Why Aren't We Talking About Union Busting?

[quote name='mykevermin']You brought it up.

Also, I thought unions were "thugs" and stuff, always getting their way, never giving an inch and taking no quarter. I thought our economy was being ruined by a combination of teachers and police making $55,000 per year* and the very act of collective bargaining.

What kind of magical dark powers does Wal-Mart possess that assists their power to defeat unions like they have? It must be metaphysical, since unions are the unstoppable force. Right?

* this number is higher than most teachers or police make on average.[/QUOTE]
Or that unions are so powerful that collective bargaining isn't being whittled away by even more powerful oligarchs as average household income has plateaued while the top 1% has sky-rocketed. No. Nothing to see here.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You brought it up.[/quote]

Umm... no. Post #325.

Also, I thought unions were "thugs" and stuff, always getting their way, never giving an inch and taking no quarter. I thought our economy was being ruined by a combination of teachers and police making $55,000 per year* and the very act of collective bargaining.
Click to expand...

A.) If you think that, then you live in a weird world.
B.) I don't think the pure rate of a teacher's salary is, generally, what people have a problem with. It's things like giving teacher a year's salary for working 30 days. It's things like the "rubber rooms" in NYC (which they did finally start eliminating last year, although the process of terminating under-performing teachers is, apparently, still very tedious.). That's not to say there aren't those who think teachers make too much (and there are some situations where that's true), but, generally, I don't think it's the per-person rate of the cost of education that gets people riled up - it's the overall cost. Similar to the complaints of medical care in the US, we spend, in comparison to most industrialized countries, more per student and get less results. (light reading).

What kind of magical dark powers does Wal-Mart possess that assists their power to defeat unions like they have? It must be metaphysical, since unions are the unstoppable force.
Click to expand...
Low skills/no skills work force combined with the fact that, overall, Walmart is not a bad company to work for. It's no New York Rubber Room, mind you, but as I've mentioned before on here, when I was hourly, I made a pretty decent wage in comparison to the majority of employers locally.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']
A.) If you think that, then you live in a weird world.
B.) I don't think the pure rate of a teacher's salary is, generally, what people have a problem with. It's things like giving teacher a year's salary for working 30 days. It's things like the "rubber rooms" in NYC (which they did finally start eliminating last year, although the process of terminating under-performing teachers is, apparently, still very tedious.). That's not to say there aren't those who think teachers make too much (and there are some situations where that's true), but, generally, I don't think it's the per-person rate of the cost of education that gets people riled up - it's the overall cost. Similar to the complaints of medical care in the US, we spend, in comparison to most industrialized countries, more per student and get less results. (light reading).[/QUOTE]

The dollar per student? I don't think I've ever heard anyone ever state that as something to lose sleep over.

If anyone wants a place to start changing, it's the home, the parents themselves. Our education sucks because it's not reinforced in the home. it's turning into a lazy spoiled generation.

Every other country, Teacher is a status to be respected, and here it's a job that's ignored by the very students that show up now.

Cutting education means more classroom sizes and that doesn't equal a better education.




Side fact-o: Apparently rumors and talks about the local farmers joining in and will be driving their tractors to circle the capital tomorrow. Wish I would have bought more popcorn, so much drama...
 
A public employer, unlike his private counterpart, is not guided by the profit motive and constrained by the normal operation of the market. Municipal services are typically not priced, and where they are[,] they tend to be regarded as in some sense “essential” and therefore are often price-inelastic. Although a public employer, like a private one, will wish to keep costs down, he lacks an important discipline against agreeing to increases in labor costs that in a market system would require price increases. A public-sector union is correspondingly less concerned that high prices due to costly wage demands will decrease output and hence employment.
Click to expand...
:whistle2:#
 
[quote name='xycury']The dollar per student? I don't think I've ever heard anyone ever state that as something to lose sleep over.[/quote]

Most supporters of private schools/school choice vouchers love to point out that private schools spend far less per child with better results. But, again, as I said, most people are concerned with the overall cost of education. They don't look at the cost/pupil rates or things of that sort.

If anyone wants a place to start changing, it's the home, the parents themselves. Our education sucks because it's not reinforced in the home. it's turning into a lazy spoiled generation.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Part of the issue is there's just that expectation that the government is going to take care of your children, so send them to school and go about your own business. Let the schools teach your child, not only the three "R's", but ethics and moral codes as well.

Cutting education means more classroom sizes and that doesn't equal a better education.
Click to expand...
Not at all. Cutting education means things like getting rid of over-paid, under-performing teachers. If you have one tenured teacher who's under-performing, you could likely weed them out and replace them with two new teachers. Instead, we keep them on the payroll and let them sit in a rubber room doing nothing for full pay *and* have to hire a new teacher to cover for them while they're out.

