If it wasn't for the war in Iraq, liberal-left Americans would LOVE Bush

[Mensch]

Forgot about this. What makes you think this would be a bad thing? This reputation would get them more business not less. I've had parents try and bribe me. Some would gladly pay for a grade.

I highly doubt they make up the majority. I strongly believe the vast majority of parents who wish that their children do well through legitimate, fair methods of learning, NOT bribery or pity.

The academic ability of children varies greatly, and I think we’ve agreed upon this. Fortunately, this is what is so great about my solution. If we specialize primary and secondary education at the local level, then students who struggle with certain fundamental academic courses may otherwise use their time wisely on enhancing their proficient abilities.

But anyway, in response to “more business not less” point, I’d have to disagree. It would ultimately be up to the school, and any smart school would realize selling grades would eventually leak out to the public, and they’d forever be known as a paper mill. It would be far more damaging to them if they allowed themselves to surrender all their integrity for a small group of dishonest customers. And everyone knows that bribing for a grade negates the entire purpose of education. There will be some customers of such bad schools, but the VAST MAJORITY of people who commit to a school wish to commit to a program that will enhance their skills, not to walk through a façade in order to receive a worthless piece of paper.

That’s the whole point against the mill school argument: The diploma from a school notorious for selling grades is worthless to any employer and to most prospective students. As I’ve said, the worst that will happen is that students and employers would have to be more diligent about picking a school or graduate. But in my opinion, that extra effort is GOOD for business and GOOD for educational investment.

Not so. They control their knowledge of the material, their knowledge and talent at presentation, but they do not control outcome. The student must also be willing and able to grasp the material and study and try. A student who refuses to try will fail. A student who has too many problems to focus or study will fail. A student with no stake in the test is unlikely to pass.

I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree. I ultimately believe that a teacher does have at least SOME input in the outcome of the student tests, and that what you’re doing is shielding all teachers from being burdened by any responsibility in the outcome of learning. Teachers can facilitate learning or they can read a magazine at their desk. Those that actively find ways to improve the learning of the classroom have shown to make a difference. Concepts like Power Teaching and other innovative learning methods have been developed by teachers who WANTED to make a difference. As I said before, if teachers had absolutely nothing to do with the classroom performance, then teachers would cease to exist as an obsolete appendage of the educational process. But they’re not. They’re at the very forefront of the education. I’m sure they share at least some share of the blame or praise in a failing or succeeding class.

No. I only believe I can't do anything about them. Most spend money they really wouldn't need to. Their schools are better. their teachers overall are not better. Their methods are not better. What is different is the student population. TYhose students would do well in public school as well.

This is nonsense. There are responsible parents raising well-to-do kids in a nice, suburban public school. Many parents have no complaints there. STILL, private schools in these same suburbs or in inner-cities often do far better than the best public schools while spending a fraction of the budget. Their teachers are generally better because they’re there for the education. They feel rewarded for working in an environment that shapes the ideals and causes of the next generation. Public school teachers, I wouldn’t argue, often feel the same way. But there’s no doubt who is whining for more money- the public employees who already make far more than the private employees (and who generally do less). The schools are better because they’re not governed by bloated bureaucracies that administer ALL power from a central source. You don’t have administrators in private schools (generally speaking) building big massive buildings while there’s a shortage of teachers and there are massive budget deficits.

Perhaps. And I don't care about a car. But lets not pretend this will FIX education.

In that case, what does it mean to “fix” education? By ensuring that the public school system remains the largest, most highly funded, government program? Is that the only way to “fix” education, in your view? We agree on a few things like doing away with tenure and truancy laws, but if only I could persuade you that parents should have every right to choose their own school and THIS is what needs fixing. We need to get rid of the monopoly and liberalize education!

No. Most, my students work full time and pay for their education.

I’m impressed. Where do you work? Your particular school and its exceptionally responsible students don’t represent the mainstream student population, in my personal observation. I do believe we need to have MORE students like yours- students who decide to pay for their own school, out of their own pocket. Nearly everyone else, however, would argue that post-secondary school is a right and an entitlement and should be free to every man, woman, and child. When they apply this principle, they then ponder why the costs of education have suddenly skyrocketed.

That's what the state legislature argues. For a major university, without state aid, the cost would not be something they could afford. because of state aid, we make it affordable and most can work and pay for it. Without that, debt, as it is for too many around the country is prohibative. We have students starting out in debt. This si noot a good thing.

You have totally backwards. The massive amounts of government aid is what makes education so expensive. When the government offers an expensive investment to every citizen for free, or with subsidized loans that can be forgiven after 25 years. Costs WILL, without any question, skyrocket because the subsidy artificially boosts demand to great heights. Higher demand always means higher costs. Instead, students should be expected to be responsible citizens who choose to make the investment on their own time and with their own money. That way, the student is forced to think before making the investment, instead of breezing by with a study in happiness. We’ve created a sleuth of generally useless areas of study just so some students could actually pass the college-bound material that the average 18-year-old individual is not capable enough o comprehend.

Everything has bureaucracy. You find that in the private sector as well as government. Can't remember a place I've ever worked where someone didn't complain that there were too many chiefs and not enough indians.

Sure, but there are major differences in performance, freedom, and personal risk. Private businesses do have a bureaucratic structure of some sort, but it is inherently connected to the success of the business. When a government bureaucracy fails, it only grows in size.

I grew up in a poor inner city area. The school was less a probklem for me than the area I lived in. And when I was bused to a school in a wealthier neighborhood, my problems did not go away.

What is your final point? That your personal troubles stayed with you even after you transferred to the private school? And? That doesn’t diminish the argument that parents and individuals must be free to choose their own school, and the poor shouldn’t be forced to live with the government monopoly that wastes more money every year. Education should not be a lottery system!

I don't think it would effect a thing. The problems would simply move to that school, and they would look more like public schools.

Let’s try it, and see! I’m sure eventually, students and parents will be able to find the school that best suits the specialized needs of the individual.

As you can see, that is not my view. Leaving the public school is leaving it and allowing those left behind to an even worse situation.

That is false. One student’s achievement is not based on the achievement of others. Not all would leave all public schools if my vision became a reality. Good public schools would be able to compete and they would naturally get better with experience. Bad public schools would change for the better or cease to exist. Good private schools would continue living while careless schools would wither away. I envision a transformation of education that one cannot even imagine. There would be music schools, vocational schools, online schools, public traditional schools, etc. In terms of experimentation, the sky is the limit!

To some degree, you're right that responsible parents and their children will do well in both places. They do now. The schools themselves are seldom the real problem.

Exactly, so why not let those who actually give a damn about their child’s education, but don’t have the means to send them to a nicer school, a chance for a better education

They buy crap as well. Lots of crap sells daily.

I live in So Cal where there are more cars than people. While there may be a dozen broke-down cars on the side of the road at any given moment, there are millions of other cars that are doing the job of transporting people from point A to point B. The VAST majority of cars sold are not lemons; otherwise we’d all be driving lemons. Certain cars are well-known for their reliability, while others are known for crap.

