Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
My new free-market system to save education:
... 1. Senior teachers in NYC earn upwards of $100k. Class size, about 30. So...About $3,500/per student.
2. Allow each teacher to decide how many students are in his or her class...paid $3500 for each student per 10 months.
3. Remove any student you feel prevents you from doing the job....Throw out any student, and it costs you $3500, prorated.
...
A family is not communism, bub.
Here is some help understanding the authoritarian mind of people like PC...
What conservatives and PC really want
Conservatives really want to change the basis of American life, to make America run according to the conservative moral worldview in all areas of life.
In the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama accurately described the basis of American democracy: Empathy -- citizens caring for each other, both social and personal responsibility -- acting on that care, and an ethic of excellence. From these, our freedoms and our way of life follow, as does the role of government: to protect and empower everyone equally. Protection includes safety, health, the environment, pensions and empowerment starts with education and infrastructure. No one can be free without these, and without a commitment to care and act on that care by one's fellow citizens.
The conservative worldview rejects all of that.
Conservatives believe in individual responsibility alone, not social responsibility. They don't think government should help its citizens. That is, they don't think citizens should help each other. The part of government they want to cut is not the military (we have 174 bases around the world), not government subsidies to corporations, not the aspect of government that fits their worldview. They want to cut the part that helps people. Why? Because that violates individual responsibility.
But where does that view of individual responsibility alone come from?
The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in the family. His authority must not be challenged. His job is to protect the family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace), and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when they do wrong. The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings. And only with such discipline will they be able to prosper. And what of people who are not prosperous? They don't have discipline, and without discipline they cannot be moral, so they deserve their poverty. The good people are hence the prosperous people. Helping others takes away their discipline, and hence makes them both unable to prosper on their own and function morally.
The market itself is seen in this way. The slogan, "Let the market decide" assumes the market itself is The Decider. The market is seen as both natural (since it is assumed that people naturally seek their self-interest) and moral (if everyone seeks their own profit, the profit of all will be maximized by the invisible hand). As the ultimate moral authority, there should be no power higher than the market that might go against market values. Thus the government can spend money to protect the market and promote market values, but should not rule over it either through (1) regulation, (2) taxation, (3) unions and worker rights, (4) environmental protection or food safety laws, and (5) tort cases. Moreover, government should not do public service. The market has service industries for that. Thus, it would be wrong for the government to provide health care, education, public broadcasting, public parks, and so on. The very idea of these things is at odds with the conservative moral system. No one should be paying for anyone else. It is individual responsibility in all arenas. Taxation is thus seen as taking money away from those who have earned it and giving it to people who don't deserve it. Taxation cannot be seen as providing the necessities of life, a civilized society, and as necessary for business to prosper.
In conservative family life, the strict father rules. Fathers and husbands should have control over reproduction; hence, parental and spousal notification laws and opposition to abortion. In conservative religion, God is seen as the strict father, the Lord, who rewards and punishes according to individual responsibility in following his Biblical word.
Above all, the authority of conservatism itself must be maintained. The country should be ruled by conservative values, and progressive values are seen as evil. Science should not have authority over the market, and so the science of global warming and evolution must be denied. Facts that are inconsistent with the authority of conservatism must be ignored or denied or explained away. To protect and extend conservative values themselves, the devil's own means can be used againt conservatism's immoral enemies, whether lies, intimidation, torture, or even death, say, for women's doctors.
Freedom is defined as being your own strict father -- with individual not social responsibility, and without any government authority telling you what you can and cannot do. To defend that freedom as an individual, you will of course need a gun.
This is the America that conservatives really want. Budget deficits are convenient ruses for destroying American democracy and replacing it with conservative rule in all areas of life.
A family is not communism, bub.
It is according to PC...
My new free-market system to save education:
... 1. Senior teachers in NYC earn upwards of $100k. Class size, about 30. So...About $3,500/per student.
2. Allow each teacher to decide how many students are in his or her class...paid $3500 for each student per 10 months.
3. Remove any student you feel prevents you from doing the job....Throw out any student, and it costs you $3500, prorated.
