Louisiana's bold bid to privatize schools

[Misterveritis]

That silly side step of responsibily is meaningless to me CP. Bush program was Bush'es no matter who co-Aurthored. The fact remains, conservatives supported a largely stupid idea.

Do you believe that either of the Bushes were conservatives? Both are establishment republicans. It was a bad idea then. It remains a bad idea. I don't know any conservative who thought it was a good idea to centrally plan education. Like all central planning it is a socialist idea not a conservative idea. And central planning nearly always fails.

 

[Misterveritis]

So far the experience in Florida is that kids don't do any better in charter schools than they do in public schools. Nor are they cheaper.

What are charter schools?
Charter schools are non-profit 501(c)(3) organizations that have a contract or charter to provide the same educational services to students as district public schools. They are nonsectarian public schools that operate with freedom from many of the regulations that apply to traditional public schools.​

FCPCS

In Florida, a charter schools is just a public school with a new shiny name.

 

[Misterveritis]

Vouchers are a bad idea. I get why people think it sounds like a good idea and I think their heart really is in the right place. But in practice, they're always a disaster. The problem is that people think of private schools and they picture like some fancy academy with ivy growing on it. Those schools exist and they're awesome. But, they don't cost the $7k a voucher gives you and they don't accept kids that aren't at the extreme top end for academic performance. The types of schools that crop up charging $7k (or whatever the voucher is) tend to be more like warehouses. Those kinds of schools tend to perform much more poorly than public schools. And then the public schools get hit too because they have to cut funding for them dramatically to fund the vouchers, and because the best kids get pulled out and that makes it all the harder for the kids who stay to find positive influences and whatnot.

Look at what happened in Milwaukee. That's the largest voucher program in the nation and it has been an unmitigated disaster. The newspaper did a study where they went around to a big random sample of the schools that took vouchers that year and found that something like 40% had "no discernible curriculum at all". A bunch had no books or computers at all. Many had all the kids- all grade levels- in a single room. One had only one staff member- a registered sex offender- and took place in his garage...

The whole mechanism of parent choice isn't really the panacea people assume. Most parents don't really have enough time or knowledge to really make a great decision. They get easily wooed by the slick marketing of for profit schools that come up with misleading statistics or gimmicks. Something as important as education shouldn't be left to such a haphazard process IMO.

It's a nice sounding idea that doesn't work.

Charter schools are non-sectarian, tuition-free, public schools created on the basis of a contract or "charter" between the school and an authorizer...​

Our Mission, Background, and Definitions

And this is another place where little was changed except the name. A public schools is still a public school.

 

[Misterveritis]

Source? And before I go any further, what is your teaching background? How many hours of classroom experience do you have?

Why not just ask him for his union number?

 

[Misterveritis]

So, to fix all schools, we just need to not let undesirables in.

Well, no. You need to boot the undesirables out. Fire the non-performing students and the non-performing parents.

 

[Misterveritis]

So, in your opinion, we should just let those 2% continue to act up in school, ruining the chances for all, out of "fairness" and "compassion" because they were born to morons. Get real!

We have a history of pandering to the unfit, the undesirables, the losers, and the moochers. Why would public education be any different than our society at large? Look at what we have done. We find the successful to be our enemies and describe them as greedy. We ennoble the one who takes from the public treasury, who mooches, whose nature is destructive.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Charter schools are non-sectarian, tuition-free, public schools created on the basis of a contract or "charter" between the school and an authorizer...​

Our Mission, Background, and Definitions

And this is another place where little was changed except the name. A public schools is still a public school.

Except that charter schools, unlike neighborhood public schools, must compete for students.

 

[Misterveritis]

Except that charter schools, unlike neighborhood public schools, must compete for students.

While I agree it is a tiny step in the right direction it does not solve the underlying problem.

In my opinion a bold measure would be to take government involvement completely out of local schools. Stop collecting taxes to support them. Let parents decide how much education they are willing to pay for. There would be schools across all price points and across all of the possible educational goals.

As long as charter schools are just public schools the problem remains.

 

[Dittohead not!]

While I agree it is a tiny step in the right direction it does not solve the underlying problem.

In my opinion a bold measure would be to take government involvement completely out of local schools. Stop collecting taxes to support them. Let parents decide how much education they are willing to pay for. There would be schools across all price points and across all of the possible educational goals.