Individual liberty with tax dollars?

I’d be willing to try the above proposal as an alternative to the status quo. I don’t believe in abolishing public education, but I do believe in decentralizing its power. Despite whatever you may think of a libertarian, I would support the continued public financing of primary and secondary education, with an emphasis on voucher programs and open enrollment. I believe in attaching the money to the students as a way to improve all systems of education, both public and private. If it works for the kids in Western European countries, it can work here as well.

 

[Patria Antiqua]

I supported the war in Iraq and still had no taste for Bush whatsoever.

 

[Boo Radley]

I highly doubt they make up the majority. I strongly believe the vast majority of parents who wish that their children do well through legitimate, fair methods of learning, NOT bribery or pity.

I wouldn't argue a majority, but there would be aenough to matter. There would likely be a niche for those who want this.

I would also point out employers don't really look at HS grades, or really where the diploma came from. Only that they have one. And it isn't just about ability. It's as much about obstacles, parental involvement, societal views that empower the student to the point of them running the show than it is about ability.

I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree. I ultimately believe that a teacher does have at least SOME input in the outcome of the student tests, and that what you’re doing is shielding all teachers from being burdened by any responsibility in the outcome of learning.

Some I would agree to. But only some. And that is only with the studfent trying to learn.

This is nonsense. There are responsible parents raising well-to-do kids in a nice, suburban public school. Many parents have no complaints there. STILL, private schools in these same suburbs or in inner-cities often do far better than the best public schools while spending a fraction of the budget. Their teachers are generally better because they’re there for the education. They feel rewarded for working in an environment that shapes the ideals and causes of the next generation. Public school teachers, I wouldn’t argue, often feel the same way. But there’s no doubt who is whining for more money- the public employees who already make far more than the private employees (and who generally do less). The schools are better because they’re not governed by bloated bureaucracies that administer ALL power from a central source. You don’t have administrators in private schools (generally speaking) building big massive buildings while there’s a shortage of teachers and there are massive budget deficits.

No. Private schools on the whole do not offer better. It just looks that way. I've had my kids in both. I've been a student in both. I work with peoeple from both. And I've linked studies that support what I'm tellign you. They are not better. They ahve a better population of students. With the general population, they would face the same problems, with the same results.

In that case, what does it mean to “fix” education? By ensuring that the public school system remains the largest, most highly funded, government program? Is that the only way to “fix” education, in your view? We agree on a few things like doing away with tenure and truancy laws, but if only I could persuade you that parents should have every right to choose their own school and THIS is what needs fixing. We need to get rid of the monopoly and liberalize education!

No, change the focus from babysitting to learning. Promote best practices. Return respect to teachers and encourage parants to be partners, not advesaries. Yes, I have no love of tenure. It can be done away with. And yes, do away with truancy laws. Those will certainly help. While there are some bad teachers out there, they are the minority. Most are decent people working hard to do a job. But when you factor in the pay and the lack of respect, the best and brightest tend to shy away from this field. And with good reason.

I’m impressed. Where do you work? Your particular school and its exceptionally responsible students don’t represent the mainstream student population, in my personal observation. I do believe we need to have MORE students like yours- students who decide to pay for their own school, out of their own pocket. Nearly everyone else, however, would argue that post-secondary school is a right and an entitlement and should be free to every man, woman, and child. When they apply this principle, they then ponder why the costs of education have suddenly skyrocketed.

Northern Iowa. Parents here put work over education. Whether working the fields or holding a full time job, school comes in second.

I wouldn't argue entitlement or right, but I would argue that there is a public and societal good in having an educated populas. Something more important to all of us that having any widget. And us investing in young people seems much more a priority to me than much of what is done with our tax dollars.

You have totally backwards. The massive amounts of government aid is what makes education so expensive. When the government offers an expensive investment to every citizen for free, or with subsidized loans that can be forgiven after 25 years. Costs WILL, without any question, skyrocket because the subsidy artificially boosts demand to great heights. Higher demand always means higher costs. Instead, students should be expected to be responsible citizens who choose to make the investment on their own time and with their own money. That way, the student is forced to think before making the investment, instead of breezing by with a study in happiness. We’ve created a sleuth of generally useless areas of study just so some students could actually pass the college-bound material that the average 18-year-old individual is not capable enough o comprehend.

What do you think will go down in education? Will electricity be cheaper? Will keeping the grounds up be cheaper? Will technology be done away with or become cheaper without public funds?

Students are young, and in general, don't think no matter who's paying. Some are not ready yet, belive they have to come, pay and lose that money. Some have parents who pay, and they don't care much about that and their money, at least not enough to really dive in and ignore all the traps of new freedom. And they don't care about loans they will have to pay back sometime later.

Sure, but there are major differences in performance, freedom, and personal risk. Private businesses do have a bureaucratic structure of some sort, but it is inherently connected to the success of the business. When a government bureaucracy fails, it only grows in size.

I don't find that to be universally true. The private school I worked at, for example, was a sad, sad place. They tried hardest to mask and hide problems. The Prsident and a select few were doing well, but not professors, and certainly not students (though 86% graduate with honors, a meaningless stat). Success can be measured different ways. Many business fail. And some even last a long time serving crap. That college has been around since the civil war, and is still going strong.

What is your final point? That your personal troubles stayed with you even after you transferred to the private school? And? That doesn’t diminish the argument that parents and individuals must be free to choose their own school, and the poor shouldn’t be forced to live with the government monopoly that wastes more money every year. Education should not be a lottery system!

What it means is that seeing this change as a cure all is a mistake. You just bring those problems to the new school, and they won't be able to fix them any more than the last could.

Let’s try it, and see! I’m sure eventually, students and parents will be able to find the school that best suits the specialized needs of the individual.

Or give the grade the aprent wants without substance.

That is false. One student’s achievement is not based on the achievement of others. Not all would leave all public schools if my vision became a reality. Good public schools would be able to compete and they would naturally get better with experience. Bad public schools would change for the better or cease to exist. Good private schools would continue living while careless schools would wither away. I envision a transformation of education that one cannot even imagine. There would be music schools, vocational schools, online schools, public traditional schools, etc. In terms of experimentation, the sky is the limit!

Other students do effect the sucess and failure of those around them. They provide pressure and example, good and bad. Often a peer can reach in a way a teacher cannot. Classroom dynamics are important.

Exactly, so why not let those who actually give a damn about their child’s education, but don’t have the means to send them to a nicer school, a chance for a better education

Nothing is really hindering them now. Those students tend to do well in both schools.

I live in So Cal where there are more cars than people. While there may be a dozen broke-down cars on the side of the road at any given moment, there are millions of other cars that are doing the job of transporting people from point A to point B. The VAST majority of cars sold are not lemons; otherwise we’d all be driving lemons. Certain cars are well-known for their reliability, while others are known for crap.

