Public Education (1st through 12th grade)

[Bill O'Olberman]

I am so glad I have the summer off. I sure get tired making sure my students are locked and loaded, and teaching them the joys of homosexual sex. Plus, making sure all the girls birth control pills are up to date, and the boys have plenty of condoms stocked up. Then of course, there are my lesson plans, it's not easy brainwashing these kids for the indoctrination of Marxism.


Every teachers main plan, from the very start, is to turn the students into sheep, to get ready for the New World Order, since the USA is turning into a Third World Country.

haha... Kids in high school will read books like Animal Farm, Anthem, and The Fountainhead and realize that the collectivist, altruistic mentality is bullshit, that is if they are truly rational thinkers.

Well, kids do get bored and have sex. So proper contraceptive use isnt a bad thing really as long as you stress that abstinence is the only sure way of not getting pregnant or an STD. But seriously kids, probably your kids too, arent going to abstine... sex is to much fun.

Maybe I had the benefit of going through an exceptional public school system but I enjoyed high school and enjoyed college even more. Education is like anything else, you get what you put into it. If you're kid is not applied and apethetic then school will be of little benefit. But if you're diligent and hard working then you can benefit greatly even from a public school education.

 

[Oddball]

haha... Kids in high school will read books like Animal Farm, Anthem, and The Fountainhead and realize that the collectivist, altruistic mentality is bullshit, that is if they are truly rational thinkers.

Which gubmint school has Ayn Rand books on the curriculum??

 

[random3434]

haha... Kids in high school will read books like Animal Farm, Anthem, and The Fountainhead and realize that the collectivist, altruistic mentality is bullshit, that is if they are truly rational thinkers.

Which gubmint school has Ayn Rand books on the curriculum??

A lot of schools will let a student choose books to read on their own for independent reading. They then do a book report on it, or just do an oral report to the teacher. Pretty cool, because it engages the student to read more, since there is no "set list" to choose from.

 

[Toro]

Who needs all that fancy book learnin'?

Yeah...Who needs to recognize them long haired "book learning" concepts, like vapid platitudes, when you seen them??

As long as you know how to fire a gun, stack can food and build a hut, that's all the education anyone needs.

 

[Oddball]

Very funny deflection, but deflection nonetheless.

 

[Annie]

I'll reiterate, it's not public, private, or home schooled. It's providing the best education one can give the kids. Very few can successfully homeschool. Some cannot afford or wish to give private. Thus many are left with pubic schooling, so one asks, 'What are YOU doing to make it better?'

 

[random3434]

I'll reiterate, it's not public, private, or home schooled. It's providing the best education one can give the kids. Very few can successfully homeschool. Some cannot afford or wish to give private. Thus many are left with pubic schooling, so one asks, 'What are YOU doing to make it better?'

You mean besides bitching about public education on message boards?


Parents are the #1 key to a child's success in school.

Now, take it from there peeps!

 

[Metternich]

Vouchers, mainly.

I find it ironic Obama is not in support of the program, even though his daughter's classmates use the DoC program to go to the same high flying school... 'N' didn't he mention he wants everyone to have the same possibilities as his daughters? Heh. Ironic.

 

[Oddball]

Very few can successfully homeschool.

This is why some homeschoolers have taken to creating co-ops.

Some cannot afford or wish to give private.Thus many are left with pubic schooling.....

It'd be a lot easier to afford if those parents didn't have thousands of dollars expropriated from them in property taxes, to pay for schools that they'd rather not send their kids to.

Thus many are left with pubic schooling, so one asks, 'What are YOU doing to make it better?'

Wait a minute.....People like me, who don't even have kids, are forced to pay for gubmint schools we don't use, and somehow it falls upon us to make those schools better??

Welcome to the rabbit hole, Alice.

 

[Annie]

Very few can successfully homeschool.

This is why some homeschoolers have taken to creating co-ops.

Some cannot afford or wish to give private.Thus many are left with pubic schooling.....

It'd be a lot easier to afford if those parents didn't have thousands of dollars expropriated from them in property taxes, to pay for schools that they'd rather not send their kids to.

Thus many are left with pubic schooling, so one asks, 'What are YOU doing to make it better?'

Wait a minute.....People like me, who don't even have kids, are forced to pay for gubmint schools we don't use, and somehow it falls upon us to make those schools better??

Welcome to the rabbit hole, Alice.

Hardly, personally I think you are being ripped right and left. Just like my school, where parents figure that since they are 'paying' their kids will somehow develop not only academic skills, but moral ones, through no expense on their part, they fail.

I guess with public schools, if they are churning out students that can meet the criteria for reading, writing, and math, we should say, "Job well done." That is the truth.

Making kids citizens is the job of parents, not schools.

 

[Oddball]

Hardly, personally I think you are being ripped right and left. Just like my school, where parents figure that since they are 'paying' their kids will somehow develop not only academic skills, but moral ones, through no expense on their part, they fail.

I guess with public schools, if they are churning out students that can meet the criteria for reading, writing, and math, we should say, "Job well done." That is the truth.

