Of course people would still want to get into education, has privatizing college made professors harder to find? 

 

You cite evolution as an example so I'll explore this specific topic more. There's plenty of other theory's and variations of evolution what's wrong with creating a system where parents can choose? For example creationist would seek out creation schools, evolutionist would seek out evolutionary schools, why is that bad, neither of them are settled sciences. Let's say down the road to stay consistent the theory of creationism becomes so discredited the schools that continue to teach it would close because few if any parents are going to support sending their child to an institution teaching discredited curriculum. Just like if a school was teach faulty mathematics or using frustrating techniques like common core parents would chose schools teaching solid fundamentals and using better techniques. You seem to place more trust in government to dictate what should be taught and how it should be taught. I'd argue teacher AND parents would be better off in a system designed to give both parties more power, instead the alternative is state ran schools that are failing at historic levels, the system is broken.

 

Where's the robots coming from? Innovation can mean using technology like tablets or better computers. Imagine publishing industry competing to make the best presented and understandable curriculum for students to use. No one is talking about replacing teachers with robots, that's a straw man argument. 

 

It all comes down to shifting from an enviroment built on state funding which provides no incentive to improve the methods used, to a system that demands improvement.

 

Im going to PM you because I don't know how to respond without having this thread shut down. 

---

Im going to PM you because I don't know how to respond without having this thread shut down. 

 

Sounds good lol

---

Sounds good lol

I think I can say this though.

 

The inevitability would be areas as large as states having politically driven curriculum. Over time the kids that come out of those educational systems have distorted world views based on their completely biased education. How could that be a good thing for discourse and advancement of society?

---

Of course people would still want to get into education, has privatizing college made professors harder to find? 

 

You cite evolution as an example so I'll explore this specific topic more. There's plenty of other theory's and variations of evolution what's wrong with creating a system where parents can choose? For example creationist would seek out creation schools, evolutionist would seek out evolutionary schools, why is that bad, neither of them are settled sciences. Let's say down the road to stay consistent the theory of creationism becomes so discredited the schools that continue to teach it would close because few if any parents are going to support sending their child to an institution teaching discredited curriculum. Just like if a school was teach faulty mathematics or using frustrating techniques like common core parents would chose schools teaching solid fundamentals and using better techniques. You seem to place more trust in government to dictate what should be taught and how it should be taught. I'd argue teacher AND parents would be better off in a system designed to give both parties more power, instead the alternative is state ran schools that are failing at historic levels, the system is broken.

 

Where's the robots coming from? Innovation can mean using technology like tablets or better computers. Imagine publishing industry competing to make the best presented and understandable curriculum for students to use. No one is talking about replacing teachers with robots, that's a straw man argument. 

 

It all comes down to shifting from an enviroment built on state funding which provides no incentive to improve the methods used, to a system that demands improvement.

 

College professors aren't tied to the whims of parents.  They also have tenure, which means they're guaranteed wages.  Nobody will want to be a teacher if their job security is tied to what parents want.  You state that costs would be cut, which means wages would be even lower, because most of a school's funding goes to paying wages of teachers.  Which would drive desire to teach to rock bottom.  

 

What's wrong with creating a system where parents choose?  

Let's look no further than the middle east today to examine it.  My wife is doing her thesis on a similar issue.   In the middle east you have a phenomenon known as Holocaust Denial.  People who say that the holocaust is nothing but a myth.  That's because the education system over there doesn't teach it.  And for obvious reasons.  They don't want jewish people to seem sympathetic.  So they don't teach the holocaust in schools over there, and it's going to stay that way for a long time.  Given school choice, holocaust deniers themselves are going to choose schools that also deny the holocaust.

 

Heck, look no further than the United States.  The Tea party wanted to remove references from the founding fathers being slave owners.  It's not okay to remove these things just because it interferes with your beliefs.  Imagine the majority of schools glossing over things like slavery in order to conform to their beliefs.


