So giving government funding from taxes for private k-12 schools is good but not for public colleges so kids can go to college? There is something really flawed with that logic.


Colleges and public schools are different beasts. We are in agreement that the early years systems are flawed and need fixing. However, I want to a private school for K-8. I had a personal interest in space and the sciences. Not only were they secondary to the "education" I was taught but completely contradictory to the actual facts of the universe. I'll leave it up to you to figure what kind of school that was. The point is some kind of standards needs to be in place.

 

As I pointed out, Marco Rubio presented an idea that works for solving the problem(s) associated with K-12 education as well as higher education that does so without raising taxes by a penny.  Bernie Sanders on the other hand has proposed raising taxes on a select few and throwing money at the problem.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I'm not sure government financing is the problem. I think 'private' college needs to be redefined. Students who do not belong at, say, Syracuse or Notre Dame, are not going to get accepted, meaning they won't be taking school loans. Private 'colleges' like Everest University, University of Phoenix, who accept anyone under a veil of helping people who 'traditional universities' aren't willing to work with (though they are seemingly more driven by the student loan money they can get) take advantage of the student loan system. Trust me, there are schools that send representatives to underprivileged schools and hand out 'scholarships' based solely on your presence in an attempt to get students (and their student loan money) to attend their schools. Most of these kids should never be accepted to a university, but take out the loans. A year or two later, they are out of college, in debt, without the jobs to pay it back and the 'private university' is sitting on a big pile of government cash.

 

You bring up a very good point regarding certain schools that are pretty much "all about the cash" when it comes to student loans.  Again, under the plan proposed by Marco Rubio that source of dollars would probably diminish.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I can't support a free market plan, because the free market will always be interested primarily in profit.  And that's okay, there's nothing wrong with profit.  The free market works for many things.  I don't think it would work to solve the problem with student debt.


And honestly, I imagine Sanders plan is a bit more complex than "Raise Taxes on the rich".  I'm sure he also plans on cutting spending in many areas.  Especially much of the waste we have, such as building airplanes that can't outfly what we currently have. He'd also end many subsidies such as Oil Subsidies, I seem to recall him talking about that.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

I can't support a free market plan, because the free market will always be interested primarily in profit.  And that's okay, there's nothing wrong with profit.  The free market works for many things.  I don't think it would work to solve the problem with student debt.


And honestly, I imagine Sanders plan is a bit more complex than "Raise Taxes on the rich".  I'm sure he also plans on cutting spending in many areas.  Especially much of the waste we have, such as building airplanes that can't outfly what we currently have. He'd also end many subsidies such as Oil Subsidies, I seem to recall him talking about that.

 

 I would certainly like to see any evidence of this.  All of the speeches and articles that I've seen has him angrily saying that the "rich need to pay their 'fair share'" in order to do anything.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

From Sanders Website (I know you won't agree with most of what he says obviously  And that's fine, you're certainly granted that.)


but:

"Reduce unnecessary and wasteful spending at the Pentagon
, which now consumes over half of our discretionary budget.  Much of the huge spending at the Pentagon is devoted to spending money on Cold War weapons programs to fight a Soviet Union that no longer exists.  Lawrence Korb, an Assistant Secretary of Defense under Ronald Reagan, has estimated that we could achieve significant savings of around $100 billion a year at the Pentagon while still ensuring that the United States has the strongest and most powerful military in the world. "

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

As I pointed out, Marco Rubio presented an idea that works for solving the problem(s) associated with K-12 education as well as higher education that does so without raising taxes by a penny.  Bernie Sanders on the other hand has proposed raising taxes on a select few and throwing money at the problem.

If I am understanding you correctly his idea is a voucher program. So yes to government funding for K-12? Throwing money at the problem only this time money makes it to the private sector.

---

Throwing money at the problem is when you increase funds in an environment with little to no accountability.  When you redirect funds to increase accountability that's common sense restructuring not throwing money at the problem.   

---

Throwing money at the problem is when you increase funds in an environment with little to no accountability.  When you redirect funds to increase accountability profits that's common sense restructuring not throwing money at the problem.   