Cutting education spending doesn't have to mean cutting teacher wages, school supplies or creating larger classrooms. It can mean that we're going to re-evaluate where these dollars are being spent and determining how to get more bang for the buck. Does any high school need a $60 Million Football Stadium?
 
Its super obvious that this UBOB guy has no idea how unions work.

He obviously is not in a union and listens to R.Limbaugh Which has no clue on how unions work or how schools work. R.Limbaugh has no Kids and has dropped out of further education in other words last place for ANY school or education advice.

To deny that that the Legislation that passed in Wisconsion and going through multiple other states IN,MI,Ohio is nothing other than Union Busting and to disable funds to the Democratic party is stupidity.

Its apparent that he has nothing constructive to add to this thread...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Most supporters of private schools/school choice vouchers love to point out that private schools spend far less per child with better results. But, again, as I said, most people are concerned with the overall cost of education. They don't look at the cost/pupil rates or things of that sort.[/QUOTE]

Private schools cost ultimately too much. There would have been no chance for myself to opt to Private being as poor as poor gets when I was growing up.

The part that benefits from that is roughly the upper middle class which is a vast minority to a small state of WI. Even then, our education is ranked quite well and only suffers in the high populations districts.


[quote name='UncleBob']Agreed. Part of the issue is there's just that expectation that the government is going to take care of your children, so send them to school and go about your own business. Let the schools teach your child, not only the three "R's", but ethics and moral codes as well.[/QUOTE]

I don't see how anyone could think that. If so, it's time to start paying a Stupid tax.


[quote name='UncleBob']Not at all. Cutting education means things like getting rid of over-paid, under-performing teachers. If you have one tenured teacher who's under-performing, you could likely weed them out and replace them with two new teachers. Instead, we keep them on the payroll and let them sit in a rubber room doing nothing for full pay *and* have to hire a new teacher to cover for them while they're out.

Cutting education spending doesn't have to mean cutting teacher wages, school supplies or creating larger classrooms. It can mean that we're going to re-evaluate where these dollars are being spent and determining how to get more bang for the buck. Does any high school need a $60 Million Football Stadium?[/QUOTE]

I've been in three different districts and haven't ever seen a "bad" teacher. Again you're focusing on the teacher while it's the student who is at fault here.

Cutting education is cutting teacher wages and creating larger classrooms. For as small as what WI is, that's exactly what's going to happen.

We aren't making stadiums, and this is not West Penn.

And overall I find it kind of ironic that we're demonizing teachers that may make a bit of money while majority don't. I know teachers making minimum wages, I know managers at mcdonalds making more!

The budget cuts proposed by the Gov is rougly cutting about 200 million from an overall 3.5 Billion.... which is 6 fucking percent..... over 2 freaking years... you know what will happen then??? more cuts to education... they aren't bleeding enough.

Every other god damn state has a higher sales tax than us... I'd say we up it by .5 and that would roughly make up that shortfall in a year. We'd still be the lowest on every other state....
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Most supporters of private schools/school choice vouchers love to point out that private schools spend far less per child with better results.[/QUOTE]

hey, look, uncle bob is confusing selection bias for a causal relationship.

did you tutor this erroneous technique to students? was it a private school?
 
[quote name='xycury']Private schools cost ultimately too much. There would have been no chance for myself to opt to Private being as poor as poor gets when I was growing up.[/quote]

Which is why school choice vouchers would help give several families the boost they need to be able to apply their children into a private school.

I don't see how anyone could think that. If so, it's time to start paying a Stupid tax.
Click to expand...

I don't see how anyone could think that either - but they do.

I've been in three different districts and haven't ever seen a "bad" teacher. Again you're focusing on the teacher while it's the student who is at fault here.
Click to expand...

Check out New York City's (now-defunct) Rubber Room program. 550 teachers were "enrolled" in it. Are you saying that not one of these teachers were "bad"?

I agree, there are several issues with the student (or, more accurately, the parent(s)), but putting all the blame on the student is like putting all the blame on the customer. Remember, the teacher is supposed to be there to serve the needs of the student - not the other way around.

Cutting education is cutting teacher wages and creating larger classrooms. For as small as what WI is, that's exactly what's going to happen.
Click to expand...
Again, it doesn't have to be this way. What say we just stop paying a full year's wage for teachers who only work 30 days? Take out 18 of those teachers, hire in three, you'll get about the same amount of labor at half the cost.

