increase its price, thus earning more profit per student while lowering the number of potential students, as the Law of Supply and Demand requires. 3.) Some combination of 1 & 2.

Option number 2 seems heartless (what about poor students who can't afford to pay what the voucher doesn't cover?!) but it's not, at least not any more heartless than the car market or grocery stores or any other market that has developed product lines that appeal separately to low, medium, and high-income customers.

At 3/16/08 03:39 PM, DELUCA2400 wrote: No I live in Clveland and I don't believe in sending only a few students to private schools and let the rest fend for themselves. Also most of the voucher schools in Cleveland are religous schools. Now I don't know why they just don't spend money to fix up the schools. I also believe that it's not the amount of funding, it's the administrations that spend the money because Cleveland has one of the highest amount of funding in the state. Yet, they have the lowest test scores in the U.S. Any thoughts?

As long as there are rich and middle income parents willing to pay to send their kids to private schools, there will always be private schools. It's a fact of life: parents want what is best for their kids. If they have the means to provide that, they'll do so.

Why should you or anyone else care if a voucher school is a religious school? You don't have to spend your voucher on it. The thing about vouchers is that they give parents the choice. If you want your kids to go to a secular school, you can do that. There just has to be a big enough market (enough parents who want to send their kids to a secular school). And if there isn't, if you're the only person in Cleveland who wants to send their kid to a secular school, but one doesn't exist, you can use your voucher to homeschool your kid with private tutors, or by yourself if you are so inclined.

There are a lot of reasons why Cleveland (or anywhere else) might not be spending the money to fix the schools. One, they may not have the money. Two, they may have the money, but they spend it poorly (typical of government). Three, they may have problems that money can't fix, no matter how much is spent. All of these reasons are reasons why parents should be given vouchers to send their kids to the school of their choice. Markets are a lot more efficient than governments.

In addition, what do you think the schools that aren't the best are going to do? Lay down and die while the best school grabs all the students? No. They are going to compete. They are going to improve, or differentiate, or lower their price, or do whatever it takes to attract students (and their parents voucher money). That is the heart and soul of competition.

At 3/16/08 05:07 PM, SevenSeize wrote:

At 3/16/08 03:28 PM, MattZone wrote: Why do you think that vouchers would cause children with low socio-economic status to fall through the cracks any more than they already do under the current system? As for there never being enough money, that depends on what you define as "enough". What is important is that there is no reason to change the total level of funding for education simply because there is a voucher system.

$50 million in taxes spent by school administrators = $50 million in taxes spent by parents.

The difference is, the parents are far more likely to spend the $50 million efficiently.

Well, what I mean by that is consider a state such as mine, Louisiana.

The majority of our schools are failing. So vouchers won't help.

What vouchers won't help is failing schools. The students will be much better off when they are able to choose between schools that are competing for them.

We need an educational reform. Rather than trying to get everyone into a private school, or a select school, we need to fix our public schools.

Why? I agree with the goal of universal education... every child needs to go to school. But what does it matter if every child goes to the private school of their choice instead of a public school? It matters a lot... the private school is usually better, and when it is not the parents can choose to send their kids to a better private school.

I think we could fix our inner city, low performing schools. But that's going to call for a change. And alot of people don't like change.

People don't like change, true enough. They also don't like high taxes, government waste, and the politicalization of schools. They DO like choice, however. And vouchers are the answer to all of the above.

At 3/16/08 03:39 PM, DELUCA2400 wrote: No I live in Clveland and I don't believe in sending only a few students to private schools and let the rest fend for themselves.

And that's exactly what will happen. There's no way we have enough money to provide vouchers for everyone. The children whose parents do not care, will suffer immensely.

That's not true. There is plenty of money being spent. The only thing that needs to change is who is doing the spending. It's time to take students' futures out of the hands of a handful of bureaucrats and put them back in the hands of the parents, in the form of vouchers.

At 3/16/08 04:19 PM, MattZone wrote: As long as there are rich and middle income parents willing to pay to send their kids to private schools, there will always be private schools. It's a fact of life: parents want what is best for their kids. If they have the means to provide that, they'll do so.

Not all states have a large rich/middle income percentage of children.

If parents want private school for their kids, they should pay for private school for their kids.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS are the responsibilty of the state and federal government. We need to fix them so that everyone has a fair opportunity for a good education.

Vouchers aren't intended to improve the educational outcomes of rich or middle income children. They're mostly in private school and select public schools, and they are doing fine. Vouchers are intended to improve the educational outcomes of every child, especially low income ones that can't afford to move to a better school district, hire private tutors for extra instruction, etc. The only responsibility of the State and Federal governments is to provide public education FUNDING so that every child can go to school.

