The graphic above is from the
White House blog showing that 650% is the "average markup by price-gouging vendors when the drug is in short supply." In response, "President Obama signed an Executive Order to prevent and reduce prescription drug shortages that lead to price gouging."
The graphic below is from Investor's Business Daily showing a 375% increase in public school spending over four decades, with no change in reading, math and science test scores. Reason? A bloated, bureaucratic, unionized public school monopoly that is sheltered from competition.
Question: If President Obama is concerned about "price gouging" for prescription drugs, will he sign an Executive Order that will expose the public school monopoly to greater competition, and end the "taxpayer-gouging" that has increased the cost of public education by 375% with no change in educational outcomes?
118 Comments:
“Executive Order to prevent and reduce prescription drug shortages that lead to price gouging."
___________
Why not an executive order to “prevent and reduce” the shortage of jobs?
One cannot order an end to shortages. One can, however, create an environment in which it is in the best interest of corporations to strive to eliminate shortages.
See http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/08/medicare-regulation-causes-shortages-of-cancer-drugs/243349/ for a discussion on why the shortages were an unintended consequence of government rule making in the first place.
Going after ‘price gougers’ is a fantastic way to ensure more shortages. The solution is to reduce the barriers for other suppliers to enter the market. Robust competition solves the ‘gouging’ problem automatically.
And when this new law fails, as price control laws always do, they'll be cries from the left for even more government control.
Evil capitalism will be blamed, in this case "greedy" drug companies.
Real spending on public education has doubled in the past 30 years with no perceived improvement in education. (In many cases a perceived decline). Without a champion to counteract the unions, little will be accomplished!
A perfect example of how the government has no clue about economics. Cost does not determine price.
Executive orders against scarcity. Executive orders for productivity. Why not just make an order against the cancer? It will probably be just as effective.
so two questions:
1. - does Europe/Asia/Australia/etc those countries with Universal Health care have THIS problem?
does the VA in the US have this problem?
2. - on schools
I'd fully agree to private sector schools as long as they had to meet the same standards as public schools which means they'd have to accept any/all including those from the harder-to-teach demographics - and they'd have to perform according to academic achievement standards imposed on publically-funded schools.
only 1/3 of our 4th grade kids meet international standards for proficiency in core academic subjects.
you want to plot something useful against this.
plot the cost to develop a new drug and get it through the FDA.
on a risk adjusted basis, it's something like $2.5 billion.
cap prices, and development will stop dead.
you want low prices, rein in the FDA.
I believe Charter Schools, public schools with various ideas of how to structure and educate, would qualify.
Done.
Test scores are up too.
Done.
do you know how the executive order will prevent future shortages? go ahead and take a guess...
that's right...the FDA is going to hire more employees to work in the drug shortage department. surely that will end the shortages, because the drug companies themselves are just too stupid to avoid a shortage on their own. they just need more regulators to show them the way to run a business.
"I believe Charter Schools, public schools with various ideas of how to structure and educate, would qualify ... Test scores are up too." -- The Bitter Guy
And the formation of charter schools has been fought tooth and nail by the unionized education monopoly. They exist and outperform in spite of, not because of, the unions.
Done.
As usual, the politicians are playing games by barking up the wrong tree. The way to lower prices and protect consumers is by allowing competition. End of story. Remove the barriers and allow companies and individuals to sell goods and services to people who want them.
"I'd fully agree to private sector schools as long as they had to meet the same standards as public schools which means they'd have to accept any/all including those from the harder-to-teach demographics - and they'd have to perform according to academic achievement standards imposed on publically-funded schools"...
Why should the private sector accept the obviously flawed methodolgy of failure that plagues the public school system?
"I'd fully agree to private sector schools as long as they had to meet the same standards as public schools which means they'd have to accept any/all including those from the harder-to-teach demographics - and they'd have to perform according to academic achievement standards imposed on publically-funded schools."
That's the long way of saying that you don't support private sector schools and that you don't trust parents to make good choices.
" Why should the private sector accept the obviously flawed methodolgy of failure that plagues the public school system? "
"That's the long way of saying that you don't support private sector schools and that you don't trust parents to make good choices. "
I'm IN FAVOR of competition and choice but I also know that we educating our kids to the same global standards that other countries are and we are the worse off of it.
Every kid who does not receive an globally-competitive education is going to grow up needing entitlements and higher taxes for others to pay them... and if you might be opposed to entitlements, how would you feel about the costs of incarceration ?
abandoning the kids who are harder to teach is a losing strategy unless you can figure out a way to not pay their entitlements or costs of imprisoning them.
Now.. if folks really believe that we should not have public schools at all - then that's a different question and I'd ask my classic question to name the top 3 countries in the world who do not provide a public education ....and you pick the criteria that makes them "better" than countries that do provide public education.
Quote from Larry G: "I'm IN FAVOR of competition and choice but I also know that we educating our kids to the same global standards that other countries are and we are the worse off of it."
There aren't any "our kids". Individual parents have kids. What business is it of yours how somebody else's kids are educated. This is just another silly way collectivists try to butt into everybody else's business.
" There aren't any "our kids". Individual parents have kids. What business is it of yours how somebody else's kids are educated. This is just another silly way collectivists try to butt into everybody else's business."
well.. kids who grow up without an education ultimately become YOUR business, right?
as long as we continue to pay entitlements - your kid is going to grow up to pay for other kids who grow up if we fail to equip them with an education.
I guess this is getting off thread.. so I'll wait until a thread that deals with education appears....
Larry,
"Every kid who does not receive an globally-competitive education is going to grow up needing entitlements and higher taxes for others to pay them..."
Ok, agree, sorta. Let's start by breaking the teachers' unions so the dead weight can be shit-canned.
"abandoning the kids who are harder to teach is a losing strategy unless you can figure out a way to not pay their entitlements or costs of imprisoning them"...
Well if the supposed adults who bred these kids can't seem to take full responsibility for their own children and if you and your fellow travelers think they're so important to waste resources on then why don't you dig deep into your own wallets and cover the costs of treating them to the education you think they deserve?
I'm IN FAVOR of competition and choice but I also know that we educating our kids to the same global standards that other countries are and we are the worse off of it.
No you are not. In many other countries it is far easier to get rid of incompetent teachers and there is far more competition because the money is attached to the student, not the school. When the money goes with the kids the schools have to behave and offer a decent education. There is no evidence that is what is happening.
Every kid who does not receive an globally-competitive education is going to grow up needing entitlements and higher taxes for others to pay them... and if you might be opposed to entitlements, how would you feel about the costs of incarceration ?
How ironic. Don't you realize that for many kids public school is incarceration? You have armed guards, metal detectors, a threatening environment, locked doors, etc. They can't leave until they are dismissed and have no way to do what they want to do.
And nobody is arguing against education. The argument is against the pathetic job done by the public schools.
There aren't any "our kids". Individual parents have kids. What business is it of yours how somebody else's kids are educated. This is just another silly way collectivists try to butt into everybody else's business.
Welcome to Larry's world where individuals are too stupid and it takes a village to create a village idiot.
Larry, funny how first you demand entitlements, then you demand education so that you don't have to pay the entitlements, then you demand regulation to make sure the education fits some useless pre-conceived criteria, that have always been worthless and are only more so in our increasingly dynamic world. Your demands on the productive are never-ending, all so you can fulfill your worthless socialist fantasy, which makes us all poorer. And the worst part is your incredible condescension that all those people would otherwise need to be jailed, as of course they would then cause "trouble" if they didn't know how to do math or science, which have always been useless for most people and are particularly useless in our computer-drenched world.
Also, you ask for a top 3, how about Sweden, Denmark, and Ireland, all of which use vouchers and do better than the US according to even your antiquated measures.
arbitrage789: " One cannot order an end to shortages."
Au contraire! This President can do
anything!
"This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."
"Welcome to Larry's world where individuals are too stupid and it takes a village to create a village idiot."
Larry's village did an exceptionally good job.
Quote from Larry G: "well.. kids who grow up without an education ultimately become YOUR business, right?"
Only if I choose to assume so, which you apparently have. This is a collectivist strawman. If you assume responsibility for somebody else's responsibilities, then why would they take those responsibilities seriously?
