Joke

[ibear]

Arty, none of that has anything to do with the question you posed; more money for teachers. We are actually agreed upon that; the difference is I know pouring more money into the large parasitic education establishment will not particularly raise teachers salaries.

I also know we spend more money on education and have less to show for it than ever before.

Your solution is simply more money. That won't work. You are against school vouchers because of your FEAR of what it might do; not what it has or could do. We can always go back to pouring cash down the COW we do now. We won't try new things- that effectively defines you as the status quo.


munk

Hey, Ol' buddy... what is wrong with cows... anyway?
HeeeeeHeeee!
Thanks,
iBear

 

[ibear]

There are many things that make a nation strong, and education is central to this.
I am arguing that education does more to strengthen a country than guns and bombs. -- Arty
***********************************************
Here ya go... GREAT POINT! We strongly agree! But, from that premise, we DON'T need more Government money flowed into the hands of irresponsible administrators.
Sorry, but, your conclusions are greatly flawed!
Thanks,
iBear

 

[ibear]

How many company executives, doctors and lawyers would give up their pay to work for the salaries that our elementary ed teachers get? For that matter, our pay for our soldiers, policemen, and firefighters needs to get public support. This won't happen in the atmosphere where you have to keep cutting taxes.

We may win wars in the field, but if we don't keep our educational system sound, then we will lose in the long run.

We are not producing scientists. They are coming from overseas. Soon, we will be like a third world country.

I confess - I teach college. -- arty
OOOOOOPS!
********************************************************
You are jumping here from one point to an assumption of all points. One does not follow the other. Stick with one issue and persue that to conclusion and your argument may more logically follow your premise. Our system is not set up with a choice between war and education. This appears to be your own thinking intertwined with a lot of liberal assumptions that are not necessarily accurate. I hate inaccurate assumptions! Tax cuts for the rich... WHAT A CROCK!
Thanks,
iBear

 

[arty]

There are things that government can support and do, that we can not do as individuals -
Like
raising armies
police
fire
public education
medical facilities - hospitals

If I get sick, I want to see a doctor. Docs get trained in facilities that must have federal support or they close. I don't think that many of us can build our own hospitals. Public and private hospitals need our support. Medical schools do not make money - they are not cost effective.

Take the government out of this stuff, and we will become what Mexico used to be, 50 years ago.

I may not be able to rely on the police if my home were burgled, but I like to know that they are there if my car breaks down on the highway in the snow in the winter.

Government functions much more efficiently than private enterprise. When I consult for the federal gov't, I get $200 per day. If I were a private consultant in industry, I would price myself at $4000-6000 per day, but never under $500 per day.

Government does things much cheaper than GM or private for-profit organizations. Just look at what it costs to go to a private as opposed to a public college. You can send your kid to the best state universities for 1/8 or 1/10 of the cost of some comparable private schools. Take state support out of these schools, and the cost of public education would double - to only 1/4 or 1/5 of the cost of private schools.

The least efficient organizations are private - they have to pay much more and include lots of money for profit. I don't see MCI as a very efficient organization.

Incidentally, I was last unemployed for a few weeks in 1975, while waiting to start a new job. I don't have kids in school, but I am thinking of others in our society with kids and I am concerned about the future of my own child.

But I am NOT suggesting that we raise taxes. There are hundreds of billions of bucks spent every few years for pork in the Federal and State budgets. I'd rather see some of this spent on quality education, rather than pork. Read Cal Thomas in today's paper. We are spending more and more on pork each year.

This is not a Republican or a Democratic issue. It is not a liberal or a conservative issue.

I am not presenting liberal or conservative views. The views are my own. It is a fact that everything costs more when private organizations do it.
Soldiers make almost nothing, but private contractors get much more than most of us make.
Doctors working in public facilities make much less than they would in private work.
And the list goes on.

Supporting education, both public and private, is not a "liberal thing." It is just good public policy.

 

[Howard Wallace]

Government functions much more efficiently than private enterprise. When I consult for the federal gov't, I get $200 per day. If I were a private consultant in industry, I would price myself at $4000-6000 per day, but never under $500 per day...



The least efficient organizations are private - they have to pay much more and include lots of money for profit. I don't see MCI as a very efficient organization.

Not my experience. I've worked both as an educator in the public schools and in industry. In my experience industrial education was much more efficient, even though industry paid me more.



Private schools regularly produce superior results to the public schools with less cost per student. People who have not seen the workings of the public schools from the inside will come up with various excuses why this is so. Most of them have not experienced from the inside what they theorize about.