...
You'd have to rewrite all the state legislation regarding free adequate public education. Then you'd have to fight it out in the Lege, past the entrenched interests, unions, taxing units, school districts, school boards, & on & on.
Given that your avatar is Supergirl, you might see results sometime before the heat death of the universe.
Not, really amigo.
My post was addressing deficiencies found in the original proposal to "fix" education.
It had obvious mistaken notions about class sizes being 30 students and it wildly inflated the amount of pay MOST teachers get, too
I knew a NYC teacher who worked for that system for over 30 years teaching math. He did not make $100K a year, lad, he carried 5 classes amounting to over 150 students.
He made an okay living, but do remember that also was after 30 years in service.
"My post was addressing deficiencies found in the original proposal to "fix" education.
It had obvious mistaken notions about class sizes being 30 students and it wildly inflated the amount of pay MOST teachers get, too"
I'm surprised that you don't read more carefully.
Nowhere does it say that most teachers get that amount.
And, the amount in question is merely a mathematical artifact of the proposal.
You may adjust it for locale and still use the proposal.
The point is that capitalism is the answer, not socialism....or Marxism. The current system pays based on seniority, not efficacy.
My idea is to allow teacher a free hand, thereby removing excuses, and judging by the product.
I believe I could devise a market driven educational system that functions more like you RW folks imagine ED ought to behave.
I have some doubts about whether the aggregate ED outcome would be much better than we have now.
I also have my doubts about whether it would be cheaper, too.
But from the standpoint of being a professional educator myself, I can assure you that my system would please far more educators than what they face now.
This might please you though..,my system would start out with EDUCATIONAL VOUCHERS for every citizen.
It would ALSO eliminate every STATE AND LOCAL educational system making the entire FUNDING a FEDERAL system of vouchers.
The schools themselves would be privately owned and operated, but the voucher funding would be public.
A family is not communism, bub.
It is according to PC...
Your statement is a lie.
Communism is responsible for 100 million murders in the past century.
Human life means nothing to this belief.
It is an abomination...as are you.
My new free-market system to save education:
... 1. Senior teachers in NYC earn upwards of $100k. Class size, about 30. So...About $3,500/per student.
2. Allow each teacher to decide how many students are in his or her class...paid $3500 for each student per 10 months.
3. Remove any student you feel prevents you from doing the job....Throw out any student, and it costs you $3500, prorated.
...
You'd have to rewrite all the state legislation regarding free adequate public education. Then you'd have to fight it out in the Lege, past the entrenched interests, unions, taxing units, school districts, school boards, & on & on.
Given that your avatar is Supergirl, you might see results sometime before the heat death of the universe.
With respect to the OP, I don't guarantee it's establishment, merely its scrupulousness.
Am I not an astounding problem-solver?
How about another example of my acumen.....
Teachers and Lawyers: swap paychecks.
Astounded?
I'll be meeting with small groups interested in forming a religion based on my life.....
Be on time.
It is according to PC...
Your statement is a lie.
Communism is responsible for 100 million murders in the past century.
Human life means nothing to this belief.
It is an abomination...as are you.
There is nothing liberal about communism. Your parochial indoctrination and your belief that the whole world revolves around those beliefs is the root of your problem. You see everything through the lens of America. A conservative in Russia would not want to 'conserve' free market capitalism, now would he?
Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.
Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.
A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.
Communism, or "scientific socialism", has very little to do with Marx. Communism was originally envisioned by Marx and Engels as the last stages of their socialist revolution. "The meaning of the word communism shifted after 1917, when Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party seized power in Russia. The Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party and installed a repressive, single-party regime devoted to the implementation of socialist policies." (quote from Encarta.). Those socialist policies were never implemented.