Making kids citizens is the job of parents, not schools.

Well, what in hell are the parents paying their taxes for??

Mind you, this is not my true feeling on the matter, but the mindset that's fostered when you separate the person receiving the public benefit from paying the true costs of receiving that benefit.

It's kinda like tax withholding in a sense....If the parents involved had to cut a check to the school district every month, rather than simply pay their property tax bill, I bet the farm that there'd be a lot more parental interest in what kind of education their kids were getting.

 

[Annie]

Hardly, personally I think you are being ripped right and left. Just like my school, where parents figure that since they are 'paying' their kids will somehow develop not only academic skills, but moral ones, through no expense on their part, they fail.

I guess with public schools, if they are churning out students that can meet the criteria for reading, writing, and math, we should say, "Job well done." That is the truth.

Making kids citizens is the job of parents, not schools.

Well, what in hell are the parents paying their taxes for??

Mind you, this is not my true feeling on the matter, but the mindset that's fostered when you separate the person receiving the public benefit from paying the true costs of receiving that benefit.

It's kinda like tax withholding in a sense....If the parents involved had to cut a check to the school district every month, rather than simply pay their property tax bill, I bet the farm that there'd be a lot more parental interest in what kind of education their kids were getting.

Seriously? I guess that is up to the parents to ultimately decide. In our parochial school, to expect their children will 'come out' academically excellent, with strong moral parameters, is a joke. Perhaps the former, but the later is impossible without parental involvement.

Public schools, well it depends upon the challenges. In our school district, less than 3% are ESL, so the bar can be set pretty high. In other schools? Not so good.

 

[Oddball]

Well, of course it's (next to) impossible without parental involvement.

But when the parents are insulated from directly paying the costs of the benefit received, what do you expect??

 

[Toro]

Very funny deflection, but deflection nonetheless.

Education is critical in lifting people out of poverty, here and abroad.

Over the past 40 years, the real wages for uneducated white males has fallen by something like 20%. During that same time, the biggest gains in income has accrued to those with the most education. The income difference between those with a high school education and a university education rose from 40% in 1980 to 70% today. Access to education is critical in bringing people out of poverty.

Abroad, developmental economists have long known the value of mass education and the increase in the stock of human capital. In the 1950s and 1960s, there was a debate whether or not governments in developing economies should fund high education for the top, with the idea that the these highly trained people would come back to their countries and use their knowledge to increase development, or if governments should instead focus their limited resources towards funding a broad-based level of schooling so that the broad population would acquire a minimum but critical level of skills. Generally, Africa pursued the former while East Asia pursued the latter, and is one primary reason why Asia has done so well over the past half century. Of course, it is not the only reason - Cuba is a highly educated society after all - but such wide-spread skills are critical in the development of a manufacturing base. And the widespread skills could not have been accrued without the government funding development.

That does not mean the distribution of education has to come through the government. I have worked with a private company that takes over inner-city schools, and has done a reasonable job at increasing the skill levels of the students, and certainly better than the government did. However, their funding still comes from the government.

 

[Toro]

Well, of course it's (next to) impossible without parental involvement.

But when the parents are insulated from directly paying the costs of the benefit received, what do you expect??

It has nothing to do with a cost/benefit analysis of parental involvement. I have never once met a parent who has ever made the connection between the costs involved and the amount of time spent with their children on schoolwork. You are either a parent who is involved or who is not, and that depends upon how much interest you take in your child's life.

Public funding of education is necessary because of market failure. If one believed that markets were always right, then what would happen is that every person would do a discounted cash flow analysis of their 5 year-old's entire life's earnings, then figure out what it would be worth to pay for that stream of earnings. Since most people don't know what a discounted cash flow is, let alone know how to calculate it, and since predicting such an earnings stream is utterly impossible, the clearing price of the market - the amount one would pay with confidence for a primary through high school education - fails because of incomplete information. Markets work best when there is more information disseminated in the market. Markets fail when there is little information. And the market fails for education (mostly) because the information one needs to make such a decision is absolutely impossible to know. Simple econ 101 teaches you that markets are perfectly efficient only with perfect information. As kids get older, they fund more of their education through university, as they should, since they are more aware of the career path they will follow.

 

[Oddball]

It has nothing to do with a cost/benefit analysis of parental involvement. I have never once met a parent who has ever made the connection between the costs involved and the amount of time spent with their children on schoolwork. You are either a parent who is involved or who is not, and that depends upon how much interest you take in your child's life.

Really?? Tell me how concerned you'd be over the quality of a $2,000 Rolex that you paid for, versus a flea market knock-off that you got for free.

Public funding of education is necessary because of market failure. If one believed that markets were always right, then what would happen is that every person would do a discounted cash flow analysis of their 5 year-old's entire life's earnings, then figure out what it would be worth to pay for that stream of earnings. Since most people don't know what a discounted cash flow is, let alone know how to calculate it, and since predicting such an earnings stream is utterly impossible, the clearing price of the market - the amount one would pay with confidence for a primary through high school education - fails because of incomplete information. Markets work best when there is more information disseminated in the market. Markets fail when there is little information. Simple econ 101 teaches you that markets are perfectly efficient only with perfect information. As kids get older, they fund more of their education through university, as they should, since they are more aware of the career path they will follow.

