• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Do away with public education as we know it

wonder cow

Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Messages
231
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What I like most about libertarians is that they make no effort to disguise their ridiculous opinions. They freely espouse the most improbable and impractical public policy, continuously energized by a cult like belief in their ideology, which itself is fraught with misguided assumptions about the “Free Market” and the role of government.

Most Libertarians are so indoctrinated and dogmatic that they will go so far as to claim that the Great Depression never happened or was caused by the government.

Libertarians will rarely tell you up front that they are libertarians. They try to sell their beliefs first. I consider them the AMWAY of politics. Benign but annoying.


byw, You don't have to pay for my children's education. My tax dollars do that.
 

128shot

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
1,258
Reaction score
31
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
LOL.

Libertarian views out of wack?

Maybe, but aren't all political goals out of wack or impossible ?


They're goals, and they're good ones to work to.
 

Martyr_Machine

New member
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Most Libertarians are so indoctrinated and dogmatic that they will go so far as to claim that the Great Depression never happened or was caused by the government.

The great despression was caused, mostly, by the creation of the federal reserve note and the abolition of the gold standard. FDR's actions resulted in massive amounts of inflation, resulting in millions being forced into poverty.

The end of the great depression was caused almost exclusively by WWII, and had nothing to do with FDR's new deal.
 
Last edited:

Martyr_Machine

New member
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Good article...

Introduction
The Great Depression is probably one of the most misunderstood events in American history. It is routinely cited as proof that unregulated capitalism is bad, and that only a massive welfare state, huge amounts of economic regulation, and other interventions, can save capitalism from itself. Among the many myths surrounding the Great Depression are that Herbert Hoover was a laissez faire president and that FDR brought us out of the depression.

What caused the Great Depression? To get a handle on that, it's necessary to look at previous depressions and compare. The Great Depression was by no means the first depression this country ever had, but it was clearly the worst. What made it different than the rest? At the time of the Great Depression, government intervention in the economy was higher than it had ever been and a special government agency had been set up specifically to prevent depressions and their associated problems, such as bank panics. This agency was the Federal Reserve Board and it was to have been the loaner of last resorts for banks in order to prevent collapses as had happened during earlier depressions. But as we'll see, there is good reason to believe that the Fed's actions explain a lot of the problems that lead up to the Stock market crash and the subsequent depression.

Although there are many macroeconomics schools of thought, I'll be concentrating on two initially, Keynesian economics and Austrian School economics. Keynesian economics got its start during the Great Depression with the publication in 1936 of The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, by John Maynard Keynes. Austrian School economics began much earlier, most notably with the publication in 1871 of Carl Menger's Principles of Economics. While the Austrian theory has never been mainstream (economist Paul Krugman refers to it as the economic equivalent of the phlogiston theory), its adherents are some of the harshest critics of Keynesian interventions, so it will serve as a good counterbalance until I can bone up on other schools of thought.
Recessions, Depressions, and Business Cycles
The exact cause of business cycles is one of the biggest problems in economics. There are several explanations. The current Keynesian models rely on what is referred to as "sticky wages" (or "sticky prices") to explain why the cycles occur. Under these models, wages or prices fail to reach their market clearing level. The Austrian School explanation is that all business cycles are due to government intervention in the economy. In particular, government efforts to manipulate the interest rate causes a boom and bust cycle because people over-invest ("malinvestment") when interest rates are low and when interest rates are raised to stave off the inevitable inflation, a bust is caused due to the mismatching of consumer and business goods.

There are six depressions in American history that are thought to be the worst since detailed records of economic data started to be kept (around 1867), 1873-79, 1893-97 (actually two contractions separated by an incomplete expansion), 1907-08, 1920-21, 1929-33, and 1937-38. Although depressions vary on length and severity, the similarities are so profound that Nobel Laureate Robert Lucas has stated, "business cycles are all alike." Since it's been about 60 years since we've had a depression, one might think that the economy is being managed better than it used to be. It's not clear why the economy is being managed better. The Federal Reserve Board was created in 1913 and yet half of the worst depressions happened after its creation. A better candidate might be the adoption of Keynesian management techniques, which were not fully implemented until after the last severe contraction in 1937. But there are some indicators that that is not responsible either. Detailed studies have been done to compare post-war business cycles with prior ones. At least one indicates that there was no improvement.

