PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Vouchers


Pages : [1] 2

irishjayhawk
10-15-2008, 08:31 PM
Why are you for or against?

RJ
10-15-2008, 08:33 PM
I'm neither for or against. I question the benefit and I doubt the cost savings that some claim.

Sully
10-15-2008, 08:34 PM
Against.
I know far too many kids who would simply fall through the cracks.

banyon
10-15-2008, 08:44 PM
I'm not opposed to trying them. I think we should try a district or two first to see the effects.

Things are abysmal, we have to do something different than just slightly more money at the problem.


I'm for trying : 1) year long school year (with periodic breaks) 2) ending teacher tenure and encouraging performance-based pay 3) doubling teacher pay & having heavy loan forgiveness programs for teachers in public schools 4) also experimenting with a tiered school system a la the UK (I'd be curious to hear Donger's view on this, since he hates their health system so much).

DaKCMan AP
10-15-2008, 08:47 PM
I am against vouchers that can be used to send kids to parochial schools using taxpayer money.

NewChief
10-15-2008, 08:49 PM
I think they would turn our public schools into ghettos by encouraging motivated, education-prizing families to move their kids to private schools. This would then cause even more drastic discrepancies in test results between private and public schools that would eventually be used as justification for completely abolishing public education. We already see people claiming the superiority of private education while ignoring that the clientele in private schools is completely different than that of public schools. Vouchers would only exaggerate this difference.

Taco John
10-15-2008, 08:55 PM
I"m in favor of giving parents choice. The way to do that is encourage a voucher system and an evironment where schools compete for those vouchers.

Taco John
10-15-2008, 08:56 PM
I wish McCain had focused on this issue druing his campaign, instead of focusing his campaign on Barack Obama. This is an issue that might have moved me back into the McCain camp from 2000.

Sully
10-15-2008, 09:01 PM
I think they would turn our public schools into ghettos by encouraging motivated, education-prizing families to move their kids to private schools. This would then cause even more drastic discrepancies in test results between private and public schools that would eventually be used as justification for completely abolishing public education. We already see people claiming the superiority of private education while ignoring that the clientele in private schools is completely different than that of public schools. Vouchers would only exaggerate this difference.

Yep.

Friendo
10-15-2008, 09:03 PM
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/01/02/174342.php

OnTheWarpath58
10-15-2008, 09:08 PM
I think they would turn our public schools into ghettos by encouraging motivated, education-prizing families to move their kids to private schools. This would then cause even more drastic discrepancies in test results between private and public schools that would eventually be used as justification for completely abolishing public education. We already see people claiming the superiority of private education while ignoring that the clientele in private schools is completely different than that of public schools. Vouchers would only exaggerate this difference.

Great post.

Taco John
10-15-2008, 09:32 PM
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/01/02/174342.php

"agenda is simple. Do away with public schools and teachers’ unions, while systematizing for-profit schools that will supposedly be more competitive and efficient..."



awesome.

jidar
10-15-2008, 09:37 PM
Nice to see this issue brought up again.

This was an issue that was in the national spotlight for a period during the 2000 presidential elections. Firstly anyone considering this issue should be immediately suspicious because it's been a core thing that the religious right has tried to put through for years. Their motive for this is that the vouchers would mostly end up going to private religious schools. I'll ignore the issues that brings up concerning separation of church and state and whether these are pure motives, and instead consider the issue on it's merits alone.

To really understand this issue you have to understand where the people advocating it are coming from. Basically this idea had the strongest support during the 80s and 90s when the idea was that capitalism and free market principles could run literally every type of service or need better than any type of managed or regulated service could. Of course with that in mind it explains why Mccain has always been very supportive of the idea because he's a free market no regulation kind of guy. Or at least he was until the current financial crisis.

The problem with it is, like many social programs, the free market doesn't do a good enough job for education. The reason for this is that free market principles aren't good at maximizing services for people, what the free market is good at doing is maximizing profits and reinforcing economic actively, and that's not precisely the same thing as providing the best service possible at the most affordable cost to the most people even though a lot of free market people will try to pretend that is. Free market doesn't always create the best products, what it does is it creates the most profitable businesses. In short it creates Wal-Mart, and that's the reason it isn't the best choice for social programs like education, fire fighting, law enforcement, and utilities. My argument kind of goes back to the old cliche about 90% of businesses failing in the first 5 years, well with that in mind do you want those types of failure rates to occur in your school system? That's exactly what happened to Cleveland when they introduced school vouchers in the mid 90s, many new start up schools popped up to take advantage of this new market and they were run on shoestring budgets to make a profit and a lot of them failed within the first few years.

So the truth is school vouchers have been tried a handful of times in various places and have either failed dramatically or at best had debatable results, Cleveland in particular was a complete disaster, and Milwaukee has struggled with how their program has divided their classes for dubious results.

In my mind, either way we have to pay for the schooling with taxes the difference is one method ends up leaving a lot of kids out in the cold, and not just poor ones but even middle class ones who just happened to try a school with a bad business plan.

Listen I'm a capitalist, I like the free market for our economy, but social services don't need to be ran the same way. Every time it's tried it never works out.

Edit: Also I almost forgot to mention. The schools around the world that are beating us in these standardized tests are government run, so it can be done and done well.

Taco John
10-15-2008, 09:40 PM
Yep. I'm convinced McCain could have won my vote if he spent any time campaigning on this idea.

What a dope.

Sully
10-15-2008, 09:41 PM
Nice to see this issue brought up again.

This was an issue that was in the national spotlight for a period during the 2000 presidential elections. Firstly anyone considering this issue should be immediately suspicious because it's been a core thing that the religious right has tried to put through for years. Their motive for this is that the vouchers would mostly end up going to private religious schools. I'll ignore the issues that brings up concerning separation of church and state and whether these are pure motives, and instead consider the issue on it's merits alone.

To really understand this issue you have to understand where the people advocating it are coming from. Basically this idea had the strongest support during the 80s and 90s when the idea was that capitalism and free market principles could run literally every type of service or need better than any type of managed or regulated service. Of course with that in mind it explains why Mccain has always been very supportive of the idea because he's a free market no regulation kind of guy. Or at least he was until the current financial crisis.

The problem with it is, like many social programs, the free market doesn't do a good enough job for education. The reason for this is that free market principles aren't good at maximizing services for people, what the free market is good at doing is maximizing profits and reinforcing economic actively, and that's not precisely the same thing as providing the best service possible at the most affordable cost to the most people even though a lot of free market people will try to pretend that is. Free market doesn't always create the best products, what it does is it creates the most profitable businesses. In short it creates Wal-Mart, and that's the reason it isn't the best choice for social programs like education, fire fighting, law enforcement, and utilities. My argument kind of goes back to the old cliche about 90% of businesses failing in the first 5 years, well with that in mind do you want those types of failure rates to occur in your school system? That's exactly what happened to Cleveland when they introduced school vouchers in the mid 90s, many new start up schools popped up to take advantage of this new market and they were run on shoestring budgets to make a profit and a lot of them failed within the first few years.

So the truth is school vouchers have been tried a handful of times in various places and have either failed dramatically or at best had debatable results, Cleveland in particular was a complete disaster, and Milwaukee has struggled with how their program has divided their classes for dubious results.

In my mind, either way we have to pay for the schooling with taxes the difference is one method ends up leaving a lot of kids out in the cold, and not just poor ones but even middle class ones who just happened to try a school with a bad business plan.

Listen I'm a capitalist, I like the free market for our economy, but social services don't need to be ran the same way. Every time it's tried it never works out.

Well said.
Thank you.

RJ
10-15-2008, 09:48 PM
Yep. I'm convinced McCain could have won my vote if he spent any time campaigning on this idea.

What a dope.


Why do you feel vouchers are a good idea and why could it have won your vote?

Infidel Goat
10-15-2008, 09:50 PM
You know the home schoolers are going to want their tax payer money back.

Do I see a problem with that? Hell, yes!

Guru
10-15-2008, 10:00 PM
Against.

Friendo
10-15-2008, 10:19 PM
"agenda is simple. Do away with public schools and teachers’ unions, while systematizing for-profit schools that will supposedly be more competitive and efficient..."



awesome.

82050

Taco John
10-15-2008, 10:19 PM
Why do you feel vouchers are a good idea and why could it have won your vote?


Because I believe in competition, especially in the education system.

I'd rather have an assortment of small schools to choose from, than a single cookie-cutter program full of kids who don't want to be there.

A voucher program will give us an opportunity for a variety of competitive options so that parents can get more involved in their children's education, instead of the one-size-fits-all failure of a system that we have now.

irishjayhawk
10-15-2008, 10:27 PM
I"m in favor of giving parents choice. The way to do that is encourage a voucher system and an evironment where schools compete for those vouchers.

I thought you disliked government funded education and sided with Paul on that matter.

Did you change? If so, why? If not, can you explain the distinction?


(I'll be out in LA for through the weekend so I'll have to check back later. In case you wonder why I don't respond.)

irishjayhawk
10-15-2008, 10:28 PM
Against.

Reason?

Guru
10-15-2008, 10:33 PM
Reason?

sorry, I'll withdraw the post. I don't need the headache tonight.

jidar
10-15-2008, 10:42 PM
Because I believe in competition, especially in the education system.

I'd rather have an assortment of small schools to choose from, than a single cookie-cutter program full of kids who don't want to be there.

A voucher program will give us an opportunity for a variety of competitive options so that parents can get more involved in their children's education, instead of the one-size-fits-all failure of a system that we have now.

Well see that's more an argument for education reform than in favor of school vouchers.

There is no reason that a government run system cannot provide multiple tailored choices if that were the goal. Japan does this to great effect.

jidar
10-16-2008, 02:20 PM
Surprised this didn't get more attention. I guess it really is a dead issue.

BIG_DADDY
10-16-2008, 02:28 PM
For

It gives every day people choices instead of being stuck in a failed system. It also promotes competition.

RJ
10-16-2008, 02:36 PM
For

It gives every day people choices instead of being stuck in a failed system. It also promotes competition.


What are the choices that vouchers offer? Could they be used for private religious schools?

That's not a set up question, I just don't know much about it. I know they're used locally in some places but I have no idea how they'd be used on a national scale.

Saulbadguy
10-16-2008, 02:37 PM
Against. I feel if you are concerned enough for your childs educations that you would pull them from public school and enroll them in a private school, you can come up with the money yourself.

Taco John
10-16-2008, 02:38 PM
Well see that's more an argument for education reform than in favor of school vouchers.

Uh, no it's not. I don't care if public schools are ever reformed, and even if they are, I will do everything I can not to send my kid to a public school. I don't want my kid to have an inferior education.


There is no reason that a government run system cannot provide multiple tailored choices if that were the goal. Japan does this to great effect.

The whole part about government providing it kind of throws a big "FAIL" into the works. I don't want government to run a system in which it's providing multiple tailored "choices." I want government to get the fuck out of the way.

Taco John
10-16-2008, 02:41 PM
Surprised this didn't get more attention. I guess it really is a dead issue.


It's not worth talking over with a bunch of liberals who are going to do nothing but sing the praise of government, and whine to us about how we're just in it for ourselves if we want privatization of the school system. You turned my argument from virtually abolishing the public school system to "reforming" the public school system. What's there to discuss after that? You aren't serious about having a discussion.

Especially if we don't have a champion in the ring, trumpeting our cause. If McCain had focused on real issues, instead of focusing on Barack Obama, he could have won this election. I'd have voted for him if he promised reforms in the form of vouchers and made it clear that he cares about the concerns that parents have on this issue - and not just about giving it enough lip service to get elected.

BIG_DADDY
10-16-2008, 02:43 PM
What are the choices that vouchers offer? Could they be used for private religious schools?

That's not a set up question, I just don't know much about it. I know they're used locally in some places but I have no idea how they'd be used on a national scale.

They should be used to go to any school you want to send your kids to. That's what personal choice is all about.

Taco John
10-16-2008, 02:44 PM
Against. I feel if you are concerned enough for your childs educations that you would pull them from public school and enroll them in a private school, you can come up with the money yourself.


It's my money already.

I've actually been considering this. Keeping the amount that I spend on school for my kid and challenging the courts. There'd have to be a movement behind it, so that I'm not singly exposed. But I think it's fair.

BIG_DADDY
10-16-2008, 02:45 PM
Against. I feel if you are concerned enough for your childs educations that you would pull them from public school and enroll them in a private school, you can come up with the money yourself.

Got it. So you're only for personal choice for the wealthy. NICE!!!

Taco John
10-16-2008, 02:45 PM
What are the choices that vouchers offer? Could they be used for private religious schools?

Absolutely. If government feels they need to get involved, they can provide standards of accreditation. For me, I'm going to send my kid to a Christian school, because I want my kid to learn Christian values and get one of the best educations that this area has to offer.

BIG_DADDY
10-16-2008, 02:46 PM
I want government to get the **** out of the way.

Amen brother. I am not sure why that is so hard for some people to understand.

Saulbadguy
10-16-2008, 02:46 PM
Got it. So you're only for personal choice for the wealthy. NICE!!!

I know many people who are not wealthy who send their children to private schools.

Taco John
10-16-2008, 02:47 PM
Got it. So you're only for personal choice for the wealthy. NICE!!!

Exactly!

Only rich people should get the option of sending their kids to good schools. Poor and middle class people should shut the fuck up and send their kid to the slaughterhouse schools and like it.

Saulbadguy
10-16-2008, 02:48 PM
The whole part about government providing it kind of throws a big "FAIL" into the works. I don't want government to run a system in which it's providing multiple tailored "choices." I want government to get the **** out of the way.

This is the part that bothers me, some people believe that everything the US government does turns in to a failure, or a clusterfuck. That is simply not true, there are many things the US government does very well.

Taco John
10-16-2008, 02:50 PM
This is the part that bothers me, some people believe that everything the US government does turns in to a failure, or a cluster****. That is simply not true, there are many things the US government does very well.