I also attended a public high school as a student. I also got a good education. I got it because I wanted it and I ripped it from the screaming universe with my teeth.



Our different views on vouchers boil down to a differing perception of the efficiency of non-competitive government bureaucracies. The assertion that government bureaucracy is more efficient than private enterprise just does not square with my experience.



If it were true, there should be no problem with placing the bureaucracies in competition with private enterprise. By your assertion, government bureaucracy should crush the private competition by virtue of its superior efficiency. Why then worry about vouchers threatening the dysfunctional system?

 

[ibear]

There are things that government can support and do, that we can not do as individuals -
Like
raising armies
police
fire
public education
medical facilities - hospitals

If I get sick, I want to see a doctor. Docs get trained in facilities that must have federal support or they close. I don't think that many of us can build our own hospitals. Public and private hospitals need our support. Medical schools do not make money - they are not cost effective.

Take the government out of this stuff, and we will become what Mexico used to be, 50 years ago.

I may not be able to rely on the police if my home were burgled, but I like to know that they are there if my car breaks down on the highway in the snow in the winter.

Government functions much more efficiently than private enterprise. When I consult for the federal gov't, I get $200 per day. If I were a private consultant in industry, I would price myself at $4000-6000 per day, but never under $500 per day.

Government does things much cheaper than GM or private for-profit organizations. Just look at what it costs to go to a private as opposed to a public college. You can send your kid to the best state universities for 1/8 or 1/10 of the cost of some comparable private schools. Take state support out of these schools, and the cost of public education would double - to only 1/4 or 1/5 of the cost of private schools.

The least efficient organizations are private - they have to pay much more and include lots of money for profit. I don't see MCI as a very efficient organization.

Incidentally, I was last unemployed for a few weeks in 1975, while waiting to start a new job. I don't have kids in school, but I am thinking of others in our society with kids and I am concerned about the future of my own child.

But I am NOT suggesting that we raise taxes. There are hundreds of billions of bucks spent every few years for pork in the Federal and State budgets. I'd rather see some of this spent on quality education, rather than pork. Read Cal Thomas in today's paper. We are spending more and more on pork each year.

This is not a Republican or a Democratic issue. It is not a liberal or a conservative issue.

I am not presenting liberal or conservative views. The views are my own. It is a fact that everything costs more when private organizations do it.
Soldiers make almost nothing, but private contractors get much more than most of us make.
Doctors working in public facilities make much less than they would in private work.
And the list goes on.

Supporting education, both public and private, is not a "liberal thing." It is just good public policy.

There are things that government can support and do, that we can not do as individuals -
Like
raising armies
police
fire
public education
medical facilities - hospitals
*********************************************
No kidding, NO disagreement here at all! Then, through a jump of assumption, by leaping tall buildings in a single bound, you suddenly arrive, showing up at another assumption, not related to your original statement, as if one followed the other.

You are intelligent and that is a good start for us, if we are to share views. I really enjoy intelligent people. Try to stick to one point if you can and that makes it easier to respond to your post.
Thanks,
iBear

 

[ibear]

Not my experience. I've worked both as an educator in the public schools and in industry. In my experience industrial education was much more efficient, even though industry paid me more.



Private schools regularly produce superior results to the public schools with less cost per student. People who have not seen the workings of the public schools from the inside will come up with various excuses why this is so. Most of them have not experienced from the inside what they theorize about.



I also attended a public high school as a student. I also got a good education. I got it because I wanted it and I ripped it from the screaming universe with my teeth.



Our different views on vouchers boil down to a differing perception of the efficiency of non-competitive government bureaucracies. The assertion that government bureaucracy is more efficient than private enterprise just does not square with my experience.



If it were true, there should be no problem with placing the bureaucracies in competition with private enterprise. By your assertion, government bureaucracy should crush the private competition by virtue of its superior efficiency. Why then worry about vouchers threatening the dysfunctional system?

The least efficient organizations are private - they have to pay much more and include lots of money for profit. -- arty
***********************************
Private schools regularly produce superior results to the public schools with less cost per student. People who have not seen the workings of the public schools from the inside will come up with various excuses why this is so. Most of them have not experienced from the inside what they theorize about. -- Howard Wallace
***********************************
Your point is well taken. Private schools regularly produce much better students than public school, even thought the public schools have many more students to draw from, as a general rule. My own Grandson's have all attended private education with increible results. I now have a Grandson at the University of San Francisco as a Senior. He has all A's through all his subjects. He is there on an academic scholarship.
Public schools in Los Angeles County, are legend for problems, gang violence, poor teaching, ineffective programs, over 50% drop out rates and senior students that can't read a fourth grade book. Your post is spot on!
Thanks,
iBear

 

[ibear]

Amazing- we've never spent more on education, and never had as low as scores or productivity, yet the cry goes out for more money. (That isn't quite true- I believe our scores took a brief small hike upwards during the last few years, but I could be wrong.)