Whereas Marx saw industrialized workers rising up to take over control of their means of production, the exact opposite happened. Most countries that have gone Communist have been agrarian underdeveloped nations. The prime example is the Soviet Union. The best thing to be said about the October Revolution in 1917 is that the new government was better than the Tsars. The worst thing is that they trusted the wrong people, notably Lenin, to lead this upheaval. The Soviet Union officially abandoned socialism in 1921 when Lenin instituted the New Economic Policy allowing for taxation, local trade, some state capitalism... and extreme profiteering. Later that year, he purged 259,000 from the party membership and therefore purged them from voting (shades of the US election of 2000!) and fewer and fewer people were involved in making decisions.
Marxism became Marxist-Leninism which became Stalinism. The Wikipedia entry for Stalinism: "The term Stalinism was used by anti-Soviet Marxists, particularly Trotskyists, to distinguish the policies of the Soviet Union from those they regard as more true to Marxism. Trotskyists argue that the Stalinist USSR was not socialist, but a bureaucratized degenerated workers state that is, a state in which exploitation is controlled by a ruling caste which, while it did not own the means of production and was not a social class in its own right, accrued benefits and privileges at the expense of the working class."
Your statement is a lie.
Communism is responsible for 100 million murders in the past century.
Human life means nothing to this belief.
It is an abomination...as are you.
There is nothing liberal about communism. Your parochial indoctrination and your belief that the whole world revolves around those beliefs is the root of your problem. You see everything through the lens of America. A conservative in Russia would not want to 'conserve' free market capitalism, now would he?
Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.
Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.
A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.
Communism, or "scientific socialism", has very little to do with Marx. Communism was originally envisioned by Marx and Engels as the last stages of their socialist revolution. "The meaning of the word communism shifted after 1917, when Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party seized power in Russia. The Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party and installed a repressive, single-party regime devoted to the implementation of socialist policies." (quote from Encarta.). Those socialist policies were never implemented.
Whereas Marx saw industrialized workers rising up to take over control of their means of production, the exact opposite happened. Most countries that have gone Communist have been agrarian underdeveloped nations. The prime example is the Soviet Union. The best thing to be said about the October Revolution in 1917 is that the new government was better than the Tsars. The worst thing is that they trusted the wrong people, notably Lenin, to lead this upheaval. The Soviet Union officially abandoned socialism in 1921 when Lenin instituted the New Economic Policy allowing for taxation, local trade, some state capitalism... and extreme profiteering. Later that year, he purged 259,000 from the party membership and therefore purged them from voting (shades of the US election of 2000!) and fewer and fewer people were involved in making decisions.
Marxism became Marxist-Leninism which became Stalinism. The Wikipedia entry for Stalinism: "The term Stalinism was used by anti-Soviet Marxists, particularly Trotskyists, to distinguish the policies of the Soviet Union from those they regard as more true to Marxism. Trotskyists argue that the Stalinist USSR was not socialist, but a bureaucratized degenerated workers state that is, a state in which exploitation is controlled by a ruling caste which, while it did not own the means of production and was not a social class in its own right, accrued benefits and privileges at the expense of the working class."
Blah, blah, blah........
Whittaker Chambers wrote in his book WITNESS that liberals are/were incapable of ever effectively fighting Communism because they did not see anything in Communism that was antithetical to their own beliefs. In short, Liberals are Communists and Communists are Liberals.
There is nothing liberal about communism. Your parochial indoctrination and your belief that the whole world revolves around those beliefs is the root of your problem. You see everything through the lens of America. A conservative in Russia would not want to 'conserve' free market capitalism, now would he?
Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.
Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.
A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.
Communism, or "scientific socialism", has very little to do with Marx. Communism was originally envisioned by Marx and Engels as the last stages of their socialist revolution. "The meaning of the word communism shifted after 1917, when Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party seized power in Russia. The Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party and installed a repressive, single-party regime devoted to the implementation of socialist policies." (quote from Encarta.). Those socialist policies were never implemented.
