Is this true? If so, why?

[Derideo_Te]

I'm hesitant to address your points given your history, but I'll give it one more try in the name of civility.

The record of this thread clearly shows that you were the first to engage in incivility so once again I will ask you to refrain from projecting your own shortcomings onto others.

You make the assumption that there will be the full range of these "free market" education providers (FMEP for short) in all possible locations where schools are necessary. In the real world markets those choices are restricted by geography. Certainly the best shops in the world can be found in places like Madison Ave and Riverside Drive but they don't have stores in Sayre, PA or Wittenberg, WI. So already your "free market" competition concept has stumbled at the first fence. False example. Sayer, PA most certainly has a demand for education, which a free market would fulfill, even if they don't have a demand for "shops". You've failed to demonstrate your case here.
Your cavalier attitude towards a business failing doesn't take into account that it leaves parents out of pocket and without the funds to put their children in another school and leaves their children bereft of the education they deserve. Wrong again. Without the property and other taxes forcibly taken from our citizens, there would be plenty of money to pay for a free market provided education.
That you don't know what research has proven to be the optimal class size shows that you have not done your homework for your own concept. Investors look askance at anyone who is this lackadaisical when it comes to knowing their own product offerings. Another false example. I didn't state that I don't know the 'optimal' class size, I said you would be free to choose the school that offered the class size you want. Big difference, but I suspect you knew that.
You haven't demonstrated either "superior results" or "better value for money". In order to make that claim you need factual data to demonstrate that it will occur. The charter schools have not managed to do what you claim. What makes you believe that you can do any better? Charter schools are not free market private institutions. They're still governed by bureaucrats, even to the extent they're outsourced. The reason I believe a free market would provide superior results and better value is because that is ALWAYS the case compared to government bureaucracies. If you believe government is more efficient that voluntary markets, I really can't help you.
Do you have any idea how condescending that sounds? If the parents are too poor to pay for their children's education they will be forced to attend religious based charity schools instead? Another false example. As I previously stated, if you want to make the case for taxpayer money going to poor families to pay for education, fine. I'm talking about getting the government out of RUNNING the schools. Big difference, which again, I suspect you knew. Stop being disingenuous in this conversation.
You miss the point entirely. When a child fails a grade in a public school there is usually a sound reason for that happening. Public schools will offer remedial classes during the Summer and work with the child to bring them back on track. With your FMEP the parents are SOL. Horse Hockey. There is no reason to believe a private school wouldn't respond to the needs of their customers. None.They did not get what they paid for and they are told to go somewhere else. Talk about a recipe for disaster. The class action lawyers will have a field day. Yet this does not happen with today's private schools. Interesting you would ignore that fact.
So in order to avoid lawsuits your FMEP's will promote a child regardless as to whether or not they met the criteria for that grade? Isn't that what you are complaining that public schools are doing? Never said that. I said private schools have an impetus to respond to the demands of their customers. Public school bureaucrats face no such pressure. How is your "solution" any different other than making you wealthy? Oh good God...
Have you ever read one of those contracts?
Have you done any research at all into how the business model works for private schools?
See above. They work just fine for millions of wealthier students. A point you seem to want to avoid entirely.
Once again your assumptions are on display. What if those kinds of schools are just not available in your area? You have zero evidence to suggest that demand would not be supplied in the absence of a government monopoly. Zero.
You assume that everyone will have choices that simply won't exist in the real world. You don't have a solution. You have a pipe dream.

I have the reality of all the other free markets that give customers choice and keep prices down. You have the most expensive public school system in the world that produces shitty results. How's that working out?



Again, the same way current private schools do. Further, with greater choice in education, the frequency of lawsuits is diminished. After all, if a school provides unsatisfactory service to a customer, that customer is far less likely to take on the time and costs of a lawsuit if there are more choices in the market. They'll tend to simply pick a new provider.

Now we know why you didn't produce a feasible business plan initially. Because you haven't done even the most rudimentary of research into this topic. You are simply claiming that "free market competition" is the one-size-fits-all solution to every problem where government is involved. The reality is that is just not true. It takes creativity to find real world solutions. Wry_Catcher has produced more viable and feasible alternatives in 3 posts than you have in the sum total of all of your posts in this thread.

That you would characterize the diversity of choice that only a free market can offer as "one size fits all" speaks volumes about your understand of basic economics and business. I can help you no further. Good luck with that.

Wry_Catcher started with the problem and found a viable alternative solution.

You started with your "one-size-fits-all-free-market-solution" and keep insisting that it will work irrespective of the real world issues that it will face.

