SRL Archive - Discussions & Debates

In my opinion, the public education in the United States really sucks. I only went for my freshman year of high school (was homeschooled up until then, now am going to community college instead), but it was the biggest amount of time I have ever completely wasted in my life.

Here's how a normal day would go (We had A day B day schedule. Four classes a day, but twice as long):
-Ride the bus for a half hour to school

-Go to English first hour. The teacher would give us one or two worksheets to begin the class. The work sheets total time took about 20 minutes. We handed the worksheets in, the teacher would do a quick completion grade, and then we would sit there for 1 whole hour while the teacher just sits on his computer playing solitaire. Unless there was a test, then he would give us the test (It's really a 20 question quiz), we finish it in less than a half hour, we sit there while he grades them, and then just sit there doing nothing after.

-Go to Spanish second hour. The teacher gave us all "spanish" names, and every day we had to get in a circle and say everyone else's spanish name. I don't see what was to be gained from that at all… The teacher would hand us a vocab sheet, we would study it for 5 minutes, then play "games". There was battle ship where you had to say the numbers and letters in spanish, and you would have to say "you sunk my ship" in spanish. There were other stupid games like "sparkle" where we all got in a circle and a word would be said, and it would go around the circle with everyone spelling the next letter of it.

-Lunch for a half hour.

-Go to Biology third hour. I am not going to complain about biology because I actually had a good teacher who taught us something.

-Fourth hour go to concert band. I signed up for percussion, which includes the xylophone, snare drum, bass drum, tamberine, vibes, and triangle. The only problem was, each song only used about 3 of the 6 instruments we had in percussion, and we had 12 people in percussion. So I pretty much laid there sleeping on the floor for over an hour until it was my turn to play for 10 or 15 minutes.

-30 minutes of AE (time to do your homework). The only problem was that I already had about 6 hours that day of sitting around to do it already, so it's just nap time again.



So that was my A day. Overall a productive day :rolleyes:



B day:
-Ride the bus for half a hour.

-Go to gym for first hour. Gym class was ok.

-Go to keyboarding for second hour. We are given three 2 minute timings that we have to have done by the end of two weeks, getting at least 40 words per minute for an A. My first try on all 3 timings, I got a 112 WPM, 108 WPM, and a 118 WPM. We also had to do 3 typing exercises every day which took in total 10 to 15 minutes tops. So I was always left over with at least an hour (usually more) per typing class period to do absolutely nothing.

-Go to orientation to technology (drafting). This was an ok class, except for about a class period every week where the people who were ahead (actually doing the work) had to sit there a whole class period helping and just waiting for the other people in the class to catch up.

-Go to math class where our teacher has absolutely no control over the class. Everyone's got their phones out, playing songs on their phones out loud, and just being obnoxious. The teacher spent over half the class period just trying to get control over her class, but our class knows that she wouln't really punish anyone for being stupid. She once threatened to get the detention book out and start writing names and everyone just laughed out loud because they knew she wouldn't do it.





To me, this does not sound like a very "efficient" learning environment. All the politicians say that we need to throw more money at our schools so our kids learn more, but it never helps. The problem is the teachers. Everyone says that teachers are so underpaid (which 45k for 9 months of work with spring break, winter break, all holidays…etc. off isn't bad), but I don't believe that. I think that good teachers are underpaid.

The first of 10 principles of economics states that people respond to incentives. If there is no incentive to do a good job, then most wouldn't. This is the problem with government run jobs and unions. The teachers have a contract guaranteeing them a job no matter how bad they are at teaching. They also have a set pay, so it doesn't matter if they are the best teachers in the world or the worst, they still make as much as the guy next to them. This is why communism fails: no incentive to do a good job. We actually have a teacher at our school that was so bad, they took her out of her classroom teaching and now she pretty much does nothing, but gets paid because she's "under contract". It's ridiculous.

Since government will never make the pay scale unequal for taechers, I think that either:

A) The government run education system should be completely removed. This would save people many thousands of dollars a year that could be used to send their kids to private school. Not only that, but then when your kids aren't in school anymore, you would still save money because right now you pay for other people's children to go to school for the rest of your life, even if you don't have any kids.

Good private schools don't have that all teachers get paid equal even if you suck crap, and they don't have to be guarenteed the job for 20 years. This will force teachers to actually try to teach kids something so they don't lose their job, or so they get higher pay. When there's an incentive to do better, people will do better.



B) Give people who are sending their kids to private schools/homeschooling their tax money back that's going towards the public education system. If I'm not being sent there, why should my parents have to pay for it? If a kid is sent to private school right now, it's obviously a huge amount of money because it's like you are paying for your kid to go to 2 different schools when they are only using 1.




Anyways, I just wanted to hear some other people's thoughts on this. There's no reason for our education system not to be #1 in the world (which it isn't even close now). Government is the most inefficient run business in the U.S., whether it be run by democrat OR republican. I don't think that the most inefficient business of this country should be running the education system, but that's just my opinion.

Edit: Wow, I just realized how long this post was… Sorry :p

well its better than chinas educational sysytem in my terms (i hav e a really short attention span and get bored really easily and if im bored with something i just wont do it)

they go to school for like 18 hours

My schooling was great. They offered lots of upper level classes, including many AP. Every class that I took engaged my mind, and really prepared me for college. I'm so glad I took an upper level math, and an upper level chemistry in high school. AP Bio was a blast, but didn't help me much in college except the 3 credits I got. English was fun, I became a much better writer because of that class.

you may see it like this, however

1. Bad teachers are fired, you might not belive this, but they are.

2. I dont know about age/ class's in america, but over here we have a certain year which isent important tbh, and teachers are too busy with the gcse students and college ones.

3. teachers go into teaching, not for the money, but to help. there is not one teacher i know which could not be doing a higher payed job, as the absoulte vast majority are infact smart, but arnt looking for cash, but to help people.

4. if this fails, it may just be your suck ars school.

From: jakeyboy29
you may see it like this, however

1. Bad teachers are fired, you might not belive this, but they are.

Not here, I had to take an AP Computer Science class from a teacher that read verbatim off of his clipboard and the powerpoints he downloaded from the internet. He also teaches Algebra I, and is the reason ~100 kids won't go on to geometry each year.

From: jakeyboy29
3. teachers go into teaching, not for the money, but to help. there is not one teacher i know which could not be doing a higher payed job, as the absoulte vast majority are infact smart, but arnt looking for cash, but to help people.

I wish that was true here =\

The only significantly good teacher was originally a substitute for my Trig/Analyt class when the teacher's wife had cancer, but because all the kids liked him he stayed for an extra year to teach normally. He got stuck teaching 1 AP Calculus class and 4 Geometry classes though, and only the calc class had over half the kids pass.