How many children left on the side of the road is an acceptable number? I don't argue there will be a majority, but there will be more left. And private schools will start to look worse and worse,looking a lot like public schools do now (hence nothing fixed or changed).

I’d be willing to try the above proposal as an alternative to the status quo. I don’t believe in abolishing public education, but I do believe in decentralizing its power. Despite whatever you may think of a libertarian, I would support the continued public financing of primary and secondary education, with an emphasis on voucher programs and open enrollment. I believe in attaching the money to the students as a way to improve all systems of education, both public and private. If it works for the kids in Western European countries, it can work here as well.

Power decentralized can also lead to an imbalance of power. There are options available now, and the wealthy will always find a way to separate. But removing funds, and positive influences from a public school will only lead to more children left behind.

 

[Mensch]

I wouldn't argue a majority, but there would be aenough to matter. There would likely be a niche for those who want this.

So? I will not deny that, but I will argue it has nothing to do with the freedom of individuals to buy worthless diplomas. If people want to buy ****, they should be free to buy ****.

I would also point out employers don't really look at HS grades, or really where the diploma came from. Only that they have one.

Do you think that is a good thing? That is precisely because of the current educational system. If we had it my way, employers would be forced to look at where the student got his degree, not to scan the resume to ensure he has the necessary piece of paper.

And it isn't just about ability. It's as much about obstacles,

If we’re talking about materialistic obstacles, then this would not be an issue if we attached the funds to the individual students. If poor kids want a better education than the “education” they receive at their current school, they can attain enrollment in another school. The choice of schooling should NOT be based on your address. Poor kids do have obstacles, but with a better education, they’ll have a viable future.

parental involvement,

I would say that if parents are nowhere to be found, then the individual minor student should be given the freedom to choose his own school. I don’t know how we could make that kind of system work, but I think it’s possible. I’m just saying in case the kid is literally growing up on the streets without parents, he/she could select the school of their choice. Bad parents who want to damage the prospects of their child’s future will do so with the current system or under my system. If you want to change things on that level, you’d have to gather a group of people to form some sort of advocacy group or a community outreach program that intends to educate the parents about making sound parental choices. You can do that, but the government can’t instill responsibility by getting more involved. The more involved the government, the less responsible the citizenry.

societal views that empower the student to the point of them running the show than it is about ability.

Again, the majority of people know what education means. They know persons negotiating prices for a grade does not make up an institute for education. If there are people who want to pursue a good education, they will have the choice. If there are people who want to risk the time, energy, and money to buy a worthless degree from a paper mill, let them do it. Again, it will be up to the employer and the student to be more vigilant about the graduate candidate they hire or the school they choose.

Some I would agree to. But only some. And that is only with the studfent trying to learn.

If you admit at least some responsibility in the outcome of the class test scores, then we must consider using those test scores as at least ONE variable of the teacher evaluation. There are other variables, of course.

No. Private schools on the whole do not offer better. It just looks that way. I've had my kids in both. I've been a student in both. I work with peoeple from both. And I've linked studies that support what I'm tellign you. They are not better. They ahve a better population of students. With the general population, they would face the same problems, with the same results.

Is that so? So then the list of other independent studies must be fabricating their evidence?

http://www.edchoice.org/Documents/SchoolChoice/FAQ1-Participant-Effects.aspx

http://www.edchoice.org/Documents/SchoolChoice/FAQ2-Systemic-Effects.aspx

http://www.edchoice.org/Documents/SchoolChoice/FAQ7-Private-Schools-and-Accountability.aspx

School Choice | Cato Institute Research Topics

No, change the focus from babysitting to learning. Promote best practices. Return respect to teachers and encourage parants to be partners, not advesaries.

Sounds like beautiful rhetoric! Empty, as usual. If you want me to take these proposals seriously, there needs to be more than snapshot slogans to demonstrate HOW such proposals can be effectively delivered.

Yes, I have no love of tenure. It can be done away with. And yes, do away with truancy laws. Those will certainly help.

I’m completely lost. Maybe you can help me. You believe students should have the freedom to drop out, but not to choose which school he/she may attend? Again, school choice should be based on personal preferences, not on the address of the student. Education should be a specialized training that is tailored to each and every student, not some standardized, one-size-fits-all center of learning (or center of babysitting).

While there are some bad teachers out there, they are the minority. Most are decent people working hard to do a job. But when you factor in the pay and the lack of respect, the best and brightest tend to shy away from this field. And with good reason.

That’s more of a myth. Let’s look at the teaching profession using economic empirical methods.

 

[Mensch]

The best way to gauge how popular or how accommodating a profession may be, one only needs to look at the slots-per-applicants ratio. TRUCKING is an unpopular job, as of today. Truckers are underpaid. Teachers, on the other hand, show a very different ratio. There might be up to 20 or 30 teachers applying for one position. Obviously, it’s a popular job and its amenities pay well, even if some Americans believe teachers are massively underpaid.

Northern Iowa. Parents here put work over education. Whether working the fields or holding a full time job, school comes in second.

Wow, then your students must be on the fringe of society. For the majority of college students, the responsibility is handed over to the government. The government is in charge of financing the student’s education, and therefore universities become diploma mills in their own right. We now have students breezing by with a bachelor’s degree in sociology and the average graduation rate is 6 years! Six years of subsidized federal loans! And there’s also a high dropout rate among public universities, which ultimately means much of those funds has been wasted. As I’ve noted before, the recent overhaul in the Pell Grant system makes it possible for students to pay less than 10% of their discretionary income as monthly payments, while the loans may be forgiven in 25 years. If students wish to waste the investment, it shouldn’t be the burden of the taxpayer to foot the entire bill. Let’s have students pay for their own investment.

I wouldn't argue entitlement or right, but I would argue that there is a public and societal good in having an educated populas. Something more important to all of us that having any widget. And us investing in young people seems much more a priority to me than much of what is done with our tax dollars.

Perhaps, but the reality is that too many kids are going to four-year universities because without the symbolic bachelor’s degree, they become stigmatized. We should encourage students of all ages to pursue their own dreams using their strongest talents and abilities. If that means becoming a mechanic at a vocational school, or receiving a certificate in medical coding/billing from a technical school or pursuing a four-year degree at a university, it should all be encouraged. Unfortunately, the last option is the only respectable option in this country.

What do you think will go down in education? Will electricity be cheaper?

LOL. That’s another government monopoly saved for another discussion.

Will keeping the grounds up be cheaper? Will technology be done away with or become cheaper without public funds?

It’s a proven fact that schools don’t necessarily need 12,000 per pupil in order to sustain the facility and to do the job of teaching. Here’s a couple examples:

Students are young, and in general, don't think no matter who's paying. Some are not ready yet, belive they have to come, pay and lose that money. Some have parents who pay, and they don't care much about that and their money, at least not enough to really dive in and ignore all the traps of new freedom. And they don't care about loans they will have to pay back sometime later.

