Free market principles demand that the way to impr. education is to pay teachers more

[WillowTree]

Yes you were.. go back,, I bolded the part where you in fact did talk about Federal employees, that's why I mentioned it.. see ^^^^^^ I bolded where you said we weren't talking about them so scroll backwards til you find the post I bolded in which you were talking about them. Thanks

Oh my, I accidentally slipped the word "federal" in there. I guess I had a brain fart. Of course, any application of common sense makes it easy to recognize that it was completely out of place, seeing as the rest of the conversation leading up and after has been about teachers.

decent people just say they made a mistake without getting all huffy and indignant.. I guess we now know which category you fall into don'twe?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Not on the taxpayers dime they shouldn't.

Unions operate on the "dime" of their members. Who are you to tell government employees how to spend their money?

Also, if you would limit the market to only SOME consumers, based on where those consumers work, how is that NOT an imposition on the free market?

I don't care how they spend their money but I do care that they demand more and more of my money to pay them and as has been said before we get no seat at the collective bargaining table even though it is our money the public sector unions are are trying to get.

 

[bodecea]

If education was a PRIVATE Concern then market forces would hold sway over teachers' salaries.

But the vast majority of k-12 education in the USA is is socialized AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.

Hence, the market forces that might otherwise drive up (or down) salaries for teachers are not in effect.

I suspect that if schools were entirely privatized there'd be less schools, less students, less teachers and the overall quality of education would improve, even while the aggregate level of ignornance would rise.

I say this based on the history of the state of overall education in nations where public education was not available.

We would ened up with an elite with very fine educations, and a much greater number of Americans who could neither read no write.

First of all, that's fewer schools, teachers and students.

Secondly, what in the world would make you say that?

America is the land of the most abundant and relatively inexpensive food, clothing, housing, transportation, etcetera...What would make you believer that education would be any different were it left to the free market to provide?

I thought unions ruined all that.

 

[editec]

If education was a PRIVATE Concern then market forces would hold sway over teachers' salaries.

But the vast majority of k-12 education in the USA is is socialized AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.

Hence, the market forces that might otherwise drive up (or down) salaries for teachers are not in effect.

I suspect that if schools were entirely privatized there'd be less schools, less students, less teachers and the overall quality of education would improve, even while the aggregate level of ignornance would rise.

I say this based on the history of the state of overall education in nations where public education was not available.

We would ened up with an elite with very fine educations, and a much greater number of Americans who could neither read no write.

First of all, that's fewer schools, teachers and students.

Secondly, what in the world would make you say that?

History of what the state of education was before public schools.

America is the land of the most abundant and relatively inexpensive food, clothing, housing, transportation, etcetera...What would make you believer that education would be any different were it left to the free market to provide?

"What would you make me believer.."? (See? I can be pedantic jerkoff, too, lad. )

I'm not sure how to answer your non sequitur.

I don't think that having enough food, etc. is really germane to the question of what the overall state of education would be like sans public education.

I don't see the connection, but if you'd like to agument your position, perhaps I can understand it better.

And if you'd be kind enough to lay out how we go from what we have now to a purely market driven educational system, I'd certainly like to see your plan.

You see, speaking as an educator, I have long thought that our system was very badly designed.

Therefore, I do not dismiss, out of hand, the idea that a voucher system ending public education might work better.

But I do not sign onto that concept because nobody has ever shown me the details of the plan other than to rant on: VOUCHERS! VOUCHERS! VOUCHERS, ALL UNIONS BAD! TEACHERS SUCK! I LOVE THE GOP!

So, since you are advocating that transition, I wonder if you'd be kind enough to explain how it would really work in some detail?

Can you do that for us, please?

You obviously must know how it will work otherwse you couldn't possible post in its favor with such enthusiasm (could you?)

Enlighten me.

Thanks in advance for this service.

 

[WillowTree]

If education was a PRIVATE Concern then market forces would hold sway over teachers' salaries.

But the vast majority of k-12 education in the USA is is socialized AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.

Hence, the market forces that might otherwise drive up (or down) salaries for teachers are not in effect.