If you guys think that high school teachers suck… wait till you hit some of the college professors. Many are great, some are idiots. You'll be begging for the teacher to read verbatim off his clip board…

From: jakeyboy29
you may see it like this, however

1. Bad teachers are fired, you might not belive this, but they are.

Well, because of the teachers unions they have to be REALLY bad. it took years for the worst teacher i ever had to get fired. heres how it went in coach scotts american government honors class…

We start the day by doing nothing, if someone brought in a movie we could watch it. Ever watched super troopers in high school? Well i have! That was about everyday. The only days we ever did anything were days when he was being audited. Our test were probably the best thing about that class. He had a word doc with all the questions and answers and he would put it on the projector so it looked like we were doing something. He would flip the mouse wheel round and round and everyone would whip out their cell phones and digital cameras and take pictures. We would then all collaborate and get all the questions and answers. Then on test day, there wasnt even a no talking policy, so it didnt matter. He wasnt fired until 2 years after i graduated, and he had been there for i thinkg 6 or 7 years prior…

the public school system is a joke, instead of wasting the 10k they spend to send your student to their crap school, if there was a stipend per student then you could move your kids to private institutions that would do a much better job as far as education goes. Make the education system a capitalist business, the bad schools will lose students then fail, while good schools will prosper.

I was so far ahead when i made the transition from private to public school. i was in algebra II freshman year… and thats not saying much.

From: jakeyboy29
1. Bad teachers are fired, you might not belive this, but they are.

I don't know about where you are, but in the US, it doesn't work like that.

From: jakeyboy29
3. teachers go into teaching, not for the money, but to help. there is not one teacher i know which could not be doing a higher payed job, as the absoulte vast majority are infact smart, but arnt looking for cash, but to help people.

No, that's not always the case. I had a teacher this year (computer applications class) who would just sit at his computer all day and read gossip and CNN. When the exams came, almost everybody scored below a 50%. I scored the highest (by far) with a 78%. So what'd he do? He curves all the grades to above passing.

He didn't get his job because he wanted to teach, he got it because the government had a "soldiers to teachers" program that would give free schooling to former soldiers for free. He figured it'd be an easy job and that he wouldn't have to do anything. He was right, and he's been "teaching" for 10 years.


The schools all need to be privatized if they are to be run efficiently.

Wow, your school sounds rather suckish. This year, English ill admit was somewhat similar. Spanish we actually did a lot, though im in spanish 4 so, it was a lot more than freshman year. Bio, same as you, and math we got a lot done. Overall, it was a lot less of a waste of my time than yours if that makes you feel any better.

EDIT: even in my CAD class, where the teacher was learning CAD as he was teaching us wasnt a waste. I got a lot done despite having to take tests every once in a while that only me and a few others seemed to pass. (Even though we greaded out own tests and could change the answers all we wanted.)

100% like my high school schedule.

From: bullzeye95
When the exams came, almost everybody scored below a 50%. I scored the highest (by far) with a 78%. So what'd he do? He curves all the grades to above passing.

Might be surprising, but this the norm in college. Well, the curve part isn't the norm, but most people sucking hard on tests is the norm. If you're very LUCKY, you'll get a curve like this. But almost all teachers will do some kind of curve of shift.

From: Brain
Might be surprising, but this the norm in college. Well, the curve part isn't the norm, but most people sucking hard on tests is the norm. If you're very LUCKY, you'll get a curve like this. But almost all teachers will do some kind of curve of shift.

But the reason for the scores isn't the same. The guy never taught anything that he was supposed to. The reason the scores weren't lower is because the class itself isn't too hard, and the questions were relatively easy to figure out. In college, I assume that the questions are pretty challenging.

sorry bullz, same way in many college classes, the teacher rants about his life, while the test is over the book. So better get used to the idea of actually reading college texts books.

My school is supposed to be amazing!!!
but it really isnt
We pay about £4000 a term
Some teachers are good :)
My maths teacher has really helped me this year.
I love sports and so I have aced it all years.
But teachers at my school take grudges on pupils and so it ruins the pupils courage (dont know if that the right word)
This year i got 18% on my History end of year exam.
I'm not doing it next year, but still.
My history teacher is a fat lump that puts on DVD's every lesson and doesnt teach us anything.
Its not that I care about History but what do I tell my mum!?
I don't think teachers are getting paid enough, especially the good ones, they have the futures generation in their hands and so the government should pay them more IMO.

T~M

From: The Man
My school is supposed to be amazing!!!
but it really isnt
We pay about £4000 a term
Some teachers are good :)
My maths teacher has really helped me this year.
I love sports and so I have aced it all years.
But teachers at my school take grudges on pupils and so it ruins the pupils courage (dont know if that the right word)
This year i got 18% on my History end of year exam.
I'm not doing it next year, but still.
My history teacher is a fat lump that puts on DVD's every lesson and doesnt teach us anything.
Its not that I care about History but what do I tell my mum!?
I don't think teachers are getting paid enough, especially the good ones, they have the futures generation in their hands and so the government should pay them more IMO.

T~M

I'm confused.. you just said that your teacher didn't teach you anything, but then you said that he should be paid more?

@Brain, at least you have text books.. all I had was bunny invasion 2 :'<

I had to buy the text books….at least $100, $175 average, $250 for physics and math….

EDIT: and I think he means if they are paid more they'll care more and do better teaching?

Surprise, public education is bullshit. That is what happens when you have horrible teachers, unfocused material and to many people per classroom. When I have children I plan on home schooling them and sending them to public school, so they can have a better education and have the social interaction.

Here is how my usual day in Grade 10 went.

Arrive at school and my first class is English. Our teacher liked giving us a bunch load of projects for some god damn reason I can not be sure, but like every other project you are given to much time for what it really is.

Gym? Meh, you do a game for an hour can not really complain.

Life Skills? I honestly do not even know what the hell happened in this class. I left that class with nothing as far as life skills go. Oh well that is a lie, I found out how to budget :rolleyes:

Then we would have the option slot, can not complain here either because it was art and there was always something creative to do.

Then we had english again.

And that was my second semester. My first semester involved Science, Math, computer science and geography. Science was bullshit our teacher sucked took us a hour to go over around 15 bullet points of information. She could not figure out why most of us talked, I sincerely believe the best time in the class was when we got a substitute and we really only did take 10 minutes of class to go through the information that was usually going to take a hour. Math I can not complain because our teacher was awesome and every day we were given new stuff with the second class of the day for practicing what we learned earlier. Geography was a waste of a time, it was your almost usual geography except for the fact we didn't have to colour a single map. And computer science was some bs aswell in that all we did was follow printed out tutorials, that was the slackest class I have ever, ever been in.

Hopefully next year will be better because stuff becomes more focused. I picked Biology, Chemistry and Physics. At least those are subjects I enjoy. I just hope I do not get some teacher that should be off the payroll.

Funny story really, my science teacher retired right after teaching us. We were the last people to ever be taught by her.

From: Brain
I had to buy the text books….at least $100, $175 average, $250 for physics and math….

EDIT: and I think he means if they are paid more they'll care more and do better teaching?

Yeh that what I mean basically.
Maybe if they aren't doing there job and getting good grades in their classes then they get fired or put on warning.