We aren't making stadiums, and this is not West Penn.
Click to expand...
How much did Arrowhead Stadium in Heartland cost? Not to mention maintenance and insurance on that sucker...

Every other god damn state has a higher sales tax than us... I'd say we up it by .5 and that would roughly make up that shortfall in a year. We'd still be the lowest on every other state....
Click to expand...

Woah, there... too many people are against sales taxes because they don't do enough to tax the evil rich while expecting the downtrodden poor to pony up. Personally, I'm for the idea of consumption taxes, but be careful what you wish for.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']hey, look, uncle bob is confusing selection bias for a causal relationship.

did you tutor this erroneous technique to students? was it a private school?[/QUOTE]

I'm not confusing anything. I believe that if you actually take the time to read what I wrote vs. what you think I believe, you'll see there's a difference there.
 
Uncle bob is actually kind of right about education lol. People need to watch "stupid in america". Its eye opening. I think the reason we lack behind the rest of the world is not just are educational system but also how spoiled and retarded the average american child is compared to children around the world. Most Americans are stupid and unfortunately they breed like animals.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Which is why school choice vouchers would help give several families the boost they need to be able to apply their children into a private school.[/QUOTE]

And who would be paying for that? Certainly not businesses out of their kind hearts... Are you saying you want the Gov to pitch in? even more?

[quote name='UncleBob']Check out New York City's (now-defunct) Rubber Room program. 550 teachers were "enrolled" in it. Are you saying that not one of these teachers were "bad"?[/QUOTE]

Well since this is a state issue, I don't care for NY. Is it possible to really pay attention to the issue at hand?

[quote name='UncleBob']I agree, there are several issues with the student (or, more accurately, the parent(s)), but putting all the blame on the student is like putting all the blame on the customer. Remember, the teacher is supposed to be there to serve the needs of the student - not the other way around.[/QUOTE]

Teachers can't teach to a non-learning student. I've seen plenty around.

[quote name='UncleBob']How much did Arrowhead Stadium in Heartland cost? Not to mention maintenance and insurance on that sucker...[/QUOTE]

Since constructions usually fall on the local districts, I don't care how much. Sports are overrated anyways. And almost all of that should fall onto every tax payer in the district anyways and has nothing to do with unions.

[quote name='X BRO 420']Uncle bob is actually kind of right about education lol. People need to watch "stupid in america". Its eye opening. I think the reason we lack behind the rest of the world is not just are educational system but also how spoiled and retarded the average american child is compared to children around the world. Most Americans are stupid and unfortunately they breed like animals.[/QUOTE]

He hasn't said jack about education... nor can he in my state. Our education system is at best OK... ultimately it's how education turned into just something to suffer through versus something to look forward and earn.

the major sciences don't have the prestiege that the sports and entertainment have and it's sickening. And that's why we're dropping. We're currently getting talent from outside sources because education is worth more than everything else there.

There needs to be more Mathletes and Science clubs than peewee football and glee clubs.
 
[quote name='xycury']And who would be paying for that? Certainly not businesses out of their kind hearts... Are you saying you want the Gov to pitch in? even more?[/quote]

Simple plan, really. If a school district is spending, say (pulling numbers out of my butt here), $10/child/day now, then offer vouchers equal to, say, $7/child/day for parents who wish to enroll their children into private, approved schools. Now, say you have a student population of 100 - or $1,000/day. Let's say, with these vouchers, 25% of the students get switched over to a private school - pulling $175 out of the school funding (25*$7), leaving you with $825 - which is less, but now you only have 75 students to teach - but now you can spend $11/child/day. Less students, of course, puts less of a stain on the school and would allow more individualized student-teacher time.

Let's say the vouchers equal $5/child/day - but the public school only needs to spend $11/child/day. Take $125 out of the daily budget to cover the cost of the vouchers, take the $825 out to give the public school and blammo, $50 (or 5%) savings, smaller classrooms with more money spent per child. Of course, that's easy to do with made up numbers... :D

Well since this is a state issue, I don't care for NY. Is it possible to really pay attention to the issue at hand?
Click to expand...
Understandable - but hearing stories like this is what helps turn public opinion away from the cause. Do keep that in mind.

Also, I notice you've shown a lack of interest in responding to the idea of paying a full year's wage for 30 days of work. Any interest in that, as that story comes from WI?

Teachers can't teach to a non-learning student. I've seen plenty around.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Since constructions usually fall on the local districts, I don't care how much. Sports are overrated anyways. And almost all of that should fall onto every tax payer in the district anyways and has nothing to do with unions.
Click to expand...