They're good at taking money. They're good at spending it. They're good at asking for more.

What else are they good at?

Saulbadguy
10-16-2008, 02:51 PM
Exactly!

Only rich people should get the option of sending their kids to good schools. Poor and middle class people should shut the **** up and send their kid to the slaughterhouse schools and like it.

Again, I know many people that would be considered middle class that send their kids to private schools. There is even financial aid available at many private schools in this area that make it affordable to those who could not otherwise afford it.

Now, since you both live on the coast, where things are quite a bit more expensive, I could see where you are coming from.

BIG_DADDY
10-16-2008, 02:53 PM
I know many people who are not wealthy who send their children to private schools.

We all pay into the same system. Why must we all follow the road you say or we lose all of our money? Sounds like extortion to me.

Saulbadguy
10-16-2008, 02:53 PM
They're good at taking money. They're good at spending it. They're good at asking for more.

What else are they good at?

I feel we do have the best transportation network in world. :)

Our military is nothing to balk at, either. I feel they do things awfully well when compared to the rest of the world.

I feel our education system isn't what it should be, but it's not near the worst in the world either. Same with our health care system.

And as far as taking care of the weak, poor, and disabled, I believe we do a pretty damn good job of that too.

BIG_DADDY
10-16-2008, 02:54 PM
This is the part that bothers me, some people believe that everything the US government does turns in to a failure, or a cluster****. That is simply not true, there are many things the US government does very well.

Give me a break. our school system doesn't even qualify for an F based upon the money we spend per student.

Saulbadguy
10-16-2008, 02:54 PM
We all pay into the same system. Why must we all follow the road you say or we lose all of our money. Sounds like extortion to me.

I guess I don't understand your statement. We pay in to education because it is vital for the growth of our country.

BIG_DADDY
10-16-2008, 02:56 PM
Again, I know many people that would be considered middle class that send their kids to private schools. There is even financial aid available at many private schools in this area that make it affordable to those who could not otherwise afford it.

Now, since you both live on the coast, where things are quite a bit more expensive, I could see where you are coming from.

**** that. Why are you not for empowering people instead of the government? Why is it you feel that anyone has the right to tell us to do it a certain way or all the money we paid into the sytem will be taken from us and given to somebody that does it the way they are told? What gives anyone that right?

BIG_DADDY
10-16-2008, 02:58 PM
I guess I don't understand your statement. We pay in to education because it is vital for the growth of our country.

Your kidding right?

Guru
10-16-2008, 03:00 PM
Against. I feel if you are concerned enough for your childs educations that you would pull them from public school and enroll them in a private school, you can come up with the money yourself.

Thats pretty much my stance in a nutshell.

Taco John
10-16-2008, 03:00 PM
I feel we do have the best transportation network in world. :)

Our military is nothing to balk at, either. I feel they do things awfully well when compared to the rest of the world.

I feel our education system isn't what it should be, but it's not near the worst in the world either. Same with our health care system.

And as far as taking care of the weak, poor, and disabled, I believe we do a pretty damn good job of that too.


If we had the best transportation system in the world, I'd be heading for San Fransico for dinner tonight and be home in bed before 10:30. And as far as our education not being the worst in the world, I don't care. I'm not interested in sending my kid through an education system that isn't the worst in the world. I'm interested in sending him to the best that I can possibly find/afford.

Taco John
10-16-2008, 03:03 PM
Do you guys even have kids?

DaKCMan AP
10-16-2008, 03:04 PM
Absolutely. If government feels they need to get involved, they can provide standards of accreditation. For me, I'm going to send my kid to a Christian school, because I want my kid to learn Christian values and get one of the best educations that this area has to offer.

This is one of my major problems with vouchers. I don't want MY money to go towards paying for YOUR kid to go to a Christian school. My taxpayer money should not be spent teaching your kid 'Christian values'.

Taco John
10-16-2008, 03:06 PM
This is one of my major problems with vouchers. I don't want MY money to go towards paying for YOUR kid to go to a Christian school. My taxpayer money should not be spent teaching your kid 'Christian values'.


The nice thing is, it's not your money. It's MY money.

How about this, we don't pay taxes for it altogether and make it a user pay system? This way, I get to keep my money and send my kid where I want to send them, and you don't get any goofy ideas that my money is your money.

DaKCMan AP
10-16-2008, 03:13 PM
The nice thing is, it's not your money. It's MY money.

So taxes from people who don't have kids don't go towards public education? :spock:

BIG_DADDY
10-16-2008, 03:20 PM
Do you guys even have kids?

No, but they know what's best for ours and everyone elses. It's called being Obamaesque.

If you want to kill your kid we can help you out but if you choose to raise him you must do it our way even if it's the most inefficient for the money we are spending. WTF is that anyway?

BIG_DADDY
10-16-2008, 03:23 PM
So taxes from people who don't have kids don't go towards public education? :spock:

Let's get real for a second. Public schools insure that super liberal establishment that is our school system will continue to develop our youth. You don't give a fuck about anyone's kid or that they should really have choices with them.

VAChief
10-16-2008, 03:25 PM
I"m in favor of giving parents choice. The way to do that is encourage a voucher system and an evironment where schools compete for those vouchers.

The voucher and choice arguments do not bother me, I think accountability is crucial to making our educational system the best it can be. However, in most if not all states private schools are not held to the same NCLB standards that public schools are and they are not required to report in the same ways (Adequate Yearly Progress).

That is what determines in most areas what schools fall into the "choice" category. NCLB requires that you meet ALL areas for accreditation in EVERY subcategory. One school in my area passed every subcategory (free and reduced lunch students, race, special ed. etc.) except one...and that was attendance!

They were put on the fast track for choice because their attendance rate was less that one half percent below the set standard. That seems way too harsh, sure schools can put things in place to try and encourage good attendance, but if the scores are good as they were in this school is it really a bad school?

If private schools are going to take public school vouchers they should have the same standards or lose the money. They should also not be able to refuse or discriminate in any way.

Guru
10-16-2008, 03:25 PM
So taxes from people who don't have kids don't go towards public education? :spock: Personally, I don't think taxes should be paid until you actually have kids. BUT, if you choose to send them to private school you should get a refund of said taxes. I hate that I continue to fund the public school system when I don't even use it. We are low middle class and we pay the full amount into our private school choice. We don't ask for help. We don't ask for loans. We pay full price gladly for the better education.

BIG_DADDY
10-16-2008, 03:28 PM
Personally, I don't think taxes should be paid until you actually have kids. BUT, if you choose to send them to private school you should get a refund of said taxes. I hate that I continue to fund the public school system when I don't even use it. We are low middle class and we pay the full amount into our private school choice. We don't ask for help. We don't ask for loans. We pay full price gladly for the better education.

Tax refunds, credits, vouchers, whatever. Lets give people choices instead of being Obamaesque about the whole thing.

Guru
10-16-2008, 03:30 PM
The voucher and choice arguments do not bother me, I think accountability is crucial to making our educational system the best it can be. However, in most if not all states private schools are not held to the same NCLB standards that public schools are and they are not required to report in the same ways (Adequate Yearly Progress).

That is what determines in most areas what schools fall into the "choice" category. NCLB requires that you meet ALL areas for accreditation in EVERY subcategory. One school in my area passed every subcategory (free and reduced lunch students, race, special ed. etc.) except one...and that was attendance!

They were put on the fast track for choice because their attendance rate was less that one half percent below the set standard. That seems way too harsh, sure schools can put things in place to try and encourage good attendance, but if the scores are good as they were in this school is it really a bad school?

If private schools are going to take public school vouchers they should have the same standards or lose the money. They should also not be able to refuse or discriminate in any way.

Well, I can only speak for my experience but our private school is held to the NCLB standards. The joke that those standards are.

Saulbadguy
10-16-2008, 03:44 PM
**** that. Why are you not for empowering people instead of the government? Why is it you feel that anyone has the right to tell us to do it a certain way or all the money we paid into the sytem will be taken from us and given to somebody that does it the way they are told? What gives anyone that right?

Because otherwise, the system would collapse on itself like a dying star. There are quite a few programs funded by my tax dollars that I don't agree with, but they are necessary to protect our way of life. To me, vouchers would be the government giving up on the public school system. What kind of message does that send to those still employed, and those attending?

Saulbadguy
10-16-2008, 03:46 PM
Let's get real for a second. Public schools insure that super liberal establishment that is our school system will continue to develop our youth. You don't give a **** about anyone's kid or that they should really have choices with them.

Super liberal establishment? ROFL

If you don't want the liberals poisoning your childs mind you should move to Kansas. Seriously, things are much simpler here than on the west coast.

Taco John
10-16-2008, 03:47 PM
Because otherwise, the system would collapse on itself like a dying star. There are quite a few programs funded by my tax dollars that I don't agree with, but they are necessary to protect our way of life. To me, vouchers would be the government giving up on the public school system. What kind of message does that send to those still employed, and those attending?


The message is: "grab a life vest. The ship is going down."

As opposed to, the ship is going down, let's hit the buffet line again!

Saulbadguy
10-16-2008, 03:48 PM
Tax refunds, credits, vouchers, whatever. Lets give people choices instead of being Obamaesque about the whole thing.

That, I do not mind. To me that is different from vouchers. If you aren't sending your child to a public school, you should get a tax credit or refund.

The reason being, vouchers would be funded by tax dollars, where as a tax credit or refund would just be you not paying as much in to the public educational system.

Saulbadguy
10-16-2008, 03:54 PM
If there were a voucher system implemented, what would the restrictions be on those who could get them? Would you have to be poor to middle class? How many people could get them?

Could the private schools handle the amount of new students?

My biggest concern, however, is if it would really make a difference? Would private schools be able to help out students who are failing in public schools?

BIG_DADDY
10-16-2008, 03:57 PM
Because otherwise, the system would collapse on itself like a dying star. There are quite a few programs funded by my tax dollars that I don't agree with, but they are necessary to protect our way of life. To me, vouchers would be the government giving up on the public school system. What kind of message does that send to those still employed, and those attending?

They will find jobs in the private sector. It's telling them the failed educational bureaucracy we currently have needs to change to become more efficient. It's telling them parents are the ones that they need to be held accountible to not the impotent system we have now. I'm not against teachers, I actually think this will give them the freedom to become the best they can be. It also fosters competition between these teachers instead of the old pay by seniority crap we have now.

On the other hand there is no reason to keep the worst performing system per dollar out there unless you are an ultra-liberal.

Guru
10-16-2008, 03:59 PM
If there were a voucher system implemented, what would the restrictions be on those who could get them? Would you have to be poor to middle class? How many people could get them?

Could the private schools handle the amount of new students?

My biggest concern, however, is if it would really make a difference? Would private schools be able to help out students who are failing in public schools?If they go with vouchers, they damned well better be available to everyone.

No, I don't believe private schools could handle the influx of students.

Could they help them? I believe they could if they have the parental support backing them up. However, private schools won't waste time if the student is a lost cause.

triple
10-16-2008, 04:00 PM
i have never before heard the "this is an abject failure, but a lot of people gain financially from it and it's costing us an incredible amount of money to shabbily prop up, so we'd better keep it going" argument but that's a good one.

Saulbadguy
10-16-2008, 04:01 PM
If they go with vouchers, they damned well better be available to everyone.

No, I don't believe private schools could handle the influx of students.

Could they help them? I believe they could if they have the parental support backing them up. However, private schools won't waste time if the student is a lost cause.

That's the thing, if they aren't getting parental support now, I don't believe much will change if they are in a private school.

Saulbadguy
10-16-2008, 04:02 PM
i have never before heard the "this is an abject failure, but a lot of people gain financially from it and it's costing us an incredible amount of money to shabbily prop up, so we'd better keep it going" argument but that's a good one.

Aren't you a Chiefs fan?

jidar
10-16-2008, 04:04 PM
You read this thread and arguments from people like Taco John or semi-literate monkeys like Big Daddy and you might think this was a third world country or something.

Everybody likes to hate on the government but forgets that we've dominated the planet for the last 100 years or so. The government isn't always wrong about everything.

As for the educational issue, well if there was an example of a completely private educational system somewhere on the planet that served the needs of all of it's citizens then maybe I'd be less skeptical of that idea. However since that isn't the case at all, and in fact we have a lot of examples of failures of privatized schooling, and the school systems who are beating our asses in standardized tests are socialized... it all kind of deflates that argument doesn't it?

BIG_DADDY
10-16-2008, 04:04 PM
If there were a voucher system implemented, what would the restrictions be on those who could get them? Would you have to be poor to middle class? How many people could get them?

Could the private schools handle the amount of new students?

My biggest concern, however, is if it would really make a difference? Would private schools be able to help out students who are failing in public schools?

You can go to a public school or get a voucher based upon applying for it a year before. Anyone could go that rout if they wanted.

Do they make a difference you say. My cousins son just graduated from St. Mary's. Everyone in the graduating class with the exception of two are moving on to college.

Have you seen the national high school drop out rates? Our school system is an abysmal failure that continues to get worse. Talk about needing real change.

BIG_DADDY
10-16-2008, 04:06 PM
You read this thread and arguments from people like Taco John or semi-literate monkeys like Big Daddy and you might think this was a third world country or something.

Everybody likes to hate on the government but forgets that we've dominated the planet for the last 100 years or so. The government isn't always wrong about everything.

As for the educational issue, well if there was an example of a completely private educational system somewhere on the planet that served the needs of all of it's citizens then maybe I'd be less skeptical of that idea. However since that isn't the case at all, and in fact we have a lot of examples of failures of privatized schooling, and the school systems who are beating our asses in standardized tests are socialized... it all kind of deflates that argument doesn't it?


Why go somewhere else when you can look at great examples right here. Silly me.

banyon
10-16-2008, 04:07 PM
If they go with vouchers, they damned well better be available to everyone.

