Originally posted by montyfowler
You know what...on second thought I cannot let your liberal madness stand unchallenged, even if it does come from an expatriate.
Such an honor. How many times will you stick your foot in your mouth in this thread?
You do not understand the basics of voucher programs. Let me lay it out for you. Little Jimmy lives in Snootyville where the average income is $100,000. He gets a voucher for $3,000 and he can choose to go to any school in his district. Little Benny lives in Movin' On Up Hills where the average income is $40,000 and he gets a voucher for $2,200. Little Ricardo lives in Hard Luck City where the average income is $18,000 and he gets a voucher for $2,100. You'll notice that there is a maximum $900 voucher value difference between the rich kid and the poor kid. This is because even though the average tax paid in Snootyville is many times that of Hard Luck City, there are more people in Hard Luck City, and more businesses paying taxes too. This is a simplified model of the relationship between affluent suburbs and their poorer but larger metropolitan areas. (Maybe it's different in Spain?)
You will notice that what started for you as a claim to income neutrality has already become something quite different. A family that makes 18,000 a year can pay 900 to improve their children's educational possibilities? and on top of that they have to worry about transportation? My guess is no, and that's before I even ask you to show us where those numbers came from. So now that you've exchanged your brow-beating tactics for invented figures that actually acknowledge a substantial difference in opportunity between rich and poor, what have you to say for yourself?
I'll assume you actually want to know how things work in Spain, in spite of my suspicion that you're just making an ineffectual attempt to bust my balls. In Spain, all primary teachers make the same amount of money, and the money that each school recieves is solely dependent on the number of students. This is in some cases adjusted by the locality to compensate for the enormous difference in cost of living, but such compensation only occurs in the two or three most expensive areas, like Madrid and Vitoria. The quality of teachers is very high because the general job market is significantly weaker in Spain than in the US, and teaching jobs are in very high demand. Every two years, the teachers have to take a test half oral and half written, before a committee of judges, the score of which is adjusted for such factors as years of experience, post-graduate degrees, etc. All of the teachers are then compared, and the top candidates are taken in order of their score. When your name comes up, you are offered a choice of all the positions in the country that have not already been taken. You may well find yourself moving from school to school for the first several years. In any case, the amount of money spent per student is determined independently of the localities, and so too the teacher's salaries.
Any one of these kids can use his or her voucher to go to any Public school in his district, or for the private school of their choice. Here's where it gets tricky, so pay attention! The better schools attract more kids, hence they get better funding and hence the kids get a great education. Get it! It's called competition...it's capitalism at work...it is good...don't be afraid.
Are you sure you didn't also do some time as a used car salesman? Maybe in a former life? I would agree with you that teachers should have to compete for their jobs and bad teachers should be weeded out. That's as far as I'll go with your competition theory. Schools are not businesses.
Another funny thing happens when this is put into motion. Teachers make more money and tend to gravitate to the better schools. Good schools attract good teachers and everybody wins! Wow!
Let me get this straight. Without raising taxes or shifting more taxes into education, and without reducing the total number of students that need to be educated, you will increase the pay of teachers and the overall quality of resources available for all the students? Get out of here with your voodoo economics!
Your argument was that we need great teachers for kids to learn and you were lucky enough to have one, but you could have done it on your own because you were independently motivated. That's cricular logic.
On the one hand, good teachers are a very valuable asset because they create interest, which is the seed of self-responsibility in a young person. On the other hand, we cannot place the blame on teachers when they fail to do what parents and the community should be doing in the first place. Two sides of the same coin, no circularity. Maintaining such a low opinion of teachers in general, does teachers
and our children a disservice. The idea that "those who can't do teach" is absurd. If your children go to class with the same lack of respect toward teachers as you exhibit here, you are making the teacher's job even more difficult than it already is.
Perhaps we could agree on what a teacher ought to be, no matter what the system. Here is the Teacher's Creed from the Lyons, Kansas Unified School District:
We believe educators are given the privilege to work with the communityÂ’s most precious resource, children.
We believe all children can learn, but not on the same day or in the same way. It is our responsibility to meet the individual needs of each child.
We believe every child begins school with the motivation to learn. It is our responsibility to maintain and/or enhance this desire.
We believe it is our responsibility to communicate the relevance and importance of education.
We believe students are in the process of maturing to adulthood; therefore, it is our responsibility to model behavior consistent with district outcomes and societal beliefs.
We believe district patrons, parents, staff and students should be focused on learning, with shared responsibility in the process.
We believe student learning is our product._ We should be evaluated by the product we produce, thus the quality of our work is determined by our professional skills and the performance of our students based on the outcomes of this district.
We believe the leadership position of educators is the most important role in our society. No job touches more lives and makes a greater impact on the quality of our society than the teaching profession._ One could not ask for a better opportunity.
Yes, it is a privelege to work with children. This little declaration says alot about the responsibilities of the teacher, and nothing about the responsibilities of the comunity, as if teachers were solely responsible for producing successful students, regardless of the resources they have at their disposition and the ethic the students receive at home and in the community. That every child begins school with some intrinsic motivation to learn is downright absurd. According to this, every failure is the sole responsiblity of the teacher, and that's just not right. We're talking about educating children, not building a car.
That statement unfairly maligns thousands upon thousands of American businesses that make huge philanthropic contributions each year. It is a typical Liberal anti-business generality that we all have come to expect from you.
Sorry, but we're talking about capitalism, not the behavior of certain corporations and businesses. As I agreed, social responsibility can affect the profit line, and insofar as it does, corporations are charitable. In other cases where corporations make philanthropic contributions just because they want to, the contribution cannot be seen as some inherent facet of Capitalism, but rather is a comment on human nature in general. I have not maligned any corporation or business, I have simply pointed out that philanthropy is not a product of Capitalism.
True there is a plurality of traditions in this country. But with regard to competition (which is what we were discussing) there is only one tradition...capitalism. You will not play your revisionist mindgames here, Mister. And by the way...ALL laws find there basis in the Constitution. That is why it is the final and ultimate authority against which all laws are judged. Whenever a law is challenged in a Federal Appellate court, or ultimately in the US Supreme court, the law is always scrutinized in the light of the US Constitution. Obviously you slept through social studies class.
With regard to competition, there has been one dominant tradition, but there has always been resistance to that hegemony. The resistance has its own tradition, which cannot be said to be less American for not being dominant. Your accusation of revisionist mind games is a stupid piece of unsubstantiated propaganda. And it is equally stupid to say that all laws find there basis in the Constitution. It is true that no law can violate the Constitution, but that is a very different statement. Capitalism is no more advocated by the Constitution than Socialism, and to say otherwise is to prove it was you who slept through social studies.
And you're right...there is nothing in the Constitution that would prohibit your ideas. In fact, the first amendment is dedicated solely to your right to express any idea you like. Did anyone in Spain die for your right to free speech? Just wondering... [/B]
Here you have proved my last point. There is nothing in the constitution that priveleges your ideas or prohibits mine. Though it is just another reaching and ungermaine attempt at insult, I will respond to your jab. Yes, many died in Spain for my right to free speach, but I suppose you can't be expected to know that. Contrary to popular belief, America does not have a monopoly on people who died in defense of freedoms.