The “traps of new freedom” is a scaremongering gimmick. You neglect to even consider what causes students not to care, what makes them think they have to come, pay and lose that money. It is a cultural belief in this country, which sort of derives from the pro-intellectualism, education-for-all movement, that all students must complete a bachelor’s degree in an accredited university. A viable employment certificate or a degree from a vocational school is not enough. All individuals not possessing a bachelor’s degree are stigmatized by the intellectual academic movement that demands enrollment in their facilities. I wonder where they get their motivation. We need to teach students in secondary education to realize their own talents and their own shortcomings and to sharpen their positives while insuring their negatives. A four-year degree is not for everyone.

I don't find that to be universally true. The private school I worked at, for example, was a sad, sad place. They tried hardest to mask and hide problems. The Prsident and a select few were doing well, but not professors, and certainly not students (though 86% graduate with honors, a meaningless stat). Success can be measured different ways. Many business fail. And some even last a long time serving crap. That college has been around since the civil war, and is still going strong.

I don’t think that particular school can be used to stereotype all private business schools. This is a single review of a single school. It’s simply an anecdote.

What it means is that seeing this change as a cure all is a mistake. You just bring those problems to the new school, and they won't be able to fix them any more than the last could.

You’re refusing to look at the vast studies of private schools doing better. This is true even in developing countries, where poor people are paying out-of-pocket to send their kids to a private school, despite the existence of a free public school.

It’s kind of hard to believe that such a horrible school would last so long. Obviously, they are providing a useful service to some. But I don’t have all the analytical information in front of me. What I will guarantee to you is that bad public schools will always exist. At least in the private sector, there is a real possibility of failure. And the market is the best method, so far discovered, to punish failure and reward success. Education that is paid for by the people involved will be more scrutinized by the people on the bottom- by the people who are directly affected in the market equation. Politicians and bureaucrats are rarely affected by a bad school. A bad bureaucracy to them means more “specialist” jobs.

Or give the grade the aprent wants without substance.

Let them do it! If you believe people should be free not to be educated, then they should be free to buy a worthless education as well. You have really lost all your credibility in your central argument by supporting truancy laws. If students can be free to drop out, then they should be free to choose where they go to school. It’s as simple as that.

Other students do effect the sucess and failure of those around them. They provide pressure and example, good and bad. Often a peer can reach in a way a teacher cannot. Classroom dynamics are important.

Well, if the students who don’t want to be there are not there, then the school will ultimately be left with kids who genuinely WANT to be in the classroom. We’ve already removed the students who only wish to disrupt the class, and the ones who are left actually care about the education. Now, let them decide where they want to go to school. Look at the models used in other parts of the country and in Western European countries. Public and private schools compete, in those counties and those countries, and both schools improve because they’re forced to be innovative. In any market scenario, all risk-takers are forced to account for failure.

Nothing is really hindering them now. Those students tend to do well in both schools.

Yes, they can do extremely well in a school that is designed to teach 1st grade math to a 5th grade class, or they can do well in a school that teaches 5th grade (or even 6th or 7th grade) math to a 5th grade class. The public schools are incredibly dumbed down. They have no standards.

How many children left on the side of the road is an acceptable number? I don't argue there will be a majority, but there will be more left. And private schools will start to look worse and worse,looking a lot like public schools do now (hence nothing fixed or changed).

Another scaremongering tactic backed with zero proof. All of the evidence points in the other direction.

Power decentralized can also lead to an imbalance of power. There are options available now, and the wealthy will always find a way to separate. But removing funds, and positive influences from a public school will only lead to more children left behind.

You haven’t paid attention to anything I said, have you? So far, you have demonstrated a poor argument for why students must be forced into a system that is horribly failing.

 

[Boo Radley]

So? I will not deny that, but I will argue it has nothing to do with the freedom of individuals to buy worthless diplomas. If people want to buy ****, they should be free to buy ****.

There's no one who isn't free. You're asking not for freedom, but for tax dollars to pay for it. That's different.

Do you think that is a good thing? That is precisely because of the current educational system. If we had it my way, employers would be forced to look at where the student got his degree, not to scan the resume to ensure he has the necessary piece of paper.

I't neither good nor bad, but the way it is. And your way would not change that.

If we’re talking about materialistic obstacles, then this would not be an issue if we attached the funds to the individual students. If poor kids want a better education than the “education” they receive at their current school, they can attain enrollment in another school. The choice of schooling should NOT be based on your address. Poor kids do have obstacles, but with a better education, they’ll have a viable future.

It will be the same education. There is no difference in what is taught, and little in how it is taught. The obstacle I speak of have little to do with the school at all.

I would say that if parents are nowhere to be found, then the individual minor student should be given the freedom to choose his own school. I don’t know how we could make that kind of system work, but I think it’s possible. I’m just saying in case the kid is literally growing up on the streets without parents, he/she could select the school of their choice. Bad parents who want to damage the prospects of their child’s future will do so with the current system or under my system. If you want to change things on that level, you’d have to gather a group of people to form some sort of advocacy group or a community outreach program that intends to educate the parents about making sound parental choices. You can do that, but the government can’t instill responsibility by getting more involved. The more involved the government, the less responsible the citizenry.

A child growing up one the streets will nto choose a school. Nor will those living at home, but in a poor home. School is a low priority.

Again, the majority of people know what education means. They know persons negotiating prices for a grade does not make up an institute for education. If there are people who want to pursue a good education, they will have the choice. If there are people who want to risk the time, energy, and money to buy a worthless degree from a paper mill, let them do it. Again, it will be up to the employer and the student to be more vigilant about the graduate candidate they hire or the school they choose.

Do they? You should spend some time with students. You may be surpirse how few actually know.

If you admit at least some responsibility in the outcome of the class test scores, then we must consider using those test scores as at least ONE variable of the teacher evaluation. There are other variables, of course.

One variable, but a small variable, and one that can't be tested by outcome. It is tested by testing the variable directly.

Is that so? So then the list of other independent studies must be fabricating their evidence?

http://www.edchoice.org/Documents/SchoolChoice/FAQ1-Participant-Effects.aspx

http://www.edchoice.org/Documents/SchoolChoice/FAQ2-Systemic-Effects.aspx

http://www.edchoice.org/Documents/SchoolChoice/FAQ7-Private-Schools-and-Accountability.aspx

School Choice | Cato Institute Research Topics

No, not fabracating, but as the links I gave you earlier show, just looking at the picture incorrectly. They assume the outcome is based on the scool and not the student. Those same students do well in public schools as well.

Sounds like beautiful rhetoric! Empty, as usual. If you want me to take these proposals seriously, there needs to be more than snapshot slogans to demonstrate HOW such proposals can be effectively delivered.

Well, I don't see it that way. Sorry.

I’m completely lost. Maybe you can help me. You believe students should have the freedom to drop out, but not to choose which school he/she may attend? Again, school choice should be based on personal preferences, not on the address of the student. Education should be a specialized training that is tailored to each and every student, not some standardized, one-size-fits-all center of learning (or center of babysitting).