Why? What's the rationale behind that?

jidar
10-16-2008, 04:08 PM
Why? What's the rationale behind that?

Well that's tantamount to asking if modern governments should fund education.

Should they or shouldn't they?

Saulbadguy
10-16-2008, 04:10 PM
You can go to a public school or get a voucher based upon applying for it a year before. Anyone could go that rout if they wanted.

Do they make a difference you say. My cousins son just graduated from St. Mary's. Everyone in the graduating class with the exception of two are moving on to college.

Have you seen the national high school drop out rates? Our school system is an abysmal failure that continues to get worse. Talk about needing real change.
That personal anecdote you interjected is pretty irrelevant because your cousins son probably has parents who care and they paid for him to be there. Of course you can get a great education at a private school because the majority of students there have a family focused on their education. If your cousins son went to a public school i'd be willing to bet he'd be going to college anyways.

Now, I agree, real change is needed. There isn't enough incentive to become a teacher, and you are absolutely correct that the seniority crap needs done away with. Plus teachers should probably stop sleeping with students.

jidar
10-16-2008, 04:11 PM
That personal anecdote you interjected is pretty irrelevant because your cousins son probably has parents who care and they paid for him to be there. Of course you can get a great education at a private school because the majority of students there have a family focused on their education. If your cousins son went to a public school i'd be willing to bet he'd be going to college anyways.

Now, I agree, real change is needed. There isn't enough incentive to become a teacher, and you are absolutely correct that the seniority crap needs done away with. Plus teachers should probably stop sleeping with students.

Don't bother. I've tried explaining Anecdotes and why they are weak to this guy a handful of times. He's clearly fucking retarded.

banyon
10-16-2008, 04:12 PM
Well that's tantamount to asking if modern governments should fund education.

Should they or shouldn't they?

It's not the same thing at all.

In one case you're saying should everyone be guaranteed a basic educational opportunity and in the other you're saying should we hand tax money to people who already had no trouble affording private school and had no intentions of using the public system.

jidar
10-16-2008, 04:14 PM
It's not the same thing at all.

In one case you're saying should everyone be guaranteed a basic educational opportunity and in the other you're saying should we hand tax money to people who already had no trouble affording private school and had no intentions of using the public system.

Oh right. Sorry it didn't even occur to me that you were saying people who have the means to fund their own schooling maybe shouldn't receive aid. I thought you were just against public funded education.

I don't exactly agree with what you're saying, but I admit it's not at all what I thought you were implying.

Saulbadguy
10-16-2008, 04:16 PM
Could it be that our low ranking in education across the globe is partially due to both the large population base and broad range of social and economic backgrounds? I look at the countries ranked above us and that is what I think.

I also think of all the public schools across the state of Kansas and how there are very few private schools in comparison, and I think, what the hell good is a voucher for private schools going to do a family living in Western KS where the closest private school may be 100 miles away?

banyon
10-16-2008, 04:17 PM
Oh right. Sorry it didn't even occur to me that you were saying people who have the means to fund their own schooling maybe shouldn't receive aid. I thought you were just against public funded education.

I don't exactly agree with what you're saying, but I admit it's not at all what I thought you were implying.

No problem, my question was kind of vague as stated.

WilliamTheIrish
10-16-2008, 04:18 PM
My kids are now gone from the PS system. I'd love to have had the choice of a voucher. I sent them both to private school through 5th grade. They received a solid education but the parochial school lacked choices for academics and sports. So we moved them to the PS where they also flourished, but had a little more freedom.

I'm a big proponent of vouchers and here is why: By allowing a voucher system, maybe you take some of the pressure off the worst public schools. And maybe those public schools actually become better due to decreased class size.

If a struggling kid gets more one on one attention, how can that be a bad thing? Maybe with that extra attention the struggling child actually improves his/her life and goes on to greater dreams.

The whole issue may actually be a win/win situation instead of an "either/or" position.

banyon
10-16-2008, 04:18 PM
Could it be that our low ranking in education across the globe is partially due to both the large population base and broad range of social and economic backgrounds? I look at the countries ranked above us and that is what I think.

I also think of all the public schools across the state of Kansas and how there are very few private schools in comparison, and I think, what the hell good is a voucher for private schools going to do a family living in Western KS where the closest private school may be 100 miles away?

The bigger issue out here would be determining whether illegals and their perhaps-legal kids get vouchers.

ClevelandBronco
10-16-2008, 04:21 PM
Frankly, the only reason I'd like to see vouchers is to destroy the power of the public school teachers' union.

Other than that, I really don't care.

RJ
10-16-2008, 04:21 PM
Absolutely. If government feels they need to get involved, they can provide standards of accreditation. For me, I'm going to send my kid to a Christian school, because I want my kid to learn Christian values and get one of the best educations that this area has to offer.


I do send my child to a Catholic school, for a number of reasons. But I don't understand how the government could require a private school to accept their vouchers. Sending a child to a religious school involves a lot from the parents and child besides money. Money is several rungs down on the list.

BIG_DADDY
10-16-2008, 04:21 PM
That personal anecdote you interjected is pretty irrelevant because your cousins son probably has parents who care and they paid for him to be there. Of course you can get a great education at a private school because the majority of students there have a family focused on their education. If your cousins son went to a public school i'd be willing to bet he'd be going to college anyways.

Now, I agree, real change is needed. There isn't enough incentive to become a teacher, and you are absolutely correct that the seniority crap needs done away with. Plus teachers should probably stop sleeping with students.

LMAO Yea I think the sleeping with student thing really does have to go unless it was that one really hot teacher and I was the student.

I don't think we are very far apart on this. I would be just as happy with a tax credit or refund. Whatever gives people choice and puts the power back in the hands of parents when it comes to their childs education.

As far as my cousin's son is concerned they are poor. They worked with him a lot themself and he was the captain of his team when they won the brain bowl. St. Mary's offered to pay his fees off of donations and have him come there the last couple of years. I went to his graduation and those were some of the best kids I have ever seen in my life.

To me there is nothing more important than raising your kids to the best of your ability and I just want to make sure as many people as possible get that opportunity.

RJ
10-16-2008, 04:23 PM
They should be used to go to any school you want to send your kids to. That's what personal choice is all about.


But does every school have to accept your child? There's a big difference between what might be your personal choice and the requirements of the school.

ClevelandBronco
10-16-2008, 04:24 PM
But does every school have to accept your child?

Hell, no. That would kind of defeat the purpose.

Taco John
10-16-2008, 04:25 PM
Could it be that our low ranking in education across the globe is partially due to both the large population base and broad range of social and economic backgrounds? I look at the countries ranked above us and that is what I think.

I also think of all the public schools across the state of Kansas and how there are very few private schools in comparison, and I think, what the hell good is a voucher for private schools going to do a family living in Western KS where the closest private school may be 100 miles away?


If I could open a private school, it would be of the size of 90 students - no more than 15 per class room. It would specialize in deductive reasoning. It would be a cheap operation and a superior education. Parents would be required to invite their teacher to dinner on a regular schedule. Don't want to sup with your kids teacher? Your kid can't come to my school.


There's more, but the point is, my school would have structure that a public school system can't have. It would be superior in just about every way imaginable for much less than what a public school education costs.

ClevelandBronco
10-16-2008, 04:25 PM
Well, unless the purpose is destroying the teachers' union. But that's my own thing.

ClevelandBronco
10-16-2008, 04:26 PM
If I could open a private school, it would be of the size of 90 students - no more than 15 per class room. It would specialize in deductive reasoning. It would be a cheap operation and a superior education.

You can open a private school. Enjoy.

Taco John
10-16-2008, 04:29 PM
I don't understand how the government could require a private school to accept their vouchers.

It's just a check to them. They take it to the bank, they cash it.

Taco John
10-16-2008, 04:31 PM
You can open a private school. Enjoy.


I've often thought about going back to school for a Ph.D. in education for this very purpose.

RJ
10-16-2008, 04:31 PM
Hell, no. That would kind of defeat the purpose.


Ok, but that's what I don't get. I don't think the private schools - at least not the better ones - are hurting for students, so I don't see what's in it for them. I may be wrong about that, but here in Albuquerque many private schools, and even pre-schools, have waiting lists to get in.

Taco John
10-16-2008, 04:32 PM
You guys are thinking about private schools as they exist in this environment. Very few people have a real vision for what private schools could be if government got out of the way and let the parents vote with their dollars (vouchers)

Saulbadguy
10-16-2008, 04:33 PM
LMAO Yea I think the sleeping with student thing really does have to go unless it was that one really hot teacher and I was the student.

I don't think we are very far apart on this. I would be just as happy with a tax credit or refund. Whatever gives people choice and puts the power back in the hands of parents when it comes to their childs education.

As far as my cousin's son is concerned they are poor. They worked with him a lot themself and he was the captain of his team when they won the brain bowl. St. Mary's offered to pay his fees off of donations and have him come there the last couple of years. I went to his graduation and those were some of the best kids I have ever seen in my life.

To me there is nothing more important than raising your kids to the best of your ability and I just want to make sure as many people as possible get that opportunity.
But do you see the difference between a voucher and a tax credit? I think it's a pretty big difference, but still accomplishes the same goal.

Guru
10-16-2008, 04:34 PM
Why? What's the rationale behind that? If I still have to fund the public education I don't even use? Seriously?

This is why vouchers are a bad idea. Go with credits or tax breaks then fine.

BIG_DADDY
10-16-2008, 04:35 PM
But does every school have to accept your child? There's a big difference between what might be your personal choice and the requirements of the school.

You obviously couldn't discriminate based upon race. I have no problem with boys schools though or girls schools or some of them being full.

One of the big benefits here would be these students that act out and the public school system is expected to take care of them. School isn't a day care. Your private school could just kick them out and refund any unused portion of their voucher. Privatizing it would allow people with the same value systems or people who think a certain way of teaching is superior to get together. You want an emphasis on a particular subject like math you would have the freedom to do that instead of being forced into a one size fit all system.

Saulbadguy
10-16-2008, 04:35 PM
You guys are thinking about private schools as they exist in this environment. Very few people have a real vision for what private schools could be if government got out of the way and let the parents vote with their dollars (vouchers)

I don't think you have a very good grip on reality.

BIG_DADDY
10-16-2008, 04:37 PM
But do you see the difference between a voucher and a tax credit? I think it's a pretty big difference, but still accomplishes the same goal.

Tax credit would be fine.

Taco John
10-16-2008, 04:39 PM
I don't think you have a very good grip on reality.


The reality is that I have a kid whose destiny is largely shaped by my hands. You have a video game system, whose controller is in your hands.

Don't talk to me about reality, son.

Saulbadguy
10-16-2008, 04:43 PM
The reality is that I have a kid whose destiny is largely shaped by my hands. You have a video game system, whose controller is in your hands.

Don't talk to me about reality.

I'd say I would have a more object view on things, all things considered.

RJ
10-16-2008, 04:48 PM
You obviously couldn't discriminate based upon race. I have no problem with boys schools though or girls schools or some of them being full.

One of the big benefits here would be these students that act out and the public school system is expected to take care of them. School isn't a day care. Your private school could just kick them out and refund any unused portion of their voucher. Privatizing it would allow people with the same value systems or people who think a certain way of teaching is superior to get together. You want an emphasis on a particular subject like math you would have the freedom to do that instead of being forced into a one size fit all system.



You can have all that quite easily. All you have to do is pay the tuition. The school my daughter goes to doesn't cost much more than her pre-school. I guess I'm just not seeing the advantage of government involvement.

BIG_DADDY
10-16-2008, 04:54 PM
You can have all that quite easily. All you have to do is pay the tuition. The school my daughter goes to doesn't cost much more than her pre-school. I guess I'm just not seeing the advantage of government involvement.

I want the money that was set aside for my kid to go to school to find the best program I can. That should be the right of every citizen.

Taco John
10-16-2008, 04:55 PM
I'd say I would have a more object view on things, all things considered.

Of course you would. All college kids think this. I know how it is. I used to be one.

RJ
10-16-2008, 04:58 PM
I want the money that was set aside for my kid to go to school to find the best program I can. That should be the right of every citizen.


Have you ever read or heard anything about how much money that would be or who would decide it or how it would be decided? I have not but I've also not given the issue any thought before.

'Hamas' Jenkins
10-16-2008, 04:59 PM
I think they would turn our public schools into ghettos by encouraging motivated, education-prizing families to move their kids to private schools. This would then cause even more drastic discrepancies in test results between private and public schools that would eventually be used as justification for completely abolishing public education. We already see people claiming the superiority of private education while ignoring that the clientele in private schools is completely different than that of public schools. Vouchers would only exaggerate this difference.

That's the whole point--collapse the system, allow the shock doctrine to come in, and privatize FTW!!

Calcountry
10-16-2008, 05:01 PM
I'm neither for or against. I question the benefit and I doubt the cost savings that some claim.I voted for vouchers before I voted against them.

Calcountry
10-16-2008, 05:02 PM
I want the money that was set aside for my kid to go to school to find the best program I can. That should be the right of every citizen.Wait until they mandate he attend the wedding of Larry and Jerry.

Saulbadguy
10-16-2008, 05:19 PM
Of course you would. All college kids think this. I know how it is. I used to be one.

I'm not a college kid.

Guru
10-16-2008, 05:52 PM
I'm not a college kid.Why did that kill the topic.

NewChief
10-16-2008, 06:00 PM
That's the whole point--collapse the system, allow the shock doctrine to come in, and privatize FTW!!

Exactly. I got into this discussion with my mom during the debate. I actually like a lot of ideas behind charter schools. A colleague and I have been talking about the attractiveness at working in one because the smaller size would allow a lot more experimentation (in scheduling, learning communities, cross-curricular projects, etc..) than the extremely large school in which we work. We're both very experimental and it's really hard to make systemic changes in our huge school. So, my problem isn't with charter schools themselves. My problem is that they're a cog in the machine trying to tear down public schooling.