A.) So we went from "We're not building stadiums" to "I don't care how much."
B.) Agree, sports are overrated. Even more so when it comes to High School sports.
C.) Didn't say it was a result of unions. But it is a part of the overall cost of "education" (putting education in quotes as I'm sure we can both agree that million dollar stadiums don't have a lot to do with education). Which is my initial point - the general population is upset with the overall cost of education in the US.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Of course, that's easy to do with made up numbers... :D[/QUOTE]

To use more realistic numbers:

WI spends (on average) $10,529, Per student, Per year. Random private school pulled out of a hat (Kettle Moraine Lutheran High School in Jackson, WI) has a yearly tuition of $7,365. Let's say the government offered a voucher for 75% of the tuition cost (Ideally, the voucher would be for a flat amount, regardless of the school of choice) - or $5,524. Parents of children who wish to partake in a school choice voucher program would be expected to pick up any additional costs (either by paying themselves or via scholarships). Average High School class size of 24 students, let's say four of those students are moved into private schooling. If 100% of the money gained (between the former cost-per-student vs. the value of the voucher) is put directly back into this classroom, per-student spending would increase $1,001 (~9.5%) and your classroom just shrank by ~16% - without spending one extra dime. If we take some of that money gained (again, between the former cost-per-student and the value of the voucher) and put it into the classroom while applying the rest of the money elsewhere, you could then "cut" the budget while still increasing per-student spending *and* shrinking classroom sizes.
 
[quote name='X BRO 420']Uncle bob is actually kind of right about education lol. People need to watch "stupid in america". Its eye opening. I think the reason we lack behind the rest of the world is not just are educational system but also how spoiled and retarded the average american child is compared to children around the world. Most Americans are stupid and unfortunately they breed like animals.[/QUOTE]

what is up new guy. thanks for joining the forums just to chime in with that insightful comment.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'm not confusing anything. I believe that if you actually take the time to read what I wrote vs. what you think I believe, you'll see there's a difference there.[/QUOTE]

You mean like you, in the 2-3 posts immediately following this one?

You do understand why comparing the cost of private vs public is a fatally flawed comparison, yes?

(no, no you don't.)
 
Yes, yes I do. And you can see, I never, personally, make a big deal over private schools spending less and getting better results. At no point am I comparing the cost of public vs. private. Seriously, quote any place where I directly compared the two.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Yes, yes I do. And you can see, I never, personally, make a big deal over private schools spending less and getting better results. At no point am I comparing the cost of public vs. private. Seriously, quote any place where I directly compared the two.[/QUOTE]
Your voucher idea is FUBAR because those that would benefit the most would be shut out from not being able to pay the 25% difference. The biggiest flaw in your argument to begin with is that PRIVATE SCHOOLS CAN PICK AND CHOOSE WHO THEY WANT TO ADMIT. That's why there's less overall cost per student. All this stupid talk about $$$ per student is a red herring anyways because education doesn't start and end at school or the parents. If you don't stablize the socio-economic enviroment, how the fuck are the parents going to have steady jobs that are well-trained living in a neighborhood that's subjected to decades of economic depression that's absolutely no fault of their own? Of course, you'd answer with "work harder," but thats just some meaningless platitude that ignores the history that caused these neighborhoods to begin with.

Focusing on $$$ per student just takes the focus away from the culability of those that want to keep the neighborhoods the way they are.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You are a fucking troll of the highest order.

Seriously, prove that my cag username is mykevermin.[/QUOTE]

mykename.jpg


Is this another one of those cases where you completely ignore what I've posted, make up your own version, call me names because you disagree with your version of what I said, then call me more names when I call you out on the fact that I never said what you claim I said? Because we've done that before, Myke.

Now, please provide a quote where I compare the costs of running a private school to those of running a public school. More to the point, provide a quote from me where I draw a direct correlation between the cost-per-pupil and the results/effectiveness of Public vs. Private schools. If I did such a thing, it should be pretty easy to find. This thread is only a few pages long - you shouldn't have any trouble skimming through it for my posts. They're the ones that say "UncleBob" beside them.
 
Private schools are a waste of money and just a way for rich parents to justify their status.

A kid can still get a great education at a public school; they just have to personally make a bigger effort, take initative, and go above and beyond what is taught in class.
 
I can't fuckin' believe I'm entertaining you:
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8255749&postcount=360
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8255749&postcount=361

You make a multitude of deeply erroneous assumptions (the 'savings' from a voucher program would be returned to the public school and not simply eliminated, students have equal access to voucher-based institutions, charter schools are effective, public schools will remain effective if we let the children whose parents actually give a flying fuck take their kids out of the institution, etc.).