They ahve that freedom. Always have had. I'm just saying tax dollars shouldn't pay for it.. Private means private, and not public.

That’s more of a myth. Let’s look at the teaching profession using economic empirical methods.

Feel free.

 

[Boo Radley]

The best way to gauge how popular or how accommodating a profession may be, one only needs to look at the slots-per-applicants ratio. TRUCKING is an unpopular job, as of today. Truckers are underpaid. Teachers, on the other hand, show a very different ratio. There might be up to 20 or 30 teachers applying for one position. Obviously, it’s a popular job and its amenities pay well, even if some Americans believe teachers are massively underpaid.

So, there is a profession worse? I'm sure many would choose teaching over dishwashing as well. Not sure this addresses what I'm saying.

Wow, then your students must be on the fringe of society. For the majority of college students, the responsibility is handed over to the government. The government is in charge of financing the student’s education, and therefore universities become diploma mills in their own right. We now have students breezing by with a bachelor’s degree in sociology and the average graduation rate is 6 years! Six years of subsidized federal loans! And there’s also a high dropout rate among public universities, which ultimately means much of those funds has been wasted. As I’ve noted before, the recent overhaul in the Pell Grant system makes it possible for students to pay less than 10% of their discretionary income as monthly payments, while the loans may be forgiven in 25 years. If students wish to waste the investment, it shouldn’t be the burden of the taxpayer to foot the entire bill. Let’s have students pay for their own investment.

No. Heartland, and nothing more. Education in general has a high drop out rate. Most don't value education, and see school as party time and not education. As hoops to jump through, and not something that teaches them something. Most have to learn to be students, and having had an easy k-12 experience leaves them unprepared for college. Parents want students to pass, but rarely care about what they've learned. The problem is pervasive.

Perhaps, but the reality is that too many kids are going to four-year universities because without the symbolic bachelor’s degree, they become stigmatized. We should encourage students of all ages to pursue their own dreams using their strongest talents and abilities. If that means becoming a mechanic at a vocational school, or receiving a certificate in medical coding/billing from a technical school or pursuing a four-year degree at a university, it should all be encouraged. Unfortunately, the last option is the only respectable option in this country.

Can't speak for everyone, but most I know encourage just that. Of course, they ahve to discover what their strongest talents and abilities are. The young student often confuses easy with strength.

LOL. That’s another government monopoly saved for another discussion.

Part of the cost of education, and not something controalable by the school.


Also, picking up trash is just a small part of grounds up keep. There's a lot students can't do, and you certianly won't get students doing this at a college.

The “traps of new freedom” is a scaremongering gimmick. You neglect to even consider what causes students not to care, what makes them think they have to come, pay and lose that money. It is a cultural belief in this country, which sort of derives from the pro-intellectualism, education-for-all movement, that all students must complete a bachelor’s degree in an accredited university. A viable employment certificate or a degree from a vocational school is not enough. All individuals not possessing a bachelor’s degree are stigmatized by the intellectual academic movement that demands enrollment in their facilities. I wonder where they get their motivation. We need to teach students in secondary education to realize their own talents and their own shortcomings and to sharpen their positives while insuring their negatives. A four-year degree is not for everyone.

No, not a gimmick. Not sure of your age, but most of us, I think, remember our fist taste of freedom from home. We were nto wise, and did too much in excess. Some learn quickly, and others not so much. But students do tend to focus more on partying than studing. And it effects their grades. I'm sure you can find some number on this.

I don’t think that particular school can be used to stereotype all private business schools. This is a single review of a single school. It’s simply an anecdote.

True, but an example of what can go wrong. Being private is not a cureall.

You’re refusing to look at the vast studies of private schools doing better. This is true even in developing countries, where poor people are paying out-of-pocket to send their kids to a private school, despite the existence of a free public school.

It’s kind of hard to believe that such a horrible school would last so long. Obviously, they are providing a useful service to some. But I don’t have all the analytical information in front of me. What I will guarantee to you is that bad public schools will always exist. At least in the private sector, there is a real possibility of failure. And the market is the best method, so far discovered, to punish failure and reward success. Education that is paid for by the people involved will be more scrutinized by the people on the bottom- by the people who are directly affected in the market equation. Politicians and bureaucrats are rarely affected by a bad school. A bad bureaucracy to them means more “specialist” jobs.

No, I've looked at them, and beyond the suface level. And I have given you the rebuttal of these studies. There is nothing different in these schools beyiond the student population. Those students would do just as well in a public school.

Let them do it! If you believe people should be free not to be educated, then they should be free to buy a worthless education as well. You have really lost all your credibility in your central argument by supporting truancy laws. If students can be free to drop out, then they should be free to choose where they go to school. It’s as simple as that.

Not with public dollars.

Well, if the students who don’t want to be there are not there, then the school will ultimately be left with kids who genuinely WANT to be in the classroom. We’ve already removed the students who only wish to disrupt the class, and the ones who are left actually care about the education. Now, let them decide where they want to go to school. Look at the models used in other parts of the country and in Western European countries. Public and private schools compete, in those counties and those countries, and both schools improve because they’re forced to be innovative. In any market scenario, all risk-takers are forced to account for failure.

Or only left with those who have no other option. And will be more babysitting institutions than they are now.

Yes, they can do extremely well in a school that is designed to teach 1st grade math to a 5th grade class, or they can do well in a school that teaches 5th grade (or even 6th or 7th grade) math to a 5th grade class. The public schools are incredibly dumbed down. They have no standards.

No, they will score just as high and do just as well in a public school as in a private school. Private schools do not teach anythign different. They just have a better student with less obsticles at home.

Another scaremongering tactic backed with zero proof. All of the evidence points in the other direction.

No, the problem I worry about. Having students leave a school doesn't fix a school.

You haven’t paid attention to anything I said, have you? So far, you have demonstrated a poor argument for why students must be forced into a system that is horribly failing.

Or, you haven't really listened to me. Who knows.

 

[Mensch]

There's no one who isn't free. You're asking not for freedom, but for tax dollars to pay for it. That's different.

You have the right to a freedom of speech, yet you pay taxes in order to ensure that right is protected.

But as for this issue, you're taxing me for a service I do not refuse. Why is it ethical to force parents to pay twice for their children's education? Most parents cannot afford to pay twice for education.

I't neither good nor bad, but the way it is. And your way would not change that.

It will do well for the responsible parents who cannot afford to pay double for education and are stuck with a poor performing public school.

It will be the same education. There is no difference in what is taught, and little in how it is taught. The obstacle I speak of have little to do with the school at all.

But the fact that a student has obstacles at all is not justification for limiting their freedom of choice.

A child growing up one the streets will nto choose a school. Nor will those living at home, but in a poor home. School is a low priority.

The only reason I believe such a proposal should be implemented in case a student has no guardian willing to make a choice. In other words, if the guardians refuse to choose to put their child in school, the child should still have the freedom to go to school. Therefore, the minor would actually have the choice. Kids are a lot smarter than you give them credit for.

