NationStates Jolt Archive

Throwing more money at education will not improve education. What this country needs is real education reform that includes; restoring discipline to the classroom and school; moving disruptive/unruly students to alternative educational programs; reducing administrative costs; reducing the number of administrators; providing a method of firing incompetent teachers; and providing rewards and incentives for good teachers.

Many people are against a voucher system and the public system isn’t getting any better for the reasons stated above. So why not do with education what we have done with some other government functions? Why not privatize K-12 education?

Oh yes, fuck free thought, let's just turn it into a fucking prison system!

Agreed.

For the truth about public 'education,' read None Dare Call it Education by John Stormer and The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America by Charlotte Iserbyt-Thomson.

Throwing more money at education will not improve education. What this country needs is real education reform that includes; restoring discipline to the classroom and school; moving disruptive/unruly students to alternative educational programs; reducing administrative costs; reducing the number of administrators; providing a method of firing incompetent teachers; and providing rewards and incentives for good teachers.

Many people are against a voucher system and the public system isn’t getting any better for the reasons stated above. So why not do with education what we have done with some other government functions? Why not privatize K-12 education?

I don't think it's a great idea, but I think it would work much better than our current system. Four words: Bring back the cane!

Yes, we should definately beat children for thinking on their own, and not accepting whatever bullshit some nut decides to give.

Yes, we should definately beat children for thinking on their own, and not accepting whatever bullshit some nut decides to give.

No one said beat them for thinking. I went to school when the cane was legal in the UK. It was used to deal with persistant offenders who disruppted classes, would not respect anyone else and made education impossible. What option exists now to deal with these, and do not say they do not exist, because you know full well that they do.

I would prefer not to have such "barbaric" methods, but they are the methods that "barbaric" children respond to.

Still doesn't mean they should be beaten.

Oh yes, fuck free thought, let's just turn it into a fucking prison system!

That's not what I said or implied. There are many private colleges and universities that compete very well with public institutions. To privatize the education system does not mean you are turning it into a prison. :headbang:

restoring discipline to the classroom and school; moving disruptive/unruly students to alternative educational programs


Sounds like that's what you implied. At least by my former school's definition of "disruptive behavior".

And "discipline to the classroom". One wonder what you could possibly mean by this...

Still doesn't mean they should be beaten.

So how do you make schools a place where those who want to learn have this as a possibility then?

Because you'll price it out of the range of certain people, or people will decide to save the money and not send their children to school.

I suppose bringing back discipline is not a bad idea, but only with the parent's consent on the specific kid.

Because you'll price it out of the range of certain people, or people will decide to save the money and not send their children to school.


Another good reason not to privatize. It'll just further the ass-fucking of minorities. And by minorities, I mean every one, not just other nationalities. It's mainly poor people who'll get shafted.

Yes, that's a brilliant idea! Let a company like Exxon Mobil take over schools and teach everyone that pollution is good for the environment! :rolleyes:

Throwing more money at education will not improve education. What this country needs is real education reform that includes; restoring discipline to the classroom and school; moving disruptive/unruly students to alternative educational programs; reducing administrative costs; reducing the number of administrators; providing a method of firing incompetent teachers; and providing rewards and incentives for good teachers.

Many people are against a voucher system and the public system isn’t getting any better for the reasons stated above. So why not do with education what we have done with some other government functions? Why not privatize K-12 education?
Good idea, let's give the poor absolutely no chance at all in succeeding by denying them any education at all.

I suppose bringing back discipline is not a bad idea, but only with the parent's consent on the specific kid.


That sounds... Decent, but there's a problem. What happens when you have a psycho who performs the disciplinary actions? I had one at my last school, Derry Elementary. His name was Mr. Garza, and he *really* liked to beat the shit out of kids with his "tools". He used heavy paddles, belts, speed paddles, and even whipping sticks. It was awful. Fucking awful.

You could hear the screams from my classroom, which wasn't even anywhere near Mr. Garza's office.

Yes, we should definately beat children for thinking on their own, and not accepting whatever bullshit some nut decides to give.

In my original post I said nothing about beating children for thinking. What I said was "restore discipline to the classroom and the school." This can be accomplished without resorting to corporal punishment. Students that are incorrigible and disruptive to the learning process could be removed from the school and placed in an alternative school equipped to handle such problems. That way, students could have the learning environment they need to be able to learn.

Good idea, let's give the poor absolutely no chance at all in succeeding by denying them any education at all.


Exactly what I'm saying. Oh yeah, and be sure to throw a little bit of Corporate Propaganda in the cirriculum. And don't forget about the Conservative bias!

Another good reason not to privatize. It'll just further the ass-fucking of minorities. And by minorities, I mean every one, not just other nationalities. It's mainly poor people who'll get shafted.
You see thats the fuck of it. If you privatize it, many intelligent children won't be abale to attend school due to financial issues.

Privatizing schools is definitely a bad idea. There is a better solution to boost the schools, though. Other than actually funding it (and making sure that funding isn't just blown on Physical Education), they should actually raise the standards and make sure the schools get textbooks that aren't so old they describe the Civil Rights movement as "trouble ahead".

In my original post I said nothing about beating children for thinking. What I said was "restore discipline to the classroom and the school." This can be accomplished without resorting to corporal punishment. Students that are incorrigible and disruptive to the learning process could be removed from the school and placed in an alternative school equipped to handle such problems. That way, students could have the learning environment they need to be able to learn.


Just because of a few offenses, they should be sent to another school? You know, it's usually problems at home that cause such "behavior". Sending them off to a "Reform" school, which is basically a prison where you're educated, won't help matters much.

I think schools should be owned 1/3 by the government, 1/3 by the citizens, and 1/3 by the teachers and school administrators.

I think public school should remain free. When schools in a certain area become privatized, public schools tend to fail. An example would be areas of California such as Long Beach.

With my recommendation, education would still be funded by the governement. Government funding would of course, be pending on whether its standards are met or not.

I believe that the citizens and school officials should have the authority to make the decisions through a set process. The educational priorities would change to providing an educated work force as well as providing the knowledge parents and citizens want for their children. All statutes regulating the division between church and state would still stand.

Sounds good to me. It's a hell of a lot better than privatizing.

So long as there is private education available, and there will be unless it is made illegal, then there is no advantage to society in privatising all education.
There is a concern about first class and second class education with a mixed system, but this can be addressed by government sponsored scholarships etc.

Why do you think that private schools would sack bad teachers? The best teachers tend to be non conformists, and they are the ones that would be, and are, sacked by private schools.

Man, I always got screwed with shitty teachers. They were all right-wing conformists... They sucked! Well, except for one, but she was an Assistant Teacher, so that really doesn't count.

I just had a flash to that Simpsons episode where Krabappel asks Who can tell me the atomic weight of Bolognium? on the Oscar Meyer periodic table of the elements.

In some cases, privatisation works fairly well. I like to point to the mass transit system of Hong Kong as an example.

But I think that to suddenly shift a public education system to private operation would be too much of a shock and strain on the system, and there is no real precident for privatised public primary and secondary education beyond some charter schools in the U.S., some of which have failed miserably.

Okay. Instead of wholesale privatisation of the system, I propose a compromise:
Certain functions of the system are privatised, such as custodial services, maintenance, and maybe secretarial duties. The rest of the system remains firmly in public hands.

I don't know how corporal punishment ended up being a major focal point of the debate here, but I just wanted to say that I went to a school that did not engage in corporal punishment and the quality of the classroom environment was never an issue.

But it should be mentioned that privatisation is not the cure-all. You can have an efficient, well-run government entity and a horrific, mismanaged corporation (as has been shown by certain events in the last few years).

I'm completely against privatisation of colleges, but I'm a bit biased. The college I go to is one of the best in the country that isn't private. Yay, etc.

Sounds like that's what you implied. At least by my former school's definition of "disruptive behavior".

And "discipline to the classroom". One wonder what you could possibly mean by this...

it means keeping snot-nozed brats in 3rd grade from growing up to be apathic, whiny assholes with little empathy for others.

kids need to learn discipline. you don't BEAT them but sometimes the power of "NO!" is powerful.

Privatization of Custodial services and such as you listed sounds pretty good. I'm liking that idea.

it means keeping snot-nozed brats in 3rd grade from growing up to be apathic, whiny assholes with little empathy for others.


Nashville, eh?

Anyway, Public Schooling shouldn't be privatized, except for cleaning and maintenance services.

I agree that is much better than privatizing. I always look like an ass-kisser on these thrads.

Because you'll price it out of the range of certain people, or people will decide to save the money and not send their children to school.

You do not understand. Privatizing public schools would mean that the government would contract private companies to run and administer the K-12 schools in the district. Companies would bid and the company that won the bid would hire the teachers, etc, etc. The companies would be required under the contract to provide the education for all students. Individuals would not have to pay anything out of pocket as the system would be funded just like the present system. The district would still set the minimum educational standards and could even include a bonus for exceeding those standards.

It would work the same way the government builds roads. Companies bid and the govt. pays out of tax dollars. Some prisons are now run this way.

You do not understand. Privatizing public schools would mean that the government would contract private companies to run and administer the K-12 schools in the district. Companies would bid and the company that won the bid would hire the teachers, etc, etc. The companies would be required under the contract to provide the education for all students. Individuals would not have to pay anything out of pocket as the system would be funded just like the present system. The district would still set the minimum educational standards and could even include a bonus for exceeding those standards.

It would work the same way the government builds roads. Companies bid and the govt. pays out of tax dollars. Some prisons are now run this way.


That still wouldn't stop the corporate jerk-offs from adding their own "special touches" to the cirriculum.

You do not understand. Privatizing public schools would mean that the government would contract private companies to run and administer the K-12 schools in the district. Companies would bid and the company that won the bid would hire the teachers, etc, etc. The companies would be required under the contract to provide the education for all students. Individuals would not have to pay anything out of pocket as the system would be funded just like the present system. The district would still set the minimum educational standards and could even include a bonus for exceeding those standards.

It would work the same way the government builds roads. Companies bid and the govt. pays out of tax dollars. Some prisons are now run this way.
But companies an tell the children to buy this or tha because they help fund it. Advertising.
P.S. Potaria I shall eat your soul, and will savor it.

It would work the same way the government builds roads. Companies bid and the govt. pays out of tax dollars. Some prisons are now run this way.

So really, if one were to think about it, it would seem as though the government would still retain control. They would get the ultimate say in who would do the job, so it's not like we would be really handing over the education of children to a corporation.

You do not understand. Privatizing public schools would mean that the government would contract private companies to run and administer the K-12 schools in the district. Companies would bid and the company that won the bid would hire the teachers, etc, etc. The companies would be required under the contract to provide the education for all students. Individuals would not have to pay anything out of pocket as the system would be funded just like the present system. The district would still set the minimum educational standards and could even include a bonus for exceeding those standards.

It would work the same way the government builds roads. Companies bid and the govt. pays out of tax dollars. Some prisons are now run this way.
How the hell is that any better than having the government just fund the schools directly?