Is it okay to leave out the fact that our founding fathers owned slaves?  Is it okay to say the Holocaust never happened?  Ignoring these things will only lead to history repeating itself.


Where are Robots coming from?  How else are you going to drive down costs?  You've got a couple of options:


-Tablets.  Sorry, but this increases costs, and one of the reasons that schools don't have these is because of lack of funding, not lack of innovation.

 

-Better Computers.  Again, this increases costs.  It doesn't decrease it.  


These things cost money.technology can make the costs of educating these customers very cheap

So how does this make it 'very cheap' for anyone?  The fact is schools would love to have better computers.  What they can't do however is afford them.  The only way it could make it cheaper is by having teachers have EVEN MORE students than they have now.  Which is problematic because class sizes are already too large.

 

There's plenty of incentive to improve methods. Do you think schools just say "You know what, we don't need new computers!  These work fine."  No, they don't.  They ask for funding for new computers, and then get denied it.  Which means that costs would be higher for these 'good schools' and lower for the 'for profit schools' that put all their money into marketing as I stated earlier would be the low cost options for those who don't have the money to send their kids to the best schools.  And of course you have enough parents that don't care about their kids education as it is, that will keep those places in business.  And marketing will make them look far better than they are.  Which is exactly how it is for for-profit colleges.


Money is not the only incentive.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

I think I can say this though.

 

The inevitability would be areas as large as states having politically driven curriculum. Over time the kids that come out of those educational systems have distorted world views based on their completely biased education. How could that be a good thing for discourse and advancement of society?

 

Instead we have districts of poverty failing and establishing families in permanent ghettos for generations. It's undisputed the poor districts have kids graduating at larger rates that can't read, write, structure a sentence, perform basic mathematics. Give those parents the chance to send their kids to better schools and we might start seeing some of them break out of poverty.

---

College professors aren't tied to the whims of parents.  They also have tenure, which means they're guaranteed wages.  Nobody will want to be a teacher if their job security is tied to what parents want.  You state that costs would be cut, which means wages would be even lower, because most of a school's funding goes to paying wages of teachers.  Which would drive desire to teach to rock bottom.  

 

What's wrong with creating a system where parents choose?  

Let's look no further than the middle east today to examine it.  My wife is doing her thesis on a similar issue.   In the middle east you have a phenomenon known as Holocaust Denial.  People who say that the holocaust is nothing but a myth.  That's because the education system over there doesn't teach it.  And for obvious reasons.  They don't want jewish people to seem sympathetic.  So they don't teach the holocaust in schools over there, and it's going to stay that way for a long time.  Given school choice, holocaust deniers themselves are going to choose schools that also deny the holocaust.

 

Heck, look no further than the United States.  The Tea party wanted to remove references from the founding fathers being slave owners.  It's not okay to remove these things just because it interferes with your beliefs.  Imagine the majority of schools glossing over things like slavery in order to conform to their beliefs.


Is it okay to leave out the fact that our founding fathers owned slaves?  Is it okay to say the Holocaust never happened?  Ignoring these things will only lead to history repeating itself.


Where are Robots coming from?  How else are you going to drive down costs?  You've got a couple of options:


-Tablets.  Sorry, but this increases costs, and one of the reasons that schools don't have these is because of lack of funding, not lack of innovation.

 

-Better Computers.  Again, this increases costs.  It doesn't decrease it.  


These things cost money.technology can make the costs of educating these customers very cheap

So how does this make it 'very cheap' for anyone?  The fact is schools would love to have better computers.  What they can't do however is afford them.  The only way it could make it cheaper is by having teachers have EVEN MORE students than they have now.  Which is problematic because class sizes are already too large.