FTFY

---

In order for a business to generate a profit, the consumer has to choose their product. In the case of education that means that a parent would have consciously chosen the school that their child attends.  

 

In the current system its predetermined by your zip code.  you're stuck paying property taxes if you approve or disapprove of the job that the school does.  That kind of coercion is kind of like extortion.  

 

Profits vs. extortion.  Hmmmm...  Let's ask inner city kids how that one has worked out for them!

---

If I am understanding you correctly his idea is a voucher program. So yes to government funding for K-12? Throwing money at the problem only this time money makes it to the private sector.

A voucher program creates competition. When parents decide which school is better the schools are forced to compete for students. If high school A is graduating kids that can't read and high school B is graduating kids ready for college the money flows to high school B unless high school A gets their act together.

---

A voucher program creates competition. When parents decide which school is better the schools are forced to compete for students. If high school A is graduating kids that can't read and high school B is graduating kids ready for college the money flows to high school B unless high school A gets their act together.

Competition in schools can be a dangerous thing. When students are seen as dollar signs there is little incentive to share resources or strategies that might be beneficial for students as a whole. What happens when school B had too many students?


Also, there is a problem with private schools and charter schools receiving funding because they have the right to kick out students. What ends up happening, every year, around the start of the 2nd quarter is that the private and charter schools boot low performers (but the charters keep the funding since the window for student count closes) and the public school gets stuck with the low performer and no funding. The public school HAS to teach them but the $$$ goes to the business that runs the school that booted them.

---

“It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.”
― Albert Camus

A voucher program creates competition. When parents decide which school is better the schools are forced to compete for students. If high school A is graduating kids that can't read and high school B is graduating kids ready for college the money flows to high school B unless high school A gets their act together.

 

Or unless High School A has a better marketing campaign, or maybe they offer to teach Creationism while High School B doesn't.  Maybe High School A has teacher-led school prayer, which draws in more parents than High School B, despite High School B having a higher rate of literacy. 


Then what about High School B refuses to accept your students, and you're left with the choice of High School A or High School C (which is even worse than high school A)

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Or unless High School A has a better marketing campaign, or maybe they offer to teach Creationism while High School B doesn't. Maybe High School A has teacher-led school prayer, which draws in more parents than High School B, despite High School B having a higher rate of literacy.


Then what about High School B refuses to accept your students, and you're left with the choice of High School A or High School C (which is even worse than high school A)

---

Or unless High School A has a better marketing campaign, or maybe they offer to teach Creationism while High School B doesn't. Maybe High School A has teacher-led school prayer, which draws in more parents than High School B, despite High School B having a higher rate of literacy.


Then what about High School B refuses to accept your students, and you're left with the choice of High School A or High School C (which is even worse than high school A)

I don't see why which origin theory the school teaches would be a problem. I send my kids to a creationist school doesn't handicap them in anyway. I think it would be healthy that have a competition of ideas in education why is only the state sponsored theory given a monopoly in education? Same goes for other subjects history, mathematics, language ect... You'd have schools that focus on niche markets such as the performing arts programs but in large the bad schools would close with a lack of funding and be replaced with better more efficient schools.


Education is treated with kid gloves the whole system needs to be radically changed because what we're doing doesn't work.

---

Competition in schools can be a dangerous thing. When students are seen as dollar signs there is little incentive to share resources or strategies that might be beneficial for students as a whole. What happens when school B had too many students?


Also, there is a problem with private schools and charter schools receiving funding because they have the right to kick out students. What ends up happening, every year, around the start of the 2nd quarter is that the private and charter schools boot low performers (but the charters keep the funding since the window for student count closes) and the public school gets stuck with the low performer and no funding. The public school HAS to teach them but the $$$ goes to the business that runs the school that booted them.

I don't know about charter schools but private schools ( church schools) don't kick out low performers to the public system. They fail them and make them repeat the year but it's not like a college where your grades dropped and your out.

