public education may have its flaws, but its a damn good deal and does a pretty good job you paranoid fuck


but i guess vouchers would flood the market with private schools with $2k tuitions (which is about 1/10th of a decent private school's tuition)

11/28/2006 12:37:30 PM

Guth, I don't deny that public schooling does an okay job a lot of the time, but I'd just like to catch back up when compared internationally. Our students fall behind in respect, intelligence, and ethic and I don't like that.

I think it is a product of shitty parenting and lack of competition in education providers. What is your idea? Do you think it is more of a culture thing? I can see that being argued as well.

11/28/2006 12:51:52 PM

i'll agree that the problem is expecting schools to parent our children, but cameras wont help that. it will just run off more teachers who are tired of dealing with stupid warrentless complaints

But this "good ole days" thing is a myth. compare the graduation rates from now to 50 years ago

[Edited on November 28, 2006 at 1:00 PM. Reason : .]

11/28/2006 12:58:40 PM

lets start beating the parents

11/28/2006 1:00:02 PM

Quote :

"I'd just like to catch back up when compared internationally."

Hell Europeans socialize education far more than us. How is going the complete opposite way going to fix things?

11/28/2006 1:50:11 PM

Quote :

"bgmims: Also, my mom is a public high school teacher. She's a damned good teacher and always gets fantastic results teaching even the dumbest of kids. She puts in time, sure, but not 60 hours a week."

Can we clone her?

11/28/2006 2:36:56 PM

I'd probably be against it.

11/28/2006 2:47:53 PM

Quote :

"but cameras wont help that. it will just run off more teachers who are tired of dealing with stupid warrentless complaints"

That's why a market-driven education system would be better. Those teachers who don't want cameras watching them teach can go work for a school that doesn't employ them. More choices are better than fewer choices.

11/28/2006 3:54:35 PM

my bad, i didnt know that teachers were forced to choose public schools over private ones when seeking employment.

those teachers can already leave, and thats why an action that would make more of that happen would be a bad thing

11/28/2006 4:12:28 PM

Quote :

"thats why an action that would make more of that happen would be a bad thing "

I would suspect that the biggest reason good teachers leave the gov't education system isn't the threat of cameras in the classroom, but the overwhelming levels of gov't waste and bureaucracy that prevents them from being effective. A market-driven system that rewards individual achievement would give these good teachers more opportunities and better pay.

This mindset that, if it's important, the gov't has to do it is simply amazing.

11/28/2006 4:38:50 PM

unless you have some magic fairy dust to solve the whole tuition problem, then yes a lot of people need the government for education

and i want to live in magic land were private eduication has no bureaucracy

11/28/2006 4:54:04 PM

seriously

in Earthdoggs world everything is perfect in the private sector and everyhing runs soooooooo squeeky clean.

the hs i went to started to suck and so the majority of my teachers left and went to the private school in the area. Charlotte has a shit ton of private schools and all cost well over $10,000 to attend, shit some cost $30,000 a year. the teachers there get paid very well. Private schools arnt illegal ya know. neither is home schooling.

11/28/2006 5:00:19 PM

1. Move to school choice
2. .....
3. Profit

11/28/2006 5:01:39 PM

there is school choice.

move to the area you wish to go to school or go to private school or home school. The only reason my parents moved to the area where I grew up was because the hs was the best in the area.

11/28/2006 5:04:45 PM

EarthDogg is more concerned with finding new and exciting ways to use the words "gov. waste", "bureaucracy", "public", and "socialist". He reminds me of a radio pundit.

Quote :

"What is your problem with John Stossel anyhow? I mean, other than disliking his politics, is their something wrong with his reporting?"

I don't know, why don't people like Avril Lavigne? I like her, why don't other people?

WHOOOOO!!!

Je Me Souvenies!

[Edited on November 28, 2006 at 5:32 PM. Reason : .]

11/28/2006 5:15:49 PM

Fair enough. But I generally don't go around using the names of people that slightly annoy me as if they were insults.

11/28/2006 5:39:12 PM

Well, that and I read his "Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity" book and he uses some pretty weak comparisons to prove points, but ok.

Wikipedia does a better job of explaning why he's a hack, and they cite their sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stossel#Criticisms

Why do you get so upset when people insult your heroes or disagree with you? Stop taking things personal here.

I also like how people assume I'm happy with the current system just b/c I'm arguing with them on the finer points of this issue.

[Edited on November 28, 2006 at 5:53 PM. Reason : .]

11/28/2006 5:49:08 PM

I'm not upset. I actually just wanted to know your criticism of him so I could be informed.

Why do you always think I'm angry with you? I'm really not.

Anyway, thank you for the wiki link. I'll look into it.