Thanks for proving the veracity of this proverb. "There's none so blind as those who will not see."

So no point in wasting any further time on someone who is trying to impose his failed fundamentalist capitalism dogma on education simply because he can't be bothered to do any research into the market first.

 

[eflatminor]

...failed fundamentalist capitalism...

Now we get the heart of your argument. Thanks for the moment of honesty. Speaks volumes. Best of luck comrade.

 

[DGS49]

Regarding class size...

A few years ago I was thinking about running for school board in my school district (rich, suburban, white, expensive), while some of the then-current school board members were talking about a long-term campaign to reduce class sizes. At that time I did quite a bit of research on the subject. California had announced a similar initiative but didn't have a lot of data yet to indicate how it was working (they subsequently abandoned it).

My findings were basically as follows: (a) the concept of "lower class sizes" is an empty hole into which one can pour an infinite amount of money, with no tangible results. If the results don't come, then proponents simply say, "class sizes aren't small ENOUGH yet," and demand more money. It is, even if done prudently ENORMOUSLY expensive; going from 24 to 20 requires millions and millions of new dollars per year, in perpetuity.

(b) At the time, it appeared that small class sizes for very young students (up to about age 8) had measurable benefits, with the optimum class size being 12-14.

(c) Thereafter, the older the kids are, the less impact class size has, and OTHER FACTORS become more important than class size...factors like teacher competence, orderly environment, and parental engagement. Therefore, it makes no sense to focus on class size, which is terribly expensive, when other factors that have much more palatable costs can be enhanced.

(d) The only constituencies pushing for "smaller class sizes" are uninformed parents and teachers' unions. Basically it seems like a good idea, but a good teacher can teach a class with 40 students while a weak teacher will have a problem with 10.

To anyone suggesting that there is scientific proof that 20 (or whatever number) of students is optimal, I ask, where's the proof? Color me very, very skeptical.

When I was in school back in the Stone Age, I was in classes of a minimum of 40 students from 1st through 12th grade, and to my knowledge there was never any problem relating to overly large classes.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Regarding class size...

A few years ago I was thinking about running for school board in my school district (rich, suburban, white, expensive), while some of the then-current school board members were talking about a long-term campaign to reduce class sizes. At that time I did quite a bit of research on the subject. California had announced a similar initiative but didn't have a lot of data yet to indicate how it was working (they subsequently abandoned it).

My findings were basically as follows: (a) the concept of "lower class sizes" is an empty hole into which one can pour an infinite amount of money, with no tangible results. If the results don't come, then proponents simply say, "class sizes aren't small ENOUGH yet," and demand more money. It is, even if done prudently ENORMOUSLY expensive; going from 24 to 20 requires millions and millions of new dollars per year, in perpetuity.

(b) At the time, it appeared that small class sizes for very young students (up to about age 8) had measurable benefits, with the optimum class size being 12-14.

(c) Thereafter, the older the kids are, the less impact class size has, and OTHER FACTORS become more important than class size...factors like teacher competence, orderly environment, and parental engagement. Therefore, it makes no sense to focus on class size, which is terribly expensive, when other factors that have much more palatable costs can be enhanced.

(d) The only constituencies pushing for "smaller class sizes" are uninformed parents and teachers' unions. Basically it seems like a good idea, but a good teacher can teach a class with 40 students while a weak teacher will have a problem with 10.

To anyone suggesting that there is scientific proof that 20 (or whatever number) of students is optimal, I ask, where's the proof? Color me very, very skeptical.

When I was in school back in the Stone Age, I was in classes of a minimum of 40 students from 1st through 12th grade, and to my knowledge there was never any problem relating to overly large classes.

The math doesn't lie.

When you have a 40:1 ratio in a 50 minute period the teacher has at best 1 minute per student in that class. Then assume that it takes 20 minutes for a teacher to grade the homework for each student. That now totals 14 hours for a single class. How many classes does that teacher have in a day? The ratio of students to teachers has a direct impact on the quality of the education that the children receive.

More than a Number: Why Class Size Matters

 

[Unkotare]

Keeping kids interested, not making learning a chore but an adventure would, IMO, reap benefits far beyond anything we might imagine.

Yay! Let's make balloon animals all day! Doing "chores" is part of life - and work. There is nothing wrong with teaching kids that hard work (even on stuff you don't 'want' to do) is a fact of life and that the sooner you reconcile yourself to that fact the better off you'll be. This kumbaya approach to education shit was tried extensively in the 70s and was a big flop.

 

[Unkotare]

When you have a 40:1 ratio in a 50 minute period the teacher has at best 1 minute per student in that class.