Do they? You should spend some time with students. You may be surpirse how few actually know.

People are not as stupid as you think they are. Individuals are better at running their own lives than a central planner from some far away city.

One variable, but a small variable, and one that can't be tested by outcome. It is tested by testing the variable directly.

Calling student test scores a "small variable" ultimately means you believe it has no real value in determining ANYTHING about the performance of the institution, or the teacher. I agree that we should scrutinize the tests and establish high standards. But if you have two different classes with different teachers and everything else (the school, the grade level) were exactly the same, how would you explain the cause of any potential disparity in the classroom overall test scores? Obviously, if the two classes are receiving the same random number of students, and one class continues to fail while the other succeeds, how do you explain the disparity?

No, not fabracating, but as the links I gave you earlier show, just looking at the picture incorrectly. They assume the outcome is based on the scool and not the student. Those same students do well in public schools as well.

But there’s no denying that the average private school’s standards are far superior to that of the average public school. I won’t argue that well-performing students can do great in both schools. However, as I noted earlier, the standards make the difference. A student with exceptional talents is effectively wasting them in a school that doesn’t test their full potential.

They ahve that freedom. Always have had. I'm just saying tax dollars shouldn't pay for it.. Private means private, and not public.

Why should parents be forced to pay twice for their child’s education? Why should citizens be taxed for an extra service they do not receive (or do not wish to receive)? I only bring up the idea of keeping the federal funded system because it has positive results in other countries that have installed such two-tiered systems.

So, there is a profession worse? I'm sure many would choose teaching over dishwashing as well. Not sure this addresses what I'm saying.

You directly mentioned the pay factor as a reason why good teachers stay away from the field. This is utterly nonsense for at least two reasons. First of all, the most passionate teachers who genuinely love the profession are already teaching. If impassionate individuals “shy away” from teaching simply because of the pay (and you also mentioned lack of respect, but our agreement on the repeal of truancy laws effectively solves the lack of respect issue), then they are not that truly impassioned to teach, IMHO. If you love money more than teaching, then teaching is a second best (and those who are not teaching because they have better paying jobs ultimately means they have the time to teach, at least part-time). The entire argument concerning low pay for teachers is flawed at its source.

Individuals may think a particular profession is not paid well enough. We ALL would love to be paid more for what we do. However, the market’s supply-and-demand signal is a far better indicator of telling which professions are truly over or under-paid. And if on average, 20-30 people apply for a single teaching job, then teaching is obviously well paid (if not entirely well paid in a materialistic sense). There’s more to a job than the wage. There’s also the prestige, the benefits, the amenities like time-off, and the other things that make it a very rewarding career.

No. Heartland, and nothing more. Education in general has a high drop out rate. Most don't value education, and see school as party time and not education. As hoops to jump through, and not something that teaches them something. Most have to learn to be students, and having had an easy k-12 experience leaves them unprepared for college. Parents want students to pass, but rarely care about what they've learned. The problem is pervasive.

Regardless of the authenticity of that statement, it still doesn’t justify limiting the freedom of individuals to seriously pick the education of their choice.

In the average public university, the dropout rate is close to half. In the average private university, 90% or more of the student body completes their degree or certification.

You can’t just make a blanket statement like “the average don’t value education” because education could mean different things for different people. If you mean education in the strictest sense of a four-year residential university, then you may be correct (but I still need to see data before I take such a negative generalized statement seriously). On the other hand, if you mean education that is open-ended and includes all professional training and instruction, then the vast majority of young people value such education because such education is the key to future prosperity and economic stability. Irresponsible people may not consider it important, and they should be free to take the risk of going on gut instincts and natural-born talents. Let them. But the majority, in my view, does wish to have some sort of instruction that will lead to stable career. Education doesn’t have to be restricted to JUST a four-year university.

Part of the cost of education, and not something controalable by the school.

Some utility and basic costs are universal, to a point. But private schools are far cleverer about generating revenue and being resourceful. They are also a heck of a lot better at spending the money they have.

Also, picking up trash is just a small part of grounds up keep. There's a lot students can't do, and you certianly won't get students doing this at a college.

That video was of a private HIGH SCHOOL, not a college. It may be different in college, but maybe not. I have no data, but I’m sure many students are interested in doing volunteer work for their schools, both public and private. But the example in the video was of a local private high school that spent something like a third of what the public schools spent, paid more to their teachers, and were more involved in the educational process, overall. Not surprisingly, the students in this inner-city private school outperformed the rich kids in the suburban public schools.

No, not a gimmick. Not sure of your age, but most of us, I think, remember our fist taste of freedom from home. We were nto wise, and did too much in excess. Some learn quickly, and others not so much. But students do tend to focus more on partying than studing. And it effects their grades. I'm sure you can find some number on this.

It’s irrelevant. Just because stupid or irresponsible people exist does not justify the taking of their liberties. Not everyone will make the smart decisions when it comes to the degree that is pursued, the job that is sought, the investment that is made, or the habits that are formed. That doesn’t give YOU the right to preside over their decisions because you think you can do it better.

True, but an example of what can go wrong. Being private is not a cureall.

I’m not arguing that it is a cure-all. I argued that it’s better than the status quo.

No, I've looked at them, and beyond the suface level. And I have given you the rebuttal of these studies. There is nothing different in these schools beyiond the student population. Those students would do just as well in a public school.

But how do you explain the disparity in their standards? How do you explain why inner-city private schools outperform rich kids in suburban, well-funded public schools?

We’ve already agreed on the idea of truancy laws. So, again I’ll make the argument. We’ve removed the disruptive students from the classroom. The ones that are left are serious about learning, or trying to learn. Why can’t you extend their freedom to pursue the school of their dreams? Why does it have to be restricted to the wealthy and the political elite?

Not with public dollars.

Then give the public dollars back to the parents who decided not to use them on a public school. No matter how you slice it, it is neither fair nor ethical to force others to pay twice for an essential service, when they can easily pay once for the same service.

It seems your only argument is that students and parents must be forced to subsidize your job in order to shield your job and your school (if you so do work at a public facility) from any competition.

Or only left with those who have no other option. And will be more babysitting institutions than they are now.

They have options. They can skip school. And the teacher can remove them if they become disruptive. We’ve solved the problem of disruptive students. Now, the only students left to learn genuinely wish to learn (or to at least make an attempt). The public school teachers can now be free to reach out to those who genuinely wish to learn

No, they will score just as high and do just as well in a public school as in a private school. Private schools do not teach anythign different. They just have a better student with less obsticles at home.

If that were true, then parents would not waste the exorbitant amount of money on a private education while they’re taxed excessively for a “free” education. As I’ve pointed out earlier, poor people in Ghana who are making a dollar a day are paying a significant amount of their monthly income on private school tuition, despite the existence of a free government school. Certainly ALL of these people do not wish to waste their money. Usually, when you are in charge of the funding, you make sure you get what you pay for. In a public school system, there’s no accountability in this matter.

No, the problem I worry about. Having students leave a school doesn't fix a school.