I suspect that if schools were entirely privatized there'd be less schools, less students, less teachers and the overall quality of education would improve, even while the aggregate level of ignornance would rise.

I say this based on the history of the state of overall education in nations where public education was not available.

We would ened up with an elite with very fine educations, and a much greater number of Americans who could neither read no write.

First of all, that's fewer schools, teachers and students.

Secondly, what in the world would make you say that?

America is the land of the most abundant and relatively inexpensive food, clothing, housing, transportation, etcetera...What would make you believer that education would be any different were it left to the free market to provide?

I thought unions ruined all that.

abundant as in from China,, Transportation as in Nissan and Toyota,, the Unions priced themselves right out of the competition.. called the free market.. Yep,, they did,, and the public unions are bankrupting californication.. kewel innit?

 

[Oddball]

I contributed it in post #2, which you conveniently ignored.

The notion that free market principle X would/should/could work, in a scenario where most other of those precepts have been circumvented and undermined, is preposterous from the get-go.

In other words, you choose not to address the discussions at hand, and just summarily dismiss them without any reason. Thanks for playing.

I addressed the foolish basis of the OP in post #2.

Discussing a hopelessly flawed premise is conversational masturbation, where reason is the last thing that applies.

 

[Oddball]

If education was a PRIVATE Concern then market forces would hold sway over teachers' salaries.

But the vast majority of k-12 education in the USA is is socialized AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.

Hence, the market forces that might otherwise drive up (or down) salaries for teachers are not in effect.

I suspect that if schools were entirely privatized there'd be less schools, less students, less teachers and the overall quality of education would improve, even while the aggregate level of ignornance would rise.

I say this based on the history of the state of overall education in nations where public education was not available.

We would ened up with an elite with very fine educations, and a much greater number of Americans who could neither read no write.

First of all, that's fewer schools, teachers and students.

Secondly, what in the world would make you say that?

History of what the state of education was before public schools.

America is the land of the most abundant and relatively inexpensive food, clothing, housing, transportation, etcetera...What would make you believer that education would be any different were it left to the free market to provide?

"What would you make me believer.."? (See? I can be pedantic jerkoff, too, lad. )

I'm not running around extolling the wondrous virtues of gubmint education and/or running the free market into the ground, while making sixth-grade semantic errors....That's all on you.

I'm not sure how to answer your non sequitur.

I don't think that having enough food, etc. is really germane to the question of what the overall state of education would be like sans public education.

I don't see the connection, but if you'd like to agument your position, perhaps I can understand it better.

And if you'd be kind enough to lay out how we go from what we have now to a purely market driven educational system, I'd certainly like to see your plan.

You see, speaking as an educator, I have long thought that our system was very badly designed.

Therefore, I do not dismiss, out of hand, the idea that a voucher system ending public education might work better.

But I do not sign onto that concept because nobody has ever shown me the details of the plan other than to rant on: VOUCHERS! VOUCHERS! VOUCHERS, ALL UNIONS BAD! TEACHERS SUCK! I LOVE THE GOP!

So, since you are advocating that transition, I wonder if you'd be kind enough to explain how it would really work in some detail?

Can you do that for us, please?

You obviously must know how it will work otherwse you couldn't possible post in its favor with such enthusiasm (could you?)

Enlighten me.

Thanks in advance for this service.

There's no non sequitur.

America does have some of the most abundant and most affordable of life's necessities in the world...This is an undeniable fact of life...Left to the free market, education would be no different.

You want a transition?...How did America transition from slavery to freedom after the Civil War and transition from a policy of prohibition to that of legalized alcohol?...We just did it and moved forward, that's how.

As for the model, you could use that of Ford, McDonald's, Wal-Mart, Sears, you name it...Why is it you seem to need a giant centralized plan (most likely from the people responsible from screwing the whole thing up in the first place) before you'd act to ameliorate the situation?

 

[editec]

First of all, that's fewer schools, teachers and students.

Secondly, what in the world would make you say that?

History of what the state of education was before public schools.



"What would you make me believer.."? (See? I can be pedantic jerkoff, too, lad. )

I'm not running around extolling the wondrous virtues of gubmint education and/or running the free market into the ground, while making sixth-grade semantic errors....That's all on you.