If this is that important to you, then you should spend more of your money on it, rather than having the state rob your neighbors for your assumed responsibilities.
while I agree it SHOULD be the responsibility of the parents, the reality is that some are not themselves educated enough to be able to care properly for their kids and the job of education falls to society - at least in virtually all industrialized countries.
I don't "demand" entitlements - I point out that when kids grow up without sufficient education, they will likely not earn enough money to pay for their needs and until and unless we change the entitlement system - they'll receive entitlements.
All other industrialized countries work this way.
In terms of bad teachers that's yet another right wing canard carried by folks who promote themselves at libertarians.
When ACROSS the country in virtually every school system - only 30% of the kids graduate with basic proficiency then 60+% are not. 20% cannot even pass the basic Armed Forces aptitude test which not only determines which jobs you qualify for but what training also.
Europe has the equivalent of teachers unions and virtually every European country outperforms our kids.
basically you have a choice here.
fix our education system - and bad teachers and unions is not the problem - or we revert to a 3rd world country.
I already know you guys vote.
re: " t Sweden, Denmark, and Ireland,"
can you folks please stop using right wing propaganda or at least check one other source before posting your tripe?
" The vast majority of schools in Sweden are municipally-run, but there are also autonomous and publicly-funded schools, known as "free schools". The education in free schools has many objectives in common with the municipal school, but it can have an orientation that differs from that of the municipal schools.[6] A handful of boarding schools, known as "private schools", are funded by privately-paid tuition."
" Government-funded education is usually free of charge and open to all. Denmark has a tradition of private schools and about 13% of all children at basic school level attend private schools.[2]"
" Education in Ireland is free at all levels"
with or without vouchers the education system is primarily public
I don't mind debating on the merits as long as we are dealing with facts but some live in their own little propagandized world that they believe in and it has nothing to do with the realities.
I'm not opposed to vouchers as long as the academic results are better - comparable to Europe but what the right wing is basically proposing is to use vouchers to privatize education with no accountability for results.
as long as we get the results - I am for the most-cost effective system that can be operated.
re: " t Sweden, Denmark, and Ireland,"
can you folks please stop using right wing propaganda or at least check one other source before posting your tripe?
" The vast majority of schools in Sweden are municipally-run, but there are also autonomous and publicly-funded schools, known as "free schools". The education in free schools has many objectives in common with the municipal school, but it can have an orientation that differs from that of the municipal schools.[6] A handful of boarding schools, known as "private schools", are funded by privately-paid tuition."
" Government-funded education is usually free of charge and open to all. Denmark has a tradition of private schools and about 13% of all children at basic school level attend private schools.[2]"
" Education in Ireland is free at all levels"
with or without vouchers the education system is primarily public
I don't mind debating on the merits as long as we are dealing with facts but some live in their own little propagandized world that they believe in and it has nothing to do with the realities.
I'm not opposed to vouchers as long as the academic results are better - comparable to Europe but what the right wing is basically proposing is to use vouchers to privatize education with no accountability for results.
as long as we get the results - I am for the most-cost effective system that can be operated.
" Only if I choose to assume so, which you apparently have. This is a collectivist strawman. If you assume responsibility for somebody else's responsibilities, then why would they take those responsibilities seriously? "
how does that work in the context of countries that have mandatory public education systems?
Name the top 3 countries in the world who do not have mandatory public education systems - vouchers or not.
do you really know what you are talking about when you essentially advocate against public education?
public education is like elected govt - both SUCK BIG TIME in a lot of ways but what exactly is the alternative that works better?
Well with his usual flair for getting wrong larry g says the following: "public education is like elected govt - both SUCK BIG TIME in a lot of ways but what exactly is the alternative that works better?"...
In the US elected government is constitutional but government provided education is not...
Check out the Constitution for further invalidation of your point of view...
" In the US elected government is constitutional but government provided education is not."
really?
are you talking about reality or your right wing ideology?
how about the Constitutions of the States?
name the top 3 countries that do not have mandatory public education and as a direct result are better off with a privatized system.
if you really want to live in a 3rd world country.. there are lots of choices but converting this country - the USA to a 3rd world country is only going to happen in your wet dreams...
what country do you live in Juandos?
"are you talking about reality or your right wing ideology?"...
What's wrong larry g, couldn't find someone to read the US Constitution to you and explain it clause by clause as he or she went along?
"how about the Constitutions of the States?"...
What about them? If states want public education then what's the problem?
Its NOT the job of the federal government to interfere in the educational programs of the states...
"name the top 3 countries that do not have mandatory public education and as a direct result are better off with a privatized system"...
Why would I care if there's three countries or thirty of them?
They're not the ones ripping me off via the federal taxation system so as to pour money down the rathole called public education...
Apparently you weren't smart enough to click on the link I already provided to you regarding the quality of public education in an earlier comment on this very posting....
"if you really want to live in a 3rd world country.. there are lots of choices but converting this country - the USA to a 3rd world country is only going to happen in your wet dreams..."....
Are YOU a product of a public education? If so you've answered your question...
I've been watching this country turn into a 'ghetto for the clueless' from sea to shining sea thanks to people like you...
From a recent AEI & Heritage Foundation study conducted by Richwine and Biggs: We conclude that public-school teacher salaries are comparable to those paid to similarly skilled privatesector workers, but that more generous fringe benefits for public-school teachers, including greater job security, make total compensation 52 percent greater than fair market levels, equivalent to more than $120 billion overcharged to taxpayers each year.
just FYI - the only money the Feds provide for education is for at-risk kids and special needs kids - and amount to about 1k a year of he 8-12K per student that is average.
the money cannot be spent on anything other than kids who are at risk....
what country are you from Juandos?
Larry,
"In terms of bad teachers that's yet another right wing canard carried by folks who promote themselves at libertarians."
Bullshit. There are shitty teachers just like there are shitty employees in any field. If this is just a "canard" then surely it wouldn't hurt to give principals the right to fire the dead weight on staff, right? The Teacher's Union should call our bluff and stand vindicated!
"just FYI - the only money the Feds provide for education is for at-risk kids and special needs kids - and amount to about 1k a year of he 8-12K per student that is average."
Not true. Every warm body (Average Daily Attendance - ADA) gets federal money. That's why they all take the NCLB tests - to show adequate yearly progress (AYP) and keep getting their federal sugar daddy money for every warm body. Funding varies by school district and state. In TN, the state-wide average spending per student is $8773 with 13% of that being federal dollars. Pretty close to your number, but this will be the low end of the scale on price and that is spent on every student.
All the federal money incentives are in the wrong direction. You get more for being poor, malnourished, non-white, almost double federal money for special ed (ritalin junkies qualify here), and otherwise "disadvantaged". If half your students meet these criteria, you can be a "Title 1" school and get even more federal money. So the incentive for the school to keep getting their sugar daddy money is to keep students this way - which is the exact opposite of the purported generational results that public education is supposed to provide.
I don't "demand" entitlements - I point out that when kids grow up without sufficient education, they will likely not earn enough money to pay for their needs and until and unless we change the entitlement system - they'll receive entitlements.
No, they won't. Your entitlement system is just as bankrupt as the one in Greece. Eventually those not willing to take responsibility will be cut off from the welfare rolls or will see their take severely reduced. Clinton showed that the best thing for those on welfare is reform that cuts entitlements from the able bodied. There are plenty of jobs planting strawberries or picking fruit around. There is no reason why those on the welfare rolls can't take some of them.
fix our education system - and bad teachers and unions is not the problem - or we revert to a 3rd world country
It is easy to fix the system. Get rid of the monopoly on education by attaching the money to the kids and giving parents a choice.
I'm not opposed to vouchers as long as the academic results are better - comparable to Europe but what the right wing is basically proposing is to use vouchers to privatize education with no accountability for results.
No. The argument is that the money should be attached to the kids and that the parents should have a choice. If parents want private schools because the public ones are useless so be it.
re: bad teachers
there are bad teachers everywhere including Europe and Asia but they are not the reason why across the board there are problems in some countries and not others.
re: Fed Funding
trust me. the money is directed to specific things... at risk kids and special ed... and is only about 10% of the total spent per kid.
re: entitlements and prison
figure it out. if you don't like entitlements, then prison will cost you about 30K per man year.
re: fund the kids
I agree but the provider needs to be accountable for performance.
there are bad teachers everywhere including Europe and Asia but they are not the reason why across the board there are problems in some countries and not others.