---

I don't see why which origin theory the school teaches would be a problem. I send my kids to a creationist school doesn't handicap them in anyway. I think it would be healthy that have a competition of ideas in education why is only the state sponsored theory given a monopoly in education? Same goes for other subjects history, mathematics, language ect... You'd have schools that focus on niche markets such as the performing arts programs but in large the bad schools would close with a lack of funding and be replaced with better more efficient schools.


Education is treated with kid gloves the whole system needs to be radically changed because what we're doing doesn't work.

Because one is backed by science and the other by literally nothing at all. It's indoctrination on a verifiable scale, unlike what some nutters think colleges do.  

---

I don't see why which origin theory the school teaches would be a problem. I send my kids to a creationist school doesn't handicap them in anyway. I think it would be healthy that have a competition of ideas in education why is only the state sponsored theory given a monopoly in educati

 

It'd be a problem for many.  I certainly don't want my kids exposed to creationism at school.  


And here's where the problem comes in:


School A doesn't teach creationism.

School B does.


School B produces more people who graduate despite being illiterate, while School A has a much better literacy rate.  School B gets more funding, while School A gets less.  Education is basically turned into a profit-based business where parents are customers.  They choose based on a variety of factors, and the better schools fail to get funding, and go out of business despite being, objectively better schools.  Schools would  have to appeal to the parents, rather than focus on educating the students.  Educating students should be the primary goal of a school.  Not profit.  Because it's easy to attract parents.  It's hard to actually educate students.  And the bottom line would be all that matters in the end.


I mean if Creationism was actually a science, then I'd say "Yeah, they should teach it."  But it's not a science. Religious values should be imposed by parents, and (if the parents so choose) their church, not schools. 

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

It'd be a problem for many.  I certainly don't want my kids exposed to creationism at school.  


And here's where the problem comes in:


School A doesn't teach creationism.

School B does.


School B produces more people who graduate despite being illiterate, while School A has a much better literacy rate.  School B gets more funding, while School A gets less.  Education is basically turned into a profit-based business where parents are customers.  They choose based on a variety of factors, and the better schools fail to get funding, and go out of business despite being, objectively better schools.  Schools would  have to appeal to the parents, rather than focus on educating the students.  Educating students should be the primary goal of a school.  Not profit.  Because it's easy to attract parents.  It's hard to actually educate students.  And the bottom line would be all that matters in the end.


I mean if Creationism was actually a science, then I'd say "Yeah, they should teach it."  But it's not a science. Religious values should be imposed by parents, and (if the parents so choose) their church, not schools. 

 

Let me ask you this.  How do you define theology?

 

Also, the way that I interpreted Eric's initial example, say School A is an under performing high school and School B is a very well performing high school that is privately owned (not necessarily a religious school).  Should parents not be given a choice as to which school they want to send their children to?

 

Another question for you.  Is someone better off learning about evolution, creationism or both?  Of the three choices, which is the most "well rounded" education that a person can receive?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Competition in schools can be a dangerous thing. When students are seen as dollar signs there is little incentive to share resources or strategies that might be beneficial for students as a whole. What happens when school B had too many students?

Also, there is a problem with private schools and charter schools receiving funding because they have the right to kick out students. What ends up happening, every year, around the start of the 2nd quarter is that the private and charter schools boot low performers (but the charters keep the funding since the window for student count closes) and the public school gets stuck with the low performer and no funding. The public school HAS to teach them but the $$$ goes to the business that runs the school that booted them.

 

I'm not saying that I don't believe you, but I've never heard of such a thing happening.  Can you point to a source that describes this?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Let me ask you this. How do you define theology?


Also, the way that I interpreted Eric's initial example, say School A is an under performing high school and School B is a very well performing high school that is privately owned (not necessarily a religious school). Should parents not be given a choice as to which school they want to send their children to?


Another question for you. Is someone better off learning about evolution, creationism or both? Of the three choices, which is the most "well rounded" education that a person can receive?

Hah we know what you think. But creationism is not a valid science. It's bunk. If you choose to believe it, or want your kids taught it, that's fine. But it has no basis in reality. No proof. It's faith-based. It is not a component of a well rounded education and does not offer a valid counter argument to the actual science of evolution.


Carry on

---