T~M

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8127085.stm
what a coincidinkle :p

T~M

From: jakeyboy29
you may see it like this, however

1. Bad teachers are fired, you might not belive this, but they are.

2. I dont know about age/ class's in america, but over here we have a certain year which isent important tbh, and teachers are too busy with the gcse students and college ones.

3. teachers go into teaching, not for the money, but to help. there is not one teacher i know which could not be doing a higher payed job, as the absoulte vast majority are infact smart, but arnt looking for cash, but to help people.

4. if this fails, it may just be your suck ars school.

As said already, bad teachers are very hard to fire because of the teachers unions. And I go to a very nice school with tons of money and crap we don't need. All we need is better teachers.

And you said that teachers were smart. I just wanted to share a few posts from Tarajunky in another thread:

Yeah, it's a mess. My friend was talking to a lady that worked as a high school science teacher. She was the only teacher in the high school that had passed the competency exams. All the other teachers took the exams 4 times and failed 4 times. Do you think they lost their jobs? Of course not. They were kept on as "permanent substitute teachers". They kept the same salary, and taught the same subjects. The only downside was that they lose their health insurance plan. For any teacher that can get health insurance through their spouse's work, there's no downside at all. If we implemented universal health insurance in the US, there would never be any downside.

I looked at the pay scales last month. A college graduate earns $40,000, someone with a Master degree earns $42,000, and someone with a PhD earns $44,000. So, the difference between someone with a generic teaching degree with no competency in teaching science earns $4,000 less than someone with a doctorate in the field they're teaching.

Yeah, that makes sense…

To get back to the socialized education system, here's another glaring failure…

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-me-te...tory?track=rss

"L.A. schools pay teachers millions not to teach…"

"The housed are accused, among other things, of sexual contact with students, harassment, theft or drug possession. Nearly all are being paid. All told, they collect about $10 million in salaries per year – even as the district is contemplating widespread layoffs of teachers because of a financial shortfall."

…

"In New York City public schools, which make up the country's largest district, teachers are confined to "rubber rooms." About 550 of the district's 80,000 teachers spend school hours "literally just doing crossword puzzles, waiting for the end of the day" until their cases are resolved, spokeswoman Ann Forte said. Some have been there for years."


"It's a glaring example of how hard it is to remove someone from the classroom and how the process is tilted toward teachers," said school board member Marlene Canter, who recently proposed – unsuccessfully – to revamp the disciplinary process."

Unions + government = epic socialist fail.

I saw this headline today and it reminded me of this thread.

http://www.wpri.com/dpp/news/local_n...n_math20090519

"Aspiring school teachers fail in math
Only 27 percent of the teaching candidates pass"

Ugh.

So there are a few teachers who aren't extremely smart.

From: bullzeye95
I don't know about where you are, but in the US, it doesn't work like that.

No, that's not always the case. I had a teacher this year (computer applications class) who would just sit at his computer all day and read gossip and CNN. When the exams came, almost everybody scored below a 50%. I scored the highest (by far) with a 78%. So what'd he do? He curves all the grades to above passing.

He didn't get his job because he wanted to teach, he got it because the government had a "soldiers to teachers" program that would give free schooling to former soldiers for free. He figured it'd be an easy job and that he wouldn't have to do anything. He was right, and he's been "teaching" for 10 years.


The schools all need to be privatized if they are to be run efficiently.

Same with my English teacher who did nothing all day. On the final exam, me and one other person got a B, and everyone else was a D or failed. He curved the test so much I ended up getting over 110% on the final exam. He didn't tell us what to study or review with us at all (although I went home to study), he just pretty much said good luck and the last few days of that class we sat there doing NOTHING. He just sat on his computer.

And +1 to schools being privatized to be run efficiently. Businesses will make sure you get a good education because you are paying for it. Government doesn't care either way because they get your money either way.

From: Brain
I had to buy the text books….at least $100, $175 average, $250 for physics and math….

EDIT: and I think he means if they are paid more they'll care more and do better teaching?

@some of your comments above brain, I also go to college (community college) and I can tell you that it is much better than high school; at least from the teachers I've had. If you follow along with the chapters in the text book and pay attention to the lectures (I had rarely seen lectures in high school, so I was excited), you will learn a lot.

At what The Man said about paying teachers more so they care more, this will not work under current conditions. You are referring to the "efficiency wage theory". Ford is a good example of a company that did this a while back. They had something called the "$5 day", when the equilibrium wage was only about $2.50 a day. They told their workers though that they were going to need to work very hard or they would be fired, and they increased productivity by a much higher amount then what it cost them. This worked because if they didn't do a good job, they would lose their job.

In the public education system, we could give the teachers $200k a year, and few teachers would actually work much harder. Why would they work harder? They make the same amount of money either way, and they keep their job either way. So where's the incentive to work harder?

I dont actualy know alot about this, but i think canada has a ministry of education that makes "laws" for all the canadian schools of what has to happen and what has to be taught. There are still bad teachers and teachers who dont teach anything but this way, theres somone you can go to and get a teacher fired if they arnt doing there job.

Does USA have something like that to?

What is this public education you speak of? I only know of this public babysitting thing… Supposedly, doing it keeps you off drugs. What good is that?

From: lancerawks
I dont actualy know alot about this, but i think canada has a ministry of education that makes "laws" for all the canadian schools of what has to happen and what has to be taught. There are still bad teachers and teachers who dont teach anything but this way, theres somone you can go to and get a teacher fired if they arnt doing there job.

Does USA have something like that to?

yea they do, but when the teachers get audited, all they have to do is teach for a week, and then when the auditing is over they can just do what they want again. Eventually they will get fired, but the teachers unions make that very hard

From: R0b0t1
What is this public education you speak of? I only know of this public babysitting thing… Supposedly, doing it keeps you off drugs. What good is that?

That's pretty much all the education system is today. A free government run baby sitting service. Why is full time at college only 12 hours in class a week, and we learn 20 times more?

For a few of my math classes in the winter, we did "arts and crafts". We cut out snow flakes for 90 minutes to learn about symmetry. I thought I was in the wrong school (kindergarten or preschool).

I have noticed this problem with a lot of larger schools. I mean I came from a school in a town with 2000 people in it. It was a massive brand new school built in 1998 (the high school anyways, middle school in 1974?, and elementary in the 40s)

When I was in High School we had pretty much all really good teachers. I mean there were 1 or 2 bum teachers (my sophomore biology = verbatim power points and sitting around talking) but otherwise almost every single one of my other teachers was incredibly smart on his/her subjects.

My sophomore Geometry teacher was a genius, you asked him anything serious and he knew the answer to it. He could quote any movie you asked (besides the newer movies) and he was a mathematical genius.

Our history classes were the same way, awesome teachers that knew what they were doing and did it well. My only history class complaint was that my Junior History class teacher was incredibly biased and only knew his side of things.

Science was by far the worst department. We would do useless things in those classes and most of it the teachers couldn't even remember what they were doing, although we were kept busy, it was just a bunch of really repetitive stuff over and over again.