They are if we’re talking about the disruptive and disrespectful students, right? And as for the exceptional students, wouldn’t it be good to let them seek an alternative if the current school is not testing them to their fullest potential?

 

[Boo Radley]

You have the right to a freedom of speech, yet you pay taxes in order to ensure that right is protected.

I'm not forcing you to do anything. Public funds pay for public education. Private funds pay for private education. It's kind of what the words private and public mean, right?

It will do well for the responsible parents who cannot afford to pay double for education and are stuck with a poor performing public school.

It's more poor perfroming students than poor perfroming schools. And no one is being asked to pay double.

But the fact that a student has obstacles at all is not justification for limiting their freedom of choice.

It's not limited by anything more than anything else.

The only reason I believe . . .

Many parents, or guardians, simply won't take the trouble. They don't now and won't in your plan.

People are not as stupid as you think they are. Individuals are better at running their own lives than a central planner from some far away city.

Not sure how stupid you believe I think people are, so it's hard to say if you're correct or not. But the point is, and was, you would be surprised if you had to actually deal with parents and students.

Calling student test scores a "small variable" ultimately means you believe it has no real value in determining ANYTHING about the performance of the institution, or the teacher. . . .

No, I mean quite clearly that performance is not as clear cut as you think it is. Two classes with two diffferent teachers also has two different groups of students. I have experienced teaching the same class at the same institution back to back. One class alive, egar, engaged, hardworking, disciplined and a sheer joy to teach. The other, dead. A class where the sudents didn't read their text, some not even bothering to buy it. A class where no one did any homework, attendence was poor, and getting anything at all out them was torture. So, was I responsbile for the great class and not the poor one, or for the poor class and not the great one? You seem to me to constantly take the students themselves out of the equation.

But there’s no denying that the average private school’s standards are far superior to that of the average public school. . . .

Says who? Sure, there ar emore students at a lower level in a public school, and this helps the private school. But if you move the lower perfroming students into the private school, they would then ahve to face the same problems the public schools do, and would likely ahve the same results. I work with both private and public schools, and I've had my kids in both. I tell you factually, there is no real difference. In some cases, the same teachers have taught in both. And they report the only difference is the students they have.

Why should parents be forced to pay twice for their child’s education? . .

This new idea of your's needs more explination. No one is paying twice for the same service. Tax dollars pay for public education. private education is a different service.

You directly mentioned the pay factor as a reason why good teachers stay away from the field. This is utterly nonsense for at least two reasons. . . . .

No, I don't think I did. Pay is but one factor, but I'm also quite sure I said it wasn't the major factor. I spoke of respect being more important. Pay is also a factor in why many bright people don't choose the field, but not the only factor. Respect also plays a role. Many will question a talented person about considering teaching when they could do something more profitable and more rewarding in a number of ways.

Regardless of the authenticity of that statement, it still doesn’t justify limiting the freedom of individuals to seriously pick the education of their choice.

. .

And you see no connection to the students and parents involved in private education and the drop out rate? I don't know that your numbers are accurate, but it wouldn't surprise me because of the type of student likely to attend each school.

Some utility and basic costs are universal, to a point. But private schools are far cleverer about generating revenue and being resourceful. They are also a heck of a lot better at spending the money they have.

You mean, have more wealthy donners, and somehow manage to get public tax dollars?

That video was of a private HIGH SCHOOL, not a college. . . .

Yes, I know. That's why I clarified that I was speaking of a college. Also, I was trying to point out that was not something that would save that much, especially if the campus has more land area and required more than just policing trash.

It’s irrelevant. Just because stupid or irresponsible people exist does not justify the taking of their liberties. Not everyone will make the smart decisions when it comes to the degree that is pursued, the job that is sought, the investment that is made, or the habits that are formed. That doesn’t give YOU the right to preside over their decisions because you think you can do it better.

No one is taking away liberties or suggesting liberties be taken away. I don't decide for anyone. They and their circumstance decide.

I’m not arguing that it is a cure-all. I argued that it’s better than the status quo.

And I argue it isn't. It avoids doing the heavy lifting and instead abandons too many.

But how do you explain the disparity in their standards? How do you explain why inner-city private schools outperform rich kids in suburban, well-funded public schools?

We’ve already agreed on the idea of truancy laws. So, again I’ll make the argument. We’ve removed the disruptive students from the classroom. The ones that are left are serious about learning, or trying to learn. Why can’t you extend their freedom to pursue the school of their dreams? Why does it have to be restricted to the wealthy and the political elite?

There is little to no disparity in standards. Both standards and performance is related to the student population and not the superiority of the school. In fact, public schools have more standards they are held to than private schools. For example, private schools are nto subject to something like NCLB.

Then give the public dollars back to the parents who decided not to use them on a public school. No matter how you slice it, it is neither fair nor ethical to force others to pay twice for an essential service, when they can easily pay once for the same service.

It seems your only argument is that students and parents must be forced to subsidize your job in order to shield your job and your school (if you so do work at a public facility) from any competition.

Again, not paying twice for the same service. All of us pay for a public education because it helps all of us to have an educated citizentry. Private education is a personal choice, and something you're free to do. It's another service, additional.

They have options. They can skip school. And the teacher can remove them if they become disruptive. We’ve solved the problem of disruptive students. Now, the only students left to learn genuinely wish to learn (or to at least make an attempt). The public school teachers can now be free to reach out to those who genuinely wish to learn

I don't believe that will happen, but even if it did, you don't have to be disruptive to taking up space. Public shools will merely be left with those least likely to succeed, and have fewer positive examples as peers for students to look at.

If that were true, then parents would not waste the exorbitant amount of money on a private education while they’re taxed excessively for a “free” education. As I’ve pointed out earlier, poor people in Ghana who are making a dollar a day are paying a significant amount of their monthly income on private school tuition, despite the existence of a free government school. Certainly ALL of these people do not wish to waste their money. Usually, when you are in charge of the funding, you make sure you get what you pay for. In a public school system, there’s no accountability in this matter.

You are worng about that. 1) People go to private schools for many, many reasons, valid and not valid, prue and honest and unprue and dishonest. 2) Also what people believe to be true doesn't always equal truth. People do somethimes get it wrong.

They are if we’re talking about the disruptive and disrespectful students, right? And as for the exceptional students, wouldn’t it be good to let them seek an alternative if the current school is not testing them to their fullest potential?

They are part of what we're talking about. We're also talking about the student who has too many problems to concerntrate, has poor role models at home who seldom read or encourgae hard work, and who too often sit dead in class, neither being disruptive nor trying to reach any actual potential.

And exceptional students can reach that potential anywhere, and do. Public schools have exceptuinal students and also see achievement and people outreach their expected grasp.

 

[Boo Radley]

You have the right to a freedom of speech, yet you pay taxes in order to ensure that right is protected.

I'm not forcing you to do anything. Public funds pay for public education. Private funds pay for private education. It's kind of what the words private and public mean, right?