You're playing with hypothetical numbers, making shit up out of thin air (as you admit) to demonstrate the net benefit of allowing the institutions to grow. You have made a strictly (fallacious) financial argument to demonstrate a reciprocal effect of all kinds of residual benefits (before you deny it, in the absence of residual effects, you'd be shuffling money around for no reason or no gain - and if that were the case, certainly someone like you would argue for the savings to be taken from education and used towards the debt rather than reapplied towards education.)

You're good with words, in that you'll retort by saying you never said directly blah blah blah. Newt Gingrich never directly said he had a multitude of affairs over his life. Just sayin'. But some of the necessary implications of your argument are required, or else the whole point of your post falls apart.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']
mykename.jpg


Is this another one of those cases where you completely ignore what I've posted, make up your own version, call me names because you disagree with your version of what I said, then call me more names when I call you out on the fact that I never said what you claim I said? Because we've done that before, Myke.

Now, please provide a quote where I compare the costs of running a private school to those of running a public school. More to the point, provide a quote from me where I draw a direct correlation between the cost-per-pupil and the results/effectiveness of Public vs. Private schools. If I did such a thing, it should be pretty easy to find. This thread is only a few pages long - you shouldn't have any trouble skimming through it for my posts. They're the ones that say "UncleBob" beside them.[/QUOTE]


Seriously, why do you still bother?
What are you trying to accomplish?

You'd likely have more constructive results trying to preach the gospel to an Atheist that already hates your guts - while he's distracted by watching the superbowl, enjoying high quality nachos, and getting super model fellatio.
 
[quote name='2DMention']Private schools are a waste of money and just a way for rich parents to justify their status.

A kid can still get a great education at a public school; they just have to personally make a bigger effort, take initative, and go above and beyond what is taught in class.[/QUOTE]

I do have to say, I completely agree with your premise. There are a multitude of reasons why a parent (poor, middle class or rich) would send their parent to a private school. Depending on the area, it can be a safer learning environment for example. There are situations where a student may have special needs (actual, legitimate special needs) that the local public schools just aren't able to effectually adapt to. Perhaps the student is one of the "unteachables" that would be better served in a military-style school.

I'm curious, do you think Obama sends his kids to a private school as a way for him to justify his rich status?
 
[quote name='2DMention']Private schools are a waste of money and just a way for rich parents to justify their status.

A kid can still get a great education at a public school; they just have to personally make a bigger effort, take initative, and go above and beyond what is taught in class.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='UncleBob']I do have to say, I completely agree with your premise. There are a multitude of reasons why a parent (poor, middle class or rich) would send their parent to a private school. Depending on the area, it can be a safer learning environment for example. There are situations where a student may have special needs (actual, legitimate special needs) that the local public schools just aren't able to effectually adapt to. Perhaps the student is one of the "unteachables" that would be better served in a military-style school.

I'm curious, do you think Obama sends his kids to a private school as a way for him to justify his rich status?[/QUOTE]
There have always been elite private schools. This is not a controversial fact.

The reason why we have so many private schools today is because of desegregation and redlining.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You make a multitude of deeply erroneous assumptions (the 'savings' from a voucher program would be returned to the public school and not simply eliminated,[/quote]

See, I don't even think you read my posts. I came up with three different possibilities, each of which were mentioned. I said the money could stay in the classroom, the money could be cut or it could be split, some staying in the classroom and some being cut. You ignore two of those and claim that I assumed only one would happen.

*And* none of this accounts for the idea that creating the voucher system would allow for some number students to be removed from the public school classroom, helping to shrink class sizes - one of the biggest pushes of teacher's unions and most sane educators. So even if 0% of the savings from vouchers went back into the schools, there'd still be smaller classrooms, allowing teachers to spend more focused time with the students who need it.


students have equal access to voucher-based institutions,
Click to expand...
Never said that. Anywhere.

charter schools are effective,
Click to expand...
Charter schools? This is the first time it's been mentioned in this thread. At all.

public schools will remain effective if we let the children whose parents actually give a flying fuck take their kids out of the institution, etc.).
Click to expand...

I'm curious - why do you seem to imply that you think all the parents who "actually give a flying ***" about their children would be so quick to take them out of public schools, if given a reasonable (and potentially more costly) opportunity to do so?

You're good with words, in that you'll retort by saying you never said directly blah blah blah. Newt Gingrich never directly said he had a multitude of affairs over his life. Just sayin'.
Click to expand...