Bad teachers are not a problem. Bad teachers that can't be fired because of teachers unions are.
Look how Larry just skates over the issue:
"there are bad teachers everywhere including Europe and Asia but they are not the reason why across the board there are problems in some countries and not others."
Bad teachers that can't be fired are absolutely a huge part of the problem. A "globally competitive" education is not going to be taught by a group that has no worries about competing with their peers. Only a hack in thrall to the teachers' unions would say otherwise.
Enter Larry...
Again, if this is just a "canard," then why doesn't the teacher's unions call our bluff and agree that shitty teachers should be shown the door? And what makes them so special they should have the right to a lifetime career of napping while the kids shoot craps in the back of the class room?
re: bad teachers
how does Europe and Asia (who beat the snot out of us academically) deal with "bad" teachers.
ya'll don't seem to understand that the problem we have is institutional - entire schools, entire school systems - whether in a union state or a right-to-work state.
the numbers are bad pretty much everywhere.
You could get rid of every single "bad" teacher and you'd still have the institutional problem.
All European and Asian countries have national curriculum for both college bound and non-college bound kids.
if the Europeans and Asians beat the snot out of our academically do you think it's because they don't have unions and/or are better at getting rid of "bad" teachers?
the "bad-teacher/bad-unions" narrative is more right wing mis-direction that evades the real issues and seeks to denude teachers of benefits - that their European and Asian counterparts do have with or without unions.
why do we want to evade the truth here and play whipping boy instead of dealing with the realities?
that's whats dumb here.
if you think we need to have a system that is competitive with our global competitors - do you REALLY think our teachers are bad compared to European/Asian teachers?
lord. lord.
Larry G,
"the "bad-teacher/bad-unions" narrative is more right wing mis-direction that evades the real issues and seeks to denude teachers of benefits"
So once again then why doesn't the teacher's union get this off the table and expose us right-wing demagogues for what we are? Why don't they call our bluff? Explain this to me, Larry? Why would they possibly be opposed to getting rid of the shitty teachers? Do you seriously disagree that it would at least do no harm? In New York City in 2008, three out of 30,000 tenured teachers were dismissed for cause. The statistics are just as eye-popping in other cities. The percentage of teachers dismissed for poor performance in Chicago between 2005 and 2008 (the most recent figures available) was 0.1 percent. In Akron, Ohio, zero percent. In Toledo, 0.01 percent. In Denver, zero percent. Getting rid of the dead weight would at least somewhat help the budget situation in these bankrupt cities. And once more, why should teachers have an ironclad grip on their job when the taxpayers who pay their salaries do not?
Aah, but your wife is a teacher, right? Teachers' union hack, Larry.
"The research shows that kids who have two, three, four strong teachers in a row will eventually excel, no matter what their background, while kids who have even two weak teachers in a row will never recover," says Kati Haycock of the Education Trust and coauthor of the 2006 study "Teaching Inequality: How Poor and Minority Students Are Shortchanged on Teacher Quality."
"if the Europeans and Asians beat the snot out of our academically do you think it's because they don't have unions and/or are better at getting rid of "bad" teachers?"
Lots of cultural reasons, probably. Teachers in Europe have higher social status and get paid more. Could be that. In any case, I imagine you'll just keep spewing the union hack party line since it fills your rice bowl.
I love this:
"..and seeks to denude teachers of benefits -"
Yeah, nice benefits like being able to sleep during class and never suffer any consequences. That's their birthright though, isn't it Larry?
" "if the Europeans and Asians beat the snot out of our academically do you think it's because they don't have unions and/or are better at getting rid of "bad" teachers?"
Lots of cultural reasons, probably. Teachers in Europe have higher social status and get paid more. Could be that. In any case, I imagine you'll just keep spewing the union hack party line since it fills your rice bowl. "
cultural reasons in ALL of Europe and ALL of Asia ?
ha ha ha
that's really LAME!
I'm not opposed to getting rid of bad teachers... at all but the problem we have is why we have is bigger than bad teachers because even at schools with GOOD teachers - we fail to achieve parity with our global competitors.
all this is - is right wing anti-unionism...
it has nothing to do with the real problems and people really don't care if we fix the problems or not as long as they break the unions.
For the record, I do not really care for unions to start with and especially those that protect bad workers....
but the problem with our schools is not at it's core due to bad teachers.
"Teachers in Europe have higher social status and get paid more. "
they don't get paid more but they have the benefits - pensions and health care which is why there are unions over here.
If we provided higher salaries, pensions, and health care would the teachers still want unions?
the problems might be unions in some urban schools but it's more likely that no really good teachers want to teach in those schools to start with and the teachers that are willing to teach there know they have a job no matter what - with or without a union.
There are many urban schools like this in right-to-work, non-union states.
but it's clear that you are not really interested in improving the schools - just finding whipping boys.
Larry,
".. because even at schools with GOOD
teachers - we fail to achieve parity with our global competitors."
I'm not sure how true that is, but the data absolutely shows schools with good teachers achieve better results than the bad ones. So why not start there?
"but the problem with our schools is not at it's core due to bad teachers."
Really? Then lets save the bankrupt cities and just pay teachers minimum wage. After all, bad teachers aren't the problem, so let's save a bundle.
Right, Larry?
"If we provided higher salaries, pensions, and health care would the teachers still want unions? "
Why the f*ck should we provide them anything extra if, like you claim, the teaching profession is the one and only career in the universe where you can be a deadbeat and not have an effect on the product?
I don't think even you believe your own bullshit, Larry.
"..it's more likely that no really good teachers want to teach in those schools to start with..."
And why should they when, thanks to the teachers' unions, there's nothing extra in it for them?
".. it's clear that you are not really interested in improving the schools - just finding whipping boys."
And it's clear that you are not really interested in improving the schools, just spouting the union propaganda your wife brings home along with her paycheck.
" I'm not sure how true that is, but the data absolutely shows schools with good teachers achieve better results than the bad ones. So why not start there?"
It's TRUE.
In right-to-work states where teachers are fired (and I live in one where they do) - the achievement levels are not much different than union states.
and most all of our schools... only graduate about 30% of kids that are "proficient" according to world standards.
" Really? Then lets save the bankrupt cities and just pay teachers minimum wage. After all, bad teachers aren't the problem, so let's save a bundle.
Right, Larry?
"If we provided higher salaries, pensions, and health care would the teachers still want unions? "
Why the f*ck should we provide them anything extra if, like you claim, the teaching profession is the one and only career in the universe where you can be a deadbeat and not have an effect on the product?"
I never said that. I said that your perception is wrong and misdirected.
even "good" schools with "good" teachers in this country fail to graduate a majority of kids that rate "proficient"
and the "bad" schools with "bad" teachers don't do much worse.
" I don't think even you believe your own bullshit, Larry.
"..it's more likely that no really good teachers want to teach in those schools to start with..."
And why should they when, thanks to the teachers' unions, there's nothing extra in it for them? "
urban schools are much more wild and woolly and cannot attract even minimal standard teachers without paying a premium.
these are the teachers you are talking about.
go ahead and fire them and you still won't be able to replace them with "good" teachers.
it's a problem.
" ".. it's clear that you are not really interested in improving the schools - just finding whipping boys."
And it's clear that you are not really interested in improving the schools, just spouting the union propaganda your wife brings home along with her paycheck. "
I don't think you know a thing about my wife dude.
why do you need to personalize things?
is that what your parents taught you?
don't personalize things guy.
debate the issue and keep it on the issue and keep your damned personal attacks to yourself.
"just FYI - the only money the Feds provide for education is for at-risk kids and special needs kids - and amount to about 1k a year of he 8-12K per student that is average"...
Well per his usual style larry g makes a sweeping statement (sans anything credible to back it up) and is wrong...
Federal interference in the education sector is wide, ugly, and expensive...
that's a good link.. haven't seen it..
but at the K-12 school level - that I was speaking about - the aid amounts to about 1K per student per year.