There's a reason it's called a "class" and not "private tutoring."

 

[Unkotare]

You haven't demonstrated either "superior results" or "better value for money".

I believe I've covered this at least twice now.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Keeping kids interested, not making learning a chore but an adventure would, IMO, reap benefits far beyond anything we might imagine.

Yay! Let's make balloon animals all day! Doing "chores" is part of life - and work. There is nothing wrong with teaching kids that hard work (even on stuff you don't 'want' to do) is a fact of life and that the sooner you reconcile yourself to that fact the better off you'll be. This kumbaya approach to education shit was tried extensively in the 70s and was a big flop.

Education is a serious issue, one you apparently lack the ability to discuss. Why do you post? If you need attention why not run aside naked?

Really, it's sad you are unable to understand and annoying you post babble.

 

[Unkotare]

Keeping kids interested, not making learning a chore but an adventure would, IMO, reap benefits far beyond anything we might imagine.

Yay! Let's make balloon animals all day! Doing "chores" is part of life - and work. There is nothing wrong with teaching kids that hard work (even on stuff you don't 'want' to do) is a fact of life and that the sooner you reconcile yourself to that fact the better off you'll be. This kumbaya approach to education shit was tried extensively in the 70s and was a big flop.

Education is a serious issue, one you apparently lack the ability to discuss.

"Whee! Let's just have fun!" is not a "serious" approach to pedagogy, Patch Adams.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yay! Let's make balloon animals all day! Doing "chores" is part of life - and work. There is nothing wrong with teaching kids that hard work (even on stuff you don't 'want' to do) is a fact of life and that the sooner you reconcile yourself to that fact the better off you'll be. This kumbaya approach to education shit was tried extensively in the 70s and was a big flop.

Education is a serious issue, one you apparently lack the ability to discuss.

"Whee! Let's just have fun!" is not a "serious" approach to pedagogy, Patch Adams.

Being glib doesn't pass the seriousness of the issue test. It only proves you're unable to read, comprehend and consider alternatives solutions to complex issues. Of course glib is a step up from your usual babble.

 

[Unkotare]

Education is a serious issue, one you apparently lack the ability to discuss.

"Whee! Let's just have fun!" is not a "serious" approach to pedagogy, Patch Adams.

Being glib doesn't pass the seriousness of the issue test. It only proves you're unable to read, comprehend and consider alternatives solutions to complex issues. Of course glib is a step up from your usual babble.

And with that, you have added exactly nothing. Good work.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"Whee! Let's just have fun!" is not a "serious" approach to pedagogy, Patch Adams.

Being glib doesn't pass the seriousness of the issue test. It only proves you're unable to read, comprehend and consider alternatives solutions to complex issues. Of course glib is a step up from your usual babble.

And with that, you have added exactly nothing. Good work.

I have done what I needed to do, describe you accurately. I've read many of your posts, few if any warrant a response. Again, I'm not sure you're stupid but keep on going on and I'll be convinced.

 

[Unkotare]

So, any better ideas than "Whee! Let's have fun!"?

 

[Bleipriester]

So, any better ideas than "Whee! Let's have fun!"?

No. I want fun.

 

[editec]

People are more misininformed than ignorant...in part much THANKS to Sandra Day O'Connor

As in for example

McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003)
This ruling upheld the constitutionality of most of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance bill regulating "soft money" contributions.

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)
O'Connor joined with four other justices on December 12, 2000, to rule on the Bush v. Gore case that ceased challenges to the results of the 2000 presidential election (ruling to stop the ongoing Florida election recount and to allow no further recounts). This case effectively ended Gore's hopes to become president. Some legal scholars have argued that she should have recused herself from this case, citing several reports that she became upset when the media initially announced that Gore had won Florida, with her husband explaining that they would have to wait another four years before retiring to Arizona.[31]




I believe lots and lots of the people are trying their very best NOT to be misinformed, but there are so many sources of misinformation out there that most of us are ignorant about our world, and how it works.

 

[jasonnfree]

Damn right. Why? Choice...choice in your education dollar that only competition can produce. With centrally planned education (local, state and feds working together to screw things up), you get NO choice. The outcome, as always, is crappy results and skyrocketing costs.



Corporations, partnerships, LLCs, or just one guy that owns the operation...I don't care. The point is with a free market in education, you get choice. With choice comes the NECESSITY to produce superior results and to keep costs in check....or you send your kid to another school.

I don't want government bureaucrats to "teach" our kids, why do you?

Finland produces top students with government schools and they have teachers unions as do other countries with top performing students.