Why should you or anyone else care if a voucher school is a religious school? You don't have to spend your voucher on it. The thing about vouchers is that they give parents the choice. If you want your kids to go to a secular school, you can do that. There just has to be a big enough market (enough parents who want to send their kids to a secular school). And if there isn't, if you're the only person in Cleveland who wants to send their kid to a secular school, but one doesn't exist, you can use your voucher to homeschool your kid with private tutors, or by yourself if you are so inclined.

We have two private schools in this area.

One is Parochial and the other is not.
The religious one has absolutely inferior academics.

Anytime I get their students, they are at LEAST one grade level behind where they should be.

Not bashing all religious schools, just saying we have two of them, and one is quite horrible.

School quality will always vary, whether the schools are public or private. The difference is that it is a lot easier for kids to switch private schools than it is to switch public schools, IF they can switch public schools at all.

At 3/16/08 04:46 PM, MattZone wrote: In addition, what do you think the schools that aren't the best are going to do? Lay down and die while the best school grabs all the students? No. They are going to compete. They are going to improve, or differentiate, or lower their price, or do whatever it takes to attract students (and their parents voucher money). That is the heart and soul of competition.

In order for that to happen, public school reform will have to occur and they will have to fire the worthless employees, as my first post stated.

I don't have a problem with firing worthless employees. If you haven't noticed, it's a lot easier to do in the private sector than it is in the public sector.

OH AND FIY
The school I teach at, has some of the hardest working teachers I have ever met. and I've taught at 5 other schools. We differentiate all instruction and attend more professional development than most teachers in this area.

My school is a one star school, meaning we are a school in decline according to NCLB standardized test scores. If we continue to decline, we will be a school of failure.

The fact that 95% of our student body is poverty level, non traditional (meaning live in foster homes etc), and special education (behaviors and academics) has a lot to do with that.

If your school were private, and was really doing the best that could possibly be done with the students it had, nothing would probably change. If there is a limit on students teachability, then that's that. But I'm much more confident in a private school finding the upper limit of a students ability than a public school.

At 3/16/08 11:29 AM, Proteas wrote:

Which I am proposing the tab be picked up by those concerned parents who want their kids to participate in said organized sport. Football doesn't teach any particular skills that can be used by the student body as a whole to help them compete in the job market later on in life, it's nothing more than an extra curricular activity that benefits a small minority, and should be treated as such.

It benefits every person in the school once they are adding money to the school coffers.

And generally, good physical health, teamwork, ability to respect and acknowledge higher authority, sportsmanship, and passing grades (the only thing that motivated me to pass my classes was the team) are things that help the job market tremendously.

Because, as we all well know, everyone who plays highschool football goes on to play in the Superbowl and make obscene amount of money. Nice one.

Because, as we all know, there are thousands and thousands of professional football players, so it's moronic for you to insult parents for trying to encourage their children's athletic ability in a positive way. Besides the fact that a successful high school football career could mean the difference in whether or not you make it to a highly accredited university, theres the fact that even the LOWEST PAID football players in the NFL make over $200,000 means that no, having your kid play football is NOT irresponsible.

At 3/16/08 07:08 PM, SevenSeize wrote:

At 3/16/08 06:59 PM, MattZone wrote: What vouchers won't help is failing schools. The students will be much better off when they are able to choose between schools that are competing for them.

If ALL OR MOST of the schools are failing, then vouchers do nothing.

Wrong. In a competitive market, if all or most of the competitors are failing to provide a product that consumers want, it means there is an opportunity for a new competitor to enter the market and take market share.

and your plan leaves out improving all of the states at the bottom of the list. So America as a whole will suffer academically.

No it doesn't. You seem to think that I'm advocating vouchers in addition to public schools. I'm not. I'm advocating taking the funding that is going directly into public schools and giving that money to parents in the form of vouchers. If all the parents want to send their kids to the same schools, nothing changes. If, on the other hand, some parents want to send their kids to different schools, then there is now a competitive market.

Why? I agree with the goal of universal education... every child needs to go to school. But what does it matter if every child goes to the private school of their choice instead of a public school? It matters a lot... the private school is usually better, and when it is not the parents can choose to send their kids to a better private school.

What about areas with a lack of private schools?

Areas tend to lack private schools because the majority of the people in that area cannot afford to send their children to a private school, or private schools are not allowed. Under a voucher system, private schools would have an incentive to move into these areas because the vouchers would allow low-income parents to pay for their kids schooling with tax money (vouchers).

People don't like change, true enough. They also don't like high taxes, government waste, and the politicalization of schools. They DO like choice, however. And vouchers are the answer to all of the above.