RJ
10-16-2008, 06:50 PM
Ok, so I've been thinking about this for a while and tonight I'll try to do some reading on it but here's the problem I see.

Every parent of a school age child gets a voucher for X - I assume everyone's voucher is the same - and those parents can then take those vouchers to the school of their choice as a form of payment. I assume the voucher wouldn't cover the full cost of most private schools and the parents would make up the difference. Or perhaps they could take the vouchers to other public schools....perhaps schools out of their district?

So then the other members of the community who don't have children but are paying the same taxes decide that they would also like a credit for "their" money, maybe in the form of Target gift cards. But of course they are told that it's not the same thing, that the education of children is good for society and we all have to pay our share. Fine, I agree with that.

But then there are parents who enroll their kids in religious schools. So the folks with no children who didn't get the Target gift cards they wanted have a gripe. These people are sending their kids to the local Jehovah's Witness school where they're spending about 6 hours a day reading the Bible and learning the art of faith healing and rightfully do not wish their tax dollars to go to that. A valid point.

So the government steps in and decides that they'll have to make sure that all schools receiving vouchers have to meet federal, state and local standardss. Meaning that, of course, you're right back where you started from with public schools except worse, cause now the private schools will have the same problems. After which, of course, the private schools will probably say "F U, keep your damn vouchers" and go back to what they were doing before and plenty of parents will gladly pay them for the service.

Somebody tell me where or why I'm wrong.

RJ
10-16-2008, 07:09 PM
Or let me try another wrinkle. I used the example of a Christian school. But would most people be ok with vouchers being used toward a Muslim school? We've seen those mentioned in the news lately.

vailpass
10-16-2008, 07:11 PM
I agree with RJ that vouchers shoudn't apply to religious schools though perhaps for different reasons.

I have 3 children in Catholic school. We as parents have worked hard for generations to build a strong school (ours happens to be Catholic, other religions do the same thing). It is through the dedication of parents and parish that our students excel year after year.
My only opinion on vouchers would be that I don't want them to apply towards religious schools because it would change the dynamics.
Right now anyone who sends their children to our school cares enough about their child's education to pay tuition, fees, and expenses and donate their time. 20 hours/year is required and most go above this amount.
The parents are comitted enough to their school to make an investment.
I'm afraid vouchers would bring in parents who are not as committed and don't have an investment in our school or faith.

Guru
10-16-2008, 07:37 PM
I agree with RJ that vouchers shoudn't apply to religious schools though perhaps for different reasons.

I have 3 children in Catholic school. We as parents have worked hard for generations to build a strong school (ours happens to be Catholic, other religions do the same thing). It is through the dedication of parents and parish that our students excel year after year.
My only opinion on vouchers would be that I don't want them to apply towards religious schools because it would change the dynamics.
Right now anyone who sends their children to our school cares enough about their child's education to pay tuition, fees, and expenses and donate their time. 20 hours/year is required and most go above this amount.
The parents are comitted enough to their school to make an investment.
I'm afraid vouchers would bring in parents who are not as committed and don't have an investment in our school or faith.Hence why vouchers are a bad idea to begin with. Not just with religious schools but with all private schools.

RJ
10-16-2008, 07:56 PM
I agree with RJ that vouchers shoudn't apply to religious schools though perhaps for different reasons.

I have 3 children in Catholic school. We as parents have worked hard for generations to build a strong school (ours happens to be Catholic, other religions do the same thing). It is through the dedication of parents and parish that our students excel year after year.
My only opinion on vouchers would be that I don't want them to apply towards religious schools because it would change the dynamics.
Right now anyone who sends their children to our school cares enough about their child's education to pay tuition, fees, and expenses and donate their time. 20 hours/year is required and most go above this amount.
The parents are comitted enough to their school to make an investment.
I'm afraid vouchers would bring in parents who are not as committed and don't have an investment in our school or faith.



Actually, I had alluded to this in an earlier post. Our daughter is a kindergartner at a Catholic school. Since this is only our first year I have no where near the experience with this subject that you do, but I've already learned that the commitment from both parents and child go well beyond the money. Today and every Thursday, my day off, I volunteer for lunch and recess. Only about an hour a week but right in the middle of my day off. Last week I spent about $30 on stuff the classroom needed - snacks, tissues, toys, cleaning supplies, etc. We also wrote a $50 check for some kind of stuff the kids were supposed to be selling for a fundraiser.

When we were deciding where to send her for school we thought the money was the biggest issue. Turns out that's maybe 5 or 6 on the list. It's definitely a commitment for both the parents and the kids.

vailpass
10-16-2008, 08:10 PM
Actually, I had alluded to this in an earlier post. Our daughter is a kindergartner at a Catholic school. Since this is only our first year I have no where near the experience with this subject that you do, but I've already learned that the commitment from both parents and child go well beyond the money. Today and every Thursday, my day off, I volunteer for lunch and recess. Only about an hour a week but right in the middle of my day off. Last week I spent about $30 on stuff the classroom needed - snacks, tissues, toys, cleaning supplies, etc. We also wrote a $50 check for some kind of stuff the kids were supposed to be selling for a fundraiser.

When we were deciding where to send her for school we thought the money was the biggest issue. Turns out that's maybe 5 or 6 on the list. It's definitely a commitment for both the parents and the kids.

Yes, you hit it on the head. Sounds like you are the type of parents who make the school a success.

BTW, do you get as big a kick out of lunch and recess duty as I do with my boy's pre-K class?

If I may ask, does your school or parish require that you take a safe environment training class prior to being able to work with the children?
Ours is named Called To Protect; I'm wondering if other Catholic schools do something similar.

RJ
10-16-2008, 09:10 PM
Yes, you hit it on the head. Sounds like you are the type of parents who make the school a success.

BTW, do you get as big a kick out of lunch and recess duty as I do with my boy's pre-K class?

If I may ask, does your school or parish require that you take a safe environment training class prior to being able to work with the children?
Ours is named Called To Protect; I'm wondering if other Catholic schools do something similar.



We had to take a class on sexual misconduct. How to recognize it, not how to do it, of course. Supposedly it was a one time requirement. It probably keeps the insurance costs down, huh?

Yeah, lunch and recess is a blast. There are two kindergarten classes, about 50 kids total, so recess is like a power plant, the energy level is crazy.
They mostly run in circles and scream. I really enjoy seeing what my daughter does during the day. Another benefit is developing a closer relationship with her teachers.

I'm not a religious guy at all but my wife is and my daughter is being raised that way. It's an adjustment for me and I wouldn't recommend it to everyone just cause they have a voucher.

Also, my daughter's class starts an hour before the public schools and ends 30 minutes later. Not to mention the 30 minutes of homework she has every night that public school kindergartens don't have at all.

So yeah, a voucher sounds good but my whole 2 months of experience tells me there's a lot more to it than that. Heck, I've even been to mass and I hadn't done that for almost 40 years :)

jidar
10-16-2008, 09:21 PM
Of course you would. All college kids think this. I know how it is. I used to be one.

Well that's a pretty weak thing to say.

What about me? I'm middle aged, it's been more than a decade since my university days, and I have two children, one in high school and one in middle school.

My reasoning against vouchers in schools in this thread have been both sound and largely ignored. The facts are that there is a lot of evidence that trying to use privatized schooling exclusively for public education is littered with pitfalls and problems that have no good apparent solutions. There is also ample evidence that socialized school systems can be done very well all over the world. (Actually the public school my children attend has higher academic scores than the most popular private school in the area).

All you're doing is thinking of this ideal that you aspire to where the system gets privatized and it all works out fine, but you're not looking at the big picture and considering all of the things that can and do go wrong when this is attempted. All the kids and people that time and time again end up hurt by these attempts and left behind. Maybe it's possible to pull off, but why ice skate up a hill?

whoman69
10-17-2008, 08:07 AM
Instead of giving up on public schools, instead of only allowing a few to have a good education while ignoring the rest, how about setting up a system based out of a state that actually has a good educational system (anyone want to tell me where No Child Left Behind Started?). Iowa would be a good choice. They use the Iowa Basic Skills test not to pass holy judgement on a school, but to give everyone an idea of where the students are. I think even Iowa has its problems with education. When my oldest son was in high school his teachers would email his grades. Almost every class had an average of A-. I don't think everyone is a genious. Either they're not giving out bad grades so as to discourage failure, or they are not pushing the students to their maximum. I think its a bit of both. We need to set a high bar for our students to achieve, not setting out some Sarah Palin debate expectations type goal.

patteeu
10-17-2008, 08:15 AM
I'm against vouchers because it will pave the way for government meddling in private schools and that's not a recipe for educational success.

BIG_DADDY
10-17-2008, 12:26 PM
Have you ever read or heard anything about how much money that would be or who would decide it or how it would be decided? I have not but I've also not given the issue any thought before.

In 05/06 national average was $9,100 per student.

Give me a check or tax deduction for $7,500 to walk away and find my own and most people would take it in a second.

tiptap
10-17-2008, 12:44 PM
The problem with thinking that 9100 dollars is a lot is that it included paying for education of special needs kids. What happens to these kids who now have legal standing in getting good care. What happens to this population.

tiptap
10-17-2008, 12:46 PM
I would also like to say that the public schools are willing to have parents volunteer in many locations. You don't have to turn to a private school to get that kind of parental involvement.

All of this is easier in the elementary years, but more difficult as kid get to be teens. That is where we seem to be losing traction.

BIG_DADDY
10-17-2008, 12:48 PM
The problem with thinking that 9100 dollars is a lot is that it included paying for education of special needs kids. What happens to these kids who now have legal standing in getting good care. What happens to this population.

I said I would take $7,500 just to be a good guy.

Iowanian
10-17-2008, 12:50 PM
I am no for vouchers.

There are already programs for most private schools with gifts, scholarships or tuition reduction for poor kids. Everyone is NOT entitled to a private education.

The other reason, this is really only an issue in Urban areas, as kids in the majority of America(Geographically) don't have the option without significant travel.

If Private(Christian-Catholic) schools accept voucher students, do they have the right to meddle with religion courses?

tiptap
10-17-2008, 12:50 PM
Yes yes you are so considerate.

BIG_DADDY
10-17-2008, 12:52 PM
I would also like to say that the public schools are willing to have parents volunteer in many locations. You don't have to turn to a private school to get that kind of parental involvement.

All of this is easier in the elementary years, but more difficult as kid get to be teens. That is where we seem to be losing traction.

I want choices and competition. Betting on fixing this system is far worse than betting on Herm and Carl to fix this franchise. When I have the choice of where that money goes that empowers me as a parent. This is far powerful that trying to volunteer some time at the school.

BIG_DADDY
10-17-2008, 12:54 PM
I am no for vouchers.

There are already programs for most private schools with gifts, scholarships or tuition reduction for poor kids. Everyone is NOT entitled to a private education.

The other reason, this is really only an issue in Urban areas, as kids in the majority of America(Geographically) don't have the option without significant travel.

If Private(Christian-Catholic) schools accept voucher students, do they have the right to meddle with religion courses?

I am surpirsed you have such a socialistic one size fits all value system that empowers a system run by ultra-liberals.

Define Meddle

Amnorix
10-17-2008, 12:59 PM
I'm not opposed to trying them. I think we should try a district or two first to see the effects.

Things are abysmal, we have to do something different than just slightly more money at the problem.


I'm for trying : 1) year long school year (with periodic breaks) 2) ending teacher tenure and encouraging performance-based pay 3) doubling teacher pay & having heavy loan forgiveness programs for teachers in public schools 4) also experimenting with a tiered school system a la the UK (I'd be curious to hear Donger's view on this, since he hates their health system so much).

Forget doubling teacher pay, but rather scale pay to performance and subject matter. There is no f'n way English and Social Studies teachers should make what math/science teachers make. That's not hte real world.

Other than that, I'm with you, other than having no freaking idea what a tiered school system even means.

We espeically need to get away from harvest-season-related school year cycles. :rolleyes:

Amnorix
10-17-2008, 01:01 PM
In 05/06 national average was $9,100 per student.

Give me a check or tax deduction for $7,500 to walk away and find my own and most people would take it in a second.

If "most people" took it, then the system would crash immediate. Public schools would be underfunded. What happens to those who can't take it.

Meanwhile, there aren't nearly enough private schools to accept them all.

I am, however, in favor of radical change on our school systems.

Iowanian
10-17-2008, 01:01 PM
My views aren't socialistic...they're realistic.

In the example of a Catholic school, funded and built by generations of many of the families who attend and fundraise, do you think Joe Atheist has the right to a voucher to attend? Do you think if that voucher is govt funded, the Govt has the right to tell that school what they can and cannot offer as courses?

Like I said, I think this is realistically only an issue in larger communities as most rural areas have 1 school. There are areas in Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana, Dakotas et al where kids drive 80 Mile to attend the school available. Vouchers help them?


In Iowa, and I'm not sure about the other states, there are "open enrollment" laws which allow students to petition to attend schools outside of their district. From what I've seen, its usually one of two things. 1. Mom/dad work in one school dist and reside in another, and its easier to drop off/pick up kids in School B. 2. Athletics. Johnny is a QB and School B has a better team.


No Child L B needs to go away first.....its stupid.

Improving teacher pay, based on performance, and allowing degreed people to take some classes and work in education would go a long way toward fixing some of the problems.


I've spent the past 7 work days, inside a HS, working with HS kids. I've worked with kids from 3-4 districts over the past 2 years, and have put on some programs (archery and technical) for home school kid groups as well as public school kids.

Some things are eye opening.