I don't know why...but something tells me that allowing companies (whos purpose is to make money I remind you) to teach children just doesn't seem right.

It would deprive plenty of people the right to education, and would create a sub-par system in my opinion.

You do not understand. Privatizing public schools would mean that the government would contract private companies to run and administer the K-12 schools in the district. Companies would bid and the company that won the bid would hire the teachers, etc, etc. The companies would be required under the contract to provide the education for all students. Individuals would not have to pay anything out of pocket as the system would be funded just like the present system. The district would still set the minimum educational standards and could even include a bonus for exceeding those standards.

It would work the same way the government builds roads. Companies bid and the govt. pays out of tax dollars. Some prisons are now run this way.

So we would contract out our children's education to the lowest bidder?

One thing that concerns me is parental involvment, or a potential lack thereof under a corporately administered education scheme. A corporation, of course, has a responsibility to its shareholders, not a PTA.

Another good reason not to privatize. It'll just further the ass-fucking of minorities. And by minorities, I mean every one, not just other nationalities. It's mainly poor people who'll get shafted.

How will privatizing the system screw them? Aren't they being screwed now? They are being placed in an educational system that does not work. It is very difficult for them to learn in the present system. When they graduate (if they graduate) from High School they are not prepared for college or any meaningful work.

So I as again, how would privatizing the system to improve education screw them?

Another good reason not to privatize. It'll just further the ass-fucking of minorities. And by minorities, I mean every one, not just other nationalities. It's mainly poor people who'll get shafted.

obsured... in the college system which is largely privitized in America, minorities have the greatest opprotunities to attend school at little or even no costs at all thanks to governmental grants and financial aid... Who is to say the same wouldn't or shouldnt be applied if all schools were privitized. And schooling wouldn't be a matter of choice, as it isn't now either. Even if schools were privitized there should still be a governmental requirement for attendence

So we would contract out our children's education to the lowest bidder?

I concur, the basic education of our entire nation should not be left up to the lowest bidder. The quality of a road and a child learning how to read are completely different subjects.

Yes, that's a brilliant idea! Let a company like Exxon Mobil take over schools and teach everyone that pollution is good for the environment! :rolleyes:

No, the government (school board) still sets the curriculum.

How will privatizing the system screw them? Aren't they being screwed now? They are being placed in an educational system that does not work. It is very difficult for them to learn in the present system. When they graduate (if they graduate) from High School they are not prepared for college or any meaningful work.

So I as again, how would privatizing the system to improve education screw them?

In fact it is those ineiffient lower schools which is largely making higher education inaccessable to them, becuase simply said (by all statisical results) they are unprepared to deal with advanced curriculums given by univiersities.. which is why affirmative action dosn't work.

How will privatizing the system screw them? Aren't they being screwed now? They are being placed in an educational system that does not work. It is very difficult for them to learn in the present system. When they graduate (if they graduate) from High School they are not prepared for college or any meaningful work.

So I as again, how would privatizing the system to improve education screw them?
Better yet, how would it help? All schools have to follow the same relative itinerary. There is a problem in the education system not related to who is in charge of schools.

privatisation would be bad, imo, simply because private firms have to ultimatley care more about efficiency, profits, costs and the bottom line than they care about the kids they are teaching. if compulsory competative tendering is used to select the firm to run the school/district every x years, it becomes more of an imperative to keep the contract, which is ensured through monetary efficiency (the reason why schools would be privatised in the first place). even if qualitiative standards targets are introduced, the firm still has to care about the bottom line, and i simply think that kids will get a better education out of a system which doesn't change every few years (CCT), and which doesn't have to care about efficiency in the same way.
so essentially, i'd rather be irrational and have an inefficient system than a private system which will concentrate too much on efficiency. education is so important that i don't really care how much money it takes (or how inefficient it is), as long as the kids get a good education


hope that made sense, my brain has packed up and left me this evening :headbang:

You could give the school system to a baboon or a genius. Its the curriculim not the ownership.

That sounds... Decent, but there's a problem. What happens when you have a psycho who performs the disciplinary actions? I had one at my last school, Derry Elementary. His name was Mr. Garza, and he *really* liked to beat the shit out of kids with his "tools". He used heavy paddles, belts, speed paddles, and even whipping sticks. It was awful. Fucking awful.

You could hear the screams from my classroom, which wasn't even anywhere near Mr. Garza's office.

I would pressume Mr. Garza is now in jail for child abuse. Under a privatized system anyone acting like he did would be prosicuted, just like they should be now.

That's not what I said or implied. There are many private colleges and universities that compete very well with public institutions. To privatize the education system does not mean you are turning it into a prison. :headbang:

The problem is that when you run a business your job is to get as much money to come in and as little to go out as possible. There's no way to reconcile that with education. What will always end up happening is that classes will be overcrowded and teachers underpaid (maybe we've already privatized) or if students grades are used as the basis of an incentive based pay system for the teachers, they'll just lower the standards.

All the research shows that private schools do not outperform public ones when used as an alternative. The only reason that some private schools do outperform their public counterparts is that they kick out anyone who underperforms. A 90% graduation rate is nothing to brag about when you kick out 75% of every incoming class and don't count them. Nor do they count expulsions.

Don't privatize simply because it doesn't work.

Better yet, how would it help? All schools have to follow the same relative itinerary. There is a problem in the education system not related to who is in charge of schools.

exactly..t hat primiary problem is financing and school capacities.. both of which priviate schools have proven to beable to address more effecitivly then public schools... it is simple fact that many state budgest simply are unable to deal sufficently with the needs for acceptable levels of education.. this is why the North East has such a superior education system as compared to the southern states..

Many people are against a voucher system and the public system isn’t getting any better for the reasons stated above. So why not do with education what we have done with some other government functions? Why not privatize K-12 education?

I am against a voucher system. Why such complexities when people can (and should!) simply pay cash for education of their chidlren?! Oh, and BTW, if they don't have enough money, they should not have children. I sincerely don't understand why the local gummint forces me to pay thousands of dollars to educate somebody else's children (and another BTW - I will actually care about what other consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms as long as they continue to insist that I help them to support their children, so I actually want to have, say, laws criminalizing sodomy just to make a point).

Privatizing schools is definitely a bad idea. There is a better solution to boost the schools, though. Other than actually funding it (and making sure that funding isn't just blown on Physical Education), they should actually raise the standards and make sure the schools get textbooks that aren't so old they describe the Civil Rights movement as "trouble ahead".

That's just it. Under a privatized system the text books would, under the contract, have to be up to date.

Please explain why you think privatizing would be a bad idea?

The problem is that when you run a business your job is to get as much money to come in and as little to go out as possible. There's no way to reconcile that with education. What will always end up happening is that classes will be overcrowded and teachers underpaid (maybe we've already privatized) or if students grades are used as the basis of an incentive based pay system for the teachers, they'll just lower the standards.

All the research shows that private schools do not outperform public ones when used as an alternative. The only reason that some private schools do outperform their public counterparts is that they kick out anyone who underperforms. A 90% graduation rate is nothing to brag about when you kick out 75% of every incoming class and don't count them. Nor do they count expulsions.

Don't privatize simply because it doesn't work.

quite frankly.. what you suggest is not supported by any statistics.. in fact Priviate schools have lower class sizes as compared to public schools, and have better paid faculty. If you allow for the establishment of priviate schools, then schools will not be bound by "school districts" which often favor more afluent areas leaving those more impoverished districts to fend for themselves often with more children per class an less state funds

this is why the North East has such a superior education system as compared to the southern states..

No, it does not. If you compare test scores of students with the same IQ in the Northeast and the South, they are the same. Considering that NE spends twice more per student, it is fair and reasonable to say that Northeastern education system is actually twice worse than the Southern one.

And you would see advertisements for Coca-Cola and Lockheed Martin thrown in there as well.

That still wouldn't stop the corporate jerk-offs from adding their own "special touches" to the cirriculum.

"Welcome to Human Health and Science here at Exon/Mobile-Coca-Cola high school. In our first week we'll be studying the health benifits of carb-loading with liquid supplements like those found in soft drinks. Next week we'll move on to the long term benifits to the health of the general population that result from the byproducts of burning petrochemical products which lead to increased efficiency in the lungs."

exactly..t hat primiary problem is financing and school capacities.. both of which priviate schools have proven to beable to address more effecitivly then public schools... it is simple fact that many state budgest simply are unable to deal sufficently with the needs for acceptable levels of education.. this is why the North East has such a superior education system as compared to the southern states..
Financing and capacity is no where near the problem

No, it does not. If you compare test scores of students with the same IQ in the Northeast and the South, they are the same. Considering that NE spends twice more per student, it is fair and reasonable to say that Northeastern education system is actually twice worse than the Southern one.

you cant merely compare test scores because the criteria for the tests themselves are not standarized

you cant merely compare test scores because the criteria for the tests themselves are not standarized
They might want to work on the name for "standardized tests" then

Just because of a few offenses, they should be sent to another school? You know, it's usually problems at home that cause such "behavior". Sending them off to a "Reform" school, which is basically a prison where you're educated, won't help matters much.

First, I said nothing about Reform school. I said alternative education, which could take many forms. Secondly, it would not be for "a few offenses, but would be for those individuals who continually disrupt the class/school or commit more serious offenses that threaten the safety of other students or teachers.

How do you propose students who consistently disrupt classes and prevent other students from learning be dealt with?

any of you guys read 'Jennifer government'?

No, it does not. If you compare test scores of students with the same IQ in the Northeast and the South, they are the same. Considering that NE spends twice more per student, it is fair and reasonable to say that Northeastern education system is actually twice worse than the Southern one.

hehehe.

I suspect that if we looked into it we'd see a lot more of what we saw with the supposed "Houston Miracle." Just rampant statistical fraud rather than any actual improvement.

When schools in a certain area become privatized, public schools tend to fail. An example would be areas of California such as Long Beach.

With my recommendation, education would still be funded by the governement. Government funding would of course, be pending on whether its standards are met or not.

Privatizing the public schools is not the same thing as private schools. When you privatize the schools, the education is still free, however the school is run by a private company contracted to provide the education and run the school. The government sets the standards and if the standards are not met the contractor if fired and a new one hired.

As far as Long Beach goes, are you sure the private schools cause the failure of the public schools or were the public schools started because the public schools failed? Big difference.

Good idea, let's give the poor absolutely no chance at all in succeeding by denying them any education at all.

I suppose with this logic they wouldn't go to college either, because most people can't afford it. Most people choice to pay and go through it, regardless. It's just evident that a large market would lower the price for young adults, and with the advent of the internet, quite possible teach teenagers at a much lower cost.

The public school system is terribly inefficient and dangerous to the high morale that children are naturally born with. The free-market could be so much more rewarding and broad for an education system. Of all the things I dislike about America, it's the public school system that I deem the worst. I hope one state sets it free.

quite frankly.. what you suggest is not supported by any statistics..