11/28/2006 5:52:36 PM

What I think is funny is a libertarian advocating surveillance, in any forum. It's pure hypocrisy for you to want to keep government entirely out of our lives; yet at the same time bitch because they won't legislate what is, in effect, a violation of civil liberties. I can think of some immediate cons to this situation that might keep teachers from wanting to allow shared school surveillance that don't involve the "lazy" teachers (and from what I remember of school, it was fuck-lazy students who were the problem):
1. Remember all those school shootings that just happened? What if they were given a layout of the school, could note - in advance - when the hallway traffic was prime for killing a herd of kiddies? What if they could monitor where security was at any given time?
2. Think: pervert/child molester window shopping. Then think: they can choose a time when grabbing the kid would be easiest.

11/28/2006 6:59:38 PM

while i agree with you in spirit number 1 totally confuses me

11/28/2006 7:06:01 PM

Quote :

"What I think is funny is a libertarian advocating surveillance, in any forum."

Why? While freedom from government interference is the goal, I know of no libertarian that denies that there is a need for government. Surveillance of the government and government agencies would be the best way to ensure that for those instances where the government is neccesary or desireable, the government is acting in a manner which is in the interests of the people.

11/28/2006 7:37:59 PM

Surveillance is an instrument of control, read: interference.

11/28/2006 7:45:55 PM

all of those school shootings involved students from the school... they already had more surveillance just from their experience as students than any cameras could give them. its just such a stupid reason to be agains this

11/28/2006 7:50:59 PM

^Seriously, lol Where was he going with that?

11/28/2006 7:57:54 PM

I still want an answer. Why do people think that privatizing the school system will catch us up with the other nations that have a strongly socialized school system?

I can't think of a modern country that doesn't have a public school system. If it's so great, why hasn't anyone adopted it. Friedman wrote about it in the 50's, maybe it didn't take for a reason.

11/28/2006 8:04:53 PM

You mean like communism?

11/28/2006 8:08:02 PM

I'd say communism took fairly well. It's been one of the largest forces behind world politics for almost a hundred years now. It's still in it's infancy.

11/28/2006 8:14:41 PM

Quote :

"Surveillance is an instrument of control, read: interference. "

Surveillance of a government organization or entity is not government interference in the private affairs of people. By being surviellance of a government entity it is by definition interference in the public affairs, or more accurately oversight of public affairs.

11/28/2006 8:17:41 PM

Who watches the watchers? You're setting up a straw man: look up "Logical fallacies" and come back.

11/28/2006 9:08:46 PM

^^ is the government not made up of citizens.

this is like me complaining about corporations and someone saying stock holders are people too.

11/28/2006 9:11:13 PM

Not to mention that if such laws were passed, you would have to get every guardian's permission to record. You cannot film in a public school with the intent to disseminate (even to a narrow audience) without the express written consent of the guardians of all children who would appear.

11/28/2006 9:15:13 PM

Quote :

"Who watches the watchers?"

When the watchers are the public, there is no need to watch the watchers.

Quote :

"is the government not made up of citizens. "

Perhaps, but citizens, in the execution of the activities of the government, are not private citizens, they are public employees. Much like a CEO has the right (or should have the right) to surviel all that is under the jurisdiction of his business, so to should the public have the right to surviel all that is under the jurisdiction of the government. Of course, like any rule, there are exceptions, but as with any exception, there are limits as
well.

Quote :

"Not to mention that if such laws were passed, you would have to get every guardian's permission to record. You cannot film in a public school with the intent to disseminate (even to a narrow audience) without the express written consent of the guardians of all children who would appear."

You are confusing my assertation that surviellance is not against libertarian priciples with support of suviellance of the current public school system. Please do not do that, as I have never stated that I support such surviellance.

11/28/2006 10:32:07 PM

Quote :

"...some magic fairy dust to solve the whole tuition problem"

We wouldn't need pixie dust if we didn't have a third of our income taken away every year.

Quote :

"...magic land were private eduication has no bureaucracy"

Which land has more red-tape and bureaucracy than the gov't?

Quote :

"there is school choice. move to the area you wish to go to school or go to private school or home school"

Even if you move near the school you want, your kid may end up getting bus-ed across town to a different school. And yes you can go to a private school, but only after you've paid a bunch of property tax to prop up the school system you don't want to use.

Quote :

"What I think is funny is a libertarian advocating surveillance, in any forum"

There may be some confusion here. My first point was that those kids should not have been suspended because they filmed a teacher having a melt-down in class. I'm not comfortable with the gov't watching us, but I am definitely in favor of us watching the gov't and its employees. We should have more, not less, public scrutiny of our public school teachers.

Quote :

"If it's so great, why hasn't anyone adopted it."

Simple answer: Teacher Unions.

We need to move away from the bloated gov't day-care system we call public education, and move towards a market-driven system where schools compete for parent's education dollars.

11/29/2006 12:11:55 AM

Quote :

"Simple answer: Teacher Unions."

So you're telling me that across the modern world, teachers unions have a stranglehold on education? You're starting to sound a bit like salisburyboy. Doesn't it seem much more likely that socialized education works better, and that's why everyone uses it, rather than some conspiracy where the worldwide teacher's unions are pulling all the strings?