Personally, I hate english classes usually, I can't stand "old english" or written documentaries on old world topics. My freshman and junior class teacher (same teacher for both) was an incredible older lady that knew anything you wanted to know, and you could laugh with her on anything. Not saying the class was always the most productive, but we got what we needed done.

Our music teacher in high school was incredible. He was a young guy (26 or 27) and he was a musical genius. He could play anything by ear, play any instrument, fix anything, and was incredibly awesome at the same time. Personally, I think he wasn't the greatest teacher of sorts. He was a musical genius, but I don't think he knew quite how to pass the ball on to his students fully yet. (He only started teaching my freshman year)

My school was quite well funded, the teachers were actually quite underpaid, but they loved there job. People say that our school was a more strict school and that we did more than others. We did offer more than most schools, although our technology dept was lacking entirely. I think I just lucked out with a very good school with the small town school aspect behind it.

From: R0b0t1
What is this public education you speak of? I only know of this public babysitting thing… Supposedly, doing it keeps you off drugs. What good is that?

public "education" can suck it.

From: Ruroken
public "education" can suck it.

Amen to that.

ha this is so true, although there is a few exceptions.

From: candytheif
ha this is so true, although there is a few exceptions.

*there are

You must go to a public school :p

I have actually never attended public school. I went to kindergarten, and pre-k at a private school. My older brother went to public school until 4th grade, because of public school he does not know how to spell or phonics worth a shit. My brother was an honor student, and always got good grades, he didnt goof around in school, he did what he was supposed to do and they didnt teach him worth a shit. From 4th grade to 6th he attended the same private school that I did. There was a bit of a learning curve for him, but he was a smart kid, so it wasnt long before he was doing very well there as well and actually learning something, but he would miss the easy things because he didnt know the basics. From 7th grade on he was Homeschooled.

My Mom, is an extremely smart woman, she has two masters degrees, was in the army for 13 years, was a supervisor for men who were her same age and experience. She was in a nursing feild but actually helped to run a business. She asked for a discharge when she married my Dad, because they wanted to move her but my Dad couldnt leave the area (He was working for a development company known as BlueGreen, he is a Broker) and they didnt want to be apart mostly because they were trying to make me. After the army she worked for a Medica-oriented company (I cannot recall the name right now) and was getting payed a lot of money a year plus benefits, then sensed the company was getting into some trouble and she bailed (There were also some private reasons, one was to homeschool my brother and I). Now she does a medical Triage over the phone, where she deals with 40+ a day who call with medical problems, she helps to treat the symptoms and tells them whether or not to go to the emergency room. Point being, my mom is smart.

She used to homeschool us, we would have a lot of fun, but we also learned a lot, you would be surprised how much a kid can learn in a day, I would wake up at 6 am (By choice), and be done with all of my school by 9 or 10. Now I go to a "Class Day" which once a week people organize teachers who are essentially tutors because of how small the classes are. We goof around, have fun, the teachers tell life stories that have nothing to do with what we need to do, but the way they teach give us enough time to do that (In a good way obviously) and if we didnt learn something specific they will give us homework to finish before the next week, books to read, math problems to do, ect. One of the kids going there, is getting into a Catholic private school, who 80% of its graduates get full college rides, it isnt easy to get into. A lot of these families that go arent rich, at all, in fact one of my best friends families is pretty poor and they can afford doing it, it is inexpensive, you learn self reliance, get social interaction, now sadly I doubt this will be a viable alternative for many because of lack of respect/caring about education. But for those who do care, it would be great, also leaving pretty much every day of the week free (If you do it right).

Anyway, im rambling, just my musings, the teachers love the students and the students love the teachers, they have a mutual respect for each other and actually learn. If there wasnt a good teacher there, they wouldnt be asked to teach again, and essentially be fired. So the teachers do a good job, and are very well liked. The privatization of schools may be hard to do, but I suppose hardship families could get some kind of subsidization. Okay im really done now :P

yes, students critising teachers is nothing new…


perhaps you'd like to hear my personal experiances.

Around 12 years ago, a political party called New Labour won the electon here in the UK, it set about implementing a delicious mix of capitalism and socialism.

That is, it vastly expanded the banking sector in The City (like a British Wall Street)
It deregulated and allowed bankers to run free in their ways to create massive wealth.
It also put heavy taxes on that wealth.

These taxes were spent mostly on public eduation and health. Now I cant speak for the health sector because I dont work there and I've stayed out of hospital in the past 10 years.

But I can speak for education.
The schools benefitted massivly from the government investment, not only did we have awesome new facilities, we also attracted some of the top talent.

Obviously, if a maths graduate wanted to make money, he or she would become a banker in The City. But if they wanted a nice mix between their subject and money then teaching was for them.
There were also large advertising campaigns to get people to become teachers.

In fact I remember one of my maths teachers used to be an accountant, and then some military person that calculated where artillary shells would land before becoming a teacher.

It would be the equivalent of a person who graduated Harvard or Yale choosing to teach in a school.


Also, its no coincidence that the National Union of Teachers (N.U.T.) is one of the best funded, best organised and most successful unions in the UK.


What happened to the bankers? Well dispite the taxation, they still had enough money to buy supercars, rare works of art and nice houses. But of course I dont know for sure since I wasnt a banker who was around then.

Also, the deregulation of banks caused the recession and almost everyone in the UK is blaming it on New Labour, who look very likely they are going to lose the next election. Ah well, it was good while it lasted.


In short, the wealth of capitalism was used for socialist purposes.

Of course, I could have made a great misunderstanding, since I'm not a member of the government or in any position to understand this properly, I just did some research and this is how I understand it.




I've seen a lot of you talk about things like "the government are just trying to throw money at the schools". You strongly suggest that this investment or "throwing money" isnt going to work and I really dont see why, it worked for me.

I think you problem in America is that you take the ideals of capitalism too deeply to heart.

According to that, if someone goes to public school in America, it means their parents cant afford private school or homeschooling, that means they didnt work hard or were lazy. In other words, if you're poor, its your own fault.

If a childs parents are drunkards or drug addicts, I feel it is societies duty to take them away and put them in foster care or something similar, after all, why should that child suffer through no fault of their own?
But its the same story with American public schools, a child is being punished for the actions or inactions of their parents, when it should be societys duty to see that all children get a decent education.

Of course I could understand that if it happened in a third world country somewhere in Africa, but it hasnt, its happened in the United Stated, the land of opportunity.


I'm sorry to say this JAD, but I think your bad public schools are a direct result of you embracing capitalism, it has the given you the attitude that you wont help those less fortunate then yourself. You can have your cake and eat it too.

From: Yakman
I'm sorry to say this JAD, but I think your bad public schools are a direct result of you embracing capitalism, it has the given you the attitude that you wont help those less fortunate then yourself. You can have your cake and eat it too.