A key insight into the difficulties of managing the economy was made by Robert Lucas. Looking at post-World War II business cycles, he argued that if one could choose between smoothing out the cycles completely and increasing the annual economic growth by 0.1%, the latter would make people better off overall. As we consider the different policy options, it is important to keep this insight in mind as one more trade off that has to be considered.
The Federal Reserve Board
The Federal Reserve Board was created in 1913. Ostensibly, it was to act as the lender of last resort to prevent bank panics like the one that had occurred in 1907. Although some conspiracy minded folks might weave elaborate tales regarding its creation, the reason is rather straightforward. The big banks simply wanted government protection and bailouts and were more than willing to endure a little government regulation in return. Like the Interstate Commerce Commission before it, the Fed would be staffed with people from the industry that it was supposedly a watchdog over and who would most likely feel that what's good for banks is good for America. Throughout the years preceding the Stock Market crash, the Fed did just that. The Fed set below market interest rates and low reserve requirements that all favored the big banks. The money supply actual increased by about 60% during this time. The phrase "buying on margin" entered the American vocabulary at this time as more and more Americans over-extended themselves to take advantage of the soaring stock market.

So what went wrong? It was in 1929 that the Fed realized that it could not sustain its current policy. When it started to raise interest rates, the whole house of cards collapsed. The Stock Market crashed and the bank panics began. But what would make this depression worse than all the rest? There was a depression in 1921, but no one remembers that one. What was different? As we'll see, there were a number of policies enacted over the next few years that, from both a free market and a Keynesian perspective, would do nothing to help America recover and do everything to exacerbate the depression. Over the next few years, the Fed would allow the money supply to contract by a third.

A free market advocate's response would be to do nothing and let the market work itself out. Ideally, what would happen is that businesses would realize that no one was buying and lower prices accordingly until people started buying again. The same thing would happen with labor and capital. Prices would be lowered until they reached the market clearing price and the economy would recover. Keynesians claim that some prices or wages will be "sticky" and may take a long time to reach their market clearing price, causing needless suffering along the way. The Keynesian prescription is two-fold. First, the Fed should inflate the money supply. Keynes even whimsically suggested leaving jars of money around where enterprising young boys could find them. However, this may not work if the depression is severe enough to enter what is called a liquidity trap. Under this scenario, no amount of running the treasury's printing press will restore order. In this case, the government should simply start spending money itself, thus "priming the pump" so to speak. As we'll see, Hoover (and later FDR) implemented a mixture of policies, some of which were Keynesian (increased government spending) and some of which were not (price supports and other attempts to keep prices and wages high).
Herbert Hoover
Herbert Hoover has been accused of being a do-nothing president who allowed the country to continue to slide into its worst depression ever. Some will grudgingly admit that Hoover did take some action, but that it was too little, too late. But the truth is far more complex. Hoover did intervene after the Stock Market crash, but the acts passed by Congress and signed by Hoover were the worst kind of intervention: they actually exacerbated the problem. The most famous of these interventions was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. Raising tariffs was one of the worst things that could be done. Remember, both free market advocates and Keynesians agree that lowering prices would cure a depression, it's just that the Keynesians believe government intervention is necessary. A tariff does exactly the wrong thing by raising prices. Thus Smoot-Hawley was guaranteed to worsen any depression, not improve it. Other acts passed during Hoover's administration had similar effects of either raising prices or keeping them artificially high when they should have been dropping. Thus, it's not that Hoover was a do-nothing president, it's that he intervened in exactly the wrong way.
FDR
Ironically, FDR, the president who implemented so many government programs himself, was elected on a platform of a balanced budget and economic non-intervention. So what did he do upon getting into office? He promptly expanded on Hoover's programs. Some of these programs, the ones that increased spending, would get approval from Keynesians. Others, however, like the minimum wage and the Davis-Bacon Act, suffered from the same problems that Hoover's programs did: they reduced price flexibility, often setting a minimum and thus continued to exacerbate the Great Depression.

FDR's policies seemed to work at first. The economy began to expand again in 1933 and continued to do so until May of 1937. At that point, a second depression began and lasted until June of 1938.
World War II
The United States entered World War II in December of 1941, the year generally considered to be the end of the Great Depression. Federal outlays skyrocketed as the country geared up for war. This Keynesian-style boost to the economy seems to have brought the depression to an end.
 

mrgrinch09

New member
Joined
Aug 28, 2005
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
It's a misconception that private schools are better than public schools.

“When many people discuss schools — good or bad — what they’re talking about is their own belief system, not real information gathered through research and experience.”