Quote :

"We need to move away from the bloated gov't day-care system we call public education, and move towards a market-driven system where schools compete for parent's education dollars."

Why? If we want to catch up to places like Germany or Japan, whouldn't it seem like the answer is putting education under federal control like they do, rather than going the completely opposite direction?

11/29/2006 11:53:59 AM

Quote :

"So you're telling me that across the modern world, teachers unions have a stranglehold on education? You're starting to sound a bit like salisburyboy."

Painting me as a conspiracy theorist is an interesting tactic. I'll have to remember that when you start attacking capitalism again.

There is no conspiracy. It's simply a Union doing what unions do - trying to get their members the best deal. They are trying to get the most money for the least amount and least quality of work, while also trying to prevent competition from entering the field. Teacher unions are concerned first and foremost with the welfare of their members and not whether kids get a quality education. They try to negotiate contracts which prevent any consequences for poor teaching results.

Through taxation, most parents are compelled to send their kids to gov't schools. So teacher unions have a near monopoly on the profession. If you call that a stranglehold, that is your choice. Teacher unions are one of the main reasons for the poor quality of education today. It's baffling that we taxpayers allow gov't employee unions that much power over us.

11/29/2006 7:31:43 PM

Quote :

"We wouldn't need pixie dust if we didn't have a third of our income taken away every year. "

you're right. getting rid of income tax would somehow allow people to afford $20k tuition payments for each of their kids on top of paying for all the other services that were lost

pixie dust man

11/29/2006 8:14:43 PM

Most private schools, even good ones, are not $20K/year

Not that I think that means they're affordable for all, but lets not exaggerate.

11/29/2006 8:31:02 PM

^^

Quote :

"In fact, Education Department figures show that the average private elementary school tuition in America is less than $2,500. The average tuition for all private schools, elementary and secondary, is $3,116, "

http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-025.html

11/29/2006 9:00:59 PM

$3k gets you some shitty charter school thats worse than public schools

11/29/2006 9:37:08 PM

Quote :

"There is no conspiracy. It's simply a Union doing what unions do - trying to get their members the best deal. They are trying to get the most money for the least amount and least quality of work, while also trying to prevent competition from entering the field."

Ok, you still failed to explain how this happens worldwide.

Quote :

"Teacher unions are concerned first and foremost with the welfare of their members and not whether kids get a quality education."

That's what there job is. It's not teacher unions job to worry about a quality education, that's someone else's job.

But I still want to hear it earthdog, if socialized school systems are so bad, why does everyone use them?

11/29/2006 9:51:52 PM

Quote :

"if socialized school systems are so bad, why does everyone use them?"

Why do so many people still smoke with all the evidence that it will kill you?

Quote :

"It's not teacher unions job to worry about a quality education, that's someone else's job. "

Huh? Someone else's job? It's the teacher's job. They use their unions to negotiate contracts that protect them from accountability.

11/30/2006 1:39:51 AM

Quote :

"Why do so many people still smoke with all the evidence that it will kill you?"

Are you saying that socialized education gives you some sort of nicotine buzz or that it's addictive, or maybe even that it looks cool?

Quote :

"It's the teacher's job."

Perhaps, but it most certainly isn't the teacher union's job, their job is to work for the teacher's best interests.

11/30/2006 1:44:15 AM

^
You hit it on the head there Kris. Socialism is addictive, looks cool and is ultimately fatal.

[Edited on November 30, 2006 at 9:53 AM. Reason : .]

11/30/2006 9:53:41 AM

Or better yet, people against it use scare tactics with no actual facts to attack it,

11/30/2006 10:09:56 AM

Quote :

"Socialism is addictive, looks cool and is ultimately fatal."

So is that why the Swedes live so long?

12/6/2006 1:54:43 AM

Pink, a good point, but I'd think "ultimately" is a vague enough word that you can just pretend you are assuming it will happen in the end anyway.

Like Kris, who thinks the world will end up in communism.

12/6/2006 8:17:03 AM

Quote :

"So is that why the Swedes live so long?"

You mean the Swedes that weren't sterilized or lobotomized by the State, right?

Ahhh Sweden "... the poster state for those who believe in the power of the government to solve all problems."

Seems like lovely little Sweden isn't as sweet as socialists would like to believe:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/dieteman33.html

12/6/2006 10:31:44 AM

^The US sterilized and lobotomized people as well.

More people than Sweden did.

There are a bunch of other stupid things I noticed at that link.

Not saying you're wrong about Sweden or socialism, just that your link is lame.

12/6/2006 10:59:58 AM

Quote :

"The US sterilized and lobotomized people as well."

Yes, but we had the good taste to use prisoners. Sweden lobotomized and sterilized all types of citizens, even children.

That's what I love about the TDUB, how a thread about cameras in the classroom eventualy turns into a discussion about socialism in Sweden.

12/6/2006 11:04:42 AM

I like how you completely dodged the point by posting something completely irrelevant.

Good old earthdogg

12/6/2006 3:17:06 PM