 

There's plenty of incentive to improve methods. Do you think schools just say "You know what, we don't need new computers!  These work fine."  No, they don't.  They ask for funding for new computers, and then get denied it.  Which means that costs would be higher for these 'good schools' and lower for the 'for profit schools' that put all their money into marketing as I stated earlier would be the low cost options for those who don't have the money to send their kids to the best schools.  And of course you have enough parents that don't care about their kids education as it is, that will keep those places in business.  And marketing will make them look far better than they are.  Which is exactly how it is for for-profit colleges.

 

So you believe the only way to cut cost in education is to cut teachers salaries? That's ignore the colossal waste spent on things like standardized testing, extra circular activities, administrative cost, and so on. The reality is all the problems you cite exist today, poor schools are under funded and rich schools are over funded. The difference is I'd give parents a choice instead of demanding they be tied to poor schools because they live in poor neighborhoods. The poor schools (which who are we kidding do just enough to get by, I went to them all my life) wouldn't be competitive and would close. Leaving a demand for better schools in poor neighborhoods. Just like grocery markets still exist in poor neighborhoods so would schools, except now they have the initiative to improve and create innovation to stay in business.

 

There is today and under any system will always be good schools and bad schools. I prefer a system where parents and teachers can choose which to participate in. Let the bad ones close, why should we support them on the states dollar?

---

Instead we have districts of poverty failing and establishing families in permanent ghettos for generations. It's undisputed the poor districts have kids graduating at larger rates that can't read, write, structure a sentence, perform basic mathematics. Give those parents the chance to send their kids to better schools and we might start seeing some of them break out of poverty.

Or we could just fix the schools. Give incentive for teachers to want jobs and not just in good area. Pay them well and hold them accountable. Make teaching at beneath college level and actual profession and hold them accountable. Give teachers (some) a reason to do their duty rather than show up for a paycheck. 

---

So you believe the only way to cut cost in education is to cut teachers salaries? That's ignore the colossal waste spent on things like standardized testing, extra circular activities, administrative cost, and so on. The reality is all the problems you cite exist today, poor schools are under funded and rich schools are over funded. The difference is I'd give parents a choice instead of demanding they be tied to poor schools because they live in poor neighborhoods. The poor schools (which who are we kidding do just enough to get by, I went to them all my life) wouldn't be competitive and would close. Leaving a demand for better schools in poor neighborhoods. Just like grocery markets still exist in poor neighborhoods so would schools, except now they have the initiative to improve and create innovation to stay in business.

 

There is today and under any system will always be good schools and bad schools. I prefer a system where parents and teachers can choose which to participate in. Let the bad ones close, why should we support them on the states dollar?

 

Privatization is not a prerequisite for this scenario to occur. All privatization does in this scenario is increase the cost to the better schools far outside what the poor can afford and thus making education only as good as what you can pay. That is why it cannot work. 

---

So you believe the only way to cut cost in education is to cut teachers salaries? That's ignore the colossal waste spent on things like standardized testing, extra circular activities, administrative cost, and so on. The reality is all the problems you cite exist today, poor schools are under funded and rich schools are over funded. The difference is I'd give parents a choice instead of demanding they be tied to poor schools because they live in poor neighborhoods. The poor schools (which who are we kidding do just enough to get by, I went to them all my life) wouldn't be competitive and would close. Leaving a demand for better schools in poor neighborhoods. Just like grocery markets still exist in poor neighborhoods so would schools, except now they have the initiative to improve and create innovation to stay in business.

 

There is today and under any system will always be good schools and bad schools. I prefer a system where parents and teachers can choose which to participate in. Let the bad ones close, why should we support them on the states dollar?

 

Again, most of a school's budget goes to paying staff.  Trust me, teachers who do extra curricular activities do not get paid a whole lot more. 

 

Giving school choice does not accomplish what you seem to think it will accomplish.  How do you judge the quality of a school?  By the number of attendees?  By if your kid passes or not (at which point, why would you ever fail a student?)  You have a lot of parents who really don't care about their kids getting a good education.  If everyone cared, then maybe such a system would work.  The problem is, parents aren't really customers, and neither are kids.  Looking at them as customers doesn't really work.  Because customers want to keep their costs down.  They'll choose bad schools, which will end up keeping bad schools in business.  They'll also base choice on personal and political beliefs, so that their kids wind up with the same beliefs.  Which ends up hurting good schools.