You can verify this by looking at your local school budget.
The context of the discussion was how much money we spend on K-12 education not other education.
what country are you from Juandos?
Quote from Larry G: "the reality is that some are not themselves educated enough to be able to care properly for their kids and the job of education falls to society"
What is your definition of "properly educate"? Again, you're assuming responsibility for other people by projecting your beliefs on to them. Then you go on to proclaim that you "don't "demand" entitlements" while demanding that all society fund your public education schemes through the guns of the state. You're statements are contradictory and illogical.
Larry, as usual you completely miss the point of my post, then rant some drivel about "right wing propaganda." I pointed out three countries that all have vouchers and do much better than the US even on your silly tests. Nobody ever said their systems weren't "primarily public," that's a completely new factor that you brought up, for no apparent reason. Who is living in "their own little propagandized world" here: you, who assert that those countries have vouchers but are still primarily public then contradict that by claiming that we want vouchers only to "privatize education," or us? Even if vouchers are used in a primarily public system, they introduce competition, so that women don't have to sneak their kids across public school districts and then get thrown out of the better ones. No doubt if we did pass vouchers, it would probably lead to a lot more privatization, as the private sector just does everything better. But the dumdums who want to keep their kids in public schools will still have that choice.
As for why the "academic results" aren't always better, that's precisely because of people like you, who still want to force your dumb, one-size-fits-all curricula on everyone else. The "results" that you want are the problem in the first place, which is why all the countries that get your better "results" still lag far behind the US in economic measures like GDP per capita, that you would hope would come from such a better "education."
" Larry, as usual you completely miss the point of my post, then rant some drivel about "right wing propaganda." I pointed out three countries that all have vouchers and do much better than the US even on your silly tests. Nobody ever said their systems weren't "primarily public"
those countries have nationalized curriculums and testing and all schools have to meet those requirements.
I did go look at those three countries and I saw very little about vouchers so I'm doubting the links you provided because they look like they are propaganda to me.
Check the wiki descriptions and they are very different from the links you provided.
" As for why the "academic results" aren't always better, that's precisely because of people like you, who still want to force your dumb, one-size-fits-all curricula on everyone else. The "results" that you want are the problem in the first place, which is why all the countries that get your better "results" still lag far behind the US in economic measures like GDP per capita, that you would hope would come from such a better "education."
how can you cite the "better" approaches in those countries and then turn around and say they are not as good economically?
Those countries seriously outperform our kids for educations that are needed for 21st century jobs.
We see the results. CEOs from Bill Gates and many other corporations say that our workforce is ill-prepared for the technological demands for 21st century jobs - and one of the main reasons why we have high unemployment - and the need for entitlements.
I SUPPORT vouchers as long as the schools have to take all comers and are subject to the same performance standards.
the reason this "works" in Europe and Asia.. Australia, NZ, etc.. is because there is a no-excuse national curriculum and testing.
this is not one-size fits all guy.
Even our own military has testing to determine what jobs you qualify for and what training you get - and 20% of our kids cannot pass it.
the reason why is not bad teachers.
it's because our schools focus on the top 1/3 students who are bound for college and do a much poorer job for kids who are not college bound - and do not have strong parental support.
these kids can learn but they have to be taught in a different way than the top 30% and it starts in K-6.
If a kid does not "get it" by the time they leave K-6 - they're pretty much doomed in our system.
there are some excellent private schools in this country and I support vouchers - as long as the curriculum and testing is standardized and all providers have to meet that standard.
this is very much like it works in Europe and Asia
" Bad teachers are not a problem. Bad teachers that can't be fired because of teachers unions are"
but the results in schools with unions and without unions in right-to-work states is not that different.
I agree that we ought to be able to get rid of bad teachers but I also point out that in some schools - they cannot attract good teachers to start with and that's why they have "bad" teachers and if you fire them - you'll have NO teachers.
In those cases - I totally support a privatized system with vouchers but I am opposed to having predatory businesses scooping up the vouchers and not producing measurable results that are at least as good if not better than the public schools.
I would hope - better.
I would be in favor of keying the vouchers to performance.
the more/better the results the higher the voucher payments.
the answer is much more difficult than getting rid of 'bad' teachers and that line of reasoning is a distraction from the real problems.
it's a canard... a simplistic sound-bite idea.. that will not fix the problem.
" What is your definition of "properly educate"? Again, you're assuming responsibility for other people by projecting your beliefs on to them. Then you go on to proclaim that you "don't "demand" entitlements" while demanding that all society fund your public education schemes through the guns of the state. You're statements are contradictory and illogical. "
receive an education that provides you with the ability to work, pay taxes and provide for you and your family needs, not need entitlements and not be incarcerated for economic criminal activity.
to get a globally-competitive workforce education.
but at the K-12 school level - that I was speaking about - the aid amounts to about 1K per student per year.
Wrong as usual. The US spends many times that amount without getting much in the way of quality education.
What is your definition of "properly educate"? Again, you're assuming responsibility for other people by projecting your beliefs on to them. Then you go on to proclaim that you "don't "demand" entitlements" while demanding that all society fund your public education schemes through the guns of the state. You're statements are contradictory and illogical.
If you have been around on this board for a while you will have noticed a few things about our friend.
First, he is usually contradictory and illogical.
Second, he believes that many people are incapable of making decisions for themselves and is deluded enough to believe that 'people like him' can make better decisions and that those decisions are theirs to make, not the individuals whose lives they impact.
Third, he is stupid enough to believe that he is somehow one of the people who will make the decisions if only the state grew just a little bit bigger and individual freedom was reduced by just a bit more.
As for why the "academic results" aren't always better, that's precisely because of people like you, who still want to force your dumb, one-size-fits-all curricula on everyone else. The "results" that you want are the problem in the first place, which is why all the countries that get your better "results" still lag far behind the US in economic measures like GDP per capita, that you would hope would come from such a better "education."
While I agree with you and your conclusion that Larry is a worthless fool I think that there is a bigger issue here. The US public education system actually does well what it is designed to do.
The belief by most people is that the education system is supposed to create knowledgeable kids who can reason clearly and think independently. But that is not what its designers and the current administration of the modern public school system really wanted. Anyone who has been paying attention should know by now that the state wants compliant citizens who obey orders and accept the lies told to them by their political masters without much question.
Does this look familiar?
but the results in schools with unions and without unions in right-to-work states is not that different.
The school systems in all states are dominated by unions and a centralized bureaucracy.
I agree that we ought to be able to get rid of bad teachers but I also point out that in some schools - they cannot attract good teachers to start with and that's why they have "bad" teachers and if you fire them - you'll have NO teachers.
Sure you will. You will have good teachers. But as I have said before, it isn't just the teachers that are the problem. It is the system that is the problem. It needs to be torn down by introducing competition.
" Wrong as usual. The US spends many times that amount without getting much in the way of quality education"
The US as a whole does if you include Fed, State and local but the Fed funding of k-12 is about 1K per student.
" If you have been around on this board for a while you will have noticed a few things about our friend.
First, he is usually contradictory and illogical."
not really. you just have such an idiotic view of the world that much does not make sense to you.
anti-govt, anti-science and looney as they come.
"Second, he believes that many people are incapable of making decisions for themselves and is deluded enough to believe that 'people like him' can make better decisions and that those decisions are theirs to make, not the individuals whose lives they impact."
nope. I point out that virtually all of the modern economies require individual mandate mandatory payroll taxes.....
and you are opposed to what the vast majority of countries in this world do ...
and I ask you to name the countries who don't do this and show how they are better and you run away and hide behind personal attacks.
"Third, he is stupid enough to believe that he is somehow one of the people who will make the decisions if only the state grew just a little bit bigger and individual freedom was reduced by just a bit more."
I believe in the realities and not unproven and no existing examples of idiotic right-wing/libertarian theories.
you have no solutions ... only vitriol, hate and lunatic ideas.