I'm not sure how to answer your non sequitur.

I don't think that having enough food, etc. is really germane to the question of what the overall state of education would be like sans public education.

I don't see the connection, but if you'd like to agument your position, perhaps I can understand it better.

And if you'd be kind enough to lay out how we go from what we have now to a purely market driven educational system, I'd certainly like to see your plan.

You see, speaking as an educator, I have long thought that our system was very badly designed.

Therefore, I do not dismiss, out of hand, the idea that a voucher system ending public education might work better.

But I do not sign onto that concept because nobody has ever shown me the details of the plan other than to rant on: VOUCHERS! VOUCHERS! VOUCHERS, ALL UNIONS BAD! TEACHERS SUCK! I LOVE THE GOP!

So, since you are advocating that transition, I wonder if you'd be kind enough to explain how it would really work in some detail?

Can you do that for us, please?

You obviously must know how it will work otherwse you couldn't possible post in its favor with such enthusiasm (could you?)

Enlighten me.

Thanks in advance for this service.

There's no non sequitur.

America does have some of the most abundant and most affordable of life's necessities in the world...This is an undeniable fact of life...Left to the free market, education would be no different.

I called it a non sequitur because I don't see the connection between having enough food and such and education,

Perhaps you don't understand what the term non sequitur means?

You want a transition?...How did America transition from slavery to freedom after the Civil War and transition from a policy of prohibition to that of legalized alcohol?...We just did it and moved forward, that's how.

You're evading answering the question.

As for the model, you could use that of Ford, McDonald's, Wal-Mart, Sears, you name it...Why is it you seem to need a giant centralized plan (most likely from the people responsible from screwing the whole thing up in the first place) before you'd act to ameliorate the situation?

Now, struggling to keep up, you're resorting to insinuating words into my argument that are not there, lad.

Can you or can you NOT explain the Voucher system that you are so obviously supporting?

Trying to tell me what I BELIEVE (and missing the mark by a wide margin, I might add) isn't remotely addressing my honest question, Lad.

Tell me how the voucher system will work.

Tell me, also, how we will transit to that system, too.

Is that asking too much of you?

You can hardly expect me to sign onto a plan if YOU don't know what it really is, can you?

 

[Annie]

History of what the state of education was before public schools.



"What would you make me believer.."? (See? I can be pedantic jerkoff, too, lad. )

I'm not running around extolling the wondrous virtues of gubmint education and/or running the free market into the ground, while making sixth-grade semantic errors....That's all on you.


There's no non sequitur.

America does have some of the most abundant and most affordable of life's necessities in the world...This is an undeniable fact of life...Left to the free market, education would be no different.

I called it a non sequitur because I don't see the connection between having enough food and such and education,

Perhaps you don't understand what the term non sequitur means?

You want a transition?...How did America transition from slavery to freedom after the Civil War and transition from a policy of prohibition to that of legalized alcohol?...We just did it and moved forward, that's how.

You're evading answering the question.

As for the model, you could use that of Ford, McDonald's, Wal-Mart, Sears, you name it...Why is it you seem to need a giant centralized plan (most likely from the people responsible from screwing the whole thing up in the first place) before you'd act to ameliorate the situation?

Now, struggling to keep up, you're resorting to insinuating words into my argument that are not there, lad.

Can you or can you NOT explain the Voucher system that you are so obviously supporting?

Trying to tell me what I BELIEVE (and missing the mark by a wide margin, I might add) isn't remotely addressing my honest question, Lad.

Tell me how the voucher system will work.

Tell me, also, how we will transit to that system, too.

Is that asking too much of you?

You can hardly expect me to sign onto a plan if YOU don't know what it really is, can you?

There's no simple answer, but I suspect you know that. Some of the best discussion and links to alternatives comes from this site:

Education

 

[NYcarbineer]

You want a 'free market' in education?

Then the actual cost of educating children goes directly on the parents, at market value. You buy your kids' education the same way you would buy any good or service.

Rich or poor you pay the same amount, or you go without.