Mr. Kotter
10-17-2008, 01:02 PM
I think they would turn our public schools into ghettos by encouraging motivated, education-prizing families to move their kids to private schools. This would then cause even more drastic discrepancies in test results between private and public schools that would eventually be used as justification for completely abolishing public education. We already see people claiming the superiority of private education while ignoring that the clientele in private schools is completely different than that of public schools. Vouchers would only exaggerate this difference.

NewPhin nailed it with the sixth post in this thread--the thread should have been over.

Vouchers are seductive....but in a democratic society, they would be used to produce/pertetuate class structure in society. Some are fine with that, of course. If you aren't though, you really ought to educate yourself about what would really happen with vouchers. A multi-tiered educational system would Balkanize America, instead of uniting us.

Sully
10-17-2008, 01:07 PM
There is no f'n way English and Social Studies teachers should make what math/science teachers make.

I have to disagree with you, here... and not just because I'll be teaching History.

If, as I believe, education is the silver bullet to solve the majority of anyone's problems, that education must cover all. Math and science are obviously the ones driving capitalism and growth, but what about other types of critical thought and analysis? The structures that are provided in the social studies and communication arts are the only way some kids learn...and those subjects open the doors to the other subjects. There is no way to possibly measure that those to subjects are more important than the others.

Amnorix
10-17-2008, 01:09 PM
I have to disagree with you, here... and not just because I'll be teaching History.

If, as I believe, education is the silver bullet to solve the majority of anyone's problems, that education must cover all. Math and science are obviously the ones driving capitalism and growth, but what about other types of critical thought and analysis? The structures that are provided in the social studies and communication arts are the only way some kids learn...and those subjects open the doors to the other subjects. There is no way to possibly measure that those to subjects are more important than the others.

It's less about what subjects are important and more about supply/demand. There are a hell of a lot fewer people in the world who could reasonably teach math/science above, say, 6th grade.

Social studies, English, foreign languages and history just ain't that hard to find teachers for, COMPARATIVELY.

I applaud all teachers for their efforts, and agree that all areas of learning are very important, but supply/demand needs to be more involved here.

BIG_DADDY
10-17-2008, 01:10 PM
If "most people" took it, then the system would crash immediate. Public schools would be underfunded. What happens to those who can't take it.

Meanwhile, there aren't nearly enough private schools to accept them all.

I am, however, in favor of radical change on our school systems.

It's not like new schools are going to be ready and spring up to immediately supercede are current system. Lower payouts like the $7,500 I would settle for would actually leave more money per student in the current system.

Iowanian
10-17-2008, 01:10 PM
If you're going this route, you'd better be prepared to pay for supply/demand in other areas. There are big shortages in areas such as Industrial technology(the kids that become drafters, construction workers, machinists, robotics techs, welders, mechanics, electricians etc) Ag teachers.....band, computer/technology instructors as well as the shortage of science and physics, math.......


Forget doubling teacher pay, but rather scale pay to performance and subject matter. There is no f'n way English and Social Studies teachers should make what math/science teachers make. That's not hte real world.

Other than that, I'm with you, other than having no freaking idea what a tiered school system even means.

We espeically need to get away from harvest-season-related school year cycles. :rolleyes:

Sully
10-17-2008, 01:11 PM
It's less about what subjects are important and more about supply/demand. There are a hell of a lot fewer people in the world who could reasonably teach math/science above, say, 6th grade.

Social studies, English, foreign languages and history just ain't that hard to find teachers for, COMPARATIVELY.

I applaud all teachers for their efforts, and agree that all areas of learning are very important, but supply/demand needs to be more involved here.

That's true.

Taco John
10-17-2008, 01:17 PM
I would MUCH rather have a tax credit than a voucher. But I like vouchers as a step in the right direction because no matter what, liberals are going to want to have a say in how my kid gets educated. I figure vouchers to be a bone throw to the liberals towards a privatized school system.

As far as government involvement in vouchers, government should be limited to setting basic education standards. If these basic standards are met, then the school is accredited by the state to receive vouchers. Extra-curricular education outside of these standards should be of no concern to the state.

BIG_DADDY
10-17-2008, 01:19 PM
1.My views aren't socialistic...they're realistic.

2. In the example of a Catholic school, funded and built by generations of many of the families who attend and fundraise, do you think Joe Atheist has the right to a voucher to attend? Do you think if that voucher is govt funded, the Govt has the right to tell that school what they can and cannot offer as courses?

3. Like I said, I think this is realistically only an issue in larger communities as most rural areas have 1 school. There are areas in Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana, Dakotas et al where kids drive 80 Mile to attend the school available. Vouchers help them?


4. In Iowa, and I'm not sure about the other states, there are "open enrollment" laws which allow students to petition to attend schools outside of their district. From what I've seen, its usually one of two things. 1. Mom/dad work in one school dist and reside in another, and its easier to drop off/pick up kids in School B. 2. Athletics. Johnny is a QB and School B has a better team.


No Child L B needs to go away first.....its stupid.

Improving teacher pay, based on performance, and allowing degreed people to take some classes and work in education would go a long way toward fixing some of the problems.


I've spent the past 7 work days, inside a HS, working with HS kids. I've worked with kids from 3-4 districts over the past 2 years, and have put on some programs (archery and technical) for home school kid groups as well as public school kids.

Some things are eye opening.


1. Yea I'm sure that's what Obama says too.

2. I don't know about your church but last time I checked christians/catholics were more than willing to accept Joe Atheist and expose him to the word of the lord. By the government I take it you mean the people. Yes they have a say in what is mandated and that is all.

3. voucher or tax breaks could even help people like that. Maybe someone who is a lot closer that 80 miles away will get their teaching credentials and open up a small school much closer that would be much better and more convenient. These are people who couldn't do that without a system like that in place. Who wants to drive their kid 80 miles to go to a failed system anyway?

4. The whole school system is fucked up. What difference does it make if you take your kid to fucked up school #1 or #12?

mlyonsd
10-17-2008, 01:22 PM
Vouchers would do me no good where I live. That being said, I wouldn't be afraid to send my kids to any school that's around me. There's benefits to living in pro-America America.

BIG_DADDY
10-17-2008, 01:25 PM
NewPhin nailed it with the sixth post in this thread--the thread should have been over.

Vouchers are seductive....but in a democratic society, they would be used to produce/pertetuate class structure in society. Some are fine with that, of course. If you aren't though, you really ought to educate yourself about what would really happen with vouchers. A multi-tiered educational system would Balkanize America, instead of uniting us.

Giving the people the power and not the government is not going to alienate us. After further consideration I think the tax credit system would work best. For my $7,500 out there is now an additional $1,600 for other kids.

Saulbadguy
10-17-2008, 01:26 PM
4. The whole school system is ****ed up. What difference does it make if you take your kid to ****ed up school #1 or #12?

Reality check...the system might be fucked up but I feel the schools in this area are just fine.

Taco John
10-17-2008, 01:28 PM
The first problem with the public school system is the age of compulsory attendance is set WAY too high. Kids should be able to drop out of the school system and enter the workforce (if they so choose) at a younger age. This is a huge part of the reason why Jr. High and High Schools in America are failing. There are too many kids in the system who are there only to make trouble for the fact that they HAVE to be there, and not because they choose to be there.

Education is a choice. If someone chooses not to be educated, let them enter the work force. In many cases, it won't be long until they're EAGER to get an education.

Taco John
10-17-2008, 01:29 PM
Reality check...the system might be ****ed up but I feel the schools in this area are just fine.


The public school system in this area is addled with meth, and other drug problems.

Amnorix
10-17-2008, 01:30 PM
If you're going this route, you'd better be prepared to pay for supply/demand in other areas. There are big shortages in areas such as Industrial technology(the kids that become drafters, construction workers, machinists, robotics techs, welders, mechanics, electricians etc) Ag teachers.....band, computer/technology instructors as well as the shortage of science and physics, math.......

Teacher pay should be based on supply/demand, not some union-created lock step system that results in underpaid teachers of certain skill sets and overpaid teachers of other skill sets.

It's just not that hard. Under the current system tenure alone determines pay, which is absurd.

BIG_DADDY
10-17-2008, 01:32 PM
Reality check...the system might be ****ed up but I feel the schools in this area are just fine.

There's the beauty of it, you can stick your kid in the fucked up system if you want.

Me I would prefer sticking my kid in a system where he is allowed to advance to his capabilities instead of watching all the kids be held back because of the slower ones. But hey, that's just me.

Amnorix
10-17-2008, 01:33 PM
The first problem with the public school system is the age of compulsory attendance is set WAY too high. Kids should be able to drop out of the school system and enter the workforce (if they so choose) at a younger age. This is a huge part of the reason why Jr. High and High Schools in America are failing. There are too many kids in the system who are there only to make trouble for the fact that they HAVE to be there, and not because they choose to be there.

Education is a choice. If someone chooses not to be educated, let them enter the work force. In many cases, it won't be long until they're EAGER to get an education.

I seem to think 16 is the age here where a kid can choose to drop out (though to be honest I"m not sure). What age would you propose?

Taco John
10-17-2008, 01:33 PM
Teacher pay should be based on supply/demand, not some union-created lock step system that results in underpaid teachers of certain skill sets and overpaid teachers of other skill sets.

It's just not that hard. Under the current system tenure alone determines pay, which is absurd.

Speaking my language...

BIG_DADDY
10-17-2008, 01:34 PM
The public school system in this area is addled with meth, and other drug problems.

Like he said they are just fine. LMAO

That's the 2nd time I have ever heard someone say they're fine. Last guy was dishonestchief.

BIG_DADDY
10-17-2008, 01:35 PM
Teacher pay should be based on supply/demand, not some union-created lock step system that results in underpaid teachers of certain skill sets and overpaid teachers of other skill sets.

It's just not that hard. Under the current system tenure alone determines pay, which is absurd.

Amen brother.

mlyonsd
10-17-2008, 01:38 PM
I seem to think 16 is the age here where a kid can choose to drop out (though to be honest I"m not sure). What age would you propose?

Jumping in here....

12. Then their parents could force them into cheap labor which will help eliminate our illegal alien problem.

Taco John
10-17-2008, 01:38 PM
I seem to think 16 is the age here where a kid can choose to drop out (though to be honest I"m not sure). What age would you propose?


I think 13 is a good age to allow a kid to make the decision to participate in his/her education.

ClevelandBronco
10-17-2008, 01:41 PM
I'm against vouchers because it will pave the way for government meddling in private schools and that's not a recipe for educational success.

I would MUCH rather have a tax credit than a voucher. But I like vouchers as a step in the right direction because no matter what, liberals are going to want to have a say in how my kid gets educated. I figure vouchers to be a bone throw to the liberals towards a privatized school system.

As far as government involvement in vouchers, government should be limited to setting basic education standards. If these basic standards are met, then the school is accredited by the state to receive vouchers. Extra-curricular education outside of these standards should be of no concern to the state.

I share patteeu's fear, but TJ already did a fine job of addressing that.

Not that government won't try to tear its way inside once it gets a nose under the tent, but it's up to us to keep it out.

Iowanian
10-17-2008, 01:42 PM
Schools are full of unmotivated kids whose parents have shown them that they don't even have to work to live just fine.

The idea of slowing up the capable, motivated kids so the others can keep up for quotas is unrealistic.

I had a kid last year during a career discussion who said out loud and pridefully, "I'm going to do what my dad does, he doesn't even have to work and gets paid to just be at home and do what he wants".

We'fare.....is awesome.


I do however, agree with Mlyons...There isn't a school in 75 miles that I'm aware of that I'd be afraid to send my kids to. Are some better or better funded or have more available programs? sure.


The first problem with the public school system is the age of compulsory attendance is set WAY too high. Kids should be able to drop out of the school system and enter the workforce (if they so choose) at a younger age. This is a huge part of the reason why Jr. High and High Schools in America are failing. There are too many kids in the system who are there only to make trouble for the fact that they HAVE to be there, and not because they choose to be there.

Education is a choice. If someone chooses not to be educated, let them enter the work force. In many cases, it won't be long until they're EAGER to get an education.

Amnorix
10-17-2008, 01:43 PM
I think 13 is a good age to allow a kid to make the decision to participate in his/her education.

13? 13? Honestly? That's like 8th grade.

WTF is a 13 year old going to do if they do drop out? You're dooming them to "Do you want fries with that" forever. And if they do drop out, they're a hell of a long way from getting a GED or whatever if they decide they made a mistake.

I'm thinking most 13 year olds would sign up for playing video games 24/7 over school in a heartbeat, and that letting that happen is, uhhh, not ideal.

Taco John
10-17-2008, 01:44 PM
Schools are full of unmotivated kids whose parents have shown them that they don't even have to work to live just fine.

I had a kid last year during a career discussion who said out loud and pridefully, "I'm going to do what my dad does, he doesn't even have to work and gets paid to just be at home and do what he wants".

We'fare.....is awesome.



That's why I favor the lowering of the age of compulsory attendance. I want a school system full of kids who choose to be there, not one where the kids who are forced to be there are dragging down the education standards.

Amnorix
10-17-2008, 01:44 PM
Schools are full of unmotivated kids whose parents have shown them that they don't even have to work to live just fine.

I had a kid last year during a career discussion who said out loud and pridefully, "I'm going to do what my dad does, he doesn't even have to work and gets paid to just be at home and do what he wants".

We'fare.....is awesome.

How awesome can it be? How much can they really make off welfare? I find it hard to believe they're living the good life.

Taco John
10-17-2008, 01:44 PM
13? 13? Honestly? That's like 8th grade.

WTF is a 13 year old going to do if they do drop out? You're dooming them to "Do you want fries with that" forever. And if they do drop out, they're a hell of a long way from getting a GED or whatever if they decide they made a mistake.

I'm thinking most 13 year olds would sign up for playing video games 24/7 over school in a heartbeat, and that letting that happen is, uhhh, not ideal.

I'm dooming them?

I'm dooming them?

What the **** are you talking about *I'm* dooming them?