Money is not the problem.

When society is caving in all around, don't expect the school systems to reflect otherwise.

If you really want to spend more money on education, cut bureacratic costs. There is no excuse for 'administration' to use more funds than is paid for teachers salaries.

You might consider actually teaching something. You know- those hard facts that hurt special interest groups tender feelings? Oh, but I forgot, the powerful education unions control this, and don't want testing or criteria thresholds for funds. They're against school vouchers or anythingelse that might introduce health into the system. Like all bureacracies, they simply want more money, and get a chorus of sympathy from many around them.
The Soviet Union went bankrupt because communisim cannot compete in a competitive marketplace. The moribund educational community should take note of this, but they won't- they have all of you crying for them!!!


munk

There are many things that make a nation strong, and education is central to this. I am arguing that education does more to strengthen a country than guns and bombs. -- Arty
***********************************************
Here ya go... GREAT POINT! We strongly agree! But, from that premise, we DON'T need more Government money flowed into the hands of irresponsible administrators. Sorry, but, your conclusions are greatly flawed! -- iBear
***********************************************
Hey... you are really making hay these days. Probably hay for those cows you keep wanting to stop feeding. No doubt! You are giving me an education here! The part I like the best is all about the cash cows that don't even produce any milk!
Thanks,
iBear

 

[ibear]

Our different views on vouchers boil down to a differing perception of the efficiency of non-competitive government bureaucracies. The assertion that government bureaucracy is more efficient than private enterprise just does not square with my experience. -- Howard Wallace.
********************************************************
You hit the ol' nail on the head, with a 35lb. sledge hammer! Private schools excell at education as a general rule. Public schhols can't even get out of their own way. They are so tied in with Government requirements, that their purpose has become, only to control their students. They hoist huge fences and hire security guards and employ school counselors, spend a zillion dollars and with all of this, they still fail to stop gang violence, they stll fail to reduce drop out rates and many students, still can't read. Look at most any private school and observe the exact opposite.

The emphasis of any school, to be effective, must be on reading and the english language, writing and arithmetic, first and foremost, then later, after english and reading is mastered as a subject, students should study history, science and Government, followed by other subjects. Our priorities have gone with the wind. Our purpose in public schools, has become lost in the effort by the teacher's and administrators to control their students.

Concentrate on education and teaching......... rather than taking on the task of forcing schools to become reform schools or even worse. Students should learn and teachers in schools should teach.
Thanks,
iBear

 

[ibear]

If it were true, there should be no problem with placing the bureaucracies in competition with private enterprise. By your assertion, government bureaucracy should crush the private competition by virtue of its superior efficiency. Why then worry about vouchers threatening the dysfunctional system? -- Howard Wallace
***************************************************
GawLeeee, you sure are impressing me! Great post! Good point! Your propensity for accuracy is only exceeded by your willingness to demonstrate the exact logical argument, that is so completely convincing, whether I like it or not!
AND, I like it!
Thanks,
iBear

 

[munk]

just remember that 90% of college professors are liberal. They're against vouchers? They don't understand capitalism? What a shock.

What do you wanna bet the same folks against vouchers are against partial privatization of SS?




munk

 

[arty]

The issue is really general support of education, both public and private. I have been a student in public and private institutions, and got a better education from public ones.
I taught in a public elementary school in a former life. It was a great school in Brooklyn.
I am not going to tell you it is still in existence.

For me, the issue is really support of education and for the sciences. I just don't see it, and see less and less support for both public or private education.

I visited the Netherlands last May. They have almost no private institutions of higher education, but do a great job of educating students. The public universities in Switzerland are high quality. They admit everyone who is qualified to attend (mandated by law), and flunk out more than half of the students - those who can't hack it. Public education can and does yield high quality education. There just has to be a committment to quality.

I have had students who were honors students in English in private high schools in Illinois, but scored at the bottom 10% in the English GRE. They didn't get a good high school education, even though it was at selective private schools.

I sense a negative tone in this forum towards education. People seem ready to jump on educators in general, or perhaps I am misreading everyone?

I am not going to touch the other issue.

I am more interested in the current problem with education. Vouchers won't solve the education quality problem. They are a political solution to a social, but not an educational issue.