 

We should be improving bad schools, not getting rid of them altogether.  


First and Foremost we should be funding our schools better.  When's the last time the pentagon had to have a bake sale to pay for their private jet?  Or when has a politician needed to bake cookies to get funding for a project?  Attract good teachers to the profession with incentives, and have teachers licenses renew every 5 years (like they do here in virginia) through programs that have teachers taking additional classes to keep up with the curriculum (like they do here in Virginia)


A lot of places don't even require all teachers to have teaching licenses.  Which means that they don't know how to adapt to a students needs.  You need to draw more people into the field of teaching, and more people with actual teaching licenses.  


Simply put, school choice doesn't solve these problems.  There's no easy way to do it.  It's one of the reasons I quit voting Libertarian when the Green Party candidate was on the ballot.  Education is incredibly important, but it's also one thing that almost nobody wants to really fund.  Getting raises for teachers is like pulling teeth.  I should know, because they were trying to deny raises to teachers here when they hadn't had a Cost of Living Adjustment in 5 years (and as a result, unsurprisingly, many teachers have left the area).  


School choice sounds nice in theory.  But sadly it doesn't work because there is an unlimited demand for education.  It keeps getting bigger and bigger.  

 

If people are to get out of poverty, you have to remove cost as an obstacle toward advancement.  Yes, literacy is a problem.  I had a problem reading when I was in 1st grade.  We had a special ed teacher come in and she taught me to read.  Imagine those poor schools getting teachers who can do that, and work with the students who are having the most trouble.  The problem is, they're told they don't need them.  Imagine if the Pentagon was told they didn't need a private jet.  I bet you they'd get it before the poor schools get a specialized literature teacher.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Again, most of a school's budget goes to paying staff.  Trust me, teachers who do extra curricular activities do not get paid a whole lot more. 

 

Giving school choice does not accomplish what you seem to think it will accomplish.  How do you judge the quality of a school?  By the number of attendees?  By if your kid passes or not (at which point, why would you ever fail a student?)  You have a lot of parents who really don't care about their kids getting a good education.  If everyone cared, then maybe such a system would work.  The problem is, parents aren't really customers, and neither are kids.  Looking at them as customers doesn't really work.  Because customers want to keep their costs down.  They'll choose bad schools, which will end up keeping bad schools in business.  They'll also base choice on personal and political beliefs, so that their kids wind up with the same beliefs.  Which ends up hurting good schools.

 

We should be improving bad schools, not getting rid of them altogether.  


First and Foremost we should be funding our schools better.  When's the last time the pentagon had to have a bake sale to pay for their private jet?  Or when has a politician needed to bake cookies to get funding for a project?  Attract good teachers to the profession with incentives, and have teachers licenses renew every 5 years (like they do here in virginia) through programs that have teachers taking additional classes to keep up with the curriculum (like they do here in Virginia)


A lot of places don't even require all teachers to have teaching licenses.  Which means that they don't know how to adapt to a students needs.  You need to draw more people into the field of teaching, and more people with actual teaching licenses.  


Simply put, school choice doesn't solve these problems.  There's no easy way to do it.  It's one of the reasons I quit voting Libertarian when the Green Party candidate was on the ballot.  Education is incredibly important, but it's also one thing that almost nobody wants to really fund.  Getting raises for teachers is like pulling teeth.  I should know, because they were trying to deny raises to teachers here when they hadn't had a Cost of Living Adjustment in 5 years (and as a result, unsurprisingly, many teachers have left the area).  


School choice sounds nice in theory.  But sadly it doesn't work because there is an unlimited demand for education.  It keeps getting bigger and bigger.  