I was going to reply to your whole post, but I think it would get us too far off topic, so I will reply to this part, which is what I disagree with most. You say that bad public schools are because of capitalism, when pure, laissez-faire capitalism would never allow a publicly paid for schooling system. It has not given people the attitude that they won't help those less fortunate than themselves; it was given people the knowledge that they are forced to help those less fortunate than themselves. You also say that like helping people that are less fortunate than you is one of the best things you can do, and that it is your duty. I don't agree, especially when I am forced to help them under penalty of law. I'm not sure what you're trying to say in your last sentence.. no matter how selfish you are, you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Yakman,

You say that it worked for you in the UK giving more money to the schools to better education. That's great; it's not working here. Our schools have tons of money and I go to a very nice building with very nice stuff to learn with. If the teachers make us sit in a class room and do nothing though, it doesn't matter how much money the government gave us.

Teachers need to gain something by working hard and teaching their students well. That is capitalism. Do teachers gain something by teaching us well now? No, it doesn't matter if they are great or bad, they still keep their job and don't make any less/more because of it. That is not capitalist, that is communist. Our public education system does not represent capitalist ideas well at all because in a capitalist job, the harder you work, the more money you make, and then the harder you want to work.

I think our bad school systems is a direct result of us NOT embracing capitalism, because we have yet to do that. It is a direct result of embracing communism. This has nothing to do with not wanting to help those "less fortunate" then me. I myself am not fortunate enough right now to go to a private school. If the public schools were better at teaching, wouldn't that be better for everyone?

bullzeye95

first off i never said, implied or hinted that America was pure, laissez-faire capitalism. Instead, i merely hinted that many people are trying to make it as close to one as possible.

Also, something being your duty doesnt mean you have to enjoy it.
For instance if someone has a cardiac arrest in front of you, most people would feel that it is their duty to start CPR and the kiss of life, but if the dude's mouth smells like cigarrette smoke and if he recently vomitted then it will probably be really disgusting to you.
Likewise if your country is attacked by a foregn army, most people would feel it is their duty to join their national army if it needs them, never mind the true horrors of war that would make them hate the experiance. But it would be their duty, no matter how much they hated it.


I have a hunch at whats happened in America. You started off with enough taxes to properly fund schools, but then the attitude of people forced politicians to lower taxes, so there was not enough money left.

For me at least, I would blame that attitude that the people had which made them demand lower taxes

Its a very difficult problem to solve. I cant think a very good solution except perhaps this one, if it was me I would somehow go about trying to convince people that their attitude is wrong, which would allow me to give schools enough funding. Now this counts as cultural colonialism, so of course its by no means perfect.
Like I said, a very difficult problem to solve for people that share my view.


JAD

first off you cant equate the UK system with the US one just like that. Even noting that New Labour is a left-leaning party and the American Republican party leans to the right is enough to arouse suspicions.

next, it seems the schools dont have enough money, or they are not spending it properly if they are not attracting enough talent to teach.

teachers do gain something by teaching well, if their students do badly they will lose their job (at least in the UK its like this)

e.g. your class had a 30% pass rate this year, while your fellow chemistry teachers class had 70% pass rate. you're fired!

No amount of crying to their union will save a teacher in that occasion.

But of course, there is no point firing someone if there is noone to take their place, and I suspect this is what may have happened in America.
You're not attracting enough talent, thats why you cant get rid of bad teachers, because theres noone to take their place.


Another thing teachers have to gain by being good is that their job will become easier.
If students are intrested in the subject, they will be easy to control.
If students are bored, they will talk in class, throw paper areoplanes around, whatever, I'm sure you've seen it. They will make a teacher's life living hell.

Students arent stupid, if you're a bad teacher, you will know about it.

If you cant make your subject intresting to students then teaching isnt for you and you're not the right kind of talent we're looking for.


Dont get me wrong, I agree with using invisible-hand like techniques to make teachers work, but that only works properly when there are many other unemployed teachers willing to take your place. That can only happen if you attract talent into teaching. You can attract talent by paying them lots, to fund that you can use capitalism to create loads of wealth, then use socialism to get that wealth where its needed.



For amusement reasons only, I actually found the older UK recruitment advertisments that they showed on TV. They also point out that teaching is more intresting then other jobs, which i had totally forgotten. Also it shows they actually paid you to train as a teacher, which I'd also forgotten. They're quite cheesy in a way and pretty annoying, but they worked, they're adverts, not hollywood movies…

(these videos last 40 seconds each)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGAYII6OhYw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbJ3VmCKhAM

Just out of intrest, were similar adverts ever shown on American television?

Yakman, you misunderstood me. I meant that pure, laissez-fair capitalism wouldn't allow for publicly funded schools. I was not implying that the US is anywhere near pure capitalism. Therefore, embracing of capitalism would not result in bad schools, it would result in private schools.

About duties, I think you said it yourself: a person has no automatic duty to help other people; they enforce the duty upon themselves, and make themselves believe that they must do it or they are a bad person. A person (like me) who has no self-interest in helping others will not do it. I don't believe that it is my duty to pay for someone else's kid to go to school. If the kid's parents can afford to send him/her to school, then great. If not, too bad, not everyone needs an education.

First, let me say that teachers have to generally try to be liked, or else parents will call in, complain, and the teacher will probably be fired because the teacher isn't facilitating the kids. *rolls eyes*

Most of the education system up until 11th grade, as far as I know, is just BS.

In 10th grade, my only two "challenging" courses were Pre-Calc and AP Comp Sci A. In 11th grade, I will take Database management, which is a dual-enrollment course (with a college) and gets me certified as a database manager at the end of the year. I will also take Web Technologies, which is also dual-enrollment, and makes me a certified webmaster. All certifications are nationally recognised.

I will also take AP Computer Science AB (semester 2 of college-level Java) which gives me the remainder of the required knowledge to become Java certified.

Finally, I will take college-level Calculus; semester 1, to be exact.

…Which is a heck of a lot better than Pre-Calc and Semester 1 of college-level Java in 10th grade.

Honestly, I home-school myself a lot in the subjects I like. The courses in school go far too slow for me because they have to facilitate the slow students with those who can pick up on a subject in a very short amount of time.

Of course your freshman year in HS is going to be easy; it's easy for near everyone who tries. Look for challenging courses, and get in a good club (robotics has taught me A LOT about programming in the real world, working with time constraints, etc. Also requires over 20 hours/week), and it may improve for you. ;)

~Macro_FTW

From: Yakman
next, it seems the schools dont have enough money, or they are not spending it properly if they are not attracting enough talent to teach.

Does the government in the US ever spend money properly? I don't know much about the UK's government, but in the US the government is EXTREMELY inefficient with their money. The schools HAVE to spend all of the money they receive by a certain time if they want to get extra money from the government the following year, so they end up spending it on stupid stuff that we don't even need just to get rid of it.

teachers do gain something by teaching well, if their students do badly they will lose their job (at least in the UK its like this)

I really think that our socialist programs are run extremely poorly in the US, because government is run very poorly. If you read my school schedule in the first post, all of the bad teachers I described actually were not new teachers. Most have been teaching there at least 7-15 years, some more.

e.g. your class had a 30% pass rate this year, while your fellow chemistry teachers class had 70% pass rate. you're fired!