Not in places with few private schools, and places with poor performing private schools.

If private schools were so wonderful, I wouldn't be getting so many children below benchmark from them.

You said there was one private school in your area that performed poorly. That is hardly statistically relevant. As for places with few private schools or poor performing ones, see my previous answers.

That's not true. There is plenty of money being spent. The only thing that needs to change is who is doing the spending. It's time to take students' futures out of the hands of a handful of bureaucrats and put them back in the hands of the parents, in the form of vouchers.

and if the parents don't care, the children suffer.

At least public mandates get SOMETHING for the children.

If it were up to the parents, some of the kids wouldn't go to school at all.

If parents don't care, the children suffer whether they are in public school or private school. The only mandate that is necessary is for children to attend school. Whether it is public or private is irrelevant. The voucher system wouldn't change the fact that parents have to send their kids to school. It simply allows parents to choose which school to send their kids to.

Vouchers aren't intended to improve the educational outcomes of rich or middle income children. They're mostly in private school and select public schools, and they are doing fine. Vouchers are intended to improve the educational outcomes of every child, especially low income ones that can't afford to move to a better school district, hire private tutors for extra instruction, etc. The only responsibility of the State and Federal governments is to provide public education FUNDING so that every child can go to school.

Right. and Many states cannot afford the money it would take to provide vouchers for all of the low socio economic status children.

I've already stated that our state is majority below poverty. There is no way our state could provide vouchers for all of them.

There are many other states, particularly southern states, in this same situation.

Again, you're assuming that I'm advocating paying for vouchers in addition to funding public schools. I am not. The states would spend the same amount of money. The only difference is that they would be giving the money to parents in the form of vouchers instead of directly funding public schools.

If your school were private, and was really doing the best that could possibly be done with the students it had, nothing would probably change. If there is a limit on students teachability, then that's that. But I'm much more confident in a private school finding the upper limit of a students ability than a public school.

Then you and I will have to beg to differ on this issue. I am assuming you do not teach, so you do not understand where I am coming from, nor could you possibly.

You're free to believe that public schools are, on average, better than private schools. The fact that both anecdotal and empirical evidence suggests that the opposite is true should in no way have any bearing on your beliefs. As for myself, I prefer to base my beliefs on facts.

At 3/16/08 12:14 PM, SevenSeize wrote: No we're not. I teach at an inner city school. The parish sends all students with special education needs to us. Children who are tube fed, deaf, and blind. Our school is the only one who gets them
We don't see a dime.

The money is wasted somewhere along the line. The percentage of tax money that gets poured into education is amazing.

No we're not.
174 student days are mandated. At least in my state.
They don't take away days.

Yeah, they redistribute the summer days. At least in Georgia.

And I have seen the 2008-2009 academic calendar for my parish and our year is longer next year. August 9- May 26th.

Because they are slowly sapping away summer break. It used to be 3 months long, and kids still did just as well, if not better, in school.

and the scores have NOTHING to do with how long the year is.

Exactly what I'm suggesting. This is why it is so stupid that the length of summer break is being lessened. Look at the chart on the bottom. Shortening summer break has little or no effect on our test scores.

*We need to fire teachers who don't care about their students.
*We need to fire teachers who only want the job for the summer vacation.
*We need to fire teachers who refuse to go to workshops to advance their teacher skills.
*We need to fire teachers who refuse to work with parents.
and since I am a teacher, who doesn't do those things, yet watches A TON of teachers who DO, do those things and RUIN children every day, I feel nothing bad about saying that.

If only it were that easy... Even if it was possible to fire those people without any issues, we would be left without enough teachers to effectively teach the kids and making the problem worse.

Whoops, forgot the chart.

Markets are a lot more efficient than governments.

I love how people never qualify their statements when it comes to economics and politics. It's never "I believe so and so" it's always "This is the case." Take the sentence for above. Is there any explaination of the premises of belief (such as a belief in human nature, the invisible hand, etc, etc) that produce such a dogmatic statement? Nope, just a statement of belief, plain and simple.

At 3/16/08 12:14 PM, SevenSeize wrote:

At 3/15/08 03:34 PM, SEXY-FETUS wrote: Most freaking amazing education related post ever :

That was a great post man, you stated every problem perfectly. In my town we have an ongoing funding battle over the schools.... The problem is the school board has only made cuts on paper. They have no problems cutting the arts and sciences, yet won't even dream of cutting the inflated salaries, and lifetime benefits of faculty. It's as if all the money is for the adults and not the students.

