anomaly said:I agree with most of what you say, but I hardly think morals (#5) has anything to do with the US literacy rate.
First, the topic is about the quality of schools here vs. elsewhere.anomaly said:Gabo, the fact that schools are public in the US has absolutely NOTHING to do with why we are behind other public schools in Europe. Do you not realize yet that privatization is sometimes not the best path to take? Another question to others: apparently Gabo doesn't get it....anyone else willing to explain the ills of privatizing schools?
Tuition rates to current private schools average about half the tuition amount per student attending public schools. This would probably improve even further with more market competition. And many people would be interested in running a school. Lots of people like helping others and teaching, as well as upkeeping a business.anomaly said:right now the gov't funds all public schools in the USA. I don't think that any business could successfully run any schools (and any business would inevitably want to manage more than one school) without a drastic increase in tuition rates.
Smart businesses can easily learn to account for an annual increase in customers. Businesses everywhere right now already account for increase in consumers. Even if a school found it too difficult to guess what the increase would be, they could have their registration in the beginning of summer.anomaly said:Even with these increases, a business (and I believe that any school business would have to focus on education and probably not anything else as it is such a huge area) would find it difficult to maintain a surplus of school materials as more and more students go to a school each year, there is a population increase in most schools of the USA each year.
Like I said before, private schools reduce costs. There would inevitably be a variety of schools offering a variety of prices and different quality service. Less fortunate people could send their children to less cutting-edge schools, while wealthier people could provide radical new possiblities in education.anomaly said:These tuition rates being so high means that not all students will receive an education (or another possibility is that, through competition tuition rates would become so low that the business could not afford quality materials) . In any rate, tuition rate increases would mean that not all students would be able to afford these business run schools.
I would say the majority of the people in the US believe less fortunate children deserve an education. Why else do you think they created public education in the first place? Public education basically started out as a government run charity for less fortunates.anomaly said:And your solution to this is charity run schools? Unlike taxes, people do not feel inclined to give charity. And you are depending on a tremendous amount of charity in each community to run these poor schools. Also, you must rely on a constant stream of charity, actually increasing amounts each year.
There's the fact that public schooling is also extremely unfair to the poor. The quality of schooling in each district differs immensely, and the districts with better schooling have more expensive housing. In this way, our inefficient public school system creates winners and losers anyways.anomaly said:So what you would end up with is maybe 90% (and that's a kind estimate) of well educated students dominating 10% of poorly educated schools. I hope you realize that privatizing schools will NOT increase the literacy rate, as was my original question. Privatizing schools also means that not everyone will have a chance for education. This sort of thinking is based on the belief that the well-off kids somehow deserve better than poor kids. But if that's how you feel, then I guess privatizing schools is exactly what you want.
Considering TONS of people already want slips to choose which school gets their tax money, fully privatized schooling is not far off. Stop trying to crush my beliefs by pretending like my way is not possible. Not only will it work, it is becoming more and more popular among people.anomaly said:Also, I'd like to add that the USA will NEVER consider privatizing all schools, so your dream is and will always be just that, a dream.
vauge said:Here are my thoughts on why are are so low in literacy...
1. We have the victim mentality...whoa is me. i.e. Feminization of America.
Huh?
2. Sports is more popular than reading. Many times kids are pushed through HS because they can bounce or throw a ball well.
I think you may be on to something here.
3. We try to fix things by throwing money instead of energy to them - without demanding full account of funds. Oh, here is some more money, now maybe that school will do better. Make sure that you spend it all or you get no more.
Yeah, 'em school's have way too much money as it is- let's take some away. Hey maybe we could give some more to a CEO or a CFO. I hear they've been hurting lately, you know interest rates aren't raising as fast as you hear.
4. Teachers are losing the battle. It is no longer a teachers classroom. If Sally gets offended - the school gets sued.
Teachers shouldn't be offending Sally, should they?
5. Parents. The parents are letting society teach the kids morals instead of doing it themselves.
Again, think you may have something here.
6. Family stucture is on the brink. 70% of black kids are born out of wedlock. (only number I know) the numbers for other races are increasing at a very stagering rate.
Yeah, them dumb black kids. No wait. Where are you getting your numbers from? And Fox News Network and the KKK are no longer credible sources.
7. Social Security for teachers is no longer available. Even though my wife is eligible - if she dies our kid and I get nothing of what she has contributed. Retirement is pathetic for teachers. Therefore it is hard to keep quality teachers in the classroom.
I'm sorry teachers in Texas don't qualify for social security? Man, I thought it would have taken Bush at least another year to push through his plan to steal from hard working honest folks and give the cash to Wall Street fat cats. Guess you guys in Texas are getting ripped off ahead of the rest of us, lucky you.
Yeah, them dumb black kids. No wait. Where are you getting your numbers from? And Fox News Network and the KKK are no longer credible sources.
I'm sorry teachers in Texas don't qualify for social security? Man, I thought it would have taken Bush at least another year to push through his plan to steal from hard working honest folks and give the cash to Wall Street fat cats. Guess you guys in Texas are getting ripped off ahead of the rest of us, lucky you.