No amount of crying to their union will save a teacher in that occasion.

I really think that you would be shocked to go to one of our schools yakman. The UK is higher up on the charts with their public education system than the US as far as I know. Our math program alone is like 45th+ in the world. It's awful. I took Algebra 2 my freshman year and was there with a bunch of juniors and seniors, some sophomores, and 1 other freshman. Everyone was doing awful in the class, so my teacher had us do group tests with 4 people in each group. Then if we still did bad, she would hand the same tests back after grading them and let us try again at the questions we got wrong! Half the questions we got wrong even had corrections next to them by the teacher. So everyone "passed" because the teacher made sure of it; not by teaching better, but pretty much by just changing the grade.

But of course, there is no point firing someone if there is noone to take their place, and I suspect this is what may have happened in America.
You're not attracting enough talent, thats why you cant get rid of bad teachers, because theres noone to take their place.

I guess this may be true, although I actually think that teachers do just fine financially. They get a pretty much guarenteed job contract for 20 years, make 45k+ for nine months of work with many long weekends and breaks inbetween, get a pension after 20 years for retirement, and get health care benefits and all that. Doesn't sound too bad to me.

Another thing teachers have to gain by being good is that their job will become easier.
If students are intrested in the subject, they will be easy to control.
If students are bored, they will talk in class, throw paper areoplanes around, whatever, I'm sure you've seen it. They will make a teacher's life living hell.

I see what you are saying here, but trust me, most teachers do not look at it that way here.



You actually do make some good points though Yakman. If the government spent their money more wisely to try to attract a bigger pool of teachers, and bad teachers got fired, then our education system would be better off, although I still do believe in private schooling as the ultimate solution. If we all went to private schools, then the top private schools would be paying teachers more money and there would be a bigger supply of teachers and a higher quality.

From: Macro_FTW
First, let me say that teachers have to generally try to be liked, or else parents will call in, complain, and the teacher will probably be fired because the teacher isn't facilitating the kids. *rolls eyes*

There is a huge difference between teachers being liked and teachers teaching well. Most students like teachers that don't make them do anything, and most will not complain about it.

From: JAD
Yakman,

You say that it worked for you in the UK giving more money to the schools to better education. That's great; it's not working here. Our schools have tons of money and I go to a very nice building with very nice stuff to learn with. If the teachers make us sit in a class room and do nothing though, it doesn't matter how much money the government gave us.

Teachers need to gain something by working hard and teaching their students well. That is capitalism. Do teachers gain something by teaching us well now? No, it doesn't matter if they are great or bad, they still keep their job and don't make any less/more because of it. That is not capitalist, that is communist. Our public education system does not represent capitalist ideas well at all because in a capitalist job, the harder you work, the more money you make, and then the harder you want to work.

I think our bad school systems is a direct result of us NOT embracing capitalism, because we have yet to do that. It is a direct result of embracing communism. This has nothing to do with not wanting to help those "less fortunate" then me. I myself am not fortunate enough right now to go to a private school. If the public schools were better at teaching, wouldn't that be better for everyone?

Now I see a lot of people throwing around a number of 45k per year for teaching a High School class. Now I personally know 2 teachers, a math teacher, and a music teacher. I have known them for quite a long time and they both have quoted me quite less, a 25k-30k range. Now as I was stating in my other post, I had a really good High school and I was taught a lot. Not saying it was the greatest I could of had, but compared to what I am reading in other places around the thread, I am realizing that it was quite, quite good. We have a nice building for the High School, the middle school is getting a bit used yes, it's a 30+ year old building, and the elementary school is had it's better days. (70+ years)

Pretty much from what I had learned from my middle school teachers was that they were going to teach, but only teach to the class once. The few times that I tried going for help on something most of them just quoted a page in a book or a worksheet, not really helping you understand any concepts. Not saying this is a bad idea to teach by in certain circumstances, but not all the time.

I think people are becoming teachers because they couldn't get into a more advanced field, or just found it easy. People don't have the ambition to love to teach or just grow up with the idea that they want to teach. Yes, some do, but where do they go? Most likely in a higher field so they can make more money. People don't like to make sacrifices, and definitely not any sacrifices in the money area.

I guess that is my two cents for now.

My Apush teachers told the students the problems with the public education system is that the kids are not learning what they are supposed to, as a result they get behind. The whole role of a PUBLIC education system is to give everyone the same advantage in the racetrack of life.

quote from the teacher, more or less:
"The public education system failed because it encourages kids to learn skills to take advantage of opportunities created by others, rather to learn what is needed to become opportunity-creators."

I agreed with what he said, I thought it was very insightful, but I guess that's why he has a pHD.


30 years ago, the counselors recommended girls to take dictation classes to become secretary. By the time these girls came out of high school, computer and typewriters came out.

The same counselors told boys that they can work as a mechanic for GM in the 1980, instead of learning math and doubleE to design better more efficient cars.

Edit: after 20 years, they close to 100K in Michigan

JAD, that is pretty sad, I'm afriad I'm out of ideas and i dont know how to help. :(

but with privatised education, I think the objection to that is the thought at what would happen to those people who cant afford it.
you yourself have said that due to personal circumstances you cant go to private school or homeschool. If all schools were privatised tomorrow what would you do tomorrow?

If you want to think of it in terms of invisible hands, you could say that private schools highest priority is profit and not children's learning. Today they all have to provide good learning because they have to compete with public schools which have the massive advantage of not caring about profit, but what happens if they are all privatised and theres no more public schools to compete with?

From: Mr.Klean
Now I see a lot of people throwing around a number of 45k per year for teaching a High School class. Now I personally know 2 teachers, a math teacher, and a music teacher. I have known them for quite a long time and they both have quoted me quite less, a 25k-30k range.

I think it really really depends on how much education the teacher has and how good of a teacher they are. Two past teachers I had, one was math and the other art both made extraordinary amounts of money for teaching high school. However my math teacher used to teach university stuff, hes a great guy and one of the few math teachers I enjoyed, and my art teacher well all I know is he is awesome. Anyway I know for a fact that that math teacher was making around 70 thousand a year and I am quite confident my art teacher was near there too. But this is Canada.

Teachers’ salaries depend on their location, level of education, and the number of years they’ve been teaching. For example, those just starting their career with a Bachelor of Education degree can earn between $30,000 and $45,000 a year. On the other hand, a teacher with a master’s degree and 10 years of experience can earn $80,000 or more a year. Those in senior administrative positions, like principal or vice-principal, can earn even more.

The average salary for high school teachers in Canada is approximately $57,000 a year.

Teachers are very, very well off.

From: Yakman
JAD, that is pretty sad, I'm afriad I'm out of ideas and i dont know how to help. :(

but with privatised education, I think the objection to that is the thought at what would happen to those people who cant afford it.
you yourself have said that due to personal circumstances you cant go to private school or homeschool. If all schools were privatised tomorrow what would you do tomorrow?