"Many of us believe, hands-down, that private schools are better than public schools. However, a recent study by researchers at the University of Illinois-Champaign, found that when they controlled for a family’s socioeconomic background, public-school kids slightly outperformed private-school kids."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8743221/

There are advantages to both public and private schools.

Public school advantages include:
Teachers have more qualifications
Students spend more time studying core subjects
Public schools can sponsor more activities
The student population tends to be more diverse

Private school advantages include:
Schools and classes tend to be much smaller
There's often less bureaucracy
Parent involvement is strong

http://parentcenter.babycenter.com/refcap/bigkid/gpreschool/67271.html

Doing away with Public education isn't the answer. You have to identify the weaknesses and then work to improve them. :thinking
 

Martyr_Machine

New member
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Teachers have more qualifications

Absolutely wrong. The qualification requirement for teachers in public schools are rediculously low.

Ignoring the fact that private schools are of infinitely higher quality, the issue at hand is theft. Public schools can only survive as long as a gun is held to my head.
 

mrgrinch09

New member
Joined
Aug 28, 2005
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Martyr_Machine said:
Absolutely wrong. The qualification requirement for teachers in public schools are rediculously low.

Ignoring the fact that private schools are of infinitely higher quality, the issue at hand is theft. Public schools can only survive as long as a gun is held to my head.

Any facts to back up that opinion?

:waiting:
 

Nezdragon

Member
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
123
Reaction score
8
Location
Over there.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
with respect I think sit on your arse while your underpaid employes [or slaves if your a multinational] make your money would be a much more effective description

Let us have a little lesson in economics.

If we did all of our labor in the USA, we would have to pay quite a lot more money for our goods.
The people in these third world countries are willing to do more work for less. Despite the fact that they earn very little, maybe it's because their ecomony is different! Yes, goods in those countries cost far less. What would be a few dollars here is paid for in pennies there.
When we outsource, lots of jobs are opened to these people. They work, and get paid. They spend the money on what they need, food, clothes, etc.
They WORK for their money. Just like we do.
Contrary to leftist opinion, it's not like it's free money. Running a business is harder than you think. Let's not forget the federal regulations! For example, clothing irons must put in the little handbook a warning: "Do not iron clothes while wearing them."

I would put more, but that would force a relocation to the economy forum. I must now post an alternate topic on education, thank you for reminding me.
 

mdusctz

New member
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That's one of the funniest ideas I've ever heard of.:lol:
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,264
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Public education should be changed to meet the demands of industry, and industry has changed considerably in the last few decades. That is why there is a computer lab in most schools now, but very few sewing machines. So changes have been and will continue to be made, however painfully slowly it occurs.
Anybody who thinks we don't need public education will change their tune when they need to call 911 for emergency medical assistance, or a cop to apprehend a peeping tom, or for many other reasons. There is no way to privatize an industry this large. New standards set by the Federal level of government would be nice. And requirements that the children do not get to attend if they cannot behave. We will always need ditch diggers and burger flippers, and those who don't want an education can settle for the menial jobs. But for those who want to be productive members of society, it is our responsibility to help make that happen. If they can't get jobs because we didn't educate them, they may just find a gun and visit our homes after dark and take what they want from us. Unless, of course, our little world ends at the ends of our arms, in a bubble of selfishness. For those who are that way, stand by to have your bubble burst. None of us exists alone in this world. We are all part of society, like it or not. :confused:
 

Elektra

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
73
Reaction score
0
Location
Ca
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Kelzie said:
:rofl I'm sorry, 600 students max per school? And where would we find the money to open thousands of new schools, cause that's what we'll need.


Why do other countries have smaller schools?

I think it;s totally feasable at least for elementary and middle schools.

As for the money, the whole property tax school funding connection is wrong.
 

Elektra

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
73
Reaction score
0
Location
Ca
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
mrgrinch09 said:
Any facts to back up that opinion?

:waiting:

Why don't you read " Ms. Moffett's first year". I'm sure your local library has it.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
It seems to me that the United States gets the worst of both worlds. There's no denying the fact that the countries that spend the most on public education also tend to have the best educated people, and the United States ranks very low in this; but this doesn't mean that this is the best way to improve education. There is also no denying the fact that the (developed) countries with the most privatized college systems tend to have the best colleges, and the United States ranks at the top of this list. Unfortunately, when it comes to primary and secondary education, the United States doesn't go the libertarian route and privatize education...instead we force citizens to pay for it, regulate it, and then underfund it. This is literally the worst possible system we could have.