And those without children?? They don't pay anything.

Now who wants that?

 

[Oddball]

History of what the state of education was before public schools.



"What would you make me believer.."? (See? I can be pedantic jerkoff, too, lad. )

I'm not running around extolling the wondrous virtues of gubmint education and/or running the free market into the ground, while making sixth-grade semantic errors....That's all on you.


There's no non sequitur.

America does have some of the most abundant and most affordable of life's necessities in the world...This is an undeniable fact of life...Left to the free market, education would be no different.

I called it a non sequitur because I don't see the connection between having enough food and such and education,

Perhaps you don't understand what the term non sequitur means?

You want a transition?...How did America transition from slavery to freedom after the Civil War and transition from a policy of prohibition to that of legalized alcohol?...We just did it and moved forward, that's how.

You're evading answering the question.

As for the model, you could use that of Ford, McDonald's, Wal-Mart, Sears, you name it...Why is it you seem to need a giant centralized plan (most likely from the people responsible from screwing the whole thing up in the first place) before you'd act to ameliorate the situation?

Now, struggling to keep up, you're resorting to insinuating words into my argument that are not there, lad.

Can you or can you NOT explain the Voucher system that you are so obviously supporting?

Trying to tell me what I BELIEVE (and missing the mark by a wide margin, I might add) isn't remotely addressing my honest question, Lad.

Tell me how the voucher system will work.

Tell me, also, how we will transit to that system, too.

Is that asking too much of you?

You can hardly expect me to sign onto a plan if YOU don't know what it really is, can you?

Where did I even intimate that I support vouchers?...In fact, I look at vouchers as being on a par with food stamps for education.


How do Mathnasium, Kinder Care, Rosetta Stone and Where there's a Will there's an A work, without huge brick-and-mortar edifices where the students are treated like herd animals?

What central planning bureaucracy came up with the assembly line, telephone, alternating current, the airplane, etcetera?

I *think* your building in some of the antiquated aspects of the current education model that just don't work anymore, into your idea of "change".

 

[Oddball]

You want a 'free market' in education?

Then the actual cost of educating children goes directly on the parents, at market value. You buy your kids' education the same way you would buy any good or service.

Rich or poor you pay the same amount, or you go without.

And those without children?? They don't pay anything.

Now who wants that?

More pure pap.

You could purchase a Nordstrom education for your kids or that from Target...As it were.

You could buy new books, used books or hand-me-downs, just like happens in colleges.

And those without children?...They'd pay nothing, just as they should.

 

[whitehall]

If you have a shortage of people filling a given job field....

If you have too many people in the field performing at sub par....

If you cannot attract better skilled and qualified people....

The free market approach is to offer more highly skilled people a better salary than they will find elsewhere, so that they will want to do the job you are asking them. So why do so many conservatives so often complain about teachers being paid too much?

Flunked economics 101 or just read too many Soros/Huffington blogs?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You want a 'free market' in education?

Then the actual cost of educating children goes directly on the parents, at market value. You buy your kids' education the same way you would buy any good or service.

Rich or poor you pay the same amount, or you go without.

And those without children?? They don't pay anything.

Now who wants that?

More pure pap.

You could purchase a Nordstrom education for your kids or that from Target...As it were.

You could buy new books, used books or hand-me-downs, just like happens in colleges.

And those without children?...They'd pay nothing, just as they should.

And where would the poor go to school? All schools would be private. No school would be obliged to teach any children whose parents couldn't afford to pay.

 

[Oddball]

You want a 'free market' in education?

Then the actual cost of educating children goes directly on the parents, at market value. You buy your kids' education the same way you would buy any good or service.

Rich or poor you pay the same amount, or you go without.

And those without children?? They don't pay anything.

Now who wants that?

More pure pap.

You could purchase a Nordstrom education for your kids or that from Target...As it were.

You could buy new books, used books or hand-me-downs, just like happens in colleges.

And those without children?...They'd pay nothing, just as they should.

And where would the poor go to school? All schools would be private. No school would be obliged to teach any children whose parents couldn't afford to pay.