If you want to think of it in terms of invisible hands, you could say that private schools highest priority is profit and not children's learning. Today they all have to provide good learning because they have to compete with public schools which have the massive advantage of not caring about profit, but what happens if they are all privatised and theres no more public schools to compete with?

Well schools can always compete with themselves. But there is many adverse social effect that could result from such sudden change. The cost of education include the price of the education of a certified teacher and also teaching materials. Without private or government subsidies, some students and their family cannot cover this cost. This might even lead into a cycle of poverty.

The fact is, making a school a completely private business would mean that some students cannot afford education. This is too adverse of a social effect. One which we cannot let our free-market idealism justify.

From: Yakman
JAD, that is pretty sad, I'm afriad I'm out of ideas and i dont know how to help. :(

but with privatised education, I think the objection to that is the thought at what would happen to those people who cant afford it.
you yourself have said that due to personal circumstances you cant go to private school or homeschool. If all schools were privatised tomorrow what would you do tomorrow?

If you want to think of it in terms of invisible hands, you could say that private schools highest priority is profit and not children's learning. Today they all have to provide good learning because they have to compete with public schools which have the massive advantage of not caring about profit, but what happens if they are all privatised and theres no more public schools to compete with?

What would happen if public schools were eliminated would be my parents could keep much more of their check that could be used to pay for private school. The government could even keep taxes where they are and use the money that used to go to private schools to help people in need go to private schools (because it is very important that every kid gets an education; I would be all for that). Taxes could still be lowered though even with financial aid considering how much of our taxes go to public education each year for the rest of our lives (even when parents' kids aren't in school).

When all companies are out for is a profit, they will have to do a good job to get a profit. So the schools (at least fairly good private schools) will have to get good teachers and those teachers will have to work hard to keep their jobs, so people go to their schools. The reason they will teach kids well is because they will have to for kids to keep going to their school. Government hardly cares if we absolutely love their school or not because they get our tax money either way.

I really think that private schools would be much more efficient than government run ones for my reasons posted above. And if that's the case, then all that money that's going to public education would definitely be enough to help pay for people who need help sending their kids to private school, and taxes could be cut to help other parents send their kids to school.

From: JAD
What would happen if public schools were eliminated would be my parents could keep much more of their check that could be used to pay for private school. The government could even keep taxes where they are and use the money that used to go to private schools to help people in need go to private schools (because it is very important that every kid gets an education; I would be all for that). Taxes could still be lowered though even with financial aid considering how much of our taxes go to public education each year for the rest of our lives (even when parents' kids aren't in school).

I consider education to be the most valuable thing on earth, right behind life. However, many do not.

I agree with you, competition of schools/education system would create more efficient ones. However, here in the U.S., we believe in equal opportunity. If schools were privatized, better schools would cost more to attend as dictated by supply-and-demand. (assuming that parents rank schools mostly because of the quality of education) Poor kids would be stuck with bad schools (less qualified teachers and less resources) and other poor kids. Someone poor who could have taken Apush with my excellent history teacher would miss the opportunity.

Alot of public schools already have the resources (at least in the U.S.) it's the students who drag down the school. As someone of enlightenment ideals, I believe the education system should mandate certain classes from early on, so everyone is at the same base. The held-back system should be used more for those who fail. I agree that people should have a right to choose their education, but I don't think 12 year old students have the right to do the same. During this early, young impressionable years, they should learn what is needed to become opportunity inventors.

So yes it would save money. The education system would be more efficient. Maybe we would even get higher caliber students and they would, I don't know, make a cure for cancer or something. However, this measure would create too much of an unfair advantage for those who have the money to afford better education for their kids, the kids could in turn afford better education for his or her children. While the poor begets poor. A cycle incompatible to the ideals of the equal proprietors that founded the United States.

From: Grunt
I consider education to be the most valuable thing on earth, right behind life. However, many do not.

I agree with you, competition of schools/education system would create more efficient ones. However, here in the U.S., we believe in equal opportunity. If schools were privatized, better schools would cost more to attend as dictated by supply-and-demand. (assuming that parents rank schools mostly because of the quality of education) Poor kids would be stuck with bad schools (less qualified teachers and less resources) and other poor kids. Someone poor who could have taken Apush with my excellent history teacher would miss the opportunity.

Alot of public schools already have the resources (at least in the U.S.) it's the students who drag down the school. As someone of enlightenment ideals, I believe the education system should mandate certain classes from early on, so everyone is at the same base. The held-back system should be used more for those who fail. I agree that people should have a right to choose their education, but I don't think 12 year old students have the right to do the same. During this early, young impressionable years, they should learn what is needed to become opportunity inventors.

So yes it would save money. The education system would be more efficient. Maybe we would even get higher caliber students and they would, I don't know, make a cure for cancer or something. However, this measure would create too much of an unfair advantage for those who have the money to afford better education for their kids, the kids could in turn afford better education for his or her children. While the poor begets poor. A cycle incompatible to the ideals of the equal proprietors that founded the United States.

You're right that the US was based on equal opportunity. However that does not mean Robin Hood philosophy of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. It means that people are given the right to earn what they have, including an education. If a kid's parents can't afford to send him to school, that doesn't give him a right to the money of those who can afford it. It means that he must work on a farm or at McDonalds and pay for it himself, possibly with some support from his parents. If he doesn't want to work for an education, then that's fine. He can work on a farm for the rest of his life. We still need people to do that.

You're right that the US was based on equal opportunity. However that does not mean Robin Hood philosophy of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor.

I didn't quite understand your position. Do you believe it's ok to use tax money to create equal opportunity? (notice I don't mean equal outcome)

I do, because I think it's consistent to the reason why we pay taxes. We pay taxes and sacrifice certain freedom to have our property protected. (The distribution of rewards under capitalism is controversial, so I won't get into that.) But, if there is too much of a gap, then there will be social unrest. There is a reason why populism keeps on resurfacing in South America.

If a kid's parents can't afford to send him to school, that doesn't give him a right to the money of those who can afford it. It means that he must work on a farm or at McDonalds and pay for it himself, possibly with some support from his parents.

Why would you want more people to be ignorant? I thought this thread was about how to make PUBLIC education better, not denying education to children.

From: Grunt
I didn't quite understand your position. Do you believe it's ok to use tax money to create equal opportunity? (notice I don't mean equal outcome)

I do, because I think it's consistent to the reason why we pay taxes. We pay taxes and sacrifice certain freedom to have our property protected. (The distribution of rewards under capitalism is controversial, so I won't get into that.) But, if there is too much of a gap, then there will be social unrest. There is a reason why populism keeps on resurfacing in South America.

My position on taxes is simple: it is immoral. I don't support the use of force by the government if it is not to protect taxpayers. By taxpayers, I mean (in my view of an ideal society) people who voluntarily pay taxes for government protection.

From: Grunt
Why would you want more people to be ignorant? I thought this thread was about how to make PUBLIC education better, not denying education to children.