It will do well for the responsible parents who cannot afford to pay double for education and are stuck with a poor performing public school.

It's more poor perfroming students than poor perfroming schools. And no one is being asked to pay double.

But the fact that a student has obstacles at all is not justification for limiting their freedom of choice.

It's not limited by anything more than anything else.

The only reason I believe . . .

Many parents, or guardians, simply won't take the trouble. They don't now and won't in your plan.

People are not as stupid as you think they are. Individuals are better at running their own lives than a central planner from some far away city.

Not sure how stupid you believe I think people are, so it's hard to say if you're correct or not. But the point is, and was, you would be surprised if you had to actually deal with parents and students.

Calling student test scores a "small variable" ultimately means you believe it has no real value in determining ANYTHING about the performance of the institution, or the teacher. . . .

No, I mean quite clearly that performance is not as clear cut as you think it is. Two classes with two diffferent teachers also has two different groups of students. I have experienced teaching the same class at the same institution back to back. One class alive, egar, engaged, hardworking, disciplined and a sheer joy to teach. The other, dead. A class where the sudents didn't read their text, some not even bothering to buy it. A class where no one did any homework, attendence was poor, and getting anything at all out them was torture. So, was I responsbile for the great class and not the poor one, or for the poor class and not the great one? You seem to me to constantly take the students themselves out of the equation.

But there’s no denying that the average private school’s standards are far superior to that of the average public school. . . .

Says who? Sure, there ar emore students at a lower level in a public school, and this helps the private school. But if you move the lower perfroming students into the private school, they would then ahve to face the same problems the public schools do, and would likely ahve the same results. I work with both private and public schools, and I've had my kids in both. I tell you factually, there is no real difference. In some cases, the same teachers have taught in both. And they report the only difference is the students they have.

Why should parents be forced to pay twice for their child’s education? . .

This new idea of your's needs more explination. No one is paying twice for the same service. Tax dollars pay for public education. private education is a different service.

You directly mentioned the pay factor as a reason why good teachers stay away from the field. This is utterly nonsense for at least two reasons. . . . .

No, I don't think I did. Pay is but one factor, but I'm also quite sure I said it wasn't the major factor. I spoke of respect being more important. Pay is also a factor in why many bright people don't choose the field, but not the only factor. Respect also plays a role. Many will question a talented person about considering teaching when they could do something more profitable and more rewarding in a number of ways.

Regardless of the authenticity of that statement, it still doesn’t justify limiting the freedom of individuals to seriously pick the education of their choice.

. .

And you see no connection to the students and parents involved in private education and the drop out rate? I don't know that your numbers are accurate, but it wouldn't surprise me because of the type of student likely to attend each school.

Some utility and basic costs are universal, to a point. But private schools are far cleverer about generating revenue and being resourceful. They are also a heck of a lot better at spending the money they have.

You mean, have more wealthy donners, and somehow manage to get public tax dollars?

That video was of a private HIGH SCHOOL, not a college. . . .

Yes, I know. That's why I clarified that I was speaking of a college. Also, I was trying to point out that was not something that would save that much, especially if the campus has more land area and required more than just policing trash.

It’s irrelevant. Just because stupid or irresponsible people exist does not justify the taking of their liberties. Not everyone will make the smart decisions when it comes to the degree that is pursued, the job that is sought, the investment that is made, or the habits that are formed. That doesn’t give YOU the right to preside over their decisions because you think you can do it better.

No one is taking away liberties or suggesting liberties be taken away. I don't decide for anyone. They and their circumstance decide.

I’m not arguing that it is a cure-all. I argued that it’s better than the status quo.

And I argue it isn't. It avoids doing the heavy lifting and instead abandons too many.

But how do you explain the disparity in their standards? How do you explain why inner-city private schools outperform rich kids in suburban, well-funded public schools?

We’ve already agreed on the idea of truancy laws. So, again I’ll make the argument. We’ve removed the disruptive students from the classroom. The ones that are left are serious about learning, or trying to learn. Why can’t you extend their freedom to pursue the school of their dreams? Why does it have to be restricted to the wealthy and the political elite?

There is little to no disparity in standards. Both standards and performance is related to the student population and not the superiority of the school. In fact, public schools have more standards they are held to than private schools. For example, private schools are nto subject to something like NCLB.

Then give the public dollars back to the parents who decided not to use them on a public school. No matter how you slice it, it is neither fair nor ethical to force others to pay twice for an essential service, when they can easily pay once for the same service.

It seems your only argument is that students and parents must be forced to subsidize your job in order to shield your job and your school (if you so do work at a public facility) from any competition.

Again, not paying twice for the same service. All of us pay for a public education because it helps all of us to have an educated citizentry. Private education is a personal choice, and something you're free to do. It's another service, additional.

They have options. . .

I don't believe that will happen, but even if it did, you don't have to be disruptive to taking up space. Public shools will merely be left with those least likely to succeed, and have fewer positive examples as peers for students to look at.

If that were true, . . . .

You are worng about that. 1) People go to private schools for many, many reasons, valid and not valid, prue and honest and unprue and dishonest. 2) Also what people believe to be true doesn't always equal truth. People do somethimes get it wrong.

They are if we’re talking about the disruptive and disrespectful students, right? . .

They are part of what we're talking about. We're also talking about the student who has too many problems to concerntrate, has poor role models at home who seldom read or encourgae hard work, and who too often sit dead in class, neither being disruptive nor trying to reach any actual potential.

And exceptional students can reach that potential anywhere, and do. Public schools have exceptuinal students and also see achievement and people outreach their expected grasp.

 

[jambalaya]

Then why don't more conservatives appreciate Obama for continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Why don't more conservatives appreciate Obama for trying to cut taxes on the middle class and shift more of the tax burden away from them? Why don't more conservatives applaud Obama for not abusing the powers of his office during the BP oil spill? Why don't more conservatives applaud Obama for how he let the private sector deal with it? Why don't more conservatives celebrate Obama for not passing any major legislation that increases gun control? Why don't more conservatives sympathize with Obama for not repealing the PATRIOT Act and allowing America to retain the tools they need to ensure our national security?

Instead, Obama is being demonized as the worst President in history and the single source of why the U.S. is going down the crapper.

So both sides can play this game.

Some conservatives are appreciating Obama's somewhat continuation of those wars but not all. Many conservatives who were all for the wars when they started became disillusioned about how they were fought and jumped ship when they found out that some of the main justifications for it were invalid. Obama is not going to get a lot of credit for just mopping up. Any smart conservative realizes the way Obama wants to shift taxes is unsustainable. So far he hasn't done anyting radical but he was for letting the Bush cuts expire. He is not going to be some great tax reformer. I don't know what you are getting at with the BP thing. I think he was pretty much universally criticized for that. Celebrate no new gun laws? Doesn't seem like something worth celebrating. He hasn't rolled any gun laws back has he? OK, I'll give him credit for leaving the Patriot Act alone. Now let's talk about healthcare, bailouts and deficits.