I'm all for privatizing education...but it has to be done correctly so that costs don't skyrocket during the transition period, and the poor have access to education. Education is, after all, the best ticket to the upper- and middle-class available. We can start off with something like vouchers and education loans/grants. Our educational institutions DESPARATELY need to compete with one another. While our public schools waste time debating nonsense like intelligent design, other countries are graduating brilliant students every year.
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
17
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Don't be ridiculous. I went to a public school and our graduation rate was and still is at 98.4%. The regular attendance rate is 94.4%. The OGT averages are Reading: 98.2%, Writing: 89.4%, Mathematics: 92.8%, Science: 86.8% and Social Studies: 91.1%. There were 3,100 students when I was there and the school spent less per individual student than any other school both public and private, our size in the state and it still has better results and a higher quality of education. In fact, 2 people in my graduating class went on to Harvard. The problem isn't the public schools themselves. The amount of money that a school can utilize is dependant on the average income of the families residing in it's school district and whether or not the residents of that district pass the district levys. The inner city schools are such a problem because most of the low income families live in the inner city and within the city limits thus that school district has less money to work with because the families don't have that much money to throw at the schools. Private schools aren't the answer..most of the top schools in the country are public schools and private schools love to price gouge..it's just a matter of providing a fixed amount of federal money to the inner city schools so that the quality of education increases instead of leaving it to the poor to fund.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Napoleon's Nightingale said:
Don't be ridiculous. I went to a public school and our graduation rate was and still is at 98.4%. The regular attendance rate is 94.4%. The OGT averages are Reading: 98.2%, Writing: 89.4%, Mathematics: 92.8%, Science: 86.8% and Social Studies: 91.1%. There were 3,100 students when I was there and the school spent less per individual student than any other school both public and private, our size in the state and it still has better results and a higher quality of education. In fact, 2 people in my graduating class went on to Harvard.

You don't honestly believe that your school is an accurate representation of the average public school in America, do you? Public education in this country, to put it bluntly, sucks. It's not that bad at the elementary level (but not that good either), but by the time American students go to middle and high school, they are among the most poorly educated students in the first-world.

Napoleon's Nightingale said:
The problem isn't the public schools themselves. The amount of money that a school can utilize is dependant on the average income of the families residing in it's school district and whether or not the residents of that district pass the district levys.

How is that not a problem with public schools?

Napoleon's Nightingale said:
The inner city schools are such a problem because most of the low income families live in the inner city and within the city limits thus that school district has less money to work with because the families don't have that much money to throw at the schools. Private schools aren't the answer..most of the top schools in the country are public schools and private schools love to price gouge.

They aren't "price gouging;" do you realize how much it costs to run a school? Your school might be the exception to the rule, but nearly ALL private schools operate more cost-efficiently than equally-performing public schools. This makes sense; private schools are interested in cutting unnecessary costs to remain competitive, whereas public schools could care less.

It's a simple case of supply and demand. There is a lot of demand for quality education, and a small supply of schools willing to provide it. What causes this short supply? The government has a monopoly on "free" schools, so most people can't afford to spend money on private school tuition AND public school taxes. As a result, most people are forced to settle for public school since they're paying for it anyway. If there were no public schooling, people would have more money that they'd otherwise pay in taxes and there would be more reasonably-priced private schools.

Napoleon's Nightingale said:
.it's just a matter of providing a fixed amount of federal money to the inner city schools so that the quality of education increases instead of leaving it to the poor to fund.

That would make things even worse than they already are. Throwing more money at the problem will not solve the problem. As long as schools (and teachers) are not forced to compete with one another, there is no incentive for them to rise above mediocrity.
 
Last edited:

jallman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,913
Reaction score
11,283
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
If I may interject something here...I think a lot of the problems with the public school system are not in funding, nor text books, nor facilities. The problem lies with the students and the teacher's lack of recourse for disciplining them. Teachers have absolutely no power to control their students and the parents are not doing a good job of it at home. Classes are full of disruptive clowns, prada comparing teen agers, cell phones ringing in the halls, thugs who are forced to attend but have no desire to be there, and teachers who are tired of being glorified babysitters. I would suggest taking this touchy feely esteem building tolerance bs and scrapping it. Good students sit in the front and as performance declines, so increases your distance from the front. Uniforms should be standard so there isnt any reason to go comparing fashion. Cell phones...gone. Corporal punishment to be administered on the spot for applicable offenses and the severity of said punishment to be decided on by the PTA. And, in the latter grades, you either perform academically or you get shuffled into a vocational school. Failure to perform there leaves you on your own....better hope daddy's got a car lot you can go work at, huh? Any thoughts?
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
17
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Kandahar said:
You don't honestly believe that your school is an accurate representation of the average public school in America, do you? Public education in this country, to put it bluntly, sucks. It's not that bad at the elementary level (but not that good either), but by the time American students go to middle and high school, they are among the most poorly educated students in the first-world.