" The belief by most people is that the education system is supposed to create knowledgeable kids who can reason clearly and think independently. But that is not what its designers and the current administration of the modern public school system really wanted. Anyone who has been paying attention should know by now that the state wants compliant citizens who obey orders and accept the lies told to them by their political masters without much question. "
what an idiotic fool you are.
every word out of your mouth if idiocy
" Sure you will. You will have good teachers. But as I have said before, it isn't just the teachers that are the problem. It is the system that is the problem. It needs to be torn down by introducing competition. "
and I totally agree but the standards for performance need to apply to ALL players - like they do in Europe and Asia.
you idiots just want to kill the unions and let the vendors suck up vouchers with no accountability.
the vouchers are from taxes and yet you apparently want to just hand them over to even less accountable organizations...
but your real agenda is to kill public schools all together..
just more anti-govt same-old same-old from yet another old fool...
Haha, depend on Larry to provide the most idiotic leftie arguments you can think of. Now he even denies that Sweden, Denmark, and Ireland use vouchers, no doubt after a cursory look at Wikipedia, even though I directly linked him to the Wikipedia article on vouchers that lists all three. He carefully avoids these facts then claims they're "propaganda." XD Lol, I clearly said that those countries only do "better than the US even on your silly tests," but the whole point is that your retarded "nationalized curriculums and testing" are the problem in the first place. That's because doing better in math has nothing to do with doing better economically, because math is mostly useless in our computer-driven age where all that low-level stuff is done for us. Right, cuz Bill Gates is going to hire all those kids as engineers after they learn some basic high school math? You are deeply ignorant of these issues if you swallow that crap. Why do you give a shit who schools decide to take or what performance standards parents decide are important? Oh, that's right, because you really don't give a shit what parents want, you just want the teachers to keep scamming them for more money. Lol, Larry is worth reading just for the laughs from juxtapositions like this:
"there is a no-excuse national curriculum and testing.
this is not one-size fits all guy."
Nobody explain to Larry that "no-excuse national curriculum" = "one-size fits all" and we can keep laughing at him for years. Right, cuz the military is the epitome of what we aspire to with education and an 80% pass rate is somehow horrible: how do you come up with this stuff, Larry? :) I agree that bad teachers are only part of the problem, the bigger problem is the worthless curricula, which the teachers are too dumb to change. And there's actually some truth in what you say about their focusing on the top third, because a lot of what they teach is just worthless, outmoded academism and scientism, cargo-cult thinking at its worst. The argument goes something like, "Some engineers 70 years ago used to learn calculus for their physics and engineering work, so maybe if we teach everybody calculus now, they'll be like them." Ignore the fact that no engineers do calculus anymore, with software doing essentially all of it.
I agree that kids have to be taught in a different way and that's why I'm actually not worried about this much. Online learning like Khan Academy is about to destroy the education system in this country. When your kid can learn better sitting in front of a computer than in any classroom, at less than one-tenth of a cost of any school, the mass exodus from the antiquated classroom is going to be breath-taking to watch. Parents will be pulling their kids from the "classroom" schools en masse and they will all collapse in years, not even decades, whether public or private. So all these "school" debates are frankly short-term and pointless, as the entire schooling system will be decimated in a few short years and good riddance. :)
V: "...The US public education system actually does well what it is designed to do.
...But that is not what its designers and the current administration of the modern public school system really wanted. Anyone who has been paying attention should know by now that the state wants compliant citizens who obey orders and accept the lies told to them by their political masters without much question.
Does this look familiar?"
That's the strongest argument for vouchers I've ever read.
"there are some excellent private schools in this country and I support vouchers - as long as the curriculum and testing is standardized and all providers have to meet that standard."
That's just the point of choice.
Considering ONLY vouchers and nothing else, it's hard to see how anyone without a financial conflict of interest, can be against the idea of vouchers.
Attaching public funding to each individual student rather than to their street address, allows the actual customers - parents - to choose where their child goes to school.
Unless you don't believe parents should have that choice, and that a government bureaucracy can best decide where children should go to school, it's hard to imagine a serious argument against vouchers.
Pointing out that private schools, already provide a choice isn't an answer, as most parents find it difficult or prohibitive to pay the additional fees, on top of what they already pay for public schools.
You might be interested in how strongly parent feel about education for their children. I seems that many in the poorest countries on Earth, earning only a few dollars a day, are willing to pay to send their kids to school when they feel the public system is failing them.
The US as a whole does if you include Fed, State and local but the Fed funding of k-12 is about 1K per student.
That money, which the government has no Constitutional authority to obtain or spend, buys a lot of influence at the local level.
not really. you just have such an idiotic view of the world that much does not make sense to you.
No Larry. You are actually a moron who cannot recognize his own ignorance and his internal contradictions. If you want an idiotic view read your own postings.
anti-govt, anti-science and looney as they come.
Anti-government? Yes.
Anti-science and looney? No. Unlike you and a few of your pals on this site, I do not hold faith based views that are sometimes, if not often, contradictory.
nope. I point out that virtually all of the modern economies require individual mandate mandatory payroll taxes.....
No. You do much more than that. You believe that people are incapable of making their own decisions for themselves. That is your justification for the high tax rates and massive welfare/warfare programs that you support.
and I totally agree but the standards for performance need to apply to ALL players - like they do in Europe and Asia.
What difference does it make if Portugal, Panama, Pakistan, or Paraguay have a 'different standard' than Portland? Education is a local matter and parents, not the federal government, should have the most say in what kids learn. And stop pretending that you know what goes on in Europe and Asia because you are absolutely clueless.
The Beautiful Tree: A Personal Journey Into How the World's Poorest People Are Educating Themselves
I have a niece who is going to school in China and a mother-in-law who has been involved in education for decades. I have nephews who went to middle and high schools in Poland, Malta, Macedonia, and Greece and are now getting their education in Boston. One of my best friends teaches in Taiwan, Shanghai, and Hong Kong. I have visited public and private schools in China, Thailand, Kenya, and Cambodia. So I have a pretty good idea of how complex things are and how easy it is for dilettantes like you to oversimplify and get things wrong.
As usual, you write about a topic that you have little knowledge about and confuse your passion for expertize and your faith for reason.
you idiots just want to kill the unions and let the vendors suck up vouchers with no accountability.
No. I simply want parents to have choices. Why don't you? And why do you put unions ahead of the children?
How Children Fail
Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling
Weapons of Mass Instruction: A Schoolteacher's Journey Through the Dark World of Compulsory Schooling
Does this look familiar?
Or this?
That's the strongest argument for vouchers I've ever read.
What I can't figure out is the ignorance of the people who defend the system. Not only are the results clearly indicating that the schools are not educating children the history of the state-run school system shows that its goals are very different from the goals of the parents.
Sweden, Netherlands, Ireland and others do have a voucher system but that system is govt run and there is a national curriculum and all providers have to follow the same standards.
the reason they best us in international comparisons is precisely because they do have national standards, curriculum and testing.
if you think math is "useless" in a technology-driven world - you need to re-think that.
math is integral to many technologies as well as the ability to think critically about how to solve real-world problems.
we can accept this reality and try to do something about it or we can abandon public education by blaming teachers and unions.
In order to determine what a "good" teacher is - you'd have to have a way to rate them according to their students performance.
without standardized curriculums and testing - there would be no effective way to determine if a teacher is performing or not...
or course.. if your goal is to kill public education to start with then those details don't really matter.
I see Beavis and Butthead are once again in full flower...
vouchers and choice are find. I support them.
but I also believe that without a standard curriculum and a way to measure achievement then you have accomplished nothing and really have harmed the concept of education.
Europe and Asia use standard curriculums and standard testing and from that they can determine who is a good teacher or not.
without those metrics, you have no way to measure students or teachers.
the only real way to measure a teacher is to see if they can advance a kid one grade level in a year.
without standards and a way to measure - you have nothing.
but I have a question here for Beavis and Butthead...
do you believe that people should have to pay taxes for education or not?
no weaseling now.
be honest.
aren't you both opposed to taxpayer-funded education?
"the reason they best us in international comparisons is precisely because they do have national standards, curriculum and testing.
You have not a shred of evidence for that, so I must assume that once again, you are just pulling things out of your ass.
If Europeans are smarter and better educated that those in the US, why aren't they richer?