And Obama never directly said "I'm not a secret Muslim bent on destroying America from the inside." I guess in Myke-land, because he didn't say it, it must be true.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Seriously, why do you still bother?
What are you trying to accomplish?[/QUOTE]

Avoiding going into work? :D
 
You can threaten to shoot someone in the head and when they tell the Cops you threatened to kill them; say I never said that people don't neccesarily die when you shoot them in the head. And what you said would be no different then what comes out of the mouths of certain obstinate trolls daily.
 
Photos can be edited to say anything. Especially digital photos. Usually by Nazis. Hitler would have used photoshop back in HIS day, I can tell you that. You can't prove to me that's a picture of mykevermin's name. How do we even know that's the same mykevermin, and not one from some ultra roller-derby crazed parallel universe? And even then, how would he know he's not a super conservative version in that reality? Or that he has a the same haircut? How do we even know that his name is SPELLED that way? Those letters up there? Please. Those could be random collaborations of pixels borne out of the creative cause-work of some mighty God or God like being, who set in motion the creation of the universe and bore those 1s and 0s together back during the Internet's Big Bang, which was much less interesting because it was a bunch of nerds in labcoats drinking ginger ale and eating pretzels. You can't prove evolution doesn't exist, you can't prove bananas taste good, so what could you possibly uphold as proof that the myke up there is indeed the myke you so liberally-attested in your post? Spinless communist theorems, I say! Everyone knows you can't step into the same river twice, so what makes you think you can step into the same mykevermin twice?

OH THAT'S RIGHT, YOU CAN'T, THIS ENTIRE TRIAL IS OUT OF ORDER AND YOU CAN ALL GO BACK TO YOUR FAMILIES TO BE FAMILY MEN, OR WOMEN, OR BEINGS-OF-QUESTIONABLE-SEXUAL-GENDER-SPECIFICATION. GOOD NIGHT, SIRS.

GOOD NIGHT.

/and I'm just gettin' started, call me back when the big hitters step up to the plate and the game is on the line, as well as little Cancerous Timmy's Make-A-Wish-Foundation wish to see me bean someone 13 people in the nuts with both my eyes closed and hot bitches playing chicken on top of me. Stay gold, Cancerous Timmy. Stay gold
 
Just for funsies I'll reply and then read the last ten posts...

The reason that per student spending is less per student in a private school is probably the best case I can point to that absolutely backwards logic can be correct. Essentially it's because you don't have to take on what you don't want. Public Education is an open door (but also a requirement which is weird) that takes the brightest students that stumble in as well as the kids who wear velcro and sweatpants in their early teens. We're talking the Trigg Palins of the world here. I hate to pick on the kid for being retarded, but face it, he's got down's and he's retarded. He'll end up in public schools, and he's going to disrupt a classroom of "normal" kids and he's going to waste time and effort of a behavioral therapist in a special ed classroom learning to tie his shoes 7 years after even the dumbest "normal" kid gets that shit taken care of. That's just the way it works.
Back to the $/pupil equation, retard's therapist/aide/teacher combo makes him cost more while being a less effective student. Meanwhile Sally $200k's school only needs one person in front of her for education, and may also be funded by religious sources if it's a christian school under some pretense.

Also, super model felatio can be a bummer, they do that whole bulemia thing which makes their barf rotten teeth rather jagged...
 
[quote name='2DMention']Private schools are a waste of money and just a way for rich parents to justify their status.

A kid can still get a great education at a public school; they just have to personally make a bigger effort, take initative, and go above and beyond what is taught in class.[/QUOTE]

I agree with this, partially. I think at some public schools, you can still get a great education, but not all. I think some private schools do a better job of helping their students, especially if they're gifted, but not all. Just for the record, I went to a public school and would say I got a decent education, but I don't think all students did due to bad teachers/parenting/situation.
 
[quote name='nasum']Just for funsies I'll reply and then read the last ten posts...

The reason that per student spending is less per student in a private school is probably the best case I can point to that absolutely backwards logic can be correct. Essentially it's because you don't have to take on what you don't want. Public Education is an open door (but also a requirement which is weird) that takes the brightest students that stumble in as well as the kids who wear velcro and sweatpants in their early teens. We're talking the Trigg Palins of the world here. I hate to pick on the kid for being retarded, but face it, he's got down's and he's retarded. He'll end up in public schools, and he's going to disrupt a classroom of "normal" kids and he's going to waste time and effort of a behavioral therapist in a special ed classroom learning to tie his shoes 7 years after even the dumbest "normal" kid gets that shit taken care of. That's just the way it works.
Back to the $/pupil equation, retard's therapist/aide/teacher combo makes him cost more while being a less effective student. Meanwhile Sally $200k's school only needs one person in front of her for education, and may also be funded by religious sources if it's a christian school under some pretense.

