People certainly have a stake in most of the things that they buy. However, buying something from the private industry is not the only way to have a stake in something. Wealthy parents whose kids go to public schools have a stake in those schools and they tend to do very well.Well you nailed it. They have to have a stake in it. People don't have a stake in government, government is always somebody else's problem. Why do you think we have so many litterbugs in public parks?
Having a stake in it, that means buying it. Earning it. That's the free market. People have a stake in the things they buy.
That's just it they're not. We can make public schools look just as good if they purge, and leave behind.
Catholic school isn't right for everybody. What you look down on as "purging" is only problematic because the ones who get kicked out of private schools either have to go to the mind numbing public schools or nothing. Whose fault is it that there isn't an entrepreneurial spirit there to pick up the slack? If it wasn't for this massive distortion in the market, the troublemakers who get kicked out of Catholic and Methodist schools would have affordable reform schools to get sent to.
Well, maybe they need to start purging themselves of the kids who don't want to be there, rather than graduating them on up the chain, when they can't even meet grade-level standards.
People certainly have a stake in most of the things that they buy. However, buying something from the private industry is not the only way to have a stake in something. Wealthy parents whose kids go to public schools have a stake in those schools and they tend to do very well.
Again, any school can look like it is doing well if it purges problems. All teachers would love to trach a room full of high perfroming students. But if average is a real measure, most will be average. If you're stacking the deck, as many private schools do, than that is a skew view of their skill. I know what is done in the classroom, and I have a standing challenge for anyone to show any real difference in their what they tach or how they teach it. The difference is the student that have.
And when the measure is results, no one want to tackle the hard job. The private sector shows this repeatedly.
Sure, and poor people have a stake in their schools, and litterbugs have a stake in public parks, too. It's all about how compelling that stake is. In the rich neighborhoods where the trophy wives/soccer moms have nothing better to do, that PTA can get a pretty swollen slush fund. But in the poor neighborhoods the parents both work or they are a single parent household and either way cannot afford to put the time and effort into the school. Not to mention the taxes in the rich neighborhood raise more revenue than the poor.
So the point is that you have a very compelling stake in something when it is bought, not as much when you are getting it for free. So the parents are not going to make the time to pitch in at the free school when you are struggling just to put food on the table. So there will always be this imbalance, the wealth disparity creates the apathy towards the gifts. Some people think of this as an entitlement society, like people get lazy because they are give food stamps instead of working. But that's BS. It's hard as hell being poor, and after working two minimum wage jobs just to make rent people are too wiped out to help their kids with their homework.
You act like kids don't get kicked out of public schools, or that public schools don't give up on kids. Of course nothing could be further from the truth. Public schools fail all kids. Private schools at least do something for some kids. If government got out of the way, there would be a private option to meet the needs of the kids on the bottom of the societal ladder instead of just those at the top.
As a former poor kid, project dweller, who had a mother who was on fodo stamps for a while (that and free beans and cheese). I don't htink you know us very well. You have a lot of mistaken views and stereo types that don't speak to the whole.
We can do that, but let's not pretend that this is why private schools LOOK better. Take your worse perfroming school, remove the problem children, and they will LOOK better.
Not in the same number or same way. Public schools are not really selective. And no, there is nothing stoppiong the private sector from stepping up today. Nothing prevents anyone from going to a school that meets their needs that they can afford, or the private sector from providing an affordable school that meets the need. If you knew how learning works, you might understand why.
According to Warren Buffet, an easy way to eliminate the problems of urban education would be to 'Make private schools illegal and assign every child to a public school by random lottery.'
Do you agree or disagree?
What is the public school drop-out rate, compared to the percentage of private school students who are *removed*?
It would work. It would also be morally unconscionable.