Didn't you see how I pointed out how the statistics are manipulated? Of course they're not going to support what I said, that's how they're designed. The private schools here in NY that are so respected for academic excellence get that way not by providing an excellent education but by kicking out any student who is less than excellent. 75% of every incoming class gets thrown out by the end of freshman year and they are NOT counted in any of the statistics.

in fact Priviate schools have lower class sizes as compared to public schools, and have better paid faculty. If you allow for the establishment of priviate schools, then schools will not be bound by "school districts" which often favor more afluent areas leaving those more impoverished districts to fend for themselves often with more children per class an less state funds

When schools are privatized they underperform. I've seen the research here. I'm not registering for NY Times online so I can't show you the articles, but I study education in NY state which is the epicenter for a lot of the privatizing efforts. And the efforts have all been dissappointing.

But that isn't really relevant to private schools, merely privatized.

But that isn't really relevant to private schools, merely privatized.

Very nice. There's a big difference. I don't support the voucher system as well.

Why do you think that private schools would sack bad teachers? The best teachers tend to be non conformists, and they are the ones that would be, and are, sacked by private schools.

Because if they didn't sack the bad teachers, they could not meet the educational standards set by the contract and they would end up loosing it.

As far as non conformist teachers being sacked by private schools, I disput that. There are many of them teaching in private universities.

I am against a voucher system. Why such complexities when people can (and should!) simply pay cash for education of their chidlren?! Oh, and BTW, if they don't have enough money, they should not have children. I sincerely don't understand why the local gummint forces me to pay thousands of dollars to educate somebody else's children (and another BTW - I will actually care about what other consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms as long as they continue to insist that I help them to support their children, so I actually want to have, say, laws criminalizing sodomy just to make a point).

Because it's a lot cheaper to pay to educate a child than to pay to imprison an adult.

Because if children are not sent to school then they enter the workforce driving wages down for all. Do you want to compete with 8 year olds for work?

Taxes we all pay are to help make the country one that we want to live in. If you want to abolish all the things that our taxes pay for, like roads, schools and the police force then just give me a few months notice, because if we're going all Mad Max I need a chance to start working out and steal a jeep.

And the sodomy thing? Why would you be anti sodomy if you favor population control?

Privatisation always hits the poor hardest - just look at the losers in privatised healthcare.

By privatising schools the children from poor backgrounds will suffer most, leading them to lower economic prosperity, perpetuating and increasing the divide between rich and poor. The best thing for the economy is to have everyone prospering, because then there is a greater amount of expenditure to fuel greater growth.

Plus read 'Jennifer Government' for a few other insights into the potential of private schooling.

But companies an tell the children to buy this or tha because they help fund it. Advertising.
P.S. Potaria I shall eat your soul, and will savor it.

This is going on in public schools right now. Look at the exclusive contracts Coke and Pepsi have. You put in our machine and can sell only our product.

Because if they didn't sack the bad teachers, they could not meet the educational standards set by the contract and they would end up loosing it.

As far as non conformist teachers being sacked by private schools, I disput that. There are many of them teaching in private universities.

Universities yes, because professors are hired based on professional credentials. That's why they're called professors. You need to allow for an ecclectic mix if you're just going after people who are good at what they do.

The people doing the hiring at schools tend to be more concerned about politics, and so when teachers have unpopular views, habits, or even fashion senses parents can become antsy and complain to the school board.

ROTFLMAO!
That's the most ludicrous thing i've heard in a while!
Not to be sounding a flamer but privatizing below college level education is one of the worst things you could do...
Go and read Jennifer Government for some good fiction...
When some people will learn that privatizing the basic services is bad it will be just too late...
Look: Privatizing is good wherever you got a real market of non vital services and quality is not the first issue.
Otherwise you will never obtain the same efficency per dollar spent with private services, as unlike the state they have to make a profit.

Let's start a basic economics study.
What can you do to make a profit from a fixet budget environment?

1) Cutting costs (and corners)

You can start with the less vital components, like cleaning, maintenance (watch out for safety measures slip in the name of cheapness!) and surveillance (vandalism might arise).
The problem there is that very often the people is very near minimum pay there and there are safety rules to be respected to run the place legally (no comment on this...) but it still can be done...
Ok, congratulations you made the first year going even or with a profit!

Second term comes and in 90% of cases there are two alternatives:

- Budget stays the same (price inflation eats some margins but it can be still bearable)

- You made a VERY good work so some smart politician thinks you're over funded and needs a budget cut...

In the second case you need to cut some extra corners...
Where do you go doing it?
Since teachers are the core business they most likely stays untouched but you have to made some sacrifices... Oh, look you've got a couple of people in the administration retiring/at end of contract! That's good, less salaries = more cash!
Just a small problem arises... Practices goes slower and everyone must wait longer, but i'm sure you can bear it for cost efficency sake.

Great, third term comes and of courses funds go down (either cut or price inflation)

- If budget is stable go to last year's cut option

- Otherwise... Sorry kids, we haven't the funds to keep the gym working... Better luck next term!

Of course there can go sponsorship, lool how cool it looks the gym sponsored bt MD or BK! Too bad you've gotta always eat cheesburger for lonch now! Hope it tastes good...

But hey, your administrative genius made it for another term!

Like before if the budget is stable go to last term cut option, otherwise...
Sorry kids no new books this year... (If you're lucky you can get private sponsorship for it but how would reflect an ad-filled school book in children education? Hmm, i guess some sense of criticism can be sacrificed, after all it was such a generous offer! Guess what kids will buy once they got the cash?)

I'm sure you can guess what happens with another term and no founding...

Of course there are cheaper teachers in the market but you get what you pay for... In the luckiest case young, maybe well prepared but unexperienced teachers... In the worst one... Gee your son got some spanish words in his vocabulary instead of proper english (look at the early teens already... many of them speaks gibberish rather than english) but you're sending him on public school because you cannot afford anything better..

This description is of course a bit strong as you've got to get some really bad luck to incur in 4 terms without budget increase but better to err on the side of caution...
This is just for the cost approach...
You can go with

2) The sponsorship way

read the descrpitions for the cost cut approach and you'll get most of it...
I'd just say here that this would be a marketing officer dream...
Delivering ads in a place where the mind is formed and to people without self defences against it... Results guaranteed almost every time!

Want a better school?
Invest some funds on federal inspections and curb the admin paycheck for every non justified problem... THAT will make the lazy asses run!

I have to agree with Celtlund.

In response to Alien Born's philosiphy that bad teachers are non-conformist ones, I invite him to visit my school, the Beacon School in New York City (we happen to have our own region in nationstats which I am a part of). Our entire school public school is non-conformist in it's teaching method, and based much less on standardized testing (closely associated with any talk ot privitizing schools) or teaching from the book. Our college like atmosphere and non-conformist teaching has made us one of the best public schools in New York City.

We're basically a living example of how misguided your over-generalized philosiphy is.

This is going on in public schools right now. Look at the exclusive contracts Coke and Pepsi have. You put in our machine and can sell only our product.
But the companies aren't funding the schools entirely and have less influence than under a privatized system.

How the hell is that any better than having the government just fund the schools directly?

Government waste, bureaucracy, and inefficiency.

Government waste, bureaucracy, and inefficiency.
What about companies cutting-corners to save money? Thats oen of the risks.

I say we completely rebuild the Education Department from the ground up, fire everybody, completely free the budget, and remodel the system based on lessons learned. Like, stop trying to run the school as a business, stop trying to make idiots who don't want to go to school, attend. Stop trying to get people to memorize information and instead focus on use problem solving and critical thinking skills. Maybe make the entire educational enviroment more comforting, more productive to actual learning.

Carpeted floors and clean facilities do wonders, I swear.

I concur, the basic education of our entire nation should not be left up to the lowest bidder. The quality of a road and a child learning how to read are completely different subjects.

The contract does not have to go to the lowest bidder. Even federal contracts no longer have to go to the lowest bidder.

Don't memorize, learn. Thats a pretty good slogan.

Government waste, bureaucracy, and inefficiency.
The problem isn't in the funding, it's what happens after there is funding and how and what stuff is funded

ROTFLMAO!
That's the most ludicrous thing i've heard in a while!
Not to be sounding a flamer but privatizing below college level education is one of the worst things you could do...
Go and read Jennifer Government for some good fiction...
When some people will learn that privatizing the basic services is bad it will be just too late...


The problem is that it's patently obvious that privatizing any government function is bad. Privatized prisons, schools, road construction, it all turns to crap. Unfortunatly people aren't willing to think for themselves so they listen to the smiliest politician which is only doing what is good for his uncle's construction company or the teacher staffing agency that his brother-in-law is about to start up.

Yes, that's a brilliant idea! Let a company like Exxon Mobil take over schools and teach everyone that pollution is good for the environment! :rolleyes:

Actually, I'm sure I've heard about a few schools recently in the school, that were part funded by businesses, and they were excellent centres of education, not places to teach them crap.

I can't remember where it was though... I will dig about on the internet and edit in a link if I can...

The problem is that when you run a business your job is to get as much money to come in and as little to go out as possible. There's no way to reconcile that with education. What will always end up happening is that classes will be overcrowded and teachers underpaid (maybe we've already privatized) or if students grades are used as the basis of an incentive based pay system for the teachers, they'll just lower the standards.

There is a misconception here. Yes a private company does have to make money. However, they also have to meet the terms of the contract. Things like class size, curriculum, and educational outcomes would be written into the contract. Failing to meet the terms of the contract could mean penalties and or loss of the contract, which negatively affect the company’s profits.

The first ones will go relatively without problems...
But give power and it will turn itself into corruption...

Originally posted by Celtlund
When you privatize the schools, the education is still free, however the school is run by a private company contracted to provide the education and run the school.

No, I wouldn't support that. Schools should not be run by firms. This risks corruption. These firms would make a lot of money off of your child's education, not to mention the fact it doesn't accomplish what you wanted. It doesn't get rid of beauracracy, ineffeciency, or government waste becasue the government is stil regulating it. If you had a problem with your child's education, you'd have to go through the government to find a solution. The question and issue you had brought to our attention is: does the government give children the education they should have? If the government is not listening to us now, then chances are slim they'll listen to us in that situation.

No, it does not. If you compare test scores of students with the same IQ in the Northeast and the South, they are the same. Considering that NE spends twice more per student, it is fair and reasonable to say that Northeastern education system is actually twice worse than the Southern one.

I would not say it is twice as bad, but twice as inefficient. By privatizing the system the company that won the contract would have to do away with those inefficiencies to make a profit and meat the terms of the contract.

There is a misconception here. Yes a private company does have to make money. However, they also have to meet the terms of the contract. Things like class size, curriculum, and educational outcomes would be written into the contract. Failing to meet the terms of the contract could mean penalties and or loss of the contract, which negatively affect the company’s profits.

And what happens to the children that get screwed over in the years when the company is 'being warned' and then losing their contract? The children don't get their education back. It's not about money, it's about education.

Those children who are failed aren't going to take great solace in the fact that the company has lost its contract are they.

you cant merely compare test scores because the criteria for the tests themselves are not standarized

It is if you are using a national standardized test.

So, you're just assuming that schools in the Northeast use the exact same tests as schools in the South do?