As long as charter schools are just public schools the problem remains.

How much they are willing to pay for, and how much they are able to pay for. The end result would be an underclass who are uneducated and who can't afford education because they are unable to get a well paying job due to lack of education.

The bottom line is that a well educated populace is a necessity for society as a whole, and so needs to be supported by society as a whole.

But, the parents should be the ones deciding on which schools to send their kids to, not the government bureaucracy. Education can not be forced, after all, just offered.

 

[imagep]

I suspect that charter schools are created by parents who have children that are either disruptive or underperforming in regular public schools. The parents blame the schools instead of the children, create a charter schools, and then tell the kids that they no longer can use the excuse of blaming the school for their poor performance, so the students have little choice than to toe the line. This may create an initial appearance of success of the charter school, at least until all of the original students graduate. When new students enroll in the charter, which is by then already firmly under the control of the original creators, the parents end up being just as frustrated as they have little power in the administration of the school.

Charter schools are basically for the misfit students of good parents. It's an interesting experiment.

 

[Misterveritis]

How much they are willing to pay for, and how much they are able to pay for. The end result would be an underclass who are uneducated and who can't afford education because they are unable to get a well paying job due to lack of education.

How does that differ from today? Is the man who refuses to be educated because of cultural concerns any worse off that the one who cannot pay for an education?

Do you believe we would not see a large number of private organizations spring up to offer either funding or schooling for those who want it but cannot pay? How is education different from any other service we pay for?

The bottom line is that a well educated populace is a necessity for society as a whole,

Perhaps that is why the nation is failing before our very eyes.

and so needs to be supported by society as a whole.

Can we examine this? How does taking 10k from me, passing it through a government agency that absorbs 3K and then giving it to a government-run, liberally focused organization, that takes another 5K for administrative overhead, resulting in 2K used to actually benefit my child differ from me spending 5K with a business whose purpose is to generate profits by providing me with a superior educational experience?

But, the parents should be the ones deciding on which schools to send their kids to, not the government bureaucracy. Education can not be forced, after all, just offered.

Something we can agree upon. Having them pay for it will enforce the importance of their choice.

 

[Boo Radley]

Do you believe that either of the Bushes were conservatives? Both are establishment republicans. It was a bad idea then. It remains a bad idea. I don't know any conservative who thought it was a good idea to centrally plan education. Like all central planning it is a socialist idea not a conservative idea. And central planning nearly always fails.

They were republicans. We can debate whether democrats are really liberla and republcans really conservative, but I'd argue both are more the same and neither liberal.

However, if it helps you to change the word conservative to republican, do so. And those who voted for Bush and the silly plan, call them whatever you like. The point I make is the same regardless.

 

[Boo Radley]

Well, no. You need to boot the undesirables out. Fire the non-performing students and the non-performing parents.

That is an option. Truely, it is. And to some degree, I'm OK with it, as it makes more sense than other proposals so far. But I'd like another option. At least some process for getting back in with the understanding that only students are admitted.

 

[Dittohead not!]

How does that differ from today? Is the man who refuses to be educated because of cultural concerns any worse off that the one who cannot pay for an education?

It differs from today in that children have access to education regardless of whether their parents are affluent and/or responsible. What you're suggesting punishes children for the poor decisions made by parents.

Do you believe we would not see a large number of private organizations spring up to offer either funding or schooling for those who want it but cannot pay? How is education different from any other service we pay for?

No, I don't.

Education is different in that having an educated population is important for all of us, not just the students.

Perhaps that is why the nation is failing before our very eyes.

If you believe that the nation is "failing", then perhaps that is one reason. Lack of personal responsibility and common sense might just be a large part of it too.

Can we examine this? How does taking 10k from me, passing it through a government agency that absorbs 3K and then giving it to a government-run, liberally focused organization, that takes another 5K for administrative overhead, resulting in 2K used to actually benefit my child differ from me spending 5K with a business whose purpose is to generate profits by providing me with a superior educational experience?

Efficiency is not that bad, but could be improved by more local control and less bureaucracy, to be sure.

Something we can agree upon. Having them pay for it will enforce the importance of their choice.

Having them pay a portion of it will enforce the importance of that choice. We don't want anyone to choose ignorance because their parents can't or won't pay the price for education. That is a false economy.

 

[Misterveritis]

They were republicans. We can debate whether democrats are really liberla and republcans really conservative, but I'd argue both are more the same and neither liberal.