Whereas Marx saw industrialized workers rising up to take over control of their means of production, the exact opposite happened. Most countries that have gone Communist have been agrarian underdeveloped nations. The prime example is the Soviet Union. The best thing to be said about the October Revolution in 1917 is that the new government was better than the Tsars. The worst thing is that they trusted the wrong people, notably Lenin, to lead this upheaval. The Soviet Union officially abandoned socialism in 1921 when Lenin instituted the New Economic Policy allowing for taxation, local trade, some state capitalism... and extreme profiteering. Later that year, he purged 259,000 from the party membership and therefore purged them from voting (shades of the US election of 2000!) and fewer and fewer people were involved in making decisions.
Marxism became Marxist-Leninism which became Stalinism. The Wikipedia entry for Stalinism: "The term Stalinism was used by anti-Soviet Marxists, particularly Trotskyists, to distinguish the policies of the Soviet Union from those they regard as more true to Marxism. Trotskyists argue that the Stalinist USSR was not socialist, but a bureaucratized degenerated workers state that is, a state in which exploitation is controlled by a ruling caste which, while it did not own the means of production and was not a social class in its own right, accrued benefits and privileges at the expense of the working class."
Blah, blah, blah........
Whittaker Chambers wrote in his book WITNESS that liberals are/were incapable of ever effectively fighting Communism because they did not see anything in Communism that was antithetical to their own beliefs. In short, Liberals are Communists and Communists are Liberals.
Mao Zedong wrote:
"Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.
It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads."
Can anyone name a nation that practiced Marxian communism?
Was that the same Mao to whom Obama's communications director swore obeisance?
Was that the same Mao supported by the Roosevelt-Truman administrations supported at the expense of the nationalist Chiang Kai-shek?
Was that the same Mao who is the most horrific mass murderer in history?
And, are you pretty much stupid enough to quote Mao?
Was that the same Mao to whom Obama's communications director swore obeisance?
Was that the same Mao supported by the Roosevelt-Truman administrations supported at the expense of the nationalist Chiang Kai-shek?
Was that the same Mao who is the most horrific mass murderer in history?
And, are you pretty much stupid enough to quote Mao?
(My bold)
The problem with the Gmo. for FDR/Truman was that he didn't want to fight the Japanese. He laid up weapons & material (or sold them on the black market) & waited for the real fight, after the Allies disposed of the Japanese for him, against Mao & the Communists. Our military & diplomatic advisors - & OSS, for that matter, if they were around - saw the writing on the wall, & recommended diverting aid to Mao, where @ least it would kill Japanese.
FDR/Truman, Pentagon, Dept. of State initially preferred the Gmo, & would have preferred to stay with him. But they could see he balked @ every opportunity. We couldn't v. well just shoot him & be done, so we moved on to the next contender.
That was the correct choice, we were interested in winning the war, not in propping up some little man with no leadership skills nor military skills & outsize dreams of (stolen) glory - nor his dragon lady wife, with all their respective hangers-on & camp followers.
Or you can read Barbara Tuchman's biography of Gen. Joe Stilwell - Stilwell and the American Experience in China, 1911-1945. An excellent read, & v. illuminative.
From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiang_Kai-shek:
Relationship with the United States [edit]
Chiang did not like the Americans, and was suspicious of their motives.[37] When he suspected that the American Office of Strategic Services (forerunner of the CIA) was showing an interest in seizing control of Chiang's regime, Chiang ordered the plotters arrested and executed.[38] Chiang felt no friendship towards the United States, and viewed it as pursuing imperialist motives in China. Chiang did not want to be subordinate to either the United States or the Soviet Union but jockeyed for room between the two and wanted to get the most out of the Soviet Union and the Americans without taking sides.[39] He predicted that war would come between the two and that they would both seek China's alliance, which he would use to China's advantage. Abusive incidents followed a drunk American general making comments about Chiang's regime, and a low point in Sino-American relations followed the rape of a Chinese university student by American marines shortly after World War II.[39] American officials, notably Stilwell, found Chiang to be incompetent and corrupt.