Here's a list of the top 100 schools in the country. Most of them are public schools. http://www.csh.k12.ny.us/highschool/data/TheTopHighSchools.htm



Kandahar said:
How is that not a problem with public schools?

It's a problem for inner city schools. Not a problem for most public schools outside the city limits.



Kandahar said:
They aren't "price gouging;" do you realize how much it costs to run a school? Your school might be the exception to the rule, but nearly ALL private schools operate more cost-efficiently than equally-performing public schools. This makes sense; private schools are interested in cutting unnecessary costs to remain competitive, whereas public schools could care less.

I payed less in taxes and other school fees to go to a public school and the quality of education was better than every private school in the city even though we had a higher student population.

Kandahar said:
It's a simple case of supply and demand. There is a lot of demand for quality education, and a small supply of schools willing to provide it. What causes this short supply? The government has a monopoly on "free" schools, so most people can't afford to spend money on private school tuition AND public school taxes. As a result, most people are forced to settle for public school since they're paying for it anyway. If there were no public schooling, people would have more money that they'd otherwise pay in taxes and there would be more reasonably-priced private schools.

The taxes are determined by the people living in the districts. It's not a federal matter..it's something that is voted on by the residents of the school districts. The poor vote down the levies because they can't afford the tax hike..what makes you think that they would have the money to send their kids to private schools when they can barely afford to support the public schools?



Kandahar said:
That would make things even worse than they already are. Throwing more money at the problem will not solve the problem. As long as schools (and teachers) are not forced to compete with one another, there is no incentive for them to rise above mediocrity.

The problem is lack of funding not too much funding. The schools can't afford to pay the teacher's salaries in the inner city so of course if there are less teachers the quality of education decreases. The innercity schools don't have the money to work with because the residents of the districts can't afford to pay for the levies so they're always voted down. Thats a fact. It's apparent when we see that public schools in wealthier school districts perform better than public schools in poor school districts.
 

shakenbake19

New member
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The problem with public education is that ius run by the government. All schools should be privatized. Another problem is that we are only teaching them what the government wants them to be taught. I think parents should have a bigger say in what they are actually being taught, rather than the "PTO" which are nothing but over protective moms trying to do away with independant thinking. These same group of people are the ones who are trying to get rid of red pen. No wonder the world is so dependant.
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
17
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
shakenbake19 said:
The problem with public education is that ius run by the government. All schools should be privatized. Another problem is that we are only teaching them what the government wants them to be taught. I think parents should have a bigger say in what they are actually being taught, rather than the "PTO" which are nothing but over protective moms trying to do away with independant thinking. These same group of people are the ones who are trying to get rid of red pen. No wonder the world is so dependant.


Again, the public school system is not controlled by the federal government..it's controlled by the voters in the individual districts. Who do you want to run the schools? Who's going to organize it? Who's going to run it? Specifics please. Would you rather have big buisiness running the schools? Perhaps you believe that Haliburton knows best and that Enron can teach children wonderful concepts like tax evasion, embesslement, etc.
 

128shot

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
1,258
Reaction score
31
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Napoleon's Nightingale said:
Again, the public school system is not controlled by the federal government..it's controlled by the voters in the individual districts. Who do you want to run the schools? Who's going to organize it? Who's going to run it? Specifics please. Would you rather have big buisiness running the schools? Perhaps you believe that Haliburton knows best and that Enron can teach children wonderful concepts like tax evasion, embesslement, etc.


or we try a joint venture. Public regulations on private schooling. This does seem best on terms of education, this ensures what needs to be taught is taught, and often times I'm sure private education will ensure its taught at a higher standard and less water downed rate than a public education.


Seems like a good idea to me.
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
17
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
128shot said:
or we try a joint venture. Public regulations on private schooling. This does seem best on terms of education, this ensures what needs to be taught is taught, and often times I'm sure private education will ensure its taught at a higher standard and less water downed rate than a public education.


Seems like a good idea to me.