I'm thinking most 13 year olds would sign up for playing video games 24/7 over school in a heartbeat, and that letting that happen is, uhhh, not ideal.

That's between them and their parents... But I've got plenty of jobs for them.

ClevelandBronco
10-17-2008, 01:45 PM
Teacher pay should be based on supply/demand, not some union-created lock step system that results in underpaid teachers of certain skill sets and overpaid teachers of other skill sets.

It's just not that hard. Under the current system tenure alone determines pay, which is absurd.

I couldn't agree more.

Also, teacher retirement is insane here. They take the top three years of earnings, average those, and a retired teacher gets 75% of that number annually for the rest of his or her life.

That's a ridiculously generous plan, and it must be figured in whenever we discuss how "underpaid" teachers may be.

Mr. Kotter
10-17-2008, 01:46 PM
What we really need in this country is the European/German styled tracking system in our schools; by age 12-13....kids are put on a work track, a vocational/technical track, or a college track. I'd be fully supportive of ensuring great flexibility and provisions for "changing tracks" if performance and desire dictates--but not all kids are cut out for college. And an one-sized-fits-all approach to public education is dragging the whole system down--in a big, big way. This reform alone would "fix" so many problems, it's mind-boggling.

The bottom-line is our public schools WASTE an enormous amount of time, resources, and money.....trying to turn kids who are not college material, OR who choose not to be college material.....for college. It's flat-out plain stupid.

Of course, our radical egalitarian and socialist perspective on society won't allow us to be so brutally honest about it. Heaven forbid, not all our kids have a chance "to be President!"

:shake:

mlyonsd
10-17-2008, 01:48 PM
13? 13? Honestly? That's like 8th grade.

WTF is a 13 year old going to do if they do drop out? You're dooming them to "Do you want fries with that" forever. And if they do drop out, they're a hell of a long way from getting a GED or whatever if they decide they made a mistake.

I'm thinking most 13 year olds would sign up for playing video games 24/7 over school in a heartbeat, and that letting that happen is, uhhh, not ideal.

QFT.

Mr. Kotter
10-17-2008, 01:50 PM
13? 13? Honestly? That's like 8th grade.

WTF is a 13 year old going to do if they do drop out? You're dooming them to "Do you want fries with that" forever. And if they do drop out, they're a hell of a long way from getting a GED or whatever if they decide they made a mistake.

I'm thinking most 13 year olds would sign up for playing video games 24/7 over school in a heartbeat, and that letting that happen is, uhhh, not ideal.

That's why a European style tiered educational system would be preferable.

Taco John
10-17-2008, 01:50 PM
QFT.

Not even.


The difference between my perspective and yours is that I want to design an educational system geared around those who WANT to participate - whereas you guys want to build a system that includes people who don't want to participate at the expense of the people who do.

Iowanian
10-17-2008, 01:51 PM
The public school system in this area is addled with meth, and other drug problems.

What? Problems? un-possible. Drugs don't hurt anyone. They're only an expression of the youth's personal right to put whatever they want into their body. Drugs don't even hurt your motivation.

BIG_DADDY
10-17-2008, 01:53 PM
What? Problems? un-possible. Drugs don't hurt anyone. They're only an expression of the youth's personal right to put whatever they want into their body. Drugs don't even hurt your motivation.

And vaccines are actually good for you.

mlyonsd
10-17-2008, 01:53 PM
Not even.


The difference between my perspective and yours is that I want to design an educational system geared around those who WANT to participate - whereas you guys want to build a system that includes people who don't want to participate at the expense of the people who do.

No I understand what you're saying. In a perfect world it might work. Tell me what the 13 year olds do when they don't want to go to school or dig ditches for $5/hr.

I'm guessing many of them will end up in prison.

ClevelandBronco
10-17-2008, 01:53 PM
What? Problems? un-possible. Drugs don't hurt anyone. They're only an expression of the youth's personal right to put whatever they want into their body. Drugs don't even hurt your motivation.

I was thinking about responding to this, but hey, what the hell?

ClevelandBronco
10-17-2008, 01:55 PM
No I understand what you're saying. In a perfect world it might work. Tell me what the 13 year olds do when they don't want to go to school or dig ditches for $5/hr.

I'm guessing many of them will end up in prison.

Yeah. That's a problem. We have 20 million illegal aliens here digging ditches (or doing whatever is the equivalent) for $5 an hour.

Guru
10-17-2008, 01:59 PM
Like he said they are just fine. LMAO

That's the 2nd time I have ever heard someone say they're fine. Last guy was dishonestchief. Saul wasn't referring to all schools. Just the schools in Topeka and Kansas. I would argue that Topeka Public schools aren't that great though. hence my choice for private.

Iowanian
10-17-2008, 01:59 PM
And vaccines are actually good for you.

Yes. The world population has never had a lower infection or death rate from preventable disease.


Its those unvaccinated bozos in the school system that endanger everyone else that are the problem.

Taco John
10-17-2008, 02:00 PM
No I understand what you're saying. In a perfect world it might work. Tell me what the 13 year olds do when they don't want to go to school or dig ditches for $5/hr.

I'm guessing many of them will end up in prison.


I'm not interested in a perfect world. There's no such thing. So in it's place, I'm interested in pragmatism. I think that it's incredibly pragmatic to have a secondary education system in which students ELECT to participate, rather than go against their own will.

And you're mistaken if you think that I'm going to tell you what a 13 year old does when he doesn't want to go to school. I'm not a liberal, so I am not going to go the extra mile and their thinking for them. What they do is their business. Hopefully, their calculation that whatever it is, it's better than choosing to go to school pays off for them. But my concern is for the students who CHOOSE to participate in the school system, not the ones who choose not to. The ones who choose not to are the concern of their parents, and/or loved ones.

I think that you're right that many of them will end up in juvenile detention. If that is their inclination, that's a better place for them than interrupting the education of kids who want to learn.

BIG_DADDY
10-17-2008, 02:01 PM
Yes. The world population has never had a lower infection or death rate from preventable disease.


Its those unvaccinated bozos in the school system that endanger everyone else that are the problem.

Let us go to a school where you don't have to worry about them then.

Amnorix
10-17-2008, 02:04 PM
I'm dooming them?

I'm dooming them?

What the **** are you talking about *I'm* dooming them?



That's between them and their parents... But I've got plenty of jobs for them.

Yes. You are dooming them, when you allow kids who don't know a damn thing about anything to make such a critical decision that will affect the rest of their lives.

Pimply faced kids that often haven't even reached puberty, who can't drive, drink, smoke, join the army or otherwise be considered an adult under the law in just about any state in America can decide to drop out and (as someone else said) dig ditches for the rest of their lives.

Not so brilliant...

Amnorix
10-17-2008, 02:06 PM
I couldn't agree more.

Also, teacher retirement is insane here. They take the top three years of earnings, average those, and a retired teacher gets 75% of that number annually for the rest of his or her life.

That's a ridiculously generous plan, and it must be figured in whenever we discuss how "underpaid" teachers may be.

Yes, though to be honest I have this problem with just about all public servants. I'm sorry, but Mary Librarian and John DEP worker don't deserve fixed-benefit plans any more than anybody else.

ClevelandBronco
10-17-2008, 02:06 PM
Let us go to a school where you don't have to worry about them then.

It's called home schooling. Keep those kids away from the rest of us.

Amnorix
10-17-2008, 02:07 PM
What we really need in this country is the European/German styled tracking system in our schools; by age 12-13....kids are put on a work track, a vocational/technical track, or a college track. I'd be fully supportive of ensuring great flexibility and provisions for "changing tracks" if performance and desire dictates--but not all kids are cut out for college. And an one-sized-fits-all approach to public education is dragging the whole system down--in a big, big way. This reform alone would "fix" so many problems, it's mind-boggling.

The bottom-line is our public schools WASTE an enormous amount of time, resources, and money.....trying to turn kids who are not college material, OR who choose not to be college material.....for college. It's flat-out plain stupid.

Of course, our radical egalitarian and socialist perspective on society won't allow us to be so brutally honest about it. Heaven forbid, not all our kids have a chance "to be President!"

:shake:

I'm fine with this. Makes perfect sense.

There is a HUGE disconnect in this country between what schools put out, and what the economy and businesses need. MASSIVE disconnect.

Iowanian
10-17-2008, 02:07 PM
Let us go to a school where you don't have to worry about them then.


Unfortunately, homeschool kids get to have and attend functions, classes and athletics are public schools their children don't attend. Some even walk through graduation in the public school, even though they never attended a class. Then there is the whole, mall, park, playground thing........

Does Kalifornia not have open enrollment? Home school?

In your area, I'm sure you could fill a building with kids from unvaccinated, vegan etc....kids. I doubt its true for many parts of America outside the west coast, and maybe selected cities like Minneapolis.

In rural areas, thats just the hippy family that moved into the xyz place to raise organic arugala or an organic goat dairy.

mlyonsd
10-17-2008, 02:09 PM
I'm not interested in a perfect world. There's no such thing. So in it's place, I'm interested in pragmatism. I think that it's incredibly pragmatic to have a secondary education system in which students ELECT to participate, rather than go against their own will.

And you're mistaken if you think that I'm going to tell you what a 13 year old does when he doesn't want to go to school. I'm not a liberal, so I am not going to go the extra mile and their thinking for them. What they do is their business. Hopefully, their calculation that whatever it is, it's better than choosing to go to school pays off for them. But my concern is for the students who CHOOSE to participate in the school system, not the ones who choose not to. The ones who choose not to are the concern of their parents, and/or loved ones.

I think that you're right that many of them will end up in juvenile detention. If that is their inclination, that's a better place for them than interrupting the education of kids who want to learn.

I think our basic disagreement is the maturity of a 13 year old and how that will affect a decision like you're suggesting.

ClevelandBronco
10-17-2008, 02:10 PM
Yes, though to be honest I have this problem with just about all public servants. I'm sorry, but Mary Librarian and John DEP worker don't deserve fixed-benefit plans any more than anybody else.

I have a feeling that you're exactly the kind of liberal I can come to easy terms with.

(Don't any of you even ask me to word it this way: I have a feeling that you're exactly the kind of liberal with whom I can come to easy terms. I don't care if it's an education thread.)

Taco John
10-17-2008, 02:10 PM
Yes. You are dooming them, when you allow kids who don't know a damn thing about anything to make such a critical decision that will affect the rest of their lives.

Pimply faced kids that often haven't even reached puberty, who can't drive, drink, smoke, join the army or otherwise be considered an adult under the law in just about any state in America can decide to drop out and (as someone else said) dig ditches for the rest of their lives.

Not so brilliant...


Eh, well, of course a liberal is going to see it that way. People aren't responsible for their own decisions. The people who want to give them the freedom to make the decisions are responsible.

Sorry liberal. All I'm doing is giving them the choice to elect to participate or not participate. I'm not dooming them by giving them this choice. All I'm doing is giving them the liberty to make decisions for themselves.

Like I said - I want to design an educational system geared around those who WANT to participate - whereas you guys want to build a system that includes people who don't want to participate at the expense of the people who do.

My way is superior.

Amnorix
10-17-2008, 02:11 PM
Not even.


The difference between my perspective and yours is that I want to design an educational system geared around those who WANT to participate - whereas you guys want to build a system that includes people who don't want to participate at the expense of the people who do.

13? 8th grade? You're serious? You're pretty much talking about boys that can't even ejaculate for chrissakes. WTF?

How many 13 years olds might drop out because they're embarassed about how many pimples they have? Because Joe the Bully is making life difficult?

You gotta be kidding me.

Amnorix
10-17-2008, 02:12 PM
I think our basic disagreement is the maturity of a 13 year old and how that will affect a decision like you're suggesting.

QFT

Amnorix
10-17-2008, 02:12 PM
I have a feeling that you're exactly the kind of liberal I can come to easy terms with.

(Don't any of you even ask me to word it this way: I have a feeling that you're exactly the kind of liberal with whom I can come to easy terms. I don't care if it's an education thread.)

Probably because I'm (1) very pragmatic, and (2) not that liberal on economic issues.

:D

Amnorix
10-17-2008, 02:14 PM
Eh, well, of course a liberal is going to see it that way. People aren't responsible for their own decisions. The people who want to give them the freedom to make the decisions are responsible.

Sorry liberal. All I'm doing is giving them the choice to elect to participate or not participate. I'm not dooming them by giving them this choice. All I'm doing is giving them the liberty to make decisions for themselves.

Like I said - I want to design an educational system geared around those who WANT to participate - whereas you guys want to build a system that includes people who don't want to participate at the expense of the people who do.

My way is superior.

These "people" are KIDS! 13 years old is a freaking CHILD! Sex with them will put you in JAIL. Sex with their 2 year older sibling would put you in JAIL.

They cant' screw you, join the military, drink, smoke or drive, but they can drop out and potentially wreck the rest of their lives.

Or do you advocate that 13 year olds be deemed adults for ALL PURPOSES< including spreading their legs, voting, driving and joining the army.

You're either mature enough to be an adult, or you're not, and this kind of decision isn't for an immature child. That's where we have our fundamental disagreement.

And you may recall I psent my first year here with "A liberal" as my avatar. I hardly am embarassed to be labeled such, but I verymuch doubt that my stance on this is liberal paternalism.

RJ
10-17-2008, 02:14 PM
Thirteen might be a little young to let kids drop out, seeing as how it's illegal for employers to hire them in most cases.

ClevelandBronco
10-17-2008, 02:16 PM
...I think that you're right that many of them will end up in juvenile detention. If that is their inclination, that's a better place for them than interrupting the education of kids who want to learn.

Trust me, I hear all of the rest of your position, but do you know what those kids are going to cost us all? A heck of a lot more than educating them.

When I was a kid there were three classrooms in each grade, and they didn't attempt to teach us all the same way. There was a "smart" class, and "average" class, and the "dumb" class.

Maybe that's kind of what Kotter was talking about.