"Europe and Asia use standard curriculums and standard testing and from that they can determine who is a good teacher or not.
without those metrics, you have no way to measure students or teachers."
More faulty thinking from Larry.
You must have a very low opinion of people's ability to judge things for themselves.
Without any specialized knowledge people judge who they feel is a good auto mechanic, a good dentist, a good lawyer, or a good cook, and they can and do judge who they feel is a good teacher, and or a good school. When they have choices, as they do in those other areas, they can do a good job of choosing the best education they can find for their children.
There are some things about human nature and economics that you seem unaware of.
Beavis.. or is it butthead...
no matter.
virtually all of the European and Asian countries have national curricula... and standardized testing.
in terms of of "richer" - look around you at the number of unemployed and the future for those who lack globally-competitive educations.
the 21st century jobs are going to go to the workforces that are best educated.
we're on a down trend ...in part because we've dropped the ball on education....
here's the bad news:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_Student_Assessment
skip down to the 2009 table
we rank:
30th in Math
23rd in Science
17th in reading
Countries like Poland and Estonia top us.
Why are these other countries doing so well?
Because they KNOW that jobs are going to go to the best qualified in a global economy.
and we are living in a dream world blaming 'bad' teachers and 'bad" parents.
" Without any specialized knowledge people judge who they feel is a good auto mechanic, a good dentist, a good lawyer, or a good cook, and they can and do judge who they feel is a good teacher, and or a good school. When they have choices, as they do in those other areas, they can do a good job of choosing the best education they can find for their children.
There are some things about human nature and economics that you seem unaware of. "
is that the way it is working in Europe and Asia fool?
"is that the way it is working in Europe and Asia fool?"
That's the way it works everywhere, Larry.
Larry, no shit voucher systems are govt-run, at least in terms of paying out the voucher money, whether to private schools or not. I see no evidence of a "national curriculum" in Ireland. In fact, "The Constitution of Ireland allows this education to be provided in the home;[5] this has caused much legal wrangling for years as to the minimum standards required for home education since the constitution does not explicitly provide for the State to define these minimum standards." So perhaps some "minimum standards," just like here in the US, but no "national curriculum" or testing. I know that math is useless for almost everyone, because I'm one of the 0.001% of engineers who knows more math than everyone else. Guys like me, numbering in the thousands, write the software which the remaining billions can just run and never do any math. That's why you never need to add up your grocery bill by hand or need to know anything about the trillions of calculations needed to create your video games or computer-generated movies, because there are very few of us who write that software so everybody else doesn't have to. Your fantasy that teaching a couple million teenagers some calculus accomplishes anything, particularly when 99.99% of them will never use it again, is what is patently idiotic. All it is is a full employment act for worthless calculus teachers. Nobody thinks critically about solving "real-world problems" because they learnt math, if anything it just gets in the way, as another useless pedagogy to burden their brains with.
Haha, now we get to the heart of the matter: you could give a shit about the education, you just want to defend a "public education" of "teachers and unions," so they can keep making money by wasting students' time. Nobody cares what a "good" teacher is, we just want the kids to learn useful skills, which will soon be done without any teachers, just a computer. If a standard curriculum is so important, why don't we have one now? According to your logic, the current system must be horrible too, cuz we certainly don't have such a national curriculum and testing now. So let's just put in vouchers, that we all agree is necessary, and forget about your "standard curriculum," that only you want, deal?! :)
Huh, why would people "pay taxes for education" if they all went to private schools anyway? Why do you want "taxpayer-funded education?" You either believe that those who don't have kids in school, or any kids, must be forced to pay for the schoolkids, who knows why, or you think that public schools magically perform better. Those are the only two possible reasons: which is it? Sure, there are unemployed in the US, but you have been pointed out stats that we are much, much richer than all the countries with the education you favor. Why is it that we have no national curriculum and do worse on the tests you want, yet are much richer than all those other countries? Could it be that your notion of "education" is actually worthless? Nah, couldn't be, they must be just about to figure it out and compete with us. XD Poland and Estonia pull in about $19-20k in GDP PPP per capita, while the US pulls in $47k. Why can't they even pull in half of what we do if they're so "educated?" Sure, those two were Communist until recently, but what about Japan, Finland, Canada, S. Korea? None of them have that excuse. They all do better on your tests, yet they all still lag far behind the US: what's their excuse? The only one in a dream world here is you, Larry, because you are only interested in defending the teacher scam, not the kids actually learning something useful.
for Ireland: "The Primary School Curriculum (1999) is taught in all schools. "
National curriculum and national testing is more cost effective and produces better results.
How would you be able to determine what a "bad" teacher or a "bad" school is without the ability to compare ?
How would you be able to determine if voucher schools themselves don't have "bad" teachers without a standardized way of measuring?
Sprewell -- you are ignorant my boy on the need for math.
many if not most of the technology jobs of the 21st require critical thinking and real world problem solving and that's the reason why the 3 most critical learning areas are reading, science and math.
this is no my opinion - this is the opinion of the corporations that say that our kids are lacking in math skills - and that incluides our own military where are kids fail the math part of the test.
but again - how would you decide what a "bad" teacher is without some standardized way of assessing ?
do you guys answer the question about whether you support the use of tax dollars for public education?
Primary school curriculum? That's your national curriculum, primary school?! Hey, if you're all for vouchers with no national curriculum after primary school, just like Ireland, sounds good to me, let's do that. We have a deal, Larry. :) I wouldn't be trying to determine anything about "bad" teachers or "bad" schools, because I would never send a kid to school or any other dumb teacher in the first place. If you need a standardized way of measuring, how do you know that all the public school teachers right now aren't horrible? Oh right, they are. Larry, my boy, I've forgotten more math than you could ever be forced to learn, which is why I know exactly what its place is. The notion of teaching most kids anything beyond algebra in this age of computers is evidence of the astounding stupidity of those currently teaching, who you of course blindly support. Most people will never sniff a "technology job" in their life; the notion that you can get them even close through high-school math or science is only uttered by moron politicians, brain-dead teachers, and dunces like you who listen to them. You are right that there are some corporate heads and military types who mouth the same tripe: they are just as dumb. These are the same morons who headed the financial firms before the recent crisis, yet had no idea of what was going on with the math in the financial models their math guys were cooking up, which of course all came crashing down.
Of course I don't want tax dollars wasted on "public" education, that'd be like saying I want tax dollars wasted on the equally worthless prison guard unions. But who gives a shit, it's not going to matter what any of us want anyway, as parents are just going to stop sending their kids to these shit schools en masse pretty soon, replacing them with online learning at less than one-tenth of the cost, similar to the African parents that would never send their kids to the shitty public schools over there and actually pay extra rather than send them to their "free" public schools.
" Primary school curriculum? That's your national curriculum, primary school?! Hey, if you're all for vouchers with no national curriculum after primary school, just like Ireland, sounds good to me, let's do that"
primary schools is the most important by far and it's where we fall down in this country.
If a kid does not get out of grade school with the necessary basic skills - he usually will have serious difficulties in secondary schools and almost certainly will end up in the bottom 30% and/or not graduate and not qualify for the military.
what I asked you about uniform standards is how you know right now there are "bad" teachers without a standard way of measuring them?
and then I asked you further how you'd implement a voucher school approach without a way of measuring THOSE teachers.
and the I asked you if you support taxpayer funded public education including vouchers.
and you said:
" Of course I don't want tax dollars wasted on "public" education, that'd be like saying I want tax dollars wasted on the equally worthless prison guard unions. But who gives a shit, it's not going to matter what any of us want anyway, "
so are you in favor of people being taxed and the money provided to parents as vouchers?
and Sprewell.. you're damned ignorant about the need for math in 21st century global jobs.
that's what Europe and Asian know and you don't.....
just about everything that is produced and sold these days involves math....
if math was not important then why is it included in all education worldwide?
we rank:
30th in Math
23rd in Science
17th in reading
Countries like Poland and Estonia top us.
Why are these other countries doing so well?
Because the teachers unions are not as powerful as they are in the US and because the government puts the students ahead of the teachers and educational bureaucracy. Because there is more competition and the money is attached to the students, not the schools.
do you guys answer the question about whether you support the use of tax dollars for public education?