At 3/16/08 09:36 PM, SevenSeize wrote: I know of some schools that go all year round.
They only have 4 day weeks however. ( M-TH)
and they take a 2 week winter break, 2 week spring break, and 3 week summer break.
So it's not too bad.
I've heard they have higher test scores because student retention is higher.
I wouldn't mind teaching at a school like that.

The three month summer was a time for children to learn how to live life to the fullest! Kids could work, read, relax, play sports, and develop relationships. What always brings a tear to my eyes is how my father can talk about how he spent all his vacation time with a close group of friends and did all kinds of kid stuff, while I cannot. If we remove summer, kids will never have the chance just to be kids. I know we all take it for granted, but one of the most important things for a kid to do in order to grow is just be a kid.

It seems an obsession with being the best and brightest has made us forget to just be happy. The modern world is just too fast-paced, and kids need to be able to get away from that. Not three days out of the week, but three months out of the year.

my post was intended for sevenseize.

At 3/15/08 02:55 PM, Proteas wrote: Take funding away from organized sports that only seek to benefit a select few and use the cash instead to fund the Arts and Sciences. Quit placing so much emphasis on short term glory of winning football games and having a bright shining trophy outside of the principals office and giving all the quarterbacks A's so they can play football when they have a hard enough time spelling "cat" as it is, and focus on preparing people for college instead.

But that's just me.

I sense jealousy in this one.

If kids didn't want to play football, they wouldn't play football. Leave the PRIVATELY FUNDED sport clubs alone.

At 3/16/08 09:52 PM, SevenSeize wrote: I didn't have a childhood, so I get what you're saying.

I'm sure you'd rather your kid have a long summer for the reasons given than have him do schoolwork year round?

I think we need to take a focus off of test scores, and place our focus on teaching children how to think, critical thinking skills and problem solving skills.
Not rote memorization of test prep materials. But that's an entirely different thread.

I think we need to have the perfect mixture of both, because they both are extremely useful skills.

At 3/16/08 08:38 PM, SevenSeize wrote:

Wrong. In a competitive market, if all or most of the competitors are failing to provide a product that consumers want, it means there is an opportunity for a new competitor to enter the market and take market share.

That won't happen in areas with a weak economy.

Are there no grocery stores in areas with a weak economy? No gas stations? Of course not. Even in rural areas, these places exist, because basic needs must be met. If a market can support a school at all, it can support one with vouchers.

No it doesn't. You seem to think that I'm advocating vouchers in addition to public schools. I'm not. I'm advocating taking the funding that is going directly into public schools and giving that money to parents in the form of vouchers. If all the parents want to send their kids to the same schools, nothing changes. If, on the other hand, some parents want to send their kids to different schools, then there is now a competitive market.

Then some places will have massive amounts of children not in school.

Because many places don't have private schools.

Again, it seems that you don't understand that I'm advocating the privatization of public schools, as well as giving out vouchers. Public schools will become private, private schools will compete with each other for students and their government issued voucher money. Is this really a difficult concept, or are you being deliberately obtuse?

Areas tend to lack private schools because the majority of the people in that area cannot afford to send their children to a private school, or private schools are not allowed. Under a voucher system, private schools would have an incentive to move into these areas because the vouchers would allow low-income parents to pay for their kids schooling with tax money (vouchers).

Then we will have a lot of children not in school for a very long time while all of these private schools are built.

See above.

If parents don't care, the children suffer whether they are in public school or private school. The only mandate that is necessary is for children to attend school. Whether it is public or private is irrelevant. The voucher system wouldn't change the fact that parents have to send their kids to school. It simply allows parents to choose which school to send their kids to.

Then the government will still have to control it, by insisting all children go to school, and that the children whose parents do not care, actually wind up in school. They wouldn't be able to give those parents a voucher, the goverment would have to place the kids in a private school.

Obviously government would still have to make sure that children were attending school. That doesn't change, and there are already truancy laws in effect. But unless a child is a ward of the state, I see no reason not to give parents the choice of which school their child(ren) attends.

Again, you're assuming that I'm advocating paying for vouchers in addition to funding public schools. I am not. The states would spend the same amount of money. The only difference is that they would be giving the money to parents in the form of vouchers instead of directly funding public schools.

You are right, I did misunderstand you, and now I realize your idea is even more ridiculous.

Any particular reason that you believe that, other than the fact that you as a teacher would have to compete in a private market, instead of having a nice safe government job?

You're free to believe that public schools are, on average, better than private schools. The fact that both anecdotal and empirical evidence suggests that the opposite is true should in no way have any bearing on your beliefs. As for myself, I prefer to base my beliefs on facts.

I don't believe those sources to be accurate, since the majority of private schools do not take the same standardized tests. They select which ones to give. Also, those statistics compare a select few in private school, and make that comparison to the majority in public school.