However, if it helps you to change the word conservative to republican, do so. And those who voted for Bush and the silly plan, call them whatever you like. The point I make is the same regardless.

There is a very big difference between conservatism and republicanism. While most conservatives are republican only a fraction of republicans are conservatives. Most republicans are statists along with most democrats. The big difference is in the degree with most democrats far to the left of most republicans.
I do not deny that NCLB was a bad policy and a bad law. I do deny that it was conservative or that conservatives in general supported it.

 

[Dittohead not!]

There is a very big difference between conservatism and republicanism. While most conservatives are republican only a fraction of republicans are conservatives. Most republicans are statists along with most democrats. The big difference is in the degree with most democrats far to the left of most republicans.
I do not deny that NCLB was a bad policy and a bad law. I do deny that it was conservative or that conservatives in general supported it.

There is nothing conservative about NCLB, Race to the Top, or the Department of Education.

The only real conservatives left are the Libertarians. The right wing has been hijacked by the authoritarians who would have government making decisions that the individuals should be making, and who wage "wars" on drugs and on "terror" and use those wars as an excuse to trample on the Bill of Rights.

 

[Boo Radley]

There is a very big difference between conservatism and republicanism. While most conservatives are republican only a fraction of republicans are conservatives. Most republicans are statists along with most democrats. The big difference is in the degree with most democrats far to the left of most republicans.
I do not deny that NCLB was a bad policy and a bad law. I do deny that it was conservative or that conservatives in general supported it.

Do you deny republicans supported it?

 

[Misterveritis]

There is nothing conservative about NCLB, Race to the Top, or the Department of Education.

Agree.

The only real conservatives left are the Libertarians.

Hmmm. I believe that libertarians on the right tend to hold conservative views but they are not the only conservatives. I welcome anyone who believes, as I do, that governments should be constrained by written constitutions as a conservative. I know there are other beliefs. In my opinion this one is central.

The right wing has been hijacked by the authoritarians who would have government making decisions that the individuals should be making, and who wage "wars" on drugs and on "terror" and use those wars as an excuse to trample on the Bill of Rights.

I agree with concerning the war on drugs. I believe the vast majority of currently illegal drugs should be legal and taxed in normal commerce. The war on terror is poorly named. We must defend ourselves. I do not believe that gathering intelligence, even when one party is an American, need lead us to a trampling of our rights. I do believe the intelligence gathering should be overseen by a panel of people with diverse backgrounds to make sure that intelligence stays within intelligence channels when no wrongdoing is discovered.

But I can be swayed. Maybe.

 

[Misterveritis]

Do you deny republicans supported it?

Of course not. They did. You might even be able to dig up a conservative or two who (wrongly) supported it. Central planning is nearly always wrong.

 

[Boo Radley]

Of course not. They did. You might even be able to dig up a conservative or two who (wrongly) supported it. Central planning is nearly always wrong.

All planning can be wrong. You should listen to a few state officals concerning education. But, we've established one thing. Where do you want to go next?

 

[Misterveritis]

All planning can be wrong. You should listen to a few state officals concerning education. But, we've established one thing. Where do you want to go next?

Local planning limits the damage. Central planning spreads the damage.

I would like to really privatize education. I mean get the government out of it completely.

 

[Boo Radley]

Local planning limits the damage. Central planning spreads the damage.

I would like to really privatize education. I mean get the government out of it completely.

Supoort that. Stupid is stupid, be it local or federal. And without centralized standards, one area can be great and another horrendous. Remember, it used to be the way you want it and there are reasons why that changed.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Local planning limits the damage. Central planning spreads the damage.

I would like to really privatize education. I mean get the government out of it completely.

Why? (ten characters)

 

[Misterveritis]

Supoort that. Stupid is stupid, be it local or federal. And without centralized standards, one area can be great and another horrendous. Remember, it used to be the way you want it and there are reasons why that changed.

For some things centralized standards make wonderful sense. But centralized planning nearly always fails.

And now it is time to change it back. I wonder if public sector unions are the reason why education is so generally bad.

 

[Misterveritis]

Why? (ten characters)

Are you asking why I want the government completely out of education?

Government bureaucrats mess up nearly everything. Education is an individual choice. People should be able to buy it the same way they buy anything else. It is time for a change. So why not let go of this government monopoly and see what happens?