Also, super model felatio can be a bummer, they do that whole bulemia thing which makes their barf rotten teeth rather jagged...[/QUOTE]

Private schools do not necessarily take in just the best and the brightest. I know of a few private schools in my area that will take in anyone as long as you are willing to pay.

I went to a private school, and I was accepted, no tests, no interviews, nothing.

Before you all jump on me, I am not saying there aren't private schools who do only take the best and the brightest, just that all private schools aren't the rich people schools, that stick their nose up at anyone with less than a 200 IQ.
 
I went to one and the people were better. I prefer to associate with the middle and upper classes, the lowers seem to have abandoned all logic and decent manners. They really are a bother.
 
[quote name='nasum']The reason that per student spending is less per student in a private school is probably the best case I can point to that absolutely backwards logic can be correct.[/QUOTE]

It's not sound logic - and no one here has claimed it is. I mentioned there are those who love to point it out and mentioned that we pay more per child than many other countries (who also have the free-for-all educational systems). But at least you admitted you hadn't read the posts before you jumped to that conclusion. :D

Most research seems to agree, that the spending/pupil doesn't have a major effect on the results - I think it's Utah that spends about the least, yet has above average scores in comparison to the rest of the US. There are too many other aspects that are going to effect the ability to educate the child (involvement of the parents, drive of the student, etc., etc.). Out of those that the school/government can actually change (as they can't make the parents care, for example), one of the major influences that most studies agree on is - as we've discussed - class sizes. Which a school choice voucher program would help reduce class sizes by removing students from public schools.

And for all Myke's rantings, most of all, I'm interested in his comment that all the parents who "give a flying ****" about their children would rush to pull their children out of government schools if given the chance...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']It's not sound logic - and no one here has claimed it is. I mentioned there are those who love to point it out and mentioned that we pay more per child than many other countries (who also have the free-for-all educational systems). But at least you admitted you hadn't read the posts before you jumped to that conclusion. :D

Most research seems to agree, that the spending/pupil doesn't have a major effect on the results - I think it's Utah that spends about the least, yet has above average scores in comparison to the rest of the US. There are too many other aspects that are going to effect the ability to educate the child (involvement of the parents, drive of the student, etc., etc.). Out of those that the school/government can actually change (as they can't make the parents care, for example), one of the major influences that most studies agree on is - as we've discussed - class sizes. Which a school choice voucher program would help reduce class sizes by removing students from public schools.

And for all Myke's rantings, most of all, I'm interested in his comment that all the parents who "give a flying ****" about their children would rush to pull their children out of government schools if given the chance...[/QUOTE]

Well, what if all the good schools get filled up? Then the rest get pushed to a crappy school anyway. I like the voucher system in theory, but I don't think it would work well in practice.
 
Some people would, inevitably, get stuck in crappy schools (although if the demand was there, someone would likely come along and open another school).

Some people *are* stuck n crappy schools now.
 
Vouchers are nothing but a shell game. Intentional or not, the result is that public schools will be starved and decline.

The idea that class size and nothing else would decrease is absurd. I saw this at the last school I worked at. As enrollment declined (due to population shifts), fewer teachers remained employed. Rather than keep the same number of teachers with reduced class sizes, the class sizes stayed the same (at around 28-40 kids per class, high school) and teachers were cut.

This would happen with vouchers. What would also happen is that the public schools would have reduced options. With smaller faculties, schools lose specialty classes, electives, clubs, arts, and everything but the basics. This demoralizes the student body even more and creates yet another reason for students to think their school sucks.
 
[quote name='blandstalker']The idea that class size and nothing else would decrease is absurd.[/QUOTE]

Ah, but he never said that nothing beside class size would decrease. That's the point.
 
[quote name='blandstalker']I saw this at the last school I worked at.[/QUOTE]

Curious, you worked at a school where choice vouchers were in place?
 
Endgame achieved: derail thread into talk about vouchers instead of the original topic. Bonus points for taking it to party lines stock right rhetoric.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Before you all jump on me, I am not saying there aren't private schools who do only take the best and the brightest, just that all private schools aren't the smart people schools, that stick their nose up at anyone with less than a 200 IQ.[/QUOTE]

I fixed that sentence so it made more sense.

You could've also said this I suppose:

[quote name='Knoell']Before you all jump on me, I am not saying there aren't private schools who do only take the best and the brightest, just that all private schools aren't the rich people schools, that stick their nose up at anyone with less than a McMansion.[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Curious, you worked at a school where choice vouchers were in place?[/QUOTE]

Not exactly. Something very similar, and instructive.