Yes, and we could identify a small student population of homogenized, wealthy students of Scandinavian decent here in America that get a reasonable education. America is not a small nation where everyone is exactly alike, practically related.

The status quo HERE is failing. More of the same isn't the answer.

It seems like many other countries doing better than USA also have government funded schools. In one article in which I post a link to, areas of China that have problem schools get more attention and funding. Maybe it's what the national will and goal is. In USA it seems to me anyway that sports get too much attention. Also, much has to do with the home. My ex spends (too much) on nintendos and trips to disneyland for the grandson. I fund microscopes, chess lessons, and trips to observatories and marine aquariums and the like. At least he gets a balance. But yeah if a free market could do the job better let's go for it. How to make the transition, keep the best and brightest teachers etc. and weed out the clockwatchers would be the challenge.

Darling-Hammond: U.S. vs highest-achieving nations in education - The Answer Sheet - The Washington Post

 

[Wry Catcher]

So, any better ideas than "Whee! Let's have fun!"?

You're not only dumb (yep, now I'm convinced) you've become totally dishonest. No part of any of my posts on this issue suggested let's have fun. I guess being dumb you somehow comported teaching to a student's interests and talents fun even when my post framed core subjects like math, science, reading, history and geography within said interests. In this way fewer kids will be turned off by being told "sit down, don't talk, don't touch, don't, don't don't".

I suppose that is too abstract for you. That's sad.

 

[eflatminor]

Finland produces top students with government schools and they have teachers unions as do other countries with top performing students.

Yes, and we could identify a small student population of homogenized, wealthy students of Scandinavian decent here in America that get a reasonable education. America is not a small nation where everyone is exactly alike, practically related.

The status quo HERE is failing. More of the same isn't the answer.

It seems like many other countries doing better than USA also have government funded schools.

Yet they spend less per student than we do. Either way, I'm suggesting there may be a better way than any current government run experiments, especially for the diversity of the American educational market.

In one article in which I post a link to, areas of China that have problem schools get more attention and funding. Maybe it's what the national will and goal is. In USA it seems to me anyway that sports get too much attention.

Were there not a government monopoly on affordable education, you could choose to send you kids to a school that offered no sports programs...or a different one that had the balance of sports v scholastics that appealed to you. Consumer choice is the key.

Also, much has to do with the home. My ex spends (too much) on nintendos and trips to disneyland for the grandson. I fund microscopes, chess lessons, and trips to observatories and marine aquariums and the like. At least he gets a balance.

That's a good example of the power of voluntary choice. Isn't it a good thing that government doesn't control the market for microscopes and chess lessons...or video games for that matter. YOU get to choose, not a nameless bureaucrat.

But yeah if a free market could do the job better let's go for it. How to make the transition, keep the best and brightest teachers etc. and weed out the clockwatchers would be the challenge.

In some ways, I think that would be the easiest part. The best teachers and administrators would garner the highest compensation/perks in a free market while the clockwatchers (good term!), would find it difficult to remain employed if they didn't bring value to their customers.

Appreciate the honest exchange.

 

[Unkotare]

So, any better ideas than "Whee! Let's have fun!"?

You're not only dumb (yep, now I'm convinced) you've become totally dishonest. No part of any of my posts on this issue suggested let's have fun. I guess being dumb you somehow comported teaching to a student's interests and talents fun even when my post framed core subjects like math, science, reading, history and geography within said interests. In this way fewer kids will be turned off by being told "sit down, don't talk, don't touch, don't, don't don't".

I suppose that is too abstract for you. That's sad.

Whee! Let's have fun!" was intended to be taken as a condensation of your silly, indulgent, impractical attitude towards education. If you had some yourself you might have figured that out on your own.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So, any better ideas than "Whee! Let's have fun!"?

You're not only dumb (yep, now I'm convinced) you've become totally dishonest. No part of any of my posts on this issue suggested let's have fun. I guess being dumb you somehow comported teaching to a student's interests and talents fun even when my post framed core subjects like math, science, reading, history and geography within said interests. In this way fewer kids will be turned off by being told "sit down, don't talk, don't touch, don't, don't don't".

I suppose that is too abstract for you. That's sad.

Whee! Let's have fun!" was intended to be taken as a condensation of your silly, indulgent, impractical attitude towards education. If you had some yourself you might have figured that out on your own.

It was not your intention, it was a stupid glib comment which you are now desperate to spin, yet you can only offer childish criticism sans any substantive and thoughtful thesis.
You conclude with a classic ad hominem and yet accuse me of not having an education.

If you had ideas you would post them