Fair enough. I happen to believe those sources are accurate, but it's ok if you disagree. But how do you explain the performance of private schools at the college level, if nothing else. Harvard, Yale, MIT, Princeton, etc.? Look at the top 100 universities in the country, and note how many are private schools. Coincidence?

TONS of other countries are beating America in education, and they don't have private schools.

Wrong. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, and many other countries have extensive private school systems. In addition, most of the countries that did well in the PISA test either have an extensive private school system, or make heavy use of private tutors. In Japan and several other asian countries, it is not uncommon for a student to go to a public school during the day, and a private school at night and on weekends.

At 3/16/08 10:50 PM, MattZone wrote: Wrong. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, and many other countries have extensive private school systems. In addition, most of the countries that did well in the PISA test either have an extensive private school system, or make heavy use of private tutors. In Japan and several other asian countries, it is not uncommon for a student to go to a public school during the day, and a private school at night and on weekends.

Yeah, and how is that working out for them? They may be smarter, but they sure as hell are not happier.

In fact, suicide, which is often attributed to overwork, are the number one killer of Japanese men ages 20 to 30. Suicide is nowhere near being the number one killer of US males ages 20 to 30, however.

Of course, the fact that Japanese kids are horribly overworked in school is not the only factor into high suicide rates, but it still is increasing them.

At 3/16/08 11:04 PM, SevenSeize wrote: I personally would like to teach at a Montessori school, which is private, but not near my area. It is more of my teaching style and I would actually make less money there.

I DO hate your idea. I find it impractical.

Politically difficult, depending on the area, yes. Economically speaking, it's quite practical.

We have to have public schools.

We have enough funneling of money and corruption with public school boards.

I can only immagine making it all entirely private.

Do you actually believe money funneling and corruption would INCREASE if schools were private instead of public? I don't live in Louisiana, but I have relatives there and I visit quite often, and I don't think I've ever met anyone who thought businesses were more corrupt than government.

Furthermore, I do not appreciate your insinuations that I am not a hard worker, or am concerned about my job performance.

Personal attacks are immature, in any thread, regarding any subject.

I apologize.

Fair enough. I happen to believe those sources are accurate, but it's ok if you disagree. But how do you explain the performance of private schools at the college level, if nothing else. Harvard, Yale, MIT, Princeton, etc.? Look at the top 100 universities in the country, and note how many are private schools. Coincidence?

I stated previously that I am only talking about elementary schools and I acknowledge that secondary education is an entirely different scenario.

However that post was not addressed to you so I have no animosity there.

Why do you believe the results in private secondary education are so different than the results in private elementary education would be?

Wrong. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, and many other countries have extensive private school systems. In addition, most of the countries that did well in the PISA test either have an extensive private school system, or make heavy use of private tutors. In Japan and several other asian countries, it is not uncommon for a student to go to a public school during the day, and a private school at night and on weekends.

Then Chrisopherr will have a hard time agreeing with you, since you are suggesting more time spent on education would fix it.

I'm not suggesting more time spent on education at all. I'm simply noting that private education plays a big role in the success that other countries are having. I think that even if we extended public school hours and had public tutors, we would not match the results that other countries are getting with private schools and tutors.

I feel I should state a few things not related to any specific you said.

I DID attend private school growing up.

One was religious, one was not.

I also attended public school growing up.

I was also homeschooled growing up.

I have lived in 34 different states, and attended school in at least 10 of them.

I do not have a dislike for private schools. Nor do I believe public schools are greatly superior.

What I do feel, is that your idea would never be implemented. What we could implement is higher standards for our public schools.

Politically difficult, yes. Never? We'll see. I doubt the issue of vouchers is going away any time soon.

What would higher standards do when many public schools aren't meeting current standards? I don't know if you've ever read anything by W. Edwards Deming, who was a statistician and management expert, but he clearly documented that raising standards does nothing to improve systemic performance. Anyone who has ever taken a look at school administrator salaries and building costs knows that our public school system is structurally unsound.

Our schools do not have after school tutoring programs. I wish they did. I have told my principal I would be willing to work late, if we could. So many of my students need it.

Also, Matt, do they have magnet schools in Texas? I am curious. Because I think we could fit a discussion on those here as well.

There are several in Texas, including one near where I live, that I am familiar with. While their individual performance is impressive, there is a corresponding drop in overall performance in the schools that the magnets draw students from. In essence, they are skimming top students. And the local magnet high school still gets crushed, according to the state standardized test and the SAT's, every year by the local Catholic high school. Of course the Catholic high school charges a fairly high tuition, although there are scholarships as well, so it could be argued that the Catholic high school is skimming as well. But I don't think skimming accounts for all the difference in results.