Logic seems to have passed you by.

Crazy, but the same liberals who are so distrustworthy of the government want it to educate their children. :confused:

Crazy, but the same liberals who are so distrustworthy of the government want it to educate their children. :confused:


Fuck, man, shit's gonna hit the fan now.

ok whoever wrote about schools having relative iternery is an idiot. i went to a public school in hong kong and remember one of my science lessons learning about fingerprints, and an english lesson listening to recorded laughter.

Universities yes, because professors are hired based on professional credentials. That's why they're called professors. You need to allow for an ecclectic mix if you're just going after people who are good at what they do.

The people doing the hiring at schools tend to be more concerned about politics, and so when teachers have unpopular views, habits, or even fashion senses parents can become antsy and complain to the school board.

By privatizing the public K-10 system teachers would be hired based on their professional credentals. It woild also take politics out of the schools.

Crazy, but the same liberals who are so distrustworthy of the government want it to educate their children.

Why trust companies who have closed finances and unnaccountable executives more than an elected, reasonably accountable, fairly open government?

ok whoever wrote about schools having relative iternery is an idiot. i went to a public school in hong kong and remember one of my science lessons learning about fingerprints, and an english lesson listening to recorded laughter.


Okay... That's just weird.

Why trust companies who have closed finances and unnaccountable executives more than an elected, reasonably accountable, fairly open government?


That post was a response to that other guy's remark about "liberals".

And to you, Celtlund, if anything, it'd give schools a more conservative bias, because these money-hungry, cock-sucking corporations are naturally that way. Conservatives tend to be the most lenient on their business practices, so they tend to vote that way.

And I will ask you this: How the fuck did you ever come up with such a horrible idea? Schools should not be controlled by private companies.

I am against a voucher system. Why such complexities when people can (and should!) simply pay cash for education of their chidlren?! Oh, and BTW, if they don't have enough money, they should not have children. I sincerely don't understand why the local gummint forces me to pay thousands of dollars to educate somebody else's children (and another BTW - I will actually care about what other consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms as long as they continue to insist that I help them to support their children, so I actually want to have, say, laws criminalizing sodomy just to make a point).

I haven't read the rest of the thread past this. But, I just had to chime in here and tell you Midlands that the above statement just goes to show that you are a blowhard jerk, who loves to prattle about "what's mine is mine," and other, bullshit, section 8, repo-crap. I know how you'll respond to that too, "So, I'm a jerk for having a different opinion than you? Where's your compassion, liberal?"

To which I say, that people like you are not deserving of my compassion. Not at all. You treat people like me with such contempt, and then expect us not to get angry about it. That statement makes me want to become disabled, just so I can get a share of your tax money, throw it in a kiddie pool in your front yard, and flop around in it...

ROTFLMAO!1) Cutting costs (and corners)

Or improve efficiency. Public schools are not efficient and never will be as long as the government runs them.

Throwing more money at education will not improve education. What this country needs is real education reform that includes; restoring discipline to the classroom and school; moving disruptive/unruly students to alternative educational programs; reducing administrative costs; reducing the number of administrators; providing a method of firing incompetent teachers; and providing rewards and incentives for good teachers.

Many people are against a voucher system and the public system isn’t getting any better for the reasons stated above. So why not do with education what we have done with some other government functions? Why not privatize K-12 education?
here here

Fuck, man, shit's gonna hit the fan now.

wierdo wat u on about

That statement makes me want to become disabled, just so I can get a share of your tax money, throw it in a kiddie pool in your front yard, and flop around in it...


Dude, do it! DO IT!!!

But the companies aren't funding the schools entirely and have less influence than under a privatized system.

One of the reasons the schools have these exclusive contracts with Coke, Pepsi, etc. is the huge amount of money they receive from the companies.

Well I don't want all education private..

BUT....

I did introduce a scholl voucher intiative to the State of Oregon, but it failed - What it did was basically this:

Each district has a certain amount of money applied to each student through a census - Usually only taking public schools for this census - Then the amount of money per child for education within that district was tallied...

What my voucher did was have every child counted public or private then divided the monies in that district - School levies, ect.. etc... and that amount of money went to each child's education - Rather that private or public.. and if the private charged more then the child's percentage - The parents made up the difference..

I took it from a intiative that Florida tried to pass - But it also failed.. the government kept opposing it..

Troy*

Or improve efficiency. Public schools are not efficient and never will be as long as the government runs them.


And if corporations own them, say goodbye to personal freedoms and free speech in the next two generations.

Okay... That's just weird.

i came to australia 4 years ago and was WAY behind. they actualli thought i had a learnin difficulty. it turned out i had an iq of 140.

wierdo wat u on about


If you don't have anything even remotely important or relevant to say, back off.

Because we all know that private schools today are run by corporate mongrels. :rolleyes:

What about companies cutting-corners to save money? Thats oen of the risks.

By cutting corners they risk not meeting the terms of the contract and having to pay penalties.

Yes, that's a brilliant idea! Let a company like Exxon Mobil take over schools and teach everyone that pollution is good for the environment! :rolleyes:

lmao..

reminds me of a simpsons episode where a toy company took over springfield elementary so they could get toy ideas from the kids. :mad:

By cutting corners they risk not meeting the terms of the contract and having to pay penalties.


No harm would come to them from cutting corners. Corporations feel that they are above the law, and often, they are.

By cutting corners they risk not meeting the terms of the contract and having to pay penalties.

How does a contract magically protect the children form the company screwing them over?

A private train operator in the UK was utter crap for years and only lost their contract after it was discovered they had been stealing government funds and sending them to other projects abroad! And even then it took them years to notice.

Their contract probably wouldn't have been dropped if they just provided extremely shitty service, instead of having stolen funds.

Happens all the time in America. Highway construction hangs in limbo for years, even decades. And, when they finish the highways, they're not always up to standards. They really cut corners, and they always get away with it.

And what happens to the children that get screwed over in the years when the company is 'being warned' and then losing their contract? The children don't get their education back. It's not about money, it's about education.

Those children who are failed aren't going to take great solace in the fact that the company has lost its contract are they.

What happens to the children that are being screwed over in their education now? How do we know privatization will be so bad if we don't try it? Heck, it might turn out to be the best thing since peanut butter.

No, it won't, because it will bring a lot more shit into the system.

Why is it that you think corporations are so wonderful?

Crazy, but the same liberals who are so distrustworthy of the government want it to educate their children. :confused:

ROFL :D

What happens to the children that are being screwed over in their education now? How do we know privatization will be so bad if we don't try it? Heck, it might turn out to be the best thing since peanut butter.

Your american peanut butter is apparently horrible, sweet, nasty stuff.

Because at least at the moment there is political will to improve education - because worse education loses you votes

ROFL :D


Yeah, it was so difficult to tell how you leaned.

Anyway, corporations would sooner take over the nation and hold it hostage than help it out. And, if they took over schools, they'd pollute children's minds with bullshit propaganda and a ridiculously conservative bias.

Your american peanut butter is apparently horrible, sweet, nasty stuff.


Most American peanut butter is quite good. He probably just eats that Peter Pan crap.

If schools were privatised would they charge people to see school plays?

If schools were privatised would they charge people to see school plays?

Depends on the school.

Why trust companies who have closed finances and unnaccountable executives more than an elected, reasonably accountable, fairly open government?

I'll put my trust in the companies thank you. They are accountable to the stockholders and the law. Politicians on the other hand are only accountable to the people who keep re-electing them and they don't usually go to jail.

At the Exxon-Mobil School of Art, they'd probably charge $4.50 per seat, not to mention cover charges, food tax, basic maintenance tax, service fee, surcharge fee, loud noise tax, and so forth.

I'll put my trust in the companies thank you. They are accountable to the stockholders and the law. Politicians on the other hand are only accountable to the people who keep re-electing them and they don't usually go to jail.

Once again the poor would lose out. Politicians are supposed to be accountable to the law jsut as companies are supposed to be.

I'll put my trust in the companies thank you. They are accountable to the stockholders and the law. Politicians on the other hand are only accountable to the people who keep re-electing them and they don't usually go to jail.
*Cough* Enron *cough*

Oh yes, fuck free thought, let's just turn it into a fucking prison system!

It already is.

I'll put my trust in the companies thank you. They are accountable to the stockholders and the law. Politicians on the other hand are only accountable to the people who keep re-electing them and they don't usually go to jail.


Go ahead and live in your completely-privatized nation of darkness. I doubt you'd like it.

You sound like an average, upper-middle-classman who doesn't give a flying fuck about people who make less money than you. That's the way my dad thinks, and I fucking hate people like that.

Why is it that you dislike people who aren't as well-off?

It already is.


Not so much as a corporate-owned school system would be.

Not so much as a corporate-owned school system would be.

Privately owned != corporate-owned

You might want to touch up your post a bit...

Yes, that's a brilliant idea! Let a company like Exxon Mobil take over schools and teach everyone that pollution is good for the environment! :rolleyes:

No you ate an idiot, thats not what privatizing schools means. It means that you pay money to go to a shool rather than have it be funded by the government.

No you ate an idiot, thats not what privatizing schools means. It means that you pay money to go to a shool rather than have it be funded by the government.

Which fucks over those who are poor. So they get shit education, so they stay poor.

You increase the divide between rich and poor, and then you have easy pickings for communists or facists. It's happened so much in history.

The best thing for everyone is if EVERYONE is prospering.

Not in this topic. This is about schools being taken over by CORPORATIONS.

The fucking scum of this earth taking over our schools would not be a good thing.

Privately owned != corporate-owned
Who will be funding it then? The von Trapp family?

Go ahead and live in your completely-privatized nation of darkness. I doubt you'd like it.

You sound like an average, upper-middle-classman who doesn't give a flying fuck about people who make less money than you. That's the way my dad thinks, and I fucking hate people like that.

Why is it that you dislike people who aren't as well-off?

Here here!!

Here here!!


Was that for me, or was it for the Pro-Corporate whacko?

Throwing more money at education will not improve education. What this country needs is real education reform that includes; restoring discipline to the classroom and school; moving disruptive/unruly students to alternative educational programs; reducing administrative costs; reducing the number of administrators; providing a method of firing incompetent teachers; and providing rewards and incentives for good teachers.

Many people are against a voucher system and the public system isn’t getting any better for the reasons stated above. So why not do with education what we have done with some other government functions? Why not privatize K-12 education?
I find that perfectly logical. It wouuld encourage more schools to open, and more parents would be able to afford education without property taxes to pay them with. Maybe as an incentive for labor, employers will start offering "education benefits", taking less and less of the onus off the worker. There may still be some form of a state-established standard, but for the most part, schools are privately administered. I love it.

Was that for me, or was it for the Pro-Corporate whacko?

I was in the middle of writing something similar to what you had said, but then I saw your post and didn't feel like being redundant...

I find that perfectly logical. It wouuld encourage more schools to open, and more parents would be able to afford education without property taxes to pay them with. Maybe as an incentive for labor, employers will start offering "education benefits", taking less and less of the onus off the worker. There may still be some form of a state-established standard, but for the most part, schools are privately administered. I love it.