I don't. Your federal government is not authorized to be involved in education by the Constitution.
primary schools is the most important by far and it's where we fall down in this country.
You can thank the public school monopoly for that. It is a good reason for getting rid of that monopoly.
"
I don't. Your federal government is not authorized to be involved in education by the Constitution. "
I asked about local and state govt as well.
do you think that local and state govt should tax you and spend that money on education - public education and vouchers?
" primary schools is the most important by far and it's where we fall down in this country.
You can thank the public school monopoly for that. It is a good reason for getting rid of that monopoly. "
the public school "monopoly" in Europe and Asia do better than us.
if you think there is a better approach, please list the countries that you think best do this.
I asked about local and state govt as well.
do you think that local and state govt should tax you and spend that money on education - public education and vouchers?
No. Education should be paid for by the parents of the kids.
the public school "monopoly" in Europe and Asia do better than us.
But in a way it isn't. It produces more compliant workers and state worshipers. Europe is now in the sate of collapse. That shows that the system did not do a very good job in educating its policy makers to make good decisions, even if their mental math skills are fine.
" No. Education should be paid for by the parents of the kids."
so you're really opposed to vouchers unless they are an intermediate step to repeal of taxes for education.
right?
can you name a couple of countries that do not tax for education that you think are better off because of it?
so you're really opposed to vouchers unless they are an intermediate step to repeal of taxes for education.
right?
can you name a couple of countries that do not tax for education that you think are better off because of it?
No. As long as the public is taxed and forced to pay for education I am in favour of giving the parents a voucher and letting them spend it where they want. There is no reason to protect the education monopoly and to force poor parents to send their kids to schools that do more harm than good.
" No. As long as the public is taxed and forced to pay for education I am in favour of giving the parents a voucher and letting them spend it where they want. There is no reason to protect the education monopoly and to force poor parents to send their kids to schools that do more harm than good. "
but if you had a choice you'd not tax people to pay for education.
right?
can you name some countries that don't tax for education that you admire?
" No. As long as the public is taxed and forced to pay for education I am in favour of giving the parents a voucher and letting them spend it where they want. There is no reason to protect the education monopoly and to force poor parents to send their kids to schools that do more harm than good. "
but if you had a choice you'd not tax people to pay for education.
right?
can you name some countries that don't tax for education that you admire?
"do you guys answer the question about whether you support the use of tax dollars for public education?"
Taxation is theft.
re: "taxation is theft"...
then you ought to be OPPOSED to vouchers funded from taxes...right?
so why not?
but if you had a choice you'd not tax people to pay for education.
right?
Absolutely.
can you name some countries that don't tax for education that you admire?
No. Governments want compliant citizens and use mandatory school laws to condition children when they are most vulnerable. Why would that surprise you?
then you ought to be OPPOSED to vouchers funded from taxes...right?
so why not?
The theft has already taken place. Vouchers are the least bad next step if the money is not given back to the victims.
"then you ought to be OPPOSED to vouchers funded from taxes...right?
so why not?"
What VangelV said:
I prefer that stolen money be used for vouchers rather for direct payment to government schools.
so you really don't care if "bad" govt teachers get replaced with "bad" voucher teachers either, right?
"so you really don't care if "bad" govt teachers get replaced with "bad" voucher teachers either, right?"
There is no such thing as a voucher teacher.
It seems that you don't understand the issue - as usual.
"so you really don't care if "bad" govt teachers get replaced with "bad" voucher teachers either, right?"
There is no such thing as a voucher teacher.
It seems that you don't understand the issue - as usual.
Vouchers don't pay for teachers?
it seems that you'd prefer to take tax dollars and give it to a wholly less accountable entity just so the govt does not get it.
right?
how would you know that the schools who got the vouchers would not also hire "bad" teachers if there was no standardized testing?
"how would you know that the schools who got the vouchers would not also hire "bad" teachers if there was no standardized testing?"
Vouchers, bad teachers, and standardized testing are three different subjects that don't necessarily have any connection.
All else being equal, I would prefer that funds for K-12 education be attached to the individual student, instead of the schools. That would allow parents, as customers, to choose what school their children attended. Schools would need to compete on price and quality to attract customers and their money, just as every other type of service does.
Parents are capable of making good choices about education just as they are about every other service their kids get, including a dentist, a doctor, a clothing store, and a hair stylist.
It's not necessary for government to tell people what school their children must attend, any more than it's necessary that people be told where to buy their food. They can decide for themselves.
Why is that so difficult for you?
Parents are capable of making good choices about education just as they are about every other service their kids get, including a dentist, a doctor, a clothing store, and a hair stylist.
It's not necessary for government to tell people what school their children must attend, any more than it's necessary that people be told where to buy their food. They can decide for themselves.
Why is that so difficult for you?
if what you say is true then why do the countries that have govt directed standards for all education providers - public and private do better than us and don't have "bad" teachers like we do?
why is that so difficult for you?
I'm looking at what exists in the world and what seems to work at least better than other approaches as opposed to some theoretical concept.
I doubt seriously that most people without training would actually know how and what to teach through a K-12 curriculum.
Each grade has specific goals and specific ways of going about teaching and it is based on the kids knowledge from the previous grade.
If you're trying to educate a child to achieve a globally competitive education, that education is more than most adults today themselves have.
and you've already said that you believe there is such a thing as a "bad" teacher who either cannot or will not perform but you have not indicated any real way to judge fitness whether it be a teacher or a parent trying to teach or determine if their kid's teacher is "good".
My view is that you must have uniform standard by which to be able to compare and judge both the fitness of those who teach as well as the kids who are being taught and without those standards all you have is a subjective system.
If you had such a system - as Europe and Asia seem to have - it is possible to fairly judge the fitness of those who teach as well as those who learn - an objective way to measure.
and if you have that - then it really does not matter whether the learning environment is a public school or a private school or even home school (although that is outlawed in some countries).
the question is - if you believe you need such standards then where would the specification come from?
IN fact, in most countries in the world, it comes from govt in part because as long as you are taxing people - then govt is the accountability mechanism.
Now if you don't agree and you think it is a non-govt function that is totally up to the parent then all I ask you is to name a couple of countries that do operate this way... and that because they do operate this way -they are better off because of it.
you do understand this, right?
"I'm looking at what exists in the world and what seems to work at least better than other approaches as opposed to some theoretical concept."
People deciding where to buy food, what dentist to use, and where to get their children's hair cut is hardly a theoretical concept. Neither is deciding where their children go to school. They already do it for college.
"I doubt seriously that most people without training would actually know how and what to teach through a K-12 curriculum."
I doubt seriously that most people without training would actually know how and what course of dental treatment would be best for their kids.
Oh! Wait! That's not true, is it.
Parents seem able to raise healthy, happy, successful children by chosing what they should eat, when and what type of medical treatment they should have, and what to wear to keep warm in winter. Education is no more important than those, yet you think special standards set by "experts" should override parents wishes.
"My view is that you must have uniform standard by which to be able to compare and judge both the fitness of those who teach as well as the kids who are being taught and without those standards all you have is a subjective system."
As all value is subjective, you are asking for an arbitrary standard, based on what someone else believes is best for our children.
You are forgetting that the purpose of government is to ensure our inalienable rights, not tell us what to do.
"If you had such a system - as Europe and Asia seem to have - it is possible to fairly judge the fitness of those who teach as well as those who learn - an objective way to measure."
But the US is NOT Europe or Asia - thank goodness. Why do you insist on making such comparisons?
"and if you have that - then it really does not matter whether the learning environment is a public school or a private school or even home school (although that is outlawed in some countries)."
"Outlawed in some countries." What a sad comment. Someone in government knows better than parents what is best for their children.
Many parents don't know any more about educating a child than they do about taking out their appendix and they know it and want someone who is an trained educator to do the job.
In K-6 this is especially critical.
Kids that don't get the basics in K-6 are pretty much doomed in our current system.
"Many parents don't know any more about educating a child than they do about taking out their appendix and they know it and want someone who is an trained educator to do the job."
That's correct. They can make informed decisions about education, just as they can about medical treatment. They should choose for themselves.