Chiang also differed from the Americans in ideological issues. He organized the Kuomintang as a Leninist-style party, oppressed dissension, and banned democracy.[40] By the end of World War II, Chiang had come to believe that democracy was impossible for China to achieve.[41]
Chiang played off the Soviets and Americans against each other during the war. He first told the Americans that they would be welcome in talks between the Soviet Union and China then secretly told the Soviets that the Americans were unimportant and that their opinions would not be considered. Chiang also used American support and military power in China against the ambitions of the Soviet Union to dominate the talks, stopping the Soviets from taking full advantage of the situation in China with the threat of American military action against the Soviets.[42]
(My bold in quote)
From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiang_Kai-shek:
Relationship with the United States [edit]
Chiang did not like the Americans, and was suspicious of their motives.[37] When he suspected that the American Office of Strategic Services (forerunner of the CIA) was showing an interest in seizing control of Chiang's regime, Chiang ordered the plotters arrested and executed.[38] Chiang felt no friendship towards the United States, and viewed it as pursuing imperialist motives in China. Chiang did not want to be subordinate to either the United States or the Soviet Union but jockeyed for room between the two and wanted to get the most out of the Soviet Union and the Americans without taking sides.[39] He predicted that war would come between the two and that they would both seek China's alliance, which he would use to China's advantage. Abusive incidents followed a drunk American general making comments about Chiang's regime, and a low point in Sino-American relations followed the rape of a Chinese university student by American marines shortly after World War II.[39] American officials, notably Stilwell, found Chiang to be incompetent and corrupt.
Chiang also differed from the Americans in ideological issues. He organized the Kuomintang as a Leninist-style party, oppressed dissension, and banned democracy.[40] By the end of World War II, Chiang had come to believe that democracy was impossible for China to achieve.[41]
Chiang played off the Soviets and Americans against each other during the war. He first told the Americans that they would be welcome in talks between the Soviet Union and China then secretly told the Soviets that the Americans were unimportant and that their opinions would not be considered. Chiang also used American support and military power in China against the ambitions of the Soviet Union to dominate the talks, stopping the Soviets from taking full advantage of the situation in China with the threat of American military action against the Soviets.[42]
(My bold in quote)
My new free-market system to save education:
The Teacher's-Become-Capitalists Plan...
....also known as The Politics-Out-Of-Education Plan
If disruptive students are the greatest problem for teachers, here's my plan, one which give society the school system it claims to desire, and benefits the best teachers.
It's a win-win!
1. Senior teachers in NYC earn upwards of $100k. Class size, about 30. So...About $3,500/per student.
2. Allow each teacher to decide how many students are in his or her class...paid $3500 for each student per 10 months.
3. Remove any student you feel prevents you from doing the job....Throw out any student, and it costs you $3500, prorated.
a. So...if you have 10 students, and one is an impediment.....you're looking at a gross, before taxes, of $31,500.....food stamp territory.
The result would be poor teachers would be poor....and probably move on to other vocations.
Competition works.
4. Opt for extra students, an extra $3500 per. ( 50 students would mean $175,000/year.)
Sure would pay to be a good teacher, huh?
5.Exams are needed to test what each system deems proper.
This is key.
Any student who does not pass a final exam, loss of $3500 to the teacher.
This is responsibility for the product.
a. The plan could be tweaked by having more tests....and prorating the amount failing students would cost the teacher.
6. Bonuses if your students earn even higher grades.
Of course, the grades for passing and bonuses would differ for each student or
locale....and this can be done with computer programs.
a. "CourseSmart is owned by Pearson, McGraw-Hill and other major publishers, which see an opportunity to cement their dominance in digital textbooks by offering administrators and faculty a constant stream of data about how students are doing."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/09/t...rogress-for-teachers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
7. But some schools are better....so teachers bid for the appointment.....accept less per student to get into a really good school!
That's the free-market.
8. Disruptive students that no teacher wants? Throw 'em out!
Don't tell me you can't throw 'em out: change the law!
Heck....if our progressives value the collective....use value in the school system!
Public education is for the group, less for the individual student, especially one who demands a huge percentage of the teacher's attention.
Am I a problem-solver or what!!!