Of course you'd love it, because you and your snooty friends could afford it. It would still ass-fuck the poor people.

I disagree with privatising education completely. It will put it out of the grasp of poor people and there's a risk of it being used as a corporate propoganda "education" camp.

And by minorities, I mean every one
Do you know what "minority" means?

And I will ask you this: How the fuck did you ever come up with such a horrible idea? Schools should not be controlled by private companies.

I've was involved in the education field for many years and majored in Occupational and Adult Education in college. Unfortunately, I have seen a steady decline in the education of the children in the US. People are graduating from high school and are not prepared to go to college or enter into the work force. It isn't necessarily the fault of the kid; it is the fault of an education system that has failed them.

Throwing more money at the problem will not solve it. Many school districts spend a lot less money per student than other districts but give the students a far superior education.

The only solution to the problem facing the educational system today is a complete reform of the system. I heard on the news the other night that the contract for running the county jail in Tulsa is up for bid. The jail is run by a private company.

I thought if privatization can work for the jail and other government services, why wouldn't it work for public education. I wanted to see what people thought so I started this thread.

I've learned two things. First, there is a lot of misconception about privatizing government services. Second, most people who responded to the thread are against privatizing public education.

how about privatising the public, big investors could buy citizens and trade them as a commdoties,

its a win win people

I disagree with privatising education completely. It will put it out of the grasp of poor people and there's a risk of it being used as a corporate propoganda "education" camp.


Do you know what "minority" means?


Yes, I posted what I mean. I said "and by minorities, I mean every one, not just people of other nationalities", meaning that it will do the same (if not worse) to poor people.

Of course you'd love it, because you and your snooty friends could afford it. It would still ass-fuck the poor people.
Not that I'm exactly rich, either.

I haven't read the rest of the thread past this. But, I just had to chime in here ...

You should have read the rest of the thread, or at least the first post. The thread is not about school vouchers.

I've was involved in the education field for many years and majored in Occupational and Adult Education in college. Unfortunately, I have seen a steady decline in the education of the children in the US. People are graduating from high school and are not prepared to go to college or enter into the work force. It isn't necessarily the fault of the kid; it is the fault of an education system that has failed them.

Throwing more money at the problem will not solve it. Many school districts spend a lot less money per student than other districts but give the students a far superior education.

The only solution to the problem facing the educational system today is a complete reform of the system. I heard on the news the other night that the contract for running the county jail in Tulsa is up for bid. The jail is run by a private company.

I thought if privatization can work for the jail and other government services, why wouldn't it work for public education. I wanted to see what people thought so I started this thread.

I've learned two things. First, there is a lot of misconception about privatizing government services. Second, most people who responded to the thread are against privatizing public education.


Privatizing a jail is fine, somewhat, anyway. It's still quite bad. And privatizing public schools is quite possibly the most fucking ridiculous idea I've heard in quite sometime.

Much offense intended.

Not that I'm exactly rich, either.


That may be so, but if you're above the $20,000 a year line, you're fine (for the most part).

But, there's nothing to stop corporations from cutting corners and raising tuition ten-fold to widen their profit margins.

wierdo wat u on about

Obviously this individual is a product of out current public education system and would have been much better off under the system I have proposed. :D

That may be so, but if you're above the $20,000 a year line, you're fine (for the most part).

But, there's nothing to stop corporations from cutting corners and raising tuition ten-fold to widen their profit margins.
I think that they will run along the lines of a university: a board of governors that funds, but doesn't directly interfere in the affairs of the school. That will gurantee an education to most everyone by encouraging a wave of schools to open. Besides, private schools often send students through the education system better, and at a lower cost per student than public schools.

Obviously you're full of yourself. I've been home-schooled since 4th Grade.

Though it is only natural that a mildly-intelligent conservative get the wrong idea about such things. Don't worry, it happens all the time. There's no need to shit yourself over it.


Tell me --- what makes you think that you're above the needy? The people that never did have a chance; the people who were born into poverty? These kids wouldn't even receive the POSSIBILITY to go to your corporate school system.

Edit --- This post was directed at Celtlund. Sorry for any problems.

I think that they will run along the lines of a university: a board of governors that funds, but doesn't directly interfere in the affairs of the school. That will gurantee an education to most everyone by encouraging a wave of schools to open. Besides, private schools often send students through the education system better, and at a lower cost per student than public schools.


Sure, that'd be nice, but it wouldn't stop a company like Phillip-Morris from brain-fucking the entire student body with corporate propaganda and political bullshit.

Sure, that'd be nice, but it wouldn't stop a company like Phillip-Morris from brain-fucking the entire student body with corporate propaganda and political bullshit.
Isn't that more likely in public schools, being government run?

How does a contract magically protect the children form the company screwing them over?

It doesn't. But the children are currently being screwed over by the public education. What solution to the current education problem do you propose? Then again, it might not be a problem in the UK as you may have a better primary and secondary education system than we do

I don't see how it would be, considering that it wouldn't allow a corporation to run in and change the entire system to their will.

It doesn't. But the children are currently being screwed over by the public education. What solution to the current education problem do you propose? Then again, it might not be a problem in the UK as you may have a better primary and secondary education system than we do


Said children would be fucked even moreso in your appalling idea for a "system". So many kids wouldn't even get the chance to attend class because of the added fees the corporations would add.

Then the profit margins would come into play.

Why is it that you think corporations are so wonderful?

I don't necessarly, some are good some are bad. I'm just trying to find a reasonable solution to a broken educational system. What solution do you propose?

Privatizing schools is a poor idea and yet the current system is wasteful and does little to educated youth. A few things should be done.

1. Reform the system of preparing teachers to teach. They should be held to a much higher standard and should have to pass a general subject and specific subject qualification test. They should also bo paid considerably more while at the same time all teachers unions should be abolished. Teacher's unions, like all unions are simply more making machines for political parties, essentially taking tax payer's money and contributing it to a party in a round about way.

2. Students should not be allowed to progress in the system without passing tests each year of junior high and high school. Finals that actually determine if you move on or not. If you don't pass you study the same subjects again.

3. Uniforms. It will not solve the problem of cliques but it will help some in bringing students toward a more group oriented way of thinking while they are in school.

4. Eliminate custodians. Students clean their own schools. This is how schools work in Japan and as a result schools are cleaner and school property is respected by students. They keep the toilets clean because if someone messes them up they have to clean it. They keep their rooms clean for the same reason.

5. Afterschool clubs. These are mandatory for most students in Japan and again they promote a spirit of friendship amoung students and also keep them busy for three hours after school.

6. Treat students like adults. If they don't attend class then that is their choice, ass long as they can pass tests and turn in work without cheating and do not get into trouble when absent then how they use their time should be their choice.

Those are a few of my ideas of what to do rather than turn schools into corporate sponsered commercials.

Most American peanut butter is quite good. He probably just eats that Peter Pan crap.

Nope, I eat the cheap store brand.

Certainly not privatization.

Though I'm not going to post my ideas, because as with talking to most other conservatives, you'll brush it off as lunacy or something similar. You've already shown me who you really are with a few choice words, so no thanks.

It's a waste of time dealing with people such as yourself.

Nope, I eat the cheap store brand.

I have never tried it but form what I have been told it is horribly sweet. It's supposed to be salty and crunchy.

Once again the poor would lose out. Politicians are supposed to be accountable to the law jsut as companies are supposed to be.

Key words. SUPPOSED TO BE. Unfortunately politicians seldom are, but that's another thread.

Key words. SUPPOSED TO BE. Unfortunately politicians seldom are, but that's another thread.

And neither are companies

Privatizing schools is a poor idea and yet the current system is wasteful and does little to educated youth. A few things should be done.

1. Reform the system of preparing teachers to teach. They should be held to a much higher standard and should have to pass a general subject and specific subject qualification test. They should also bo paid considerably more while at the same time all teachers unions should be abolished. Teacher's unions, like all unions are simply more making machines for political parties, essentially taking tax payer's money and contributing it to a party in a round about way.

I like the idea, but the Unions should stay. Everybody should have the ability to bargain, no matter what class or profession they are.

2. Students should not be allowed to progress in the system without passing tests each year of junior high and high school. Finals that actually determine if you move on or not. If you don't pass you study the same subjects again.

Sounds good. I'm liking this idea.

3. Uniforms. It will not solve the problem of cliques but it will help some in bringing students toward a more group oriented way of thinking while they are in school.

I've gotta disagree with this one. If you're to be treated as an "adult", you should have the option of wearing whatever you choose... So long as you're not naked. Well, I wouldn't be against that, but this is not the time or place for that discussion.

4. Eliminate custodians. Students clean their own schools. This is how schools work in Japan and as a result schools are cleaner and school property is respected by students. They keep the toilets clean because if someone messes them up they have to clean it. They keep their rooms clean for the same reason.

Great idea. Schools would be *much* cleaner this way, so I'm for it. And the dried piss on the bathroom floors would be a thing of the past!

5. Afterschool clubs. These are mandatory for most students in Japan and again they promote a spirit of friendship amoung students and also keep them busy for three hours after school.

Good idea, but don't make them mandatory. Once again, if they're to be treated like adults, they should be treated as such, and making them go to clubs would be treating them as children.

6. Treat students like adults. If they don't attend class then that is their choice, ass long as they can pass tests and turn in work without cheating and do not get into trouble when absent then how they use their time should be their choice.

Agreed. Whole-heartedly, I might add.

I have never tried it but form what I have been told it is horribly sweet. It's supposed to be salty and crunchy.


Skippy is salty and crunchy. It's great.

Skippy is salty and crunchy. It's great.

My sources must be incorrect then, I apologise.

No you ate an idiot, thats not what privatizing schools means. It means that you pay money to go to a shool rather than have it be funded by the government.

No it does not. It means a private company is paid by the school district to run the school. The school district still owns the school and no one has to pay money to go to school.

A private school school is a school that is owned by a private company or organization and a person must pay to attend.

Privatizing schools and private schools are two different animals.

No it does not. It means a private company is paid by the school district to run the school. The school district still owns the school and no one has to pay money to go to school.



That's just adding extra layers of beaurocracy for fun

My sources must be incorrect then, I apologise.


But Skippy's not a store brand. It's a name brand.

Certainly not privatization.

Though I'm not going to post my ideas, because as with talking to most other conservatives, you'll brush it off as lunacy or something similar. You've already shown me who you really are with a few choice words, so no thanks.

It's a waste of time dealing with people such as yourself.
Please? (I'm not a conservative, but what the hell)

Well, 31 posted some good basics, and I touched them up. Read my quote-filled post on the previous page to see!

Of course you'd love it, because you and your snooty friends could afford it. It would still ass-fuck the poor people.

People keep saying that but you never tell us how? The school is still owned by the school district. Education is still free as it is paid for with tax dollars. The school district still sets the standards for the curriculum. The only difference is the school is run by a private company and the teachers and administrators work for the company not the school district

I don't agree with the uniforms, the clubs are good as long they're not mandatory, the custodian idea is iffy, and I say let the unions stay. I especially agree with the final one, for the most part those are excellent reforms.