You ignore the fact that the majority of the top 100 highschools in the country are public schools. In fact, public schools often have a better quality of education than the private schools. The federal government has no say on where the taxes go..the voters in the individual districts vote on whether or not to increase the level of funding via levies. MOST public schools are really good schools and provide a high quality of education. It's the innercity schools that are the problem because they have less funding. Your proposal is like tearing out the entire garden just to remove the weeds. Who is going to pay for it?
 

128shot

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
1,258
Reaction score
31
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What districts are those 100 schools in? Then I want a list of donators, community activists and so on and so forth.


Private education would at least ensure a degree of consistancy in education, unlike the huge difference between inner city and outer city kids.



It would end up being like college, where you have the absolute best schools, then you go all the way down to community college. All of which serve their fundamental purpose.
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
17
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
128shot said:
What districts are those 100 schools in? Then I want a list of donators, community activists and so on and so forth.


I've already posted the link.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Napoleon's Nightingale said:
Here's a list of the top 100 schools in the country. Most of them are public schools. http://www.csh.k12.ny.us/highschool/data/TheTopHighSchools.htm

That's still missing the point. Do you think the top 100 schools in the country are an accurate representation of the overall picture?

Napoleon's Nightingale said:
It's a problem for inner city schools. Not a problem for most public schools outside the city limits.

That's not true. Inner city schools can't possibly explain ALL of the huge gap between American students and foreign students. There are plenty of suburban and rural schools, some rich and some poor, which also are failing miserably.

Napoleon's Nightingale said:
I payed less in taxes and other school fees to go to a public school and the quality of education was better than every private school in the city even though we had a higher student population.

If that is true, your school is the exception to the overwhelming rule that private schools outperform public schools given equal funds.

Napoleon's Nightingale said:
The taxes are determined by the people living in the districts. It's not a federal matter..it's something that is voted on by the residents of the school districts. The poor vote down the levies because they can't afford the tax hike..what makes you think that they would have the money to send their kids to private schools when they can barely afford to support the public schools?

If the government didn't monopolize education, there's no reason that private schools would have to cost them more than public schools currently do. There would be more competition to keep the costs down. I would support a system of government grants/loans to pay for tuition, similar to the current method of funding college education (which works much better than primary and secondary education in this country).

Napoleon's Nightingale said:
The problem is lack of funding not too much funding. The schools can't afford to pay the teacher's salaries in the inner city so of course if there are less teachers the quality of education decreases. The innercity schools don't have the money to work with because the residents of the districts can't afford to pay for the levies so they're always voted down. Thats a fact. It's apparent when we see that public schools in wealthier school districts perform better than public schools in poor school districts.

Of course having more money produces better results; that goes without saying. That doesn't change the fact that private schools - at ALL levels of funding - routinely outperform public schools at an equal level of funding.

Some of the gulf between the performance of rich/poor schools is due not just to differences in funding, but differences in parental involvement.
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
17
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Kandahar said:
That's still missing the point. Do you think the top 100 schools in the country are an accurate representation of the overall picture?

Yes. It shows that public schools outperform private schools.



Kandahar said:
That's not true. Inner city schools can't possibly explain ALL of the huge gap between American students and foreign students. There are plenty of suburban and rural schools, some rich and some poor, which also are failing miserably.

Foreign schools are completely federally funded. The voters don't decide how much is spent on their schools the federal government does unlike here in America. Besides, their schools have entirely different academic setups. The only reason the quality of education is better in foreign countries is because they're payed for entirely by the federal government and there are federal academic guidlines.



Kandahar said:
If that is true, your school is the exception to the overwhelming rule that private schools outperform public schools given equal funds.

Not according to the list. It's a matter of how much money you have and how you choose to spend it. Most private schools have tax exempt status so there really isn't an excuse for performing on a lower level than public schools.



Kandahar said:
If the government didn't monopolize education, there's no reason that private schools would have to cost them more than public schools currently do. There would be more competition to keep the costs down. I would support a system of government grants/loans to pay for tuition, similar to the current method of funding college education (which works much better than primary and secondary education in this country).

The federal government doesn't monopolize education. The levies are voted on by people in the individual districts and the academic standards are set by the state not the federal government. Grants and loans? Pff. So everyone can be up to their eyeballs in debt by the time they graduate highschool? People have enough trouble paying college tuition let alone paying back the loans from a privatized school system. Since when does a company need a reason to price gouge? Competition wouldn't keep the costs down because which school you go to is determined by which district you live in.
 
Top Bottom