At 3/16/08 11:30 PM, Christopherr wrote:

At 3/16/08 10:50 PM, MattZone wrote: Wrong. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, and many other countries have extensive private school systems. In addition, most of the countries that did well in the PISA test either have an extensive private school system, or make heavy use of private tutors. In Japan and several other asian countries, it is not uncommon for a student to go to a public school during the day, and a private school at night and on weekends.

Yeah, and how is that working out for them? They may be smarter, but they sure as hell are not happier.

In fact, suicide, which is often attributed to overwork, are the number one killer of Japanese men ages 20 to 30. Suicide is nowhere near being the number one killer of US males ages 20 to 30, however.

Of course, the fact that Japanese kids are horribly overworked in school is not the only factor into high suicide rates, but it still is increasing them.

No argument there. I didn't mean to advocate more school work. I only made an observation that private schools and students with access to private tutors tend to perform better. Japan is definitely a high stress society, and they have a cultural concept of honor that is permissive of, if not insistent on, the idea of suicide as redemption for shame. Strange, but true.

At 3/16/08 09:41 PM, Slizor wrote:

Markets are a lot more efficient than governments.

I love how people never qualify their statements when it comes to economics and politics. It's never "I believe so and so" it's always "This is the case." Take the sentence for above. Is there any explaination of the premises of belief (such as a belief in human nature, the invisible hand, etc, etc) that produce such a dogmatic statement? Nope, just a statement of belief, plain and simple.

Would you feel better if I said that markets are USUALLY a lot more efficient than governments. I mean, it's a qualified statement. Or would you rather I said that a study of the past 5,000 years of economic history, beginning with the ancient Egyptians and encompassing every major civilization including the present-day nation states leads me to the conclusion that markets are USUALLY more efficient than governments? Or would you rather I say that, based upon the consensus of modern economists, markets are USUALLY more efficient than governments, with a few, well-defined and irrelevant to the current conversation, exceptions?

And is it a sufficiently qualified statement that I believe it is USUALLY the case that if someone knows enough to make a passing reference to the invisible hand during the course of a discussion on economics, that I believe that person should have the intelligence to realize that statements that a layman may consider to be dogmatic are, in fact, implicitly qualified when written in the context of a fairly knowledgeable forum? And that when said person decides to cry "DOGMA!" despite the fact that it has been obvious that the participants of the discussion are fairly intelligent, that it is my OPINION that said crier is a CUNT?

At 3/17/08 12:31 AM, SevenSeize wrote: No, and I understand what you are saying.

But if we go to all voucher schools, like you admitted earlier, the government will have to control some aspect of it.

and that's where the corruption will come in.

True, but I believe that by greatly reducing governments' role, it would be possible to greatly reduce the corruption. The system I envision is this: The local government collects school taxes, just as it does now. It looks out for tax cheats, just as it does now. Then, instead of funding schools directly, it gives out vouchers to parents. It checks to make sure that said parents actually have children, that live in the area, and are attending school using the voucher money (insist on receipts). It inspects the schools to make sure that they are not rat colonies and that children are not being abused. But as far as the fiscal administration or curriculum goes, the schools handle that. The state then tests all students using standardized tests, and publishes the results publically (anonymized for student privacy).

You can ask your relatives, Louisiana has some crooked politicians... like moreso than your average politician.

I have. They've got some funny stories. Some scary ones too. I'm almost surprised that they still live there, but Louisiana does have a lot going for it.

What part of the state are they from? That's strictly curiosity, and if you'd prefer not to answer for privacy issues, I understand completely.

They're spread out all over. A few in Baton Rouge, a few in New Orleans, the majority down in a little town between Lake Charles and Lafayette.

I apologize.

I accept.

Why do you believe the results in private secondary education are so different than the results in private elementary education would be?

Because I do have experience with private and public institutions, elementary level.

My degree and certifications only cover 1-6th as well. I try to stay honest in that I do not know as much about secondary education period.

Personally? I think the sports programs make a huge difference as others in this thread have been debating, but again, I am not qualified to talk about that.

I'm not suggesting more time spent on education at all. I'm simply noting that private education plays a big role in the success that other countries are having. I think that even if we extended public school hours and had public tutors, we would not match the results that other countries are getting with private schools and tutors.

Lots of those countries are willing to spend more on education, private/public aside.

They make education a higher priority.

This includes home life.

True, no argument there.

In Japan, if you bring home a month's worth of failure marks in conduct, your parents will discipline you.

Where I teach, the parents don't check the conduct marks. Most of them do not care at all until their child is suspended and they have to put up with them at home.