Not sure you got my meaning. We can throw millions at a problem, but first a problem has to exist and then a plan to fix it has to be in place. After that - accountability is the key to success.Yeah, 'em school's have way too much money as it is- let's take some away. Hey maybe we could give some more to a CEO or a CFO. I hear they've been hurting lately, you know interest rates aren't raising as fast as you hear.
vauge said:[/size]
http://www.acton.org/ppolicy/comment/print.php?id=169
Second sentence.
Teachers are government employees and do not qualify for SS and the retirement system the gov has.
Not sure you got my meaning. We can throw millions at a problem, but first a problem has to exist and then a plan to fix it has to be in place. After that - accountability is the key to success.
anomaly said:Well, Gabo, although I know longer have the right to express my opinion that you are wrong (its because I'm wrong, right?) I will do so anyway. The first part of your argument is based on your fact that private schools tuition is half that of public schools. Where are you getting your numbers? Where I live, the two pivate schools cost a ton more than do the public schools. The rest of your reply is more or lessed based on speculation about how things will work when schools are privatized. Now assuming that you are right and all will be well when schools are privatized (which I completely disagree with) you have to take into account what kind of environment this school would require. It is said that schools are a reflection of the larger society, so for schools to be private, you must have a private, or completely capitalistic laissez-faire (spelling might be off on that) society. This is no restrictions on business at all, letting business run itself. This doesn't work so well. It has been tried once before (1870's-1920's) and this resulted in, among other things, the Great Depression. So now it seems, Gabo, that you must move from schools to the economy and argue this laissez-faire society that historically has failed.
Pacridge said:I have two retired teacher friends.
vauge said:The word retired is the key here. Teachers are no longer able to 'double dip' for retirement. There is a government retire system for teachers. Regardless if they put money in or not, if they did not retire last year - they are not elligble.
We just spoke to a finacial adviser on Thursday about this. My wife is now putting into a 403b hoping that it will suffice where SS is no longer available.
Social Security Protection Act of 2004
http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/ssa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1265&p_created=1062097673&p_sid=LHHUjlxh&p_lva=499&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9MTQmcF9zZWFyY2hfdHlwZT1zZWFyY2hfbmwmcF9jYXRfbHZsMT0mcF9jYXRfbHZsMj0mcF9wYWdlPTEmcF9zZWFyY2hfdGV4dD1BcmUgdGVhY2hlcnMgZWxsaWdibGU-&p_li=
There is no reason to keep schooling away from the competitive market. And if you are worried about private schools, then keep public schooling but make it optional. Those who decide against public schooling will be exempt from related taxes, free to choose education of their own liking, while the others may continue to use the existing system.anomaly said:First off, I would like to get some more recent info onthis (the latest graph was from '95). Second, do you have any proof of these private succeses? If they are so successful, why does no industrialized country (that I know of) have all private schools? I still do not think the problem with education today is private schools, my school district is very, very good. Perhaps teachers are simply better in my district? Does anyone have any stats on the teacher/pupil ratio avg? Also, you said before that a "school monopoly" would never occur as monopolies do not tend to develop in capitalist societies. Go to your grocery store! Proctor and Gamble and Unilever own hundreds of brands of soap powder, detergents, dishwater tablets etc. These two companies have arisen out of hundreds of companies that once existed. In post-WWII Europe, there were hundreds of car manufacturers. Now you can count them on the fingers of two hands. Monopolies are a dangerous and real occurence in capitalism, and they threaten its very existence. So there is no reason to not expect monopolies to develop in private education.
First off, current private schools are still very much under government control. They must follow the provided curriculum and guidelines set by the government.anomaly said:I don't really see anything wrong with your idea of keeping them both (although, isn't that what we have right now?? we have your standard public school, but their are also private schools...). But making the citizens whose children do not attend public school "exempt from related taxes? As your website points out, their is no standard to how much money goes to public schools (it can be seen that there is less now with Bush's tax cuts) so I'm not sure you can make people exempt from these taxes.
You need to understand that price discrimination is highly ineffective and costly.anomaly said:Regarding monopolies, I feel you misunderstand how they work. Using the supermarket example, I'm sure a competitor pops up often that Proctor and Gamble simply doesn't like for whatever reason, so Proctor will just buy out this company. This is the huge danger with monopolies, that they destroy all competition. When their is more than one competitor, yes these two will continue to lower prices (as much as they can) until one of them is defeated, for whatever reason. You must see that their are winners and losers in capitalism, usually more losers than winners. Now, when one company remains they will raise prices tremendously. Yes, small companies can rise and attempt to compete with this giant, but they will quickly be bought out. Monopolies destroy competition and thus destroy capitalism...that is why most if not all capitalists feel that the government should atleast set restrictions in this area.
Please, I would like to see a ling to your "lef-wing professor" and his opinion on the matter.anomaly said:I'd just like to point out that your link is to a right-wing professor. There are PLENTY of left-wing professors out there who say almost the opposite. But hey, they're just wrong, right? I suppose we can't know if monopolies exist in a completely free-market society as such a society has not yet existed. So it is then up to what one thinks will happen. And personally I think this professor is kinda wacko. Monopolizing is a real and disturbing occurence in free market capitalism. Note my car example: The amount of car-making companies in Europe has dwindled from hundreds right after WWII to now less than ten. And I don't think government (the evil antagonist) had anything to do with this.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?