I like uniforms because I have seen the effect they have on Japanese students. They like them and when given the option of getting rid of them they have chosen to keep them everytime. They never worry about what to wear, how fashions will effect them in school ot leaves them free to worry about and concentrate on other things.
I know it removes freedom from the students but it also gives them another kind of freedom, they are free from a layer of social pressure and differentiation.
The club things was the weakest idea there I think. If they were students formed clubs based on what the students liked it would be their will more. As long as the subject matter of the clubs was not violent or demented or something like that.

People keep saying that but you never tell us how? The school is still owned by the school district. Education is still free as it is paid for with tax dollars. The school district still sets the standards for the curriculum. The only difference is the school is run by a private company and the teachers and administrators work for the company not the school district

How would that improve anything? All you have is a private company sucking money out for shareholders. Why not keep it as is?

I like uniforms because I have seen the effect they have on Japanese students. They like them and when given the option of getting rid of them they have chosen to keep them everytime. They never worry about what to wear, how fashions will effect them in school ot leaves them free to worry about and concentrate on other things.
I know it removes freedom from the students but it also gives them another kind of freedom, they are free from a layer of social pressure and differentiation.
The club things was the weakest idea there I think. If they were students formed clubs based on what the students liked it would be their will more. As long as the subject matter of the clubs was not violent or demented or something like that.


Social Pressure is just one of the things that comes with freedom of choice... It's a fact of life. Clubs are a very good idea, but they should definately not be mandatory.

And what's wrong with a bit of demented goodness? If we didn't have that, we wouldn'tve had the Misfits!

I like uniforms because I have seen the effect they have on Japanese students. They like them and when given the option of getting rid of them they have chosen to keep them everytime. They never worry about what to wear, how fashions will effect them in school ot leaves them free to worry about and concentrate on other things.
I know it removes freedom from the students but it also gives them another kind of freedom, they are free from a layer of social pressure and differentiation.
The club things was the weakest idea there I think. If they were students formed clubs based on what the students liked it would be their will more. As long as the subject matter of the clubs was not violent or demented or something like that.
Well last time I checked this isn't Japan, that has been emphasized a thousand times in every format possible.

I've always believed that if you treat people like adults, they begin to act like adults. You simply have to trust them for awhile. It feels risky for those in authority but as long as standards are strictly enforced it will improve the situation in the longrun.

I like uniforms because I have seen the effect they have on Japanese students. They like them and when given the option of getting rid of them they have chosen to keep them everytime. They never worry about what to wear, how fashions will effect them in school ot leaves them free to worry about and concentrate on other things.
I know it removes freedom from the students but it also gives them another kind of freedom, they are free from a layer of social pressure and differentiation.
The club things was the weakest idea there I think. If they were students formed clubs based on what the students liked it would be their will more. As long as the subject matter of the clubs was not violent or demented or something like that.
If you treat them like adults let them wear what they please. At my high school students can form clubs of any kind, with a teacher sponsor, you can then choose up to three and each club has a meeting every month for about 25 minutes. It really is a good idea.

People keep saying that but you never tell us how? The school is still owned by the school district. Education is still free as it is paid for with tax dollars. The school district still sets the standards for the curriculum. The only difference is the school is run by a private company and the teachers and administrators work for the company not the school district


Yeah, and said company can bribe politicians, change the cirriculum to suit their business activities, fire employees for "talking out of line" (as they often do, just because they speak out against questionable practices), and a load of other wonderful shit.

You put far too much trust in corporations.

Well last time I checked this isn't Japan, that has been emphasized a thousand times in every format possible.

Really, hadn't noticed that. And because it is not Japan we sure as hell should not consider adopting anything they do, even though it works. Let's always stick to our own ways no matter how much they fail to work.

Remember politicians can be easily bought.

Privatizing a jail is fine, somewhat, anyway. It's still quite bad. And privatizing public schools is quite possibly the most fucking ridiculous idea I've heard in quite sometime.

Much offense intended.

No offense taken. You have a right to your opinion.

Now, what do you propose we do to fix the problem of primary and secondary education in the US?

Remember politicians can be easily bought.


Exactly, which is another reason that these massive conglomerates shouldn't be givin any more power. ESPECIALLY over schools!

Exactly, which is another reason that these massive conglomerates shouldn't be givin any more power. ESPECIALLY over schools!
It would be a new, and far worse, form of lobbying.

Hire the best teachers to teach , pay them well. Dismiss the repeated "unruly" child if they are interfering with the teacher teaching and the other students learning. Have other resources for that child until the issue is resolved. It is the parents job to teach their kids to listen and behave, not the school. If they can't do it, then yes there should be outside resources to maybe teach the parent how or at least assist them. Wasting time on unruly students is hurting the ones that are ready and able to absorb the knowledge taught.

I'm not in favor of the "everyone and anyone regardless of intelligence and behavior being thrown into the same classroom". Children should be seperated and taught at their levels. You shouldn't have a kid with superior intelligence in a classroom built for mediocre learning. You will stunt the more intelligent and alienate the other.. hindering both.

That may be so, but if you're above the $20,000 a year line, you're fine (for the most part).

Don't tell a person who lives in New York City or LA that they are "fine" if they make only $20k a year.

But, there's nothing to stop corporations from cutting corners and raising tuition ten-fold to widen their profit margins.

There is no tuition so the company running the school can not raise it. The school is still a public school. It's just run by a private company.

Hire the best teachers to teach , pay them well. Dismiss the repeated "unruly" child if they are interfering with the teacher teaching and the other students learning. Have other resources for that child until the issue is resolved. It is the parents job to teach there kids to listen and behave, not the school. If they can't do it, then yes there should be outside resources to maybe teach the parent how or at least assist them. Wasting time on unruly students is hurting the ones that are ready and able to absorb the knowledge taught.

I'm not in favor of the "everyone and anyone regardless of intelligence and behavior being thrown into the same classroom". Children should be seperated and taught at their levels. You shouldn't have a kid with superior intelligence in a classroom built for mediocre learning. You will stunt the more intelligent and alienate the other.. hindering both.
I agree with you there.We have academic magnet schools in Nashville, where your average must be at least an 85% , which is a B, with high standardized test scores. Also, end this No Child Left Behind act.

No offense taken. You have a right to your opinion.

Now, what do you propose we do to fix the problem of primary and secondary education in the US?

How about a standardised curriculum, with none of this parents-want-creationism bullshit?

How about ending brain washing like the pledge of allegiance not because it refers to god, but because it stands contrary to free and critical thinking?

Don't tell a person who lives in New York City or LA that they are "fine" if they make only $20k a year.

My point exactly. Do you see what you're stepping into?

There is no tuition so the company running the school can not raise it. The school is still a public school. It's just run by a private company.

How's that? Corporations can raise whatever the fuck they want, because they OWN the fucking school. It's a public school, but they still own it, so cost-cutting and bullshit propaganda would be rampant.

How about a standardised curriculum, with none of this parents-want-creationism bullshit?

How about ending brain washing like the pledge of allegiance not because it refers to god, but because it stands contrary to free and critical thinking?
Damn straight.

How about a standardised curriculum, with none of this parents-want-creationism bullshit?

How about ending brain washing like the pledge of allegiance not because it refers to god, but because it stands contrary to free and critical thinking?


Sounds good to me.

When I was a substitute teacher (god what a shit job) I saw Taco Bell, McDonalds and Pizza Hut on campuses. They were staffed by students during lunch break. I really didn't know what to think about them. On one hand the idea of fastfood companies setting up on campus seemd just plain wrong. On the other hand, students got jobs, a bit of cash,and enjoyed having the restaurants. Everybody didn't eat there all the time but they had the choice without driving off of campus.

I could never come to grips with how I felt about them. It is a form a privatization but was it bad or good, I don't know. Also, from a health angle, I don7t give a damn if it is unhealthy for people. Students make choices, if they choose to eat so much fastfood they become fat then they must deal with the consequences, I hate the whole nanny school/state protect you from yourself mentality. If they wanna smoke on campus when they are 16, fine. They suffer when they are older.

Of course that was a good thing. It's not like Taco Bell was influencing the school's cirriculum.

It just gave the students some cash and more responsibility, which is a good thing. And if they want to eat a "beef" burrito, let them, its their choice.

Dude, you just made me so hungry... I want my Grilled Stuft Burrito, damnit!

Of course that was a good thing. It's not like Taco Bell was influencing the school's cirriculum.

are you sure about that? Was that a Taco Bell employee I saw drawn into a picture in a history book standing next to JFK during the Cuban missle crisis!? Was it!? Oh God, it begins!!!!!

are you sure about that? Was that a Taco Bell employee I saw drawn into a picture in a history book standing next to JFK during the Cuban missle crisis!? Was it!? Oh God, it begins!!!!!
Didn't you know? Taco Bell is actually a secret government agency.

So, they really are putting laxatives in my food...

It wasn't just a myth!!

No, they aren't. Thats a result of the brainwashing fluid they put into every bite of the Chalupa.

Man, I always wondered why I felt so funky after eating those Nacho Cheese Chalupas.

Obviously you're full of yourself. I've been home-schooled since 4th Grade.

Tell me --- what makes you think that you're above the needy?wouldn't even receive the POSSIBILITY to go to your corporate school system.

Edit --- This post was directed at Celtlund. Sorry for any problems.

First of all, let me congratulate you for being home schooled. You are most likely getting a much better education than most people in public schools.

I do not know why you think I am against or above the needy. In fact I am looking for a solution to give all kids a better education. It is through education that people can get better jobs and improve their economic status.

Privatization of the public schools would not exclude anyone. Ownership of the schools does not change. Funding for the schools does not change. Taxes still pay for the education of each child. The only thing that changes is who administers the school and who the teachers work for. The school district still owns the school, they still control the curriculum, and they can fire the people who run the school.

Our educational system is broken. All our kids are being cheated; especially the less fortunate because they are not getting the education they deserve and need.

I brought up this proposal because I thought, and still think, it to be a possible solution to the problem, a means of providing a better education to our kids.

Obviously many people do not agree with me, and that is OK. However, those that are opposed to the idea are not offering any solutions to the problem.

So how about it? What do you think needs to be done, or do you think that there is nothing wrong K-12 education in the US?

I believe 31 and Potaria offered some reforms. This is a good thread by the way.

Privatizing schools is a poor idea and yet the current system is wasteful and does little to educated youth. A few things should be done.

1. Reform the system of preparing teachers to teach. They should be held to a much higher standard and should have to pass a general subject and specific subject qualification test. They should also bo paid considerably more while at the same time all teachers unions should be abolished. Teacher's unions, like all unions are simply more making machines for political parties, essentially taking tax payer's money and contributing it to a party in a round about way.

2. Students should not be allowed to progress in the system without passing tests each year of junior high and high school. Finals that actually determine if you move on or not. If you don't pass you study the same subjects again.

3. Uniforms. It will not solve the problem of cliques but it will help some in bringing students toward a more group oriented way of thinking while they are in school.