You wouldn't like being told what doctor your children can see based on where you live, why do you defend keeping the same restriction on who can educate them?
"You wouldn't like being told what doctor your children can see based on where you live, why do you defend keeping the same restriction on who can educate them? "
I "get" what you are talking about in terms of personal responsibility and expecting/having the govt take on that role.
but many people are not good consumers of products and services themselves because, they, in fact, lack a sufficient education to be able to do that so it's a bit of a chicken/egg argument.
Parents who themselves are not well educated...functionally illiterate are not going to know how good the education their kids receive is - and if you just have the govt pay no matter where they send their kids without any standards or accountability it will end up like the current health care system where people spend huge amounts of money because it's not coming directly out of their pocket anyhow so they don't care about cost or even efficacy..as long as it is "covered".
we don't want to expand that into education in my view.
what I do find curious is that countries we say are "socialist" not only do better than us educationally but they have more strict standards - across the nation for curriculum and testing and it seems to work.
I'm not opposed to other approaches but you have to show me some existing different ones that you say you like for me to look at or it will come across as yet another theoretically concept - an experiment without any existing analogs.
Several existing studies have tended to confirm that private schools and charter schools - unless strictly operated with standards and accountability will do no better than public schools.
I'm not surprised.
Now, if you goal is to incrementally move to tax-funded vouchers and then kill the vouchers so that education is solely the responsibility of the parents then we are deep into la la land because all countries had that system to start with and it was basically a serf and gentry system that had no middle class and security was provided by walled enclosures.
I'm not in favor of going back even though I'll admit what we have now is now working well.
what Europe has, does seem to work well.
are they just better parents there?
"You wouldn't like being told what doctor your children can see based on where you live, why do you defend keeping the same restriction on who can educate them? "
I "get" what you are talking about in terms of personal responsibility and expecting/having the govt take on that role.
but many people are not good consumers of products and services themselves because, they, in fact, lack a sufficient education to be able to do that so it's a bit of a chicken/egg argument.
Parents who themselves are not well educated...functionally illiterate are not going to know how good the education their kids receive is - and if you just have the govt pay no matter where they send their kids without any standards or accountability it will end up like the current health care system where people spend huge amounts of money because it's not coming directly out of their pocket anyhow so they don't care about cost or even efficacy..as long as it is "covered".
we don't want to expand that into education in my view.
what I do find curious is that countries we say are "socialist" not only do better than us educationally but they have more strict standards - across the nation for curriculum and testing and it seems to work.
I'm not opposed to other approaches but you have to show me some existing different ones that you say you like for me to look at or it will come across as yet another theoretically concept - an experiment without any existing analogs.
Several existing studies have tended to confirm that private schools and charter schools - unless strictly operated with standards and accountability will do no better than public schools.
I'm not surprised.
Now, if you goal is to incrementally move to tax-funded vouchers and then kill the vouchers so that education is solely the responsibility of the parents then we are deep into la la land because all countries had that system to start with and it was basically a serf and gentry system that had no middle class and security was provided by walled enclosures.
I'm not in favor of going back even though I'll admit what we have now is now working well.
what Europe has, does seem to work well.
are they just better parents there?
"I "get" what you are talking about in terms of personal responsibility and expecting/having the govt take on that role."
Unless you are claiming that people aren't qualified to make decisions for themselves in other important areas of life, and that government should make choices for them, for instance where they buy food, based on where they live, then no, you don't "get" it.
"but many people are not good consumers of products and services themselves..."
Listen to yourself! Who, other than the consumers themselves, can judge whether or not they are making the right choices for themselves? Your arrogance is
overwhelming.
"...because, they, in fact, lack a sufficient education to be able to do that so it's a bit of a chicken/egg argument."
Do you really believe that government education is required to teach people how to live their lives? Amazing hubris.
The Hitler Youth references may be extreme, but the point remains that it's not up to government to decide how and what people learn. Molding "good citizens" isn't the job of government. It's job is to secure the rights of citizens.
Remember that people create government, not the other way around.
"Parents who themselves are not well educated...functionally illiterate.."
How many people do you think are functionally illiterate in this country? You are off the rails here.
"...are not going to know how good the education their kids receive is..."
Do you not understand that most of the education kids get doesn't happen at school? School is just the icing on the cake.
"- and if you just have the govt pay no matter where they send their kids without any standards or accountability it will end up like the current health care system where people spend huge amounts of money because it's not coming directly out of their pocket anyhow so they don't care about cost or even efficacy..as long as it is "covered"."
No one is suggesting unlimited funding. You have moved away from my original point that allowing parents the choice of where to send their kids to school is preferable to arbitrarily sending them to the school nearest to where they live.
We haven't, and we won't, discuss what the correct amount of funding is for k-12 education. We are limiting our discussion to choice.
If there IS to be government funding of education, then the money stolen from taxpayers should fund the student, not the school.
Remember that incentives matter. Parents, as the customers, makes schools responsive to parents needs, as opposed to government needs, when government is the customer.
"we don't want to expand that into education in my view."
"WE" shouldn't be doing anything, Larry, It's not up to us.
"what I do find curious is that countries we say are "socialist" not only do better than us educationally but they have more strict standards - across the nation for curriculum and testing and it seems to work."
Do better by what measure? Better test scores? Is that what's important in life? Ask around. I'll bet you don't get that answer very often except from educators.
"I'm not opposed to other approaches but you have to show me some existing different ones that you say you like for me to look at or it will come across as yet another theoretically concept - an experiment without any existing analogs."
I don't have to show you anything. Choice is preferable to no choice, period. Choice is hardly a theoretical concept, and I have given you several analogs. You just don't want to admit you're wrong.
There is nothing mysterious about "education" that places it in the realm of an anointed priesthood. It's just like any other service like auto repair. People can and do handle their own needs without government involvement.
"Several existing studies have tended to confirm that private schools and charter schools - unless strictly operated with standards and accountability will do no better than public schools."
We are talking about choice.
" We are talking about choice."
no. You're saying that choice is better than govt/taxpayer financed schools but you haven't shown any evidence to back up what you're asserting.
so it's theory... with no real world analogs.
You wouldn't like being told what doctor your children can see based on where you live, why do you defend keeping the same restriction on who can educate them?
You know why. Larry the fool thinks that others are just as clueless as he is and that they need to be protected from their own bad judgement. Why he does not extend the argument to housing or health care has yet to be made clear.
If he were consistent he would have to argue that these idiots should not be permitted to vote. After all, how can people who are too stupid to make education choices for their kids be trusted to make decisions about electing those that would make their decisions for them.
Listen to yourself! Who, other than the consumers themselves, can judge whether or not they are making the right choices for themselves? Your arrogance is overwhelming.
You give the fool far too much credit. He is not logical. He is ignorant. Yet he is arrogant. You are arguing against someone who bases everything he does on faith and refuses to learn or think. That makes your goal, if that is to set him straight, futile.
My arguments with Larry, Zach, and a few others are not to help them to see the light but to illustrate to a few other readers just how weak their logic and knowledge really is.
V: "You are arguing against someone who bases everything he does on faith and refuses to learn or think. That makes your goal, if that is to set him straight, futile. "
Oh, don't I know it! I have no hope of correcting such willful ignorance. He is good practice, though. I have never encountered anyone with so little ability to stay on track. Every response from him is a new adventure in illogic.
"adventures in logic" vs "how the world really works"
indeed.
the world you boys live in is fascinating and you seem quite convinced of your logic.
the problem seems to be that there are no places on the planet that operate according to your desires other than 3rd world countries.
so your "logical" rants take on this Luddite aura - anti-govt, anti-science, anti-public education, .....
I can see while ya'll are foul-tempered at times...
;-)
Oh, don't I know it! I have no hope of correcting such willful ignorance. He is good practice, though. I have never encountered anyone with so little ability to stay on track. Every response from him is a new adventure in illogic.
Can anyone be that stupid or such an ideologue? He must be playing a game because to outdo Benji should be very difficult.
" Can anyone be that stupid or such an ideologue? He must be playing a game because to outdo Benji should be very difficult. "
well he enjoys listening to the musings from the addle-brained.
and relieved that folks like that only exist in the ether...
;)
Post a Comment
<< Home