I'm on food stamps. It sucks. Therefore, we should ban the private sale of food in order to force rich people to improve the quality of food stamps. I'm as avid a supporter of the public school system as it gets, but it is at its heart a welfare program-- it provides education (of debatable quality) to the children of families that lack the wherewithal to provide it for themselves. We should certainly attempt to make the quality of the education as strong as we possibly can, but the idea of forcing people into a welfare program in order to motivate them to institute welfare reform is so morally repugnant as to be physically sickening.
I'm normally a pretty big fan of Buffett, but he's out of line on this.
Students in private schools are on average going to come from wealthier families than students in typical public schools. But it's not really the students themselves who are the topic of this idea. It's the parents. If you were the parent of a child, and if you really cared about that childs education, and if you had wealth, and the power and political pull that tends to be associated with wealth, would you not make an effort to fix the shortcomings of that school however you can?
This isn't about harming the good students, it's about everyone having skin in the SAME game, so that those with power will be incentivised to pull up the quality of all schools for all students, instead of them just using their wealth individually to cure their individual problem (quality school for their kids).
Again, any school can look like it is doing well if it purges problems. All teachers would love to trach a room full of high perfroming students. But if average is a real measure, most will be average. If you're stacking the deck, as many private schools do, than that is a skew view of their skill. I know what is done in the classroom, and I have a standing challenge for anyone to show any real difference in their what they tach or how they teach it. The difference is the student that have.
And when the measure is results, no one want to tackle the hard job. The private sector shows this repeatedly.
This is not an argument. Do you have one?
Actually, the argument is that eliminating private schools would make all schools "work" instead of just some schools. Therefore, "working" is the priority and in fact, it makes "working" the priority for all students not just the ones who have the money to go to private school.
Sure, it's not practical, thats one of the many reasons that I said in my first post that we shouldn't do it.
But wealthy parents are often just as important as caring families in getting something accomplished. In my example above, I as a community member cared, and the lady doing the volunteer work cared, but neither of us have political pull, or the time, or money, that would be required to fix the problem. I actually personally reported the issue about the condition of that part of the school two years ago. Nothing was done. This summer a group of parents cleand the mold and mildew off the walls and at their own time and expense repainted, but the actual problem (leaky roof) was not repaired. The district says that due to the budget cutbacks they can't afford to make the repairs. but I bet if more of the rich folk in our community had kids in that school, they would somehow find the money.
It would work. It would also be morally unconscionable.
I'm on food stamps. It sucks. Therefore, we should ban the private sale of food in order to force rich people to improve the quality of food stamps. I'm as avid a supporter of the public school system as it gets, but it is at its heart a welfare program-- it provides education (of debatable quality) to the children of families that lack the wherewithal to provide it for themselves. We should certainly attempt to make the quality of the education as strong as we possibly can, but the idea of forcing people into a welfare program in order to motivate them to institute welfare reform is so morally repugnant as to be physically sickening.
I'm normally a pretty big fan of Buffett, but he's out of line on this.
How about that? Elitism as the most stubborn obstacle to school reform. Not teachers' unions, dysfunctional families, lazy students or black prejudice against a Korean American schools chancellor, but reluctance by the city's haves to share classrooms with the have-nots. You most likely didn't hear that debated at any candidates' forum.
I assume he's suggesting that such a law be passed by one or more states in the union. If he is suggesting that such a law be passed by the federal legislature, I would suggest that he review the powers of congress:According to Warren Buffet, an easy way to eliminate the problems of urban education would be to 'Make private schools illegal and assign every child to a public school by random lottery.'
Do you agree or disagree?
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
I assume he's suggesting that such a law be passed by one or more states in the union. If he is suggesting that such a law be passed by the federal legislature, I would suggest that he review the powers of congress:
None of these powers would allow such a bill to be passed, as far as I can see.
Eh, I'm sure the SCOTUS could come up with some justification if they were politically motivated to do so.
Yes, the supreme court can decide cases any way they wish.
I would disagree and say that it has meaning, but the supreme court can ignore this meaning and decide however they wish.So really the constitution has no meaning beyond what a partisan high court gives it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?