4. Eliminate custodians. Students clean their own schools. This is how schools work in Japan and as a result schools are cleaner and school property is respected by students. They keep the toilets clean because if someone messes them up they have to clean it. They keep their rooms clean for the same reason.

5. Afterschool clubs. These are mandatory for most students in Japan and again they promote a spirit of friendship amoung students and also keep them busy for three hours after school.

6. Treat students like adults. If they don't attend class then that is their choice, ass long as they can pass tests and turn in work without cheating and do not get into trouble when absent then how they use their time should be their choice.

Those are a few of my ideas of what to do rather than turn schools into corporate sponsered commercials.

Thank you. You are the first one to propose some alternatives to my proposal, and I like some of your ideas.

Certainly not privatization.

Though I'm not going to post my ideas, because as with talking to most other conservatives, you'll brush it off as lunacy or something similar. You've already shown me who you really are with a few choice words, so no thanks.

It's a waste of time dealing with people such as yourself.

I hate to tell you this, I am a conservative who voted for George Bush and I would love to hear your ideas, after all you heard mine.

I hate to tell you this, I am a conservative who voted for George Bush and I would love to hear your ideas, after all you heard mine.
You're actually pretty open-minded compared to some other conservatives.

First of all, let me congratulate you for being home schooled. You are most likely getting a much better education than most people in public schools.

That's where you're wrong. My fuckwit of a dad forced me to go to a Christian Correspondence School. I'll say this --- I'm lucky that I have Google.

I do not know why you think I am against or above the needy. In fact I am looking for a solution to give all kids a better education. It is through education that people can get better jobs and improve their economic status.

That's what it's about, huh? Economic status? Go get a heart and then maybe you'll think otherwise.

Privatization of the public schools would not exclude anyone. Ownership of the schools does not change. Funding for the schools does not change. Taxes still pay for the education of each child. The only thing that changes is who administers the school and who the teachers work for. The school district still owns the school, they still control the curriculum, and they can fire the people who run the school.

You're still cloudy about the issue. Corporations would buy the schools, thus having complete control over them. You forgot this --- The corporation would control the school district.

Our educational system is broken. All our kids are being cheated; especially the less fortunate because they are not getting the education they deserve and need.

Yeah, and privatization is no way to help matters.

I brought up this proposal because I thought, and still think, it to be a possible solution to the problem, a means of providing a better education to our kids.

Yeah, but as I said, not through privatization.

Obviously many people do not agree with me, and that is OK. However, those that are opposed to the idea are not offering any solutions to the problem.

Maybe it's because they see it as a joke, or maybe it's because they don't like putting up with such idiocy. It could also be both.

So how about it? What do you think needs to be done, or do you think that there is nothing wrong K-12 education in the US?


You know what needs to be done? People like you need to be taken out of power.

4. Eliminate custodians. Students clean their own schools.

Just as long as it doesn't interfere with their class time. But which kids would be doing that? Those that are being punished or would there be some sort of positive after school "School Spirit" club?

4. Eliminate custodians. Students clean their own schools.

Just as long as it doesn't interfere with their class time. But which kids would be doing that? Those that are being punished or would there be some sort of positive after school "School Spirit" club?


Seems to me that they would clean up right when they finish their "business", so the bathroom would be maintained at all times.

How would that improve anything? All you have is a private company sucking money out for shareholders. Why not keep it as is?

Because a private company can run things more efficiently and at less cost than the government can. That is why the government has contracted out so many services such as prisons, military dining facilities, and even aircraft maintenance at some Air Force Bases. Private companies can do as good or better job than the government for less money.

I think it would be nice if every student had their own tutor, but thats too far from reality.

feh, no.

Let's face it, teachers, no matter how good, just do not have the time to individualize what they are teaching to each student, to fit the curriculum exactly to his needs, which would maximize his unique type of intelligence.

I'd just like it if parents were allowed to teach their children (IE: homeschool) I like to believe most parents know their child best, and would know how to encourage the child's intelligence to the best it can be.

And if people are worried about their children not learning how to properly behave and act around others and society in general as a result of home-schooling, well...that's something I'll work on another day, my dinner is done. *heads off to eat*

-Asylum Nova

But parents are not necessarily experts in history, maths, english. Up to primary school that'd be fine, but at secondary you need people who know their subject - hence different teachers for different things

I also like the idea of school choice. Parents being able to choose which schools their children go to. This does pose a problem however,schools can only hold so many students so the question is, who gets in? In Japan they use entry tests for schools. This creates a system where schools are divided by the capability of their students or more acurately, the willingness of their students to study.
The downside is that bottom teir schools get no respect. It is a matter of choosing a school based on your and the schools level of acedemic ability, not money. Funding to each school should be equal based on the number of their students.
Also, stop making high school mandatory. It is not mandatory in Japan. Students who don't want to be there opt out of the education system after junior high school and get part time and later full time work. They are given the choice, treated as if they are capable of making this choice and guess what. . .they prove themselve capable again and again and they relieve schools of students who have no interest in being there.
Teenagers are far more capable of determining their lives than we give them credit for. The way we mollycoddle them in the states is rediculous. "Oh, he's only a kid he doesn't understand, we have to help him make the right choices." CRAP!

Because a private company can run things more efficiently and at less cost than the government can. That is why the government has contracted out so many services such as prisons, military dining facilities, and even aircraft maintenance at some Air Force Bases. Private companies can do as good or better job than the government for less money.
But they'll basically own the school system.

Because a private company can run things more efficiently and at less cost than the government can. That is why the government has contracted out so many services such as prisons, military dining facilities, and even aircraft maintenance at some Air Force Bases. Private companies can do as good or better job than the government for less money.


That's only because said private companies slash funding for many positions, eliminate many jobs, and lower wages.

Do you know nothing about economics? Do you think that these corporations just magically run things at a cheaper rate than the government?

Wasn't crackin on ya there Celtlund. Actually I was implying that if they were disciplinary problem kids, they shouldn't be there on the premesis in first place.

I also like the idea of school choice. Parents being able to choose which schools their children go to. This does pose a problem however,schools can only hold so many students so the question is, who gets in? In Japan they use entry tests for schools. This creates a system where schools are divided by the capability of their students or more acurately, the willingness of their students to study.
The downside is that bottom teir schools get no respect. It is a matter of choosing a school based on your and the schools level of acedemic ability, not money. Funding to each school should be equal based on the number of their students.
Also, stop making high school mandatory. It is not mandatory in Japan. Students who don't want to be there opt out of the education system after junior high school and get part time and later full time work. They are given the choice, treated as if they are capable of making this choice and guess what. . .they prove themselve capable again and again and they relieve schools of students who have no interest in being there.
Teenagers are far more capable of determining their lives than we give them credit for. The way we mollycoddle them in the states is rediculous. "Oh, he's only a kid he doesn't understand, we have to help him make the right choices." CRAP!

The problem with choice is that some schools get written off as shit. Then the children that go to those already feel abandoned by society and have no incentive to do well. We see it happening in certain schools in the UK already.

4. Eliminate custodians. Students clean their own schools.

Just as long as it doesn't interfere with their class time. But which kids would be doing that? Those that are being punished or would there be some sort of positive after school "School Spirit" club?

It is done after school and before school. It is based on a rotating schedule. Students who fail to do their duties are generally ostricized by their fellow students until they pull their weight. The use of peer pressure in a positive way works well over here.
It does have negative effects, bullying, but overall it keeps students working together.

That only adds on to the problem, naturally the best schools will become flooded and thus quality will be lowered to maintain quantity. Cleaniless is a virtue(IMO) and I liKe that idea, it may cut down on laziness.

The problem with choice is that some schools get written off as shit. Then the children that go to those already feel abandoned by society and have no incentive to do well. We see it happening in certain schools in the UK already.

Yep, same happens in Japan, but no system can ever be perfect. Maybe those schools shouldn't be open. A high school education shouldn't be mandatory.
There is the argument that many uneducated people will be running around if we don't have a mandatory system, but hell, if they are forced to go they don't pay attention so they waste four years of their lives and four years of taxpayer money to end up not educated anyway because they chose not to pay attention and work. You cannot force people to learn, we shouldn't try to do so.

Yep, same happens in Japan, but no system can ever be perfect. Maybe those schools shouldn't be open. A high school education shouldn't be mandatory.
There is the argument that many uneducated people will be running around if we don't have a mandatory system, but hell, if they are forced to go they don't pay attention so they waste four years of their lives and four years of taxpayer money to end up not educated anyway because they chose not to pay attention and work. You cannot force people to learn, we shouldn't try to do so.

But it isn't the children who decide for the most part, it is parents. THAT is why education has to be mandatory, to give ALL children the same chances as best we can.

Seems to me that they would clean up right when they finish their "business", so the bathroom would be maintained at all times.


That would be reasonable.. but I wouldn't take it as far as punishing them if they didn't. They aren't sent to school to learn janitorial duties, they are there to learn. Some of the smartest people have been slobs. As long as it isn't done intentionally and out of disrespect I would see no problem. They should be washing their hands after a crap though. That could cause some real health concerns.

I like that idea. I like it a lot.

You're actually pretty open-minded compared to some other conservatives.

Thank you. To me close mided is equal to brain dead. :D

That would be reasonable.. but I wouldn't take it as far as punishing them if they didn't. They aren't sent to school to learn janitorial duties, they are there to learn. Some of the smartest people have been slobs. As long as it isn't done intentionally and out of disrespect I would see no problem. They should be washing their hands after a crap though. That could cause some real health concerns.

If you don't enforce it then you keep things how they are now. It's about respect. But I strongly suspect it would only be certain people with a social concience that would actually clean the place up.

That only adds on to the problem, naturally the best schools will become flooded and thus quality will be lowered to maintain quantity. Cleaniless is a virtue(IMO) and I liKe that idea, it may cut down on laziness.


I agree with you as it would teach them some discipline. But unless they were blatenly being nasty or disrespectful they shouldn't be punished. Janitors should be on campus unless there is a positive way to make kids want to be neat and tidy.

But it isn't the children who decide for the most part, it is parents. THAT is why education has to be mandatory, to give ALL children the same chances as best we can.

But I am saying it should be the children who decide. Yes, parents should advise and recommend, tell their kids about their own experience but then let go. Let their kids begin to take on responsibilities and assume control of their lives. If you give them this freedom then they must begin to learn and except this control and its responsibilities. I refuse to believe they are not capable of this because all over the world, where children are not molly coddled, they proove they are capable of this. Japan is an example. Those students have the choice, they know what happens based on there choice and most of them choose an education.
Trust them, let them grow up.

But I am saying it should be the children who decide. Yes, parents should advise and recommend, tell their kids about their own experience but then let go. Let their kids begin to take on responsibilities and assume control of their lives. If you give them this freedom then they must begin to learn and except this control and its responsibilities. I refuse to believe they are not capable of this because all over the world, where children are not molly coddled, they proove they are capable of this. Japan is an example. Those students have the choice, they know what happens based on there choice and most of them choose an education.
Trust them, let them grow up.