They'd go to the best schools they could afford and schools most likely have programs for the indigent who were really there to learn.

In any case, it's not like the poor are getting any kind of a decent education now.

 

[Avorysuds]

You want a 'free market' in education?

Then the actual cost of educating children goes directly on the parents, at market value. You buy your kids' education the same way you would buy any good or service.

Rich or poor you pay the same amount, or you go without.

And those without children?? They don't pay anything.

Now who wants that?

Me.

And this idea that you go without schooling is a full on lie. You pretend schooling in a free market has but 1 level and 1 cost. If 70% of people can't afford schooling I promise you someone will find a way to get into that market and that the end result will be students achieving levels of education near or as good as that 30% that could pay.

There will be home schooling programs and online programs, anything to cut costs but get the same product. Students might end up more focused, but who knows.

 

[Avorysuds]

You want a 'free market' in education?

Then the actual cost of educating children goes directly on the parents, at market value. You buy your kids' education the same way you would buy any good or service.

Rich or poor you pay the same amount, or you go without.

And those without children?? They don't pay anything.

Now who wants that?

More pure pap.

You could purchase a Nordstrom education for your kids or that from Target...As it were.

You could buy new books, used books or hand-me-downs, just like happens in colleges.

And those without children?...They'd pay nothing, just as they should.

And where would the poor go to school? All schools would be private. No school would be obliged to teach any children whose parents couldn't afford to pay.

Just yikes... Supply and demand seems to be a concept you can't even begin to grasp.

By all means, keep pushing a failing system that with seemingly a never ending supply of money only gets worse… Yes yes, lets take reality and crap on it while talking shit about a system that moved us in near fast forward before public education took over everything.

 

[gekaap]

Teachers and doctors are apples and oranges.

Sure, one teaches, the other treats illness and injury. But that does not mean that free market principles magically apply differently to the two.

Teachers spend no where near the time and money on their education as doctors do.

That does not change the fact that the market principles apply equally to both fields. In either case, in any case, if you have too few quality people filling the jobs of a given field, free market principles say that attracting more highly skilled people to the field requires that you offer them greater pay. How else to you propose to attract more skilled people into the teaching profession?

Tell you what, you institute an internship and residency program similar to doctors where the crappy teachers get washed out and then receive no union protection to keep them from being fired and allow private citizens to sue the pants off of teachers when they fail to do their job then maybe we can compare the two.

I'm guessing you don't care much to talk about doctor's unions. More. More. Here's a doctor's union. Here's another one.

In any event, your comment does nothing to negate the application of free market principles to the teacher issue.

 

[gekaap]

I don't care how they spend their money but I do care that they demand more and more of my money to pay them and as has been said before we get no seat at the collective bargaining table even though it is our money the public sector unions are are trying to get.

First of all, it's not your money. It is the state government's money.

Second, as has already been said many times and you continue to ignore, the tax payers are already represented at the negotiation table by government officials.

Third, all you've done is issue a complain about the fact that the market operates as it does based on what that might mean for your personal situation. You've not addressed the fact that free market principles dictate that the way to bring in highly skilled people into the field is to offer greater compensation, because the current compensation levels are not proving sufficient to attract and retain enough skilled people who will perform to an exemplary standard.

 

[gekaap]

America does have some of the most abundant and most affordable of life's necessities in the world.

That IS a non sequitor.

Left to the free market, education would be no different.

That is an unfounded assumption.

You want a transition?...How did America transition from slavery to freedom after the Civil War

What are you talking about now? What does this have to do with the price of tea in China, or the fact that according to free market principles the solution to too few quality people in the teaching profession is to offer better compensation?

and transition from a policy of prohibition to that of legalized alcohol?...We just did it and moved forward, that's how.

So what you're saying is that we should just give the teachers more money, and move on?

Oh, and we never really transitioned from prohibition to legalization, because we never really transitioned from legalization to prohibition.

As for the model, you could use that of Ford, McDonald's, Wal-Mart, Sears, you name it...Why is it you seem to need a giant centralized plan (most likely from the people responsible from screwing the whole thing up in the first place) before you'd act to ameliorate the situation?

What?