 

If people are to get out of poverty, you have to remove cost as an obstacle toward advancement.  Yes, literacy is a problem.  I had a problem reading when I was in 1st grade.  We had a special ed teacher come in and she taught me to read.  Imagine those poor schools getting teachers who can do that, and work with the students who are having the most trouble.  The problem is, they're told they don't need them.  Imagine if the Pentagon was told they didn't need a private jet.  I bet you they'd get it before the poor schools get a specialized literature teacher.

Very well written!

 

I like the idea of Continuous Education. In my field engineers are constantly having to do CE same as with the medical field. 

---

I'll put it in a way Eric can relate to:


US: Hey Africa, want some humanitarian Aid?


Africa: Eh, not really.  It's all going to warlords anyway.


US: Well here have billions of dollars anyway!

 

=============================================


Education System: Hey, we need someone who specializes in literacy for our students.

 

US: Nah, you don't really need that!


Education System: But we do... our literacy rate is dropping, and that's causing more and more students to drop out.

 

US: Too bad!  It's too expensive.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Very well written!


I like the idea of Continuous Education. In my field engineers are constantly having to do CE same as with the medical field.

You're an engineer? Props man I wanted to be an engineer until I got to calculus and my head exploded.

---

You're an engineer? Props man I wanted to be an engineer until I got to calculus and my head exploded.

Thanks but I was halfway to getting my degree but decided I'd rather do design. I build 3D models of the structures and do the design work on them. The engineers crunch numbers and do calculations to make sure the sizes of beams and reinforcing is correct. I make the drawings. Basically I get paid less then them but have none of the liability should something fall down and I get to play in 3D all day. I love my job

---

Thanks but I was halfway to getting my degree but decided I'd rather do design. I build 3D models of the structures and do the design work on them. The engineers crunch numbers and do calculations to make sure the sizes of beams and reinforcing is correct. I make the drawings. Basically I get paid less then them but have none of the liability should something fall down and I get to play in 3D all day. I love my job

 

That's awesome man, I got to about the third computer class and figured cars are easier lol.

---

That's awesome man, I got to about the third computer class and figured cars are easier lol.

Some cars. I used to do all the work on my cars. I love me some german autos but holy crap they are intimidating to work on!

---

Some cars. I used to do all the work on my cars. I love me some german autos but holy crap they are intimidating to work on!

Oh German cars I make a living off German cars, yea you either have training and tools or you'll kill them and then take them to someone with tools and training.


I've had to change $2000 ecms when people try and replace the battery on their Mercedes.

---

Oh German cars I make a living off German cars, yea you either have training and tools or you'll kill them and then take them to someone with tools and training.


I've had to change $2000 ecms when people try and replace the battery on their Mercedes.

Honestly some of the things I've looked into would be cheaper to fly a guy across the country to fix lol. The adaptive headlamp controller went out. Cost over a grand in labor to repair!!!!

---

Free high school education, in most of the US, is a joke. I'm talking, from my experience, students in the 10th and 11th grade who can barely read an English text book. Our schools "job" shouldn't be to pass as many students as they can, even if they didn't deserve it.

 

From elementary to high school to collegiate level...it is our standards that we need to raise...not the cost.

So give em 40k more and four more years to learn stuff they should learn in primary school then? Always need to spend more of other people's money. The problems in education are twofold: liberal educational standards and techniques and broken homes caused by liberal social policies.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

So give em 40k more and four more years to learn stuff they should learn in primary school then? Always need to spend more of other people's money. The problems in education are twofold: liberal educational standards and techniques and broken homes caused by liberal social policies.

 

You got "give em 40k more and four more years to learn stuff" from my comment of "from elementary to high school to collegiate level...it is our standards that we need to raise...not the cost."?

---

So give em 40k more and four more years to learn stuff they should learn in primary school then? Always need to spend more of other people's money. The problems in education are twofold: liberal educational standards and techniques and broken homes caused by liberal social policies.

This is going to be fun. Please elaborate. 

---