I think this thread was meant as a rant/discussion against public education, not how to make it better. I also never said anything about denying education. If a kid's parents aren't willing to pay for his/her education, what is stopping him/her from working for it? A truly useful person will be willing to work for his/her education. College students do it all the time.

yeah, my wonderful math class, our final average class grade was a 41% out of 100%, i had a 64% and still somehow managed to get the AP math class next year?

From: Grunt
I consider education to be the most valuable thing on earth, right behind life. However, many do not.

I agree with you, competition of schools/education system would create more efficient ones. However, here in the U.S., we believe in equal opportunity. If schools were privatized, better schools would cost more to attend as dictated by supply-and-demand. (assuming that parents rank schools mostly because of the quality of education) Poor kids would be stuck with bad schools (less qualified teachers and less resources) and other poor kids. Someone poor who could have taken Apush with my excellent history teacher would miss the opportunity.

Alot of public schools already have the resources (at least in the U.S.) it's the students who drag down the school. As someone of enlightenment ideals, I believe the education system should mandate certain classes from early on, so everyone is at the same base. The held-back system should be used more for those who fail. I agree that people should have a right to choose their education, but I don't think 12 year old students have the right to do the same. During this early, young impressionable years, they should learn what is needed to become opportunity inventors.

So yes it would save money. The education system would be more efficient. Maybe we would even get higher caliber students and they would, I don't know, make a cure for cancer or something. However, this measure would create too much of an unfair advantage for those who have the money to afford better education for their kids, the kids could in turn afford better education for his or her children. While the poor begets poor. A cycle incompatible to the ideals of the equal proprietors that founded the United States.

America was founded as a place where success is endless. Communist countries are equal opportunity because everyone gets the same opportunity. You said that you meant equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. But if government is taking away from my opportunity to make someone else's better, then that is equal opportunity, but not unlimited success anymore.

The main debate between politics right now is a trade off between equity and efficiency. Republicans tend to lead more towards making things more efficient instead of equal, and democrats the opposite. All of our socialist programs (welfare, social security, medicare, medicaid, public education…etc) sacrifice efficiency for equity. Welfare makes things more equal by giving poor people money, but sacrifices efficiency because now there is less of an incentive to work harder (due to the more money you make, the more money the government takes, so it's much less rewarding to succeed). On the other hand, we can't have people dieing on the streets either from hunger, and have half the population uneducated.

I am sorry if because you are poor you cannot go to the best private school in the world, but you can get the same education at a cheap school if you really really want to that you could at a super expensive one. I am going to community college now (saves 20k+ a year), and then I am going to one of the cheapest four year universities in the state for my last 2 years. It may not be harvard, but it doesn't have to be. Maybe if my initials were JAG, or JAW (JA Gates, JA Walton, or some other rich family) then I could go to harvard, but you know what, I am fine with not going there.

My point is that if you are poor, you could still go to a cheaper private school under this system, that would still be 10x more efficient then the current education system. It would be more uneven education for everyone, but everyone's education would be better off. Does it matter if education is more uneven although everyone's is still better?


I really don't know if anything I just said above made sense though because I'm really tired :p

From: JAD
Republicans tend to lead more towards making things more efficient instead of equal, and democrats the opposite.

I know I'll probably get us off topic, but I have to say this..
Republicans do usually tend to lean towards making things efficient, but both parties are undoubtedly for a mixed economy. The Democrats are a bit more socialist leaning, but it's like comparing McDonalds to Burger King: you might like one more than the other, but in the end, they both suck.

In every issue (by issue I mean a real issue, not a personal preference like red vs. blue) there is a right side and a wrong side. I don't understand why someone would ever mix the two of them, like the Republican and Democrat parties, as that always means having some of the wrong. This is why I choose to be a pure, laissez-faire capitalist, and, when old enough, will vote for the party that is closest to my beliefs – probably the Libertarian party – not one of the corrupted parties that have an actual chance of winning.

..Well, that was definitely enough off-topic for one day.

I think this thread was meant as a rant/discussion against public education, not how to make it better.

I need to clarify my statement. I think we can all agree that public education needs some improving. I believe JAD proposes privatized schools or at least tax subsidies to parents who send their kids to private schools, this would lead to more efficient schooling/(distribution of resources). While I was playing the role of party pooper, by telling him it would lead to social unrest.

I say that our culture is what leads to inefficient education. Learning can't be taught. ( I believe that most textbooks and online resources are adequate enough to teach a student who really want to learn. Unfortunately, I only speak from personal experience and have no empirical evidence to support what I said. Everything that I learned from a teacher, I can learn it myself. Maybe, I was lucky to go to a big high school (6000) kids. But anyway, I don't see how more efficient schools would change the incentives that already exist for those who want an education. The incentives were always there. Yet, many refuses to learn or is unable to because they don't have the basis to do it. And this is where I believe we can fix our education system the most. If teachers taught students the tools to learn at an early age, then they can learn without the crutches of teachers. Unfortunately, a private school has no intention to do that.

I also never said anything about denying education. If a kid's parents aren't willing to pay for his/her education, what is stopping him/her from working for it? A truly useful person will be willing to work for his/her education. College students do it all the time.

We are talking about children here. If they don't learn at an early age, then they risk not adequately developing their reading/math skills quickly enough. This would put him or her in a disadvantage situation, when they can do nothing about it.

Yes, college students do it all the time. But look how much time/resources they are wasting by working in side jobs when they could use the time to focus on their studies.

America was founded as a place where success is endless. Communist countries are equal opportunity because everyone gets the same opportunity. You said that you meant equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. But if government is taking away from my opportunity to make someone else's better, then that is equal opportunity, but not unlimited success anymore.

Equal opportunity can lead to unequal outcome. I never heard of unlimited success. The constitution mentioned protection of property from the majority/government , but also the government's right to tax that property. The essence of your point is true. (Sorry, I just didn't like the choice of word, to me "unlimited success" implied more than the protection of property) Well, I am glad you and I recognize the more complicated issues implied, I think we will have a nice debate on this.

The main debate between politics right now is a trade off between equity and efficiency. Republicans tend to lead more towards making things more efficient instead of equal, and democrats the opposite. All of our socialist programs (welfare, social security, medicare, medicaid, public education…etc) sacrifice efficiency for equity. Welfare makes things more equal by giving poor people money, but sacrifices efficiency because now there is less of an incentive to work harder (due to the more money you make, the more money the government takes, so it's much less rewarding to succeed

Imo, the 2 parties all try to pursue happiness for all. Republicans want people to get the most they can get, while democrats want to make sure your peers are not making 3x as you.

On the otherhand, we can't have people dieing on the streets either from hunger, and have half the population uneducated.

Well, I am glad you agree with on this point. This kind of human price for pure-market idealism is too high, even if it means a more efficient system.

Edit: Dang someone needs to summarize the points, I am losing track of what is getting said. Too tired to continue…I am calling it a night.

Reading sirlaughsalot's post, makes me think that money should not buy opportunity.