Politically difficult, yes. Never? We'll see. I doubt the issue of vouchers is going away any time soon.

I agree.

I also know that Texas is very voucher friendly. Your state has had success with them.

I have lived in Texas three times. Once I lived in Houston, another time I lived in Groves and another time I lived in San Antonio.

If you've lived in Groves, we've got a bit in common. I went to P.N.-G H.S. My primary education was up in Illinois, though.

Vouchers can work for some places.

I do not think they can work for all places.

The flip side of that argument would be that public schools cannot work for all places. I think whether or not either statement is true depends on the definition of "work". If we're talking about being economically feasible, my opinion is that vouchers would work in every place that public schools can, and may even work in places that public schools can't. However, if we're talking about being politically feasible, then I agree with you. But politics change.

Teacher expectation = Student success

Add parental participation and sufficient resources (textbooks, etc.), then I agree completely.

There are several in Texas, including one near where I live, that I am familiar with. While their individual performance is impressive, there is a corresponding drop in overall performance in the schools that the magnets draw students from. In essence, they are skimming top students. And the local magnet high school still gets crushed, according to the state standardized test and the SAT's, every year by the local Catholic high school. Of course the Catholic high school charges a fairly high tuition, although there are scholarships as well, so it could be argued that the Catholic high school is skimming as well. But I don't think skimming accounts for all the difference in results.

Do you have elementary magnets?

None in my area that I know of.

Our parish has just adopted a policy, and next year, ALL of our high schools will be magnet in a sense.

There is no zoning for anyone over 13. There's a school for the arts, a school for sports, etc.

Interesting. I'd like to hear how that turns out.

Markets are a lot more efficient than governments.

I love how people never qualify their statements when it comes to economics and politics. It's never "I believe so and so" it's always "This is the case." Take the sentence for above. Is there any explaination of the premises of belief (such as a belief in human nature, the invisible hand, etc, etc) that produce such a dogmatic statement? Nope, just a statement of belief, plain and simple.

Would you feel better if I said that markets are USUALLY a lot more efficient than governments. I mean, it's a qualified statement.

I would feel better, there still would be bones of contention.

Or would you rather I said that a study of the past 5,000 years of economic history, beginning with the ancient Egyptians and encompassing every major civilization including the present-day nation states leads me to the conclusion that markets are USUALLY more efficient than governments?

I would rather you didn't say that. I mean, there would be methodological issues with seperating the subject of investigation from the normative assumptions that underlie the investigation. Plus, there would be huge historical and political issues when it came to classifying governments and government action. Lastly, there would also be a relative paucity of examples of government economic action prior to the last century or so, with the exception of times of warfare.

But hey, if you want to gloss over those rather basic problems, it's not me you have to satisfy.

Or would you rather I say that, based upon the consensus of modern economists, markets are USUALLY more efficient than governments, with a few, well-defined and irrelevant to the current conversation, exceptions?

Again, I wouldn't be happy relying on the "consensus" of economists. Mainly because economists try to obscure (through the use of maths and models) the fact that the basis of their analysis is predicated on a certain set of highly contestable beliefs.

And is it a sufficiently qualified statement that I believe it is USUALLY the case that if someone knows enough to make a passing reference to the invisible hand during the course of a discussion on economics, that I believe that person should have the intelligence to realize that statements that a layman may consider to be dogmatic are, in fact, implicitly qualified when written in the context of a fairly knowledgeable forum?

In my quite considerable experience of debates and conversations about politics the vast majority of people have not implicitly qualified their statements with such things as "I believe", as for them it is not a matter of belief, but of fact.

And that when said person decides to cry "DOGMA!" despite the fact that it has been obvious that the participants of the discussion are fairly intelligent, that it is my OPINION that said crier is a CUNT?

My my, aren't we aggressive? In my own experience it is people who are intelligent who are most likely to not wish to discuss their underlying system of beliefs. It tends to realy grate at people that however much they want to believe that their arguments are rational (and, more to the point, true) they realise there are some things which they just believe in (and, also,

At 3/17/08 01:05 AM, MattZone wrote:

At 3/17/08 12:31 AM, SevenSeize wrote: No, and I understand what you are saying.

But if we go to all voucher schools, like you admitted earlier, the government will have to control some aspect of it.

and that's where the corruption will come in.

True, but I believe that by greatly reducing governments' role, it would be possible to greatly reduce the corruption. The system I envision is this: The local government collects school taxes, just as it does now. It looks out for tax cheats, just as it does now. Then, instead of funding schools directly, it gives out vouchers to parents. It checks to make sure that said parents actually have children, that live in the area, and are attending school using the voucher money (insist on receipts). It inspects the schools to make sure that they are not rat colonies and that children are not being abused. But as far as the fiscal administration or curriculum goes, the schools handle that. The state then tests all students using standardized tests, and publishes the results publically (anonymized for student privacy).