Ahhh..."Market failure"...The battle cry of the apologists for gubmint mediocrity everywhere.

Markets aren't always right and I've never even intimated as much. Indeed, perfection cannot ever be an option.

Yet, what do the educrats do when it's pointed out that they deliver a mediocre product of inferior value???....Blame the customer. Blame lack of parental involvement. Blame it on being "underfunded" despite the fact market-based schools are delivering a superior product that is, in may cases, less than the expense of gubmint schooling on a per-pupil basis.

Talk about failure....That's a business model that could never ever survive if it weren't propped up by the proactive compulsion of the state.

 

[Toro]

Really?? Tell me how concerned you'd be over the quality of a $2,000 Rolex that you paid for, versus a flea market knock-off that you got for free.

You a parent? How many conversations have you had with parents regarding your kid's school? How often does the cost/benefit framework come up?

Mine, its exactly zero.

Ahhh..."Market failure"...The battle cry of the apologists for gubmint mediocrity everywhere.

Markets aren't always right and I've never even intimated as much. Indeed, perfection cannot ever be an option.

And neither is "gubmint" perfection, nor is it designed to be. Mockery does not change the fact that markets fail, and standing aside when there

If one was intellectually honest, one would stop and think why every single developed country in the world, and every single country that has grown the fastest in the world funds its education primarily through tax-funded education! It's nice to live in a theoretical construct of philosophy and what should happen. I'm more interested in what does happen.

Yet, what do the educrats do when it's pointed out that they deliver a mediocre product of inferior value???....Blame the customer. Blame lack of parental involvement. Blame it on being "underfunded" despite the fact market-based schools are delivering a superior product that is, in may cases, less than the expense of gubmint schooling on a per-pupil basis.

Talk about failure....That's a business model that could never ever survive if it weren't propped up by the proactive compulsion of the state.

Yet, America's schools still pump out the best and the brightest to run the largest, most dynamic companies/organizations/economies in the world. Imagine that. What a failure.

 

[Annie]

Dude, I usually see your take on issues, oftentimes even agree. Not in this case. While I think there should be parental choice via vouchers it hasn't happened in most places. Too many kids have parents that can't or wouldn't educate them, period. If not for 'public school' they wouldn't be educated to the unacceptable level that you are bemoaning.

On the other hand, as I stated before there are many parents that want what the public schools offer. There are others that do pay their taxes and still choose to homeschool or pay tuition in private schools. While there are many things I don't like paying taxes for, schools are not one of them.

Now, could the costs be lowered? Certainly around here they could be. Over $18k per student in high school:

Interactive Illinois Report Card

However, the people are willing to pay the taxes, since it keeps property values up.

Could the students have as good results with less costs, undoubtedly. Notice the teachers salaries? Avg. Teacher Salary: $83,285

 

[Oddball]

Vouchers are nothing more than food stamps for gubmint schools...It's somewhat surprising to me that Milton Friedman came up with that scam (OTOH, he was also primarily responsible for tax withholding, so maybe it's not that big a surprise).

Kids who want to learn aren't being educated to an acceptable level in gubmint schools right now, let alone kids who couldn't care less. The reality check on that is the proliferation of remedial studies courses in universities.

Teachers salaries aren't nearly as bloated as those for practically useless administrators. Sill, I don't think I'd sneeze at $80+ thousand for what boils down to eight months worth of work per year.

 

[Agnapostate]

Vouchers, mainly.

I find it ironic Obama is not in support of the program, even though his daughter's classmates use the DoC program to go to the same high flying school... 'N' didn't he mention he wants everyone to have the same possibilities as his daughters? Heh. Ironic.

The reality that vouchers act as obstructions to equality of opportunity is illustrated in the empirical literature, which I'd encourage you to consult. For instance, examination of Levin's Educational Vouchers: Effectiveness, Choice, and Costs makes the point well. Consider the abstract:

Most of the policy discussion on the effects of educational vouchers has been premised on theoretical or ideological positions rather than evidence. This article analyzes a substantial body of recent empirical evidence on achievement differences between public and private schools; on who chooses and its probable impact on educational equity; and on the comparative costs of public and private schools and an overall voucher system. The findings indicate that: (1) results among numerous studies suggest no difference or only a slight advantage for private schools over public schools in student achievement for a given student, but evidence of substantially higher rates of graduation, college attendance, and college graduation for Catholic high school students; (2) evidence is consistent that educational choice leads to greater socioeconomic (SES) and racial segregation of students; and (3) evidence does not support the contention that costs of private schools are considerably lower than those of public schools, but the costs of an overall voucher infrastructure appear to exceed those of the present system.

Personally, I have disdain for the public school system, which I believe ought to be more internally libertarian and democratic.