Damn, you beat me to it! Good job, though.

That's what it's about, huh? Economic status? Go get a heart and then maybe you'll think otherwise.

I thought you were all for poor people improving their economic status. Are you sure you know what that means? It means they earn more money so they are no longer poor. Without a good education improving your economic satatus (making more money) is almost impossible to do.

You know what needs to be done? People like you need to be taken out of power.

Wow, you must think I'm a corporate Mongol or politician instead of a lowly engineer.

to privatize all education would screw up the system even more than public education. With complete privitization, parents would be forced to pay for all tuition costs, which would also increase greatelly. It would revert to the state where only the wealthy would have an education, and the rest would have the collective knowledge of a bag of hammers

I agree with you as it would teach them some discipline. But unless they were blatenly being nasty or disrespectful they shouldn't be punished. Janitors should be on campus unless there is a positive way to make kids want to be neat and tidy.

Yeah, there shouldn't be punishment for being filthy and refusing to help. Pressure from fellow students is brought to bear. If you don't want to do your fair share and be clean then maybe your fellow students won't want to hang out with you. Pull your weight or get no repsect.
Respect must be earned, it is not a right. Something that is not earned has no value and will be treated as something with no value.

Yeah...

That's not what I said or implied. There are many private colleges and universities that compete very well with public institutions. To privatize the education system does not mean you are turning it into a prison. :headbang:
I think that privatizing education might be a good idea. Anyone who is about 19 to 30 knows that there's a dramatic difference in the quality of education, between high school and college. It's clearly because of competition and that the schools are specialized, tailored to the individual.

On the other hand, though, if they privatized education, what are the odds that within a few years, pre-college education costs wouldn't skyrocket just as much as college tuition has? College has become virtually unaffordable nowadays, especially with Bush shifting tax money away from free educational programs like Pelle grants and towards educational loans. Even certain branches of the military cut back on educational benefits.

Plus, what about inner-city kids? Obviously, even companies aren't going to build schools (or at least GOOD schools) in areas where people are primarily on welfare and minimum wage, because it just isn't PROFITABLE.

And so, even if privatizing education could improve the quality of students' education, there would be several potential problems with it, so that it would need to be heavily regulated by the government.

to privatize all education would screw up the system even more than public education. With complete privitization, parents would be forced to pay for all tuition costs, which would also increase greatelly. It would revert to the state where only the wealthy would have an education, and the rest would have the collective knowledge of a bag of hammers
Go back a couple pages for the response.

Yeah, there shouldn't be punishment for being filthy and refusing to help. Pressure from fellow students is brought to bear. If you don't want to do your fair share and be clean then maybe your fellow students won't want to hang out with you. Pull your weight or get no repsect.
Respect must be earned, it is not a right. Something that is not earned has no value and will be treated as something with no value.
I agree to earn repsect you must first give it and prove you deserve it.

I thought you were all for poor people improving their economic status. Are you sure you know what that means? It means they earn more money so they are no longer poor. Without a good education improving your economic satatus (making more money) is almost impossible to do.

I am. But learning isn't about the opportunity to improve your economic status. It's about enriching your life, not making money in the future. Of course, you need a good education to make money, but that's not the main focus of it all. It's about knowledge.

Wow, you must think I'm a corporate Mongol or politician instead of a lowly engineer.

You almost sound like one. I'll give you credit for not being a whiny bitch (like two people who shall remain nameless), though.

But I am saying it should be the children who decide. Yes, parents should advise and recommend, tell their kids about their own experience but then let go. Let their kids begin to take on responsibilities and assume control of their lives. If you give them this freedom then they must begin to learn and except this control and its responsibilities. I refuse to believe they are not capable of this because all over the world, where children are not molly coddled, they proove they are capable of this. Japan is an example. Those students have the choice, they know what happens based on there choice and most of them choose an education.
Trust them, let them grow up.

But that ISN'T what happens, is it? Look at the number of children being home schooled because of their parents' religion, and the parents demanding creationism. Some parents WILL NOT let there children decide, and mandatory education protects them.

But that ISN'T what happens, is it? Look at the number of children being home schooled because of their parents' religion, and the parents demanding creationism. Some parents WILL NOT let there children decide, and mandatory education protects them.


That's one of the key reasons that mandatory education should be scrapped! If parents want to teach their kids that complete and utter bullshit, and not let them decide, then they should be home-schooled. Simple as that.

In high school, students have somewhat of a choice: to succeed or to fail. (I know. I was almost kicked out, for neverr attending class.) And a fair amount of students, particularly minorities, choose to fail. While I agree we should not coddle students, as that's a way of enabling them, allowing them them to quit school whenever they wish is not an option.

Japan and America are different in that Japan is a shame-based society, where if you fail school, you bring shame upon you and your entire family. In America, though, we are a guilt-based society, where, if you fail school, you feel bad for a while, but then you get over it, because it was just ONE mistake and you always have a second chance.

So, they're apples and oranges.

That's only because said private companies slash funding for many positions, eliminate many jobs, and lower wages.

Do you know nothing about economics? Do you think that these corporations just magically run things at a cheaper rate than the government?

Yes, I have taken three college Economics courses one of which was at the graduate level.

One of the reasons a company can do it for less than the government is they don't have the bureaucratic bloat and the expense the bloat entails. As for slashing wages, you cannot get labor much cheaper than the military and the civilian contractors paid their employees quite well. In fact the contract establishes the minimum the contractor can pay for the various jobs and that minimum is well above the minimum wage. It is based on the average wage for equivalent jobs in the local area.

That's one of the key reasons that mandatory education should be scrapped! If parents want to teach their kids that complete and utter bullshit, and not let them decide, then they should be home-schooled. Simple as that.

No, because then you are abandoning those children. Have a national curriculum and mandatory education and then those children will be given a decent start in life

Oh god, not this "leave no child behind" shit...

But that ISN'T what happens, is it? Look at the number of children being home schooled because of their parents' religion, and the parents demanding creationism. Some parents WILL NOT let there children decide, and mandatory education protects them.

We are arguing around each other. I am saying it should be and you are saying it isn't. I know it isn't, that is why I am saying it should be.
Why do you think homeschooling is a bad thing. My cousin home schools her kids, she is very religious and those kids are all doing material four grades above their age level. She is giving them an education superior to what is offered by public schools.
Mandatory education protects children from nothing. Those that are forced to be there will not learn and will help create an environment thatdrags other students down.
If a parent refuses to let a child attend school that is the problem of that parent and family. It is not the right of government to decide how children be raised. I am not talking about abuse of a the physical kind, of course people must step in then.
You can argue that refusal to let your child be education is a form of mental abuse but that is a very broad view of abuse.

It should not be assumed that public schools offer some magic elixer of education that if a student just goes there he/she will become educated.

Oh god, not this "leave no child behind" shit...
Tell me, Potaria. Do you advocate Social Darwinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_darwinism)?

We are arguing around each other. I am saying it should be and you are saying it isn't. I know it isn't, that is why I am saying it should be.
Why do you think homeschooling is a bad thing. My cousin home schools her kids, she is very religious and those kids are all doing material four grades above their age level. She is giving them an education superior to what is offered by public schools.
Mandatory education protects children from nothing. Those that are forced to be there will not learn and will help create an environment thatdrags other students down.
If a parent refuses to let a child attend school that is the problem of that parent and family. It is not the right of government to decide how children be raised. I am not talking about abuse of a the physical kind, of course people must step in then.
You can argue that refusal to let your child be education is a form of mental abuse but that is a very broad view of abuse.

It should not be assumed that public schools offer some magic elixer of education that if a student just goes there he/she will become educated.

Why have you separated physical abuse out? Either parents shoudl be free to bring up their children however they want, or society has a say too.

If society has a say, why not let society have a say in the basic content? Why not ensure that children get the option to learn?

i am glad your cousin's children are doing well, but that is not the case for all home-schooled children, is it?

State schools don't make children educated, but they provide the opportunity for all children.

My parents paid $12,000(seniour year, roughly) for my high school education and roughly 18,000-20,000(boarding school) for my younger brother.

why in Gods(in whom I do not believe) name would I think a voucher system is good? Given what my parents paid, do I want some other to be able to compete with me education wise? Are you joking? It was hard enough getting into a decent college/mba program given that they ask my parents/my income levels. If I didnt have an edge by having actual math and english skills where would I be? Let the poor go to classes where teachers are graded on seniority rather than performance. More power to me and my kids, hopefully I can afford to provide the education to my kids that my parents provided to me. Keep it selective I say, let the unwashed masses have public education where calculus is only taught to 12th graders(I got my first class in 10th). What type of world would it be if people who were well off had to compete on the same field as everyone else.

So what if my brothers, and my starting salary was double of those with inferiour educations. I mean, the public good and all. Keep education out of the hands of private enterprise. Please, for mine and my parents sake. We have invested a lot to have a little bit of an edge.

I hope you are smart enough to have noticed the sarcasm.

I'm not sure, as I've never studied it. The wikipedia article just doesn't give me enough information for a "yes" or "no" answer.

I am. But learning isn't about the opportunity to improve your economic status. It's about enriching your life, not making money in the future. Of course, you need a good education to make money, but that's not the main focus of it all. It's about knowledge.

Yes, education should be about knowledge and enriching your life, but primary and secondary education should also help prepare you for college or the work environment. Unfortunately, it doesn't do a very good job at any of the above.

Education is worthless?! How could anyone even IMPLY that? It's a basic right, not a privilege.

Are you libertarians, or anarcho-communists?

My parents paid $12,000(seniour year, roughly) for my high school education and roughly 18,000-20,000(boarding school) for my younger brother.

why in Gods(in whom I do not believe) name would I think a voucher system is good? Given what my parents paid, do I want some other to be able to compete with me education wise? Are you joking? It was hard enough getting into a decent college/mba program given that they ask my parents/my income levels. If I didnt have an edge by having actual math and english skills where would I be? Let the poor go to classes where teachers are graded on seniority rather than performance. More power to me and my kids, hopefully I can afford to provide the education to my kids that my parents provided to me. Keep it selective I say, let the unwashed masses have public education where calculus is only taught to 12th graders(I got my first class in 10th). What type of world would it be if people who were well off had to compete on the same field as everyone else.

So what if my brothers, and my starting salary was double of those with inferiour educations. I mean, the public good and all. Keep education out of the hands of private enterprise. Please, for mine and my parents sake. We have invested a lot to have a little bit of an edge.

I hope you are smart enough to have noticed the sarcasm.
That was grade-A man, grade-A.

It's just that people should have a choice. If they don't want to go to school, then fine. But, they should probably make this a bit more constraining, like what Japan has. If you don't want to go to High School, so be it.

It's just that people should have a choice. If they don't want to go to school, then fine. But, they should probably make this a bit more constraining, like what Japan has. If you don't want to go to High School, so be it.
That would work EXCEPT our culture is completely different from that of Japan

Education is worthless?! How could anyone even IMPLY that? It's a basic right, not a privilege.

Are you libertarians, or anarcho-communists?
What the hell brought you to that?