Unfortunatly no matter what you do there will be corruption at every level. From teachers not doing their jobs to school board members to government officials. Its certainly not at just the government level. I'm an atheist in a catholic school, and I'm almost sure when they have to decide between me and one of their own, no matter the circumstances, I'm going to be thrown to the lions.

You can ask your relatives, Louisiana has some crooked politicians... like moreso than your average politician.

I have. They've got some funny stories. Some scary ones too. I'm almost surprised that they still live there, but Louisiana does have a lot going for it.

What part of the state are they from? That's strictly curiosity, and if you'd prefer not to answer for privacy issues, I understand completely.

They're spread out all over. A few in Baton Rouge, a few in New Orleans, the majority down in a little town between Lake Charles and Lafayette.

I apologize.

I accept.

Why do you believe the results in private secondary education are so different than the results in private elementary education would be?

Because I do have experience with private and public institutions, elementary level.

My degree and certifications only cover 1-6th as well. I try to stay honest in that I do not know as much about secondary education period.

Personally? I think the sports programs make a huge difference as others in this thread have been debating, but again, I am not qualified to talk about that.

I'm not suggesting more time spent on education at all. I'm simply noting that private education plays a big role in the success that other countries are having. I think that even if we extended public school hours and had public tutors, we would not match the results that other countries are getting with private schools and tutors.

Lots of those countries are willing to spend more on education, private/public aside.

They make education a higher priority.

This includes home life.

True, no argument there.

Any ideas on how to fix that? We can either change the teachers, change the system, or change society. I don't know if we have enough teachers to start mass firings and their ideologies won't change. We could change the system by either paying kids for good grades (and please don't tell me that that is wrong and the real reward should be a better future, since honestly most of the students don't care about whats right or their future. We also could give tax deductions and most of the kids were talking about either won't go to college or will be forced to get a loan/work.

In Japan, if you bring home a month's worth of failure marks in conduct, your parents will discipline you.

Where I teach, the parents don't check the conduct marks. Most of them do not care at all until their child is suspended and they have to put up with them at home.

Well we could have the parents sit in a room with their heads down for an hour, but other than that I see little solution.

Politically difficult, yes. Never? We'll see. I doubt the issue of vouchers is going away any time soon.

I agree.

I also know that Texas is very voucher friendly. Your state has had success with them.

I have lived in Texas three times. Once I lived in Houston, another time I lived in Groves and another time I lived in San Antonio.

If you've lived in Groves, we've got a bit in common. I went to P.N.-G H.S. My primary education was up in Illinois, though.

Vouchers can work for some places.

I do not think they can work for all places.

The flip side of that argument would be that public schools cannot work for all places. I think whether or not either statement is true depends on the definition of "work". If we're talking about being economically feasible, my opinion is that vouchers would work in every place that public schools can, and may even work in places that public schools can't. However, if we're talking about being politically feasible, then I agree with you. But politics change.

I don't really know enough about vouchers to comment in detail other than we should study how things go in any places that have them and act on that. It probably should be left to the states to decide.

Teacher expectation = Student success

Add parental participation and sufficient resources (textbooks, etc.), then I agree completely.

I agree completely with or without participation and resources. One of my teachers held the class to a higher standard last year and the entire class did better than I think any other class regardless of class level. Class was huge and we really didn't use the books much, either. We aced tests the grades above us failed in their current year. (The teacher was let go the next year due to financial reasons...) The kids could be held to such a higher standard and they aren't.

There are several in Texas, including one near where I live, that I am familiar with. While their individual performance is impressive, there is a corresponding drop in overall performance in the schools that the magnets draw students from. In essence, they are skimming top students. And the local magnet high school still gets crushed, according to the state standardized test and the SAT's, every year by the local Catholic high school. Of course the Catholic high school charges a fairly high tuition, although there are scholarships as well, so it could be argued that the Catholic high school is skimming as well. But I don't think skimming accounts for all the difference in results.

Do you have elementary magnets?

None in my area that I know of.

There are actullaly no magnet schools of any sort I know of in my area. None within traveling distance that I was told about anyhow. The place is littered with Catholic Schools though.

Our parish has just adopted a policy, and next year, ALL of our high schools will be magnet in a sense.

There is no zoning for anyone over 13. There's a school for the arts, a school for sports, etc.

Interesting. I'd like to hear how that turns out.

So would I.