 

[Howard Wallace]

I visited the Netherlands last May. They have almost no private institutions of higher education, but do a great job of educating students. The public universities in Switzerland are high quality. They admit everyone who is qualified to attend (mandated by law), and flunk out more than half of the students - those who can't hack it. Public education can and does yield high quality education. There just has to be a committment to quality.

That sounds like a good system, and one that our society might do well to emulate. Giving citizens the ability to pursue education to the limits of their desire and ability is good for a government that relies on citizen participation. Note that these colleges are free to flunk out those that are not making the grade. In sharp contrast, our high schools have "dropout prevention" programs with the avowed intent of keeping people in the institution that do not want to be there, and that degrade the quality of the education for themselves and others.

I sense a negative tone in this forum towards education. People seem ready to jump on educators in general, or perhaps I am misreading everyone?

Very astute of you to consider this. Yes, you are misreading everyone.

 

[Yvsa]

I sense a negative tone in this forum towards education. People seem ready to jump on educators in general, or perhaps I am misreading everyone?

Yes Arty you're misreading everyone. Everyone here is very much for education; it's just that we would like to see a better way of managing the money that's poured into the system now, along with an improvement in the quality of education.

I don't know when or how it happened but when parents and educators started wanting all the kids passed to the next level in order to maintain their self-esteem and not feel bad, among other things, even though they failed to do the required work, things started going to hell in a hand basket.

IMO kids should be given the tools to succeed and if or when they don't then they need to be held at that level until they do grasp the use of those tools and how to use them to succeed.
I have a cousin who was held back in either the 2nd or 3rd grade and he was the better for it.
He gained another year of maturity and aced that grade the 2nd time around and it made the years following easier for him as well.
He also learned what it was to fail and that it was all right to do so as long as you picked yourself up and done your best the next time around; also that it wasn't the end of things but actually a new beginning that often made things easier as time went on.
IMO kids need to learn that they're not necessarily going to be able to succeed at everything they do the first time around.

On another note I was watching a home improvement program today where the parents were able to add a couple of bedrooms for their kids and in doing so gave the kids a marvelous place too play as well.
The kid's rooms were elaborate, and most impressive to me was their littlest girl's room had a loft added to it just for a place for her too play!
She had a make believe cafe' with a play stove, refrigerator, and all the equipement and a couple of tables and chairs and I don't remember what else.
I was thinking at the time about the amount of money the parents spent on these three bedrooms -plus- for thier kids and wondered how it would be to be able to do that for your kids.
What really impressed me was that the kids were using their rooms too play in and having a good time doing it instead of setting in front of a goddamned TV or video games!!!!
Those kids are being set up to succeed from an early age and from the place it really counts, the home!!!!

 

[arty]

Yvsa pointed out a real problem with kids today. They sit in front of the TV or play video games all day, and don't read.
No one wants to leave kids back. There is no incentive to learn, if you get rewarded for failure.

Last year, too many kids failed the Regents test in math in New York State. The Regents test is required for a high school academic diploma - and a passing grade is required.
What did they do? They threw out the test scores and passed all the kids anyway. The reason for this is that the schools would have been slammed by the public if too many students did not graduate - can't have that.
The upshot is that we don't have any academic standards - in public and in private education. The Regents test is also used in private schools - correct me if I am off here.
I am not convinced that private schools are necessarily so good. I have seen too many crumby ones....and the products of poor private education.
Our community colleges now offer remedial reading at the 5th grade level to entering students who can't read.
Should these kids stay in college if they can not read? Should they get a high school diploma if they can't read?
I have no problem with open admissions.
I do have a problem with "open graduation."

 

[Howard Wallace]

I have no problem with open admissions.
I do have a problem with "open graduation."

Agreed!

I wouldn't mind making the public schools, including coleges, open to anyone, any age. If you want to go back and be a high school junior at 43, ok. But, if you're not able to make the grade, or are there for other (non-educational) purposes, out you go. This "no student left behind" philosophy is a miserable failure. We should be leaving them behind right and left.

It would be good to provide the opportunity for them to get back on board at the appropriate level when they are ready though.

I'd love to see open admission at med schools.

 

[arty]

They have an open admissions policy in medical schools in Switzerland. At least this is what I was told by a faculty member (not in med.) at a school there. The law mandates all of this. That is one reason why they are so careful to weed out the weak students at the undergraduate level. If someone graduates with an appropriate degree from a Swiss college, they are automatically admitted to graduate programs - "if they qualify," and have the appropriate undergraduate degree.
Once in medical school, students do not necessarily pass through.
Admissions are open at the undergrad level. The downside of this is that intro level classes can have enrollments of 1,000.