RJ
10-17-2008, 02:18 PM
Eh, well, of course a liberal is going to see it that way. People aren't responsible for their own decisions. The people who want to give them the freedom to make the decisions are responsible.

Sorry liberal. All I'm doing is giving them the choice to elect to participate or not participate. I'm not dooming them by giving them this choice. All I'm doing is giving them the liberty to make decisions for themselves.

Like I said - I want to design an educational system geared around those who WANT to participate - whereas you guys want to build a system that includes people who don't want to participate at the expense of the people who do.

My way is superior.



Then why require them to go to school at all? Wouldn't it fit more with the libertarian view if parents and kids could all just make their own education decisions?

Taco John
10-17-2008, 02:18 PM
I think our basic disagreement is the maturity of a 13 year old and how that will affect a decision like you're suggesting.

No, I think a 13 year old is immature. I don't think we have any disagreement about that. Where we have a disagreement is on whether a student who wants to learn should be forced to sit in a classroom of distractions with kids who don't want to learn. You wish to burden the students who care with the distraction of the kids who don't care. I wish to remove that distraction by filling up classrooms with students who are making the choice to be there.

Iowanian
10-17-2008, 02:19 PM
I've worked with kids, individually as a mentor, group programs(schools) and in a temporary teaching capacity.

There are a lot of kids that as 12 year olds are great students, motivated kids with ambition, who from 13-17 are slugs if you allow it....but have significant potential if motivated and helped along, and will become productive citizens and in many cases, educated professionals.

Go into any classroom and ask them if they'd rather watch Superbad today or work on their physics lesson.

BIG_DADDY
10-17-2008, 02:19 PM
These "people" are KIDS! 13 years old is a freaking CHILD! Sex with them will put you in JAIL. Sex with their 2 year older sibling would put you in JAIL.

They cant' screw you, join the military, drink, smoke or drive, but they can drop out and potentially wreck the rest of their lives.

Or do you advocate that 13 year olds be deemed adults for ALL PURPOSES< including spreading their legs, voting, driving and joining the army.

You're either mature enough to be an adult, or you're not, and this kind of decision isn't for an immature child. That's where we have our fundamental disagreement.

And you may recall I psent my first year here with "A liberal" as my avatar. I hardly am embarassed to be labeled such, but I verymuch doubt that my stance on this is liberal paternalism.

Education is a priviledge, not a right. Schools would do much better if they got rid of the bad seeds instead of turning our schools into day cares.

For the record this is one more reason to move away from the current system.

Iowanian
10-17-2008, 02:21 PM
Are you ready to fund the glutton of freeloaders with "no job skillzzz" that produces?

Logical
10-17-2008, 02:22 PM
Eh, well, of course a liberal is going to see it that way. People aren't responsible for their own decisions. The people who want to give them the freedom to make the decisions are responsible.

Sorry liberal. All I'm doing is giving them the choice to elect to participate or not participate. I'm not dooming them by giving them this choice. All I'm doing is giving them the liberty to make decisions for themselves.

Like I said - I want to design an educational system geared around those who WANT to participate - whereas you guys want to build a system that includes people who don't want to participate at the expense of the people who do.

My way is superior.Either you are failing at your specialty (communication) or you have some really bizarro world notions going on in you noggin. You may want to rethink and re explain your idea.:spock:

ClevelandBronco
10-17-2008, 02:26 PM
Either you are failing at your specialty (communication) or you have some really bizarro world notions going on in you noggin. You may want to rethink and re explain your idea.:spock:

He explained it very well.

Then some of us disagreed.

I thought you were an actual rocket scientist...

Taco John
10-17-2008, 02:26 PM
Then why require them to go to school at all? Wouldn't it fit more with the libertarian view if parents and kids could all just make their own education decisions?

Sure it would. I wouldn't be against eliminating the compulsory standard altogether, and making the school system a user pay system. But being pragmatic, I understand that we live in a society full of liberals who will foam at the mouth at the idea. Thus, it's not a viable idea.

Hell, you can see the trouble they're having with just the idea of a secondary education system in which students choose to participate. They want to force students to go against their will because... I guess because they somehow think it's better for a student to go, cause distractions, and flunk out rather than opt out and move on to something else...

ClevelandBronco
10-17-2008, 02:28 PM
Sure it would. I wouldn't be against eliminating the compulsory standard altogether, and making the school system a user pay system. But being pragmatic, I understand that we live in a society full of liberals who will foam at the mouth at the idea. Thus, it's not a viable idea.

Hell, you can see the trouble they're having with just the idea of a secondary education system in which students choose to participate. They want to force students to go against their will because... I guess because they somehow think it's better for a student to go, cause distractions, and flunk out rather than opt out and move on to something else...

Well, it's virtually impossible for a student to flunk out these days, but they do have the choice of opting out or causing distractions.

mlyonsd
10-17-2008, 02:32 PM
No, I think a 13 year old is immature. I don't think we have any disagreement about that. Where we have a disagreement is on whether a student who wants to learn should be forced to sit in a classroom of distractions with kids who don't want to learn. You wish to burden the students who care with the distraction of the kids who don't care. I wish to remove that distraction by filling up classrooms with students who are making the choice to be there.

I agree with most of that but not the part where a 13 year old can be relied upon to make a good decision for themselves or society.

Saulbadguy
10-17-2008, 02:32 PM
Sure it would. I wouldn't be against eliminating the compulsory standard altogether, and making the school system a user pay system. But being pragmatic, I understand that we live in a society full of liberals who will foam at the mouth at the idea. Thus, it's not a viable idea.

Hell, you can see the trouble they're having with just the idea of a secondary education system in which students choose to participate. They want to force students to go against their will because... I guess because they somehow think it's better for a student to go, cause distractions, and flunk out rather than opt out and move on to something else...


I'm sure the workforce will expand to meet the skill sets of middle school dropouts.

Taco John
10-17-2008, 02:33 PM
Well, at least in this thread we've determined that "reforming the public school system" doesn't include eliminating the distractions that kids who don't want to be there cause.

Looks like public schooling is destined to be a long term failure to me.

So back to giving me a tax credit for opting out...

Amnorix
10-17-2008, 02:34 PM
Trust me, I hear all of the rest of your position, but do you know what those kids are going to cost us all? A heck of a lot more than educating them.

When I was a kid there were three classrooms in each grade, and they didn't attempt to teach us all the same way. There was a "smart" class, and "average" class, and the "dumb" class.

Maybe that's kind of what Kotter was talking about.


My school as well. AP, Honors and Standard. a/k/a smart, average and not so bright.

Saulbadguy
10-17-2008, 02:35 PM
Well, at least in this thread we've determined that "reforming the public school system" doesn't include eliminating the distractions that kids who don't want to be there cause.

Looks like public schooling is destined to be a long term failure to me.

So back to giving me a tax credit for opting out...

I do not disagree with the idea of a tax credit for opting out. I don't think it should be a substantial one though, perhaps not even 50% of the cost of a student. You do benefit from having the public education system there even if you do consider it an abysmal failure.

Amnorix
10-17-2008, 02:35 PM
Either you are failing at your specialty (communication) or you have some really bizarro world notions going on in you noggin. You may want to rethink and re explain your idea.:spock:

It's actually the really bizarro world notions that's accurate....

Saulbadguy
10-17-2008, 02:36 PM
It's actually the really bizarro world notions that's accurate....

It's idealism, kind of like my ideas of "Why the hell do we need guns"?

Amnorix
10-17-2008, 02:38 PM
Sure it would. I wouldn't be against eliminating the compulsory standard altogether, and making the school system a user pay system. But being pragmatic, I understand that we live in a society full of liberals who will foam at the mouth at the idea. Thus, it's not a viable idea.

Hell, you can see the trouble they're having with just the idea of a secondary education system in which students choose to participate. They want to force students to go against their will because... I guess because they somehow think it's better for a student to go, cause distractions, and flunk out rather than opt out and move on to something else...

Jesus @#$%^@ Christ -- it's because they're not old enough, smart enough or mature enough to make a rational and correct decision on that very important issue.

You seriously want to encourage a bunch of kids to drop out and play video games until their eyes bleed because you think/hope it might make some other kids' educations more efficient? Why can't these unmotivated dopes just be in their own class with the other unmotivated dopes? That's what we did in my school system, and it worked fine. And many kids in the unmotivated dope category wised up and were able to go to college, or a trade school, or whatever, before their lives became uselessly dedicated to living in their parents' basement because of a decision they made when they were 13.

13

13

13

WTF.

Taco John
10-17-2008, 02:39 PM
Trust me, I hear all of the rest of your position, but do you know what those kids are going to cost us all? A heck of a lot more than educating them.

Honestly, I don't think the change in compulsory standards will mean a flood of 13 year olds dropping out. In fact, I think it would have the OPPOSITE effect. I think what we'd see is a level of parental involvement that doesn't exist today - which is a factor of this whole discussion that the liberal arguments seem to totally miss: parents.

mlyonsd
10-17-2008, 02:40 PM
Well, at least in this thread we've determined that "reforming the public school system" doesn't include eliminating the distractions that kids who don't want to be there cause.

Looks like public schooling is destined to be a long term failure to me.

So back to giving me a tax credit for opting out...

I wouldn't call the public school system a failure, just not what we should be getting for what we pay for.

I think the answer lies in how other countries that test well fund and operate their schools. Whether or not that would work in our socialistic society could be another matter.

Taco John
10-17-2008, 02:40 PM
You seriously want to encourage a bunch of kids to drop out



NO you fucking douche. I'm not encouraging a SINGLE kid to drop out. I'm just giving them the opportunity to CHOOSE to be educated.

Saulbadguy
10-17-2008, 02:42 PM
NO you ****ing douche. I'm not encouraging a SINGLE kid to drop out. I'm just giving them the opportunity to CHOOSE to be educated.

ROFL

Yeah - seriously.

RJ
10-17-2008, 02:43 PM
We could just shoot the little bastards.

Any kid with less than a C average at the end of 7th grade gets a cigarette and a blindfold.

Taco John
10-17-2008, 02:43 PM
I do not disagree with the idea of a tax credit for opting out. I don't think it should be a substantial one though, perhaps not even 50% of the cost of a student. You do benefit from having the public education system there even if you do consider it an abysmal failure.

Which I've already paid well into. But now that I've got a student of my own, I should get the full tax credit for him. Once he's no longer in school, I lose the tax credit. I could live with that.

Saulbadguy
10-17-2008, 02:44 PM
Which I've already paid well into. But now that I've got a student of my own, I should get the full tax credit for him. Once he's no longer in school, I lose the tax credit. I could live with that.

No - you still benefit from the public education system even with a student of your own not taking advantage of it.

ClevelandBronco
10-17-2008, 02:44 PM
Honestly, I don't think the change in compulsory standards will mean a flood of 13 year olds dropping out. In fact, I think it would have the OPPOSITE effect. I think what we'd see is a level of parental involvement that doesn't exist today - which is a factor of this whole discussion that the liberal arguments seem to totally miss: parents.

I think your position is pretty solid when it's applied to families led by two educated parents (and in many cases, one educated parent).

I'm not convinced that it will be as effective in other situations. Unfortunately, we have a large fraction of our kids who are in those other situations.

Amnorix
10-17-2008, 02:47 PM
NO you ****ing douche. I'm not encouraging a SINGLE kid to drop out. I'm just giving them the opportunity to CHOOSE to be educated.

Or choose to play video games.

Sorry, it's absurd. Completely moronic. Ludicrous. Words can't begin to describe...

ClevelandBronco
10-17-2008, 02:47 PM
Ah, the hell with it. It looks like a rare civilized discussion in here is going to devolve into throwing insults back and forth.

Logical
10-17-2008, 02:48 PM
He explained it very well.

Then some of us disagreed.

I thought you were an actual rocket scientist...Used to be a rocket/missile related engineer, now I just manage engineers and production people.

Amnorix
10-17-2008, 02:48 PM
We could just shoot the little bastards.

Any kid with less than a C average at the end of 7th grade gets a cigarette and a blindfold.

ROFL ROFL ROFL

It's very rare I literally laugh out loud while reading posts on here, but this one did it. Well done sir.

Amnorix
10-17-2008, 02:49 PM
Ah, the hell with it. It looks like a rare civilized discussion in here is going to devolve into throwing insults back and forth.


@#$% you!

:p

ClevelandBronco
10-17-2008, 02:51 PM
We could just shoot the little bastards.

Any kid with less than a C average at the end of 7th grade gets a cigarette and a blindfold.

We can't legally give them cigarettes until the age of 16. Of course if they're still in 7th grade at that age, off the little bastards.

Logical
10-17-2008, 02:52 PM
Sure it would. I wouldn't be against eliminating the compulsory standard altogether, and making the school system a user pay system. But being pragmatic, I understand that we live in a society full of liberals who will foam at the mouth at the idea. Thus, it's not a viable idea.

Hell, you can see the trouble they're having with just the idea of a secondary education system in which students choose to participate. They want to force students to go against their will because... I guess because they somehow think it's better for a student to go, cause distractions, and flunk out rather than opt out and move on to something else...

Since working on the farm is not really an option for all the 13 year olds that would choose (I guess you really think they should be able to) not to attend school. What sort of career do you see for them. I doubt they will all be able to be pimps or prostitutes but I don't see video gaming as a career skill on resumes either.

ClevelandBronco
10-17-2008, 02:55 PM
Since working on the farm is not really an option for all the 13 year olds that would choose (I guess you really think they should be able to) not to attend school. What sort of career do you see for them. I doubt they will all be able to be pimps or prostitutes but I don't see video gaming as a career skill on resumes either.

For that matter, we'd also have to change the age at which they can be legally employed. If I'm not mistaken a 13-year-old can only work for a family-owned business.

Taco John
10-17-2008, 02:55 PM
I think your position is pretty solid when it's applied to families led by two educated parents (and in many cases, one educated parent).

I'm not convinced that it will be as effective in other situations. Unfortunately, we have a large fraction of our kids who are in those other situations.


I was born to parents who got pregnant in high school. My mom had me when she was 17. My Dad was just graduating high school. Each of their families were reeling because it was an interracial situation in a dirt poor farming community. They pretty much washed their hands of them financially, and my parents were left to fend for themselves.

I see no reason to believe that my idea of a school system would have excluded me from enjoying the priviledges of an education.

Taco John
10-17-2008, 02:57 PM
Or choose to play video games.


You're right. I am giving them the opportunity to choose to play video games - if that's what they and their parents decide is their best course of action.

I don't have a problem with that. I'm not here to make their choices for them. I'm here to give them the opportunity to choose.

dirk digler
10-17-2008, 02:57 PM
What we really need in this country is the European/German styled tracking system in our schools; by age 12-13....kids are put on a work track, a vocational/technical track, or a college track. I'd be fully supportive of ensuring great flexibility and provisions for "changing tracks" if performance and desire dictates--but not all kids are cut out for college. And an one-sized-fits-all approach to public education is dragging the whole system down--in a big, big way. This reform alone would "fix" so many problems, it's mind-boggling.

The bottom-line is our public schools WASTE an enormous amount of time, resources, and money.....trying to turn kids who are not college material, OR who choose not to be college material.....for college. It's flat-out plain stupid.

Of course, our radical egalitarian and socialist perspective on society won't allow us to be so brutally honest about it. Heaven forbid, not all our kids have a chance "to be President!"

:shake:

I am not an education expert or even close to knowing how to fix the problem but I like this idea ALOT.

I also respect TJ's opinion but his idea of letting 13 year old kids choose to leave school is simply the most retarded thing I have read in a long time. TJ if you up that to the legal adult age in each state then that is fine but to give up on them so early is a mistake that this country can't afford to make. Sorry.

Logical
10-17-2008, 02:58 PM
For that matter, we'd also have to change the age at which they can be legally employed. If I'm not mistaken a 13-year-old can only work for a family-owned business.Depending on the state that only applies if the family owned business is a farm. Either way as you say the laws would have to be changed.

Taco John
10-17-2008, 03:00 PM
Since working on the farm is not really an option for all the 13 year olds that would choose (I guess you really think they should be able to) not to attend school. What sort of career do you see for them. I doubt they will all be able to be pimps or prostitutes but I don't see video gaming as a career skill on resumes either.


Again, I say, I'm not here to choose careers for these kids. I'm here to free the education system from them so that the kids who choose to better themselves have the maximum amount of opportunity to do so.

And like I said earlier, I don't think the change in compulsory standards will mean a flood of 13 year olds dropping out. In fact, I think it would have the OPPOSITE effect. I think what we'd see is a level of parental involvement that doesn't exist today.

Amnorix
10-17-2008, 03:00 PM
I was born to parents who got pregnant in high school. My mom had me when she was 17. My Dad was just graduating high school. Each of their families were reeling because it was an interracial situation in a dirt poor farming community. They pretty much washed their hands of them financially, and my parents were left to fend for themselves.

I see no reason to believe that my idea of a school system would have excluded me from enjoying the priviledges of an education.

I have no idea what this has to do with anything, to be honest.

ClevelandBronco
10-17-2008, 03:01 PM
I was born to parents who got pregnant in high school. My mom had me when she was 17. My Dad was just graduating high school. Each of their families were reeling because it was an interracial situation in a dirt poor farming community. They pretty much washed their hands of them financially, and my parents were left to fend for themselves.

I see no reason to believe that my idea of a school system would have excluded me from enjoying the priviledges of an education.

I think that maybe their's is a rarer success story than we'd like to see in a situation such as that.

I have great admiration for your parents.

Amnorix
10-17-2008, 03:01 PM
You're right. I am giving them the opportunity to choose to play video games - if that's what they and their parents decide is their best course of action.

I don't have a problem with that. I'm not here to make their choices for them. I'm here to give them the opportunity to choose.


13! You're giving critical life decisions to kids.

Fortunately, I'm pretty confident that only about 1% of the population of America is with you on this one. Even if it's 10%, it's such a tiny minority as to be irrelevant.

Logical
10-17-2008, 03:01 PM
I was born to parents who got pregnant in high school. My mom had me when she was 17. My Dad was just graduating high school. Each of their families were reeling because it was an interracial situation in a dirt poor farming community. They pretty much washed their hands of them financially, and my parents were left to fend for themselves.

I see no reason to believe that my idea of a school system would have excluded me from enjoying the priviledges of an education.Your story is touching, and with a fine result, but I suspect hardly typical for such a situation.

ClevelandBronco
10-17-2008, 03:02 PM
Depending on the state that only applies if the family owned business is a farm. Either way as you say the laws would have to be changed.

I thought the child labor laws were federal, but I'm no expert.

Amnorix
10-17-2008, 03:03 PM
Again, I say, I'm not here to choose careers for these kids. I'm here to free the education system from them so that the kids who choose to better themselves have the maximum amount of opportunity to do so.

You have not answered the simple question of why classes must have geniouses and these wannabe dropouts of yours in the same class.

My school essentially segregated kids based on performance. At first it was assigned, then at some point it became optional with kids choosing what level to be educated at.

Why do you act like the next Einstein would be stuck with the next Forrest Gump in the same class?

And like I said earlier, I don't think the change in compulsory standards will mean a flood of 13 year olds dropping out. In fact, I think it would have the OPPOSITE effect. I think what we'd see is a level of parental involvement that doesn't exist today.

Why? Why in the world would it have that effect?

Taco John
10-17-2008, 03:03 PM
You people have no faith in Americans to make the best choices for themselves.

So we've determined that Americans can't make good decisions for their kids without government intervention, and that unburdening the public school system from the weight of kids who don't want to be there isn't an option.

Just give me my tax credit then.

Taco John
10-17-2008, 03:05 PM
13! You're giving critical life decisions to kids.



NO I'M NOT!

Good God these kids have guardians!

http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/img/facepalm.jpeg

Logical
10-17-2008, 03:07 PM
Again, I say, I'm not here to choose careers for these kids. I'm here to free the education system from them so that the kids who choose to better themselves have the maximum amount of opportunity to do so.

And like I said earlier, I don't think the change in compulsory standards will mean a flood of 13 year olds dropping out. In fact, I think it would have the OPPOSITE effect. I think what we'd see is a level of parental involvement that doesn't exist today.Isaac, I would like to believe you are right but parents who are not involved now IMO won't suddenly decide to become involved. I know that my parents would not have let me drop out, but I would have wanted to at 13, so only by an accident of birth would I have ended up in college and eventually as an engineer. Not sure how I would have turned out if the neighbors parents would have been mine. I don't think that is situation we as a society should allow. By the way I like Rob's idea of a tracked system.

Amnorix
10-17-2008, 03:09 PM
NO I'M NOT!

Good God these kids have guardians!

http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/img/facepalm.jpeg


I like the pic. Very amusing.

I see your point a bit better now, but I wouldn't even let the parents decide. First, they may be cowed by their kids (this happens with frightening frequency). Second, I dont' see why the parents hsould give up on their kids either.

To be honest, society has a strong, vested interest in educating their youth to be capable and productive members of society. I don't believe they achieve that by 8th grade.

Logical
10-17-2008, 03:09 PM
I thought the child labor laws were federal, but I'm no expert.They are the minimum Federally, states can have more restrictive laws, just not less restrictive laws.

RJ
10-17-2008, 03:10 PM
I thought the child labor laws were federal, but I'm no expert.


State by state, I believe.

Amnorix
10-17-2008, 03:11 PM
Isaac, I would like to believe you are right but parents who are not involved now IMO won't suddenly decide to become involved. I know that my parents would not have let me drop out, but I would have wanted to at 13, so only by an accident of birth would I have ended up in college and eventually as an engineer. Not sure how I would have turned out if the neighbors parents would have been mine. I don't think that is situation we as a society should allow. By the way I like Rob's idea of a tracked system.

To be honest, my parents probably WOULD have let me drop out, and 7th and 8th grades are not two years I would want to revisit in my life. 9th was a bit better, but it got much better after that.

Would I have dropped out? Probably not, but maybe. And then I couldn't be the pathetic leech to humanity that I am now...

:D

Logical
10-17-2008, 03:11 PM
By the way I am not at all against vouchers. But they should be in addition to not a subtraction from public school funding.

Taco John
10-17-2008, 03:15 PM
I like the pic. Very amusing.

I see your point a bit better now, but I wouldn't even let the parents decide. First, they may be cowed by their kids (this happens with frightening frequency). Second, I dont' see why the parents hsould give up on their kids either.

To be honest, society has a strong, vested interest in educating their youth to be capable and productive members of society. I don't believe they achieve that by 8th grade.


Society is not a legal entity with rights. Any argument that says "society has an interest" is a flawed argument, because "society" doesn't exist except as a non-definable entity in our minds. What you think of as society does not equal what anyone else thinks of as society. This is why there is no Bill of Rights for society. There is one, however, for individuals. I am unmoved by any arguments that put the non-existant rights of society over the existing rights of an individual.

And you've made it clear that you wouldn't let the parents make decisions over the education status of their children. You've made it clear that you feel that the state knows better than the parents with regards to education. I'm pretty sure that you're even against someone like me, who is eminitely involved with my kids life, to have a tax credit so that I can afford educate my kid up to MY standards, which are much better than state standards.

Looks like my kid gets screwed because people like you think you know what's best for "society."

Amnorix
10-17-2008, 03:16 PM
By the way I am not at all against vouchers. But they should be in addition to not a subtraction from public school funding.

Don't think we can really afford it.

ClevelandBronco
10-17-2008, 03:17 PM
...And like I said earlier, I don't think the change in compulsory standards will mean a flood of 13 year olds dropping out. In fact, I think it would have the OPPOSITE effect. I think what we'd see is a level of parental involvement that doesn't exist today.

You have more faith in the responsibility of challenged parents than I have.

ClevelandBronco
10-17-2008, 03:20 PM
By the way I am not at all against vouchers. But they should be in addition to not a subtraction from public school funding.

Absolutely not. The funding follows the child, not the school.

Amnorix
10-17-2008, 03:22 PM
Society is not a legal entity with rights.

Never said it was. Yet society exists, and by use of that word I'm using it as a shorthand for saying something like "it's in the best interests of most of our citizens..."

Any argument that says "society has an interest" is a flawed argument, because "society" doesn't exist except as a non-definable entity in our minds. What you think of as society does not equal what anyone else thinks of as society. This is why there is no Bill of Rights for society. There is one, however, for individuals. I am unmoved by any arguments that put the non-existant rights of society over the existing rights of an individual.

This is some insane approach that makes no sense. Obviously society, or America, or whatever you want to call the mass of our citizenry, has certain needs, goals, desires, requirements, regardless of what particular term you put on it.

And you've made it clear that you wouldn't let the parents make decisions over the education status of their children. You've made it clear that you feel that the state knows better than the parents with regards to education. I'm pretty sure that you're even against someone like me, who is eminitely involved with my kids life, to have a tax credit so that I can afford educate my kid up to MY standards, which are much better than state standards.

No. YOUR standards are too low compared to what American industry needs. It may be YOUR kid, but your rights regarding your child are not unlimited.

Looks like my kid gets screwed because people like you think you know what's best for "society."

That's rich. First you argue that your kid is going to screw OTHER kid's educations by going to class and slowing them down with his stupidity. Now you argue that I'm "screwing" your kid by making him go to school beyond 8th grade, instead of playing video games.

Try to stick to one irrational line of argument at a time. It's tough to keep up.

BIG_DADDY
10-17-2008, 03:23 PM
Don't think we can really afford it.

No

Just offer a percentage as a tax credit. Best of both worlds. There is no reason to leave all the money we have going into this failing system when students are leaving which they would.

Amnorix
10-17-2008, 03:26 PM
The Constitution of the United States:

"We the people"

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


TJ -- what are "the people"? Functionally, it's society -- it's all the people, both individually and collectively.

Amnorix
10-17-2008, 03:26 PM
PUlling the ripcord. cya.

Logical
10-17-2008, 03:29 PM
Absolutely not. The funding follows the child, not the school.You and I just see things differently. I don't want to see public schools turned into cesspools for the humanity who cannot afford private (vouchers won't cover a private school education) schools.

Taco John
10-17-2008, 03:30 PM
That's rich. First you argue that your kid is going to screw OTHER kid's educations by going to class and slowing them down with his stupidity. Now you argue that I'm "screwing" your kid by making him go to school beyond 8th grade, instead of playing video games.

:spock:

News to me that I made this argument.

ClevelandBronco
10-17-2008, 03:30 PM
Society is not a legal entity with rights. Any argument that says "society has an interest" is a flawed argument, because "society" doesn't exist except as a non-definable entity in our minds. What you think of as society does not equal what anyone else thinks of as society. This is why there is no Bill of Rights for society. There is one, however, for individuals. I am unmoved by any arguments that put the non-existant rights of society over the existing rights of an individual.

And you've made it clear that you wouldn't let the parents make decisions over the education status of their children. You've made it clear that you feel that the state knows better than the parents with regards to education. I'm pretty sure that you're even against someone like me, who is eminitely involved with my kids life, to have a tax credit so that I can afford educate my kid up to MY standards, which are much better than state standards.

Looks like my kid gets screwed because people like you think you know what's best for "society."

You're absolutely correct. "Society" has no Constitutionally defined rights.

But society exists, and I agree with Amnorix that it has interests.

One of those interests is educating youth rather than imprisoning or subsidizing them later.

Logical
10-17-2008, 03:31 PM
Don't think we can really afford it.If we can afford 700 billion to bail out Wall Street we can afford millions to provide vouchers.