In the district, two of the schools were converted into something like magnet schools. Still public, but new facilities. The only requirements were that discipline was somewhat tighter and students signed contracts that they would complete their homework. Students could be expelled for noncompliance in either area. (This is similar to private schools, but a little less arbitrary -- private schools can expel students for any reason.)

Students from around the district could attend, but there wasn't room for everyone.

The result was that the best and brightest tried to attend the magnet schools. Not everyone could -- some for logistical reasons (like distance or transportation). Some didn't want to. Some weren't allowed for either behavioral or academic reasons. (Entrance tests were not given)

This meant that enrollment dropped at the other schools. The remaining schools got all the discipline problems, academic problems, and apathetic students and parents. Sure, there were still good students and parents left. But not as many as there used to be. This changes the culture of the school, and not in a positive way.

With enrollment drops came staff cuts. Fewer students did not mean smaller class sizes -- it just meant that less teachers were needed to maintain the current status quo. Also, since the best and brightest left, scores dropped too. Discipline problems increased. Morale dropped, for both teachers and students.

As scores drop, more emphasis is put on the basics. This means there are fewer options (electives, honors, high level classes) for the really good students. This means more good students consider leaving. The death spiral begins. Soon there's no one left to take calculus. Or to teach it.

Also with enrollment drops, staff besides teachers are cut. This means janitors, technical staff, office staff, administrators. Despite needing more assistant principals (because discipline starts to tank) you have less.

This is like vouchers in that some students chose to leave their default school for a perceived better one.

It is unlike vouchers in that economics is less of an issue for students/families -- since the new magnet schools were public, cost was not a factor. (This makes it somewhat more equitable.) Since it was all public, the idea of "savings" is not quite the same -- someone had to pay for the new magnet schools, after all. This would put more pressure to balance the books.

But, absent any requirement to reduce class sizes to a meaningful number, school districts will look to the bottom line first. This all took place in one school district, and they could see and understand the effects of their decisions. They knew that the two magnets would do somewhat better (though, all things considered, not as well as they perhaps should have). They also knew the other schools would suffer the consequences. They did it anyway. The wishful thinking that it would all work out somehow didn't exactly work.

Vouchers will end up causing one of two effects:

1) The decrease in enrollment is not meaningful. Going from 38 kids to 35 kids in a class, while better, isn't going to accomplish much.

2) The decrease in enrollment is meaningful. Enrollment drops significantly. Cuts begin.

In either case, losing the best and brightest students (and they are the ones most likely to go, with the greatest incentives and means) is a dubious way to effect savings. The effects of them leaving are far greater than the economics involved.
 
Funny a voucher like system is what they have through out europe. It works in finland which is #1 in education btw.
 
[quote name='blandstalker']In either case, losing the best and brightest students (and they are the ones most likely to go, with the greatest incentives and means) is a dubious way to effect savings. The effects of them leaving are far greater than the economics involved.[/QUOTE]

Curious - do you have any stats with regards to student performance during this time?
 
[quote name='IRHari']I fixed that sentence so it made more sense.

You could've also said this I suppose:[/QUOTE]

.....So the private schools that take in students that need work are "not smart" and comparable to "mcdonalds". okie dokie. What does that make public schools?
 
Goddamn you're stupid retarded. I never said any of that you dumb shit.

If the vs. forum were a pair of tightey-whiteys, you're the fucking skid mark.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Goddamn you're stupid retarded. I never said any of that you dumb shit.

If the vs. forum were a pair of tightey-whiteys, you're the fucking skid mark.[/QUOTE]
:rofl:
 
[quote name='blandstalker']Not exactly. Something very similar, and instructive.

In the district, two of the schools were converted into something like magnet schools. Still public, but new facilities. The only requirements were that discipline was somewhat tighter and students signed contracts that they would complete their homework. Students could be expelled for noncompliance in either area. (This is similar to private schools, but a little less arbitrary -- private schools can expel students for any reason.)

Students from around the district could attend, but there wasn't room for everyone.

The result was that the best and brightest tried to attend the magnet schools. Not everyone could -- some for logistical reasons (like distance or transportation). Some didn't want to. Some weren't allowed for either behavioral or academic reasons. (Entrance tests were not given)

This meant that enrollment dropped at the other schools. The remaining schools got all the discipline problems, academic problems, and apathetic students and parents. Sure, there were still good students and parents left. But not as many as there used to be. This changes the culture of the school, and not in a positive way.

With enrollment drops came staff cuts. Fewer students did not mean smaller class sizes -- it just meant that less teachers were needed to maintain the current status quo. Also, since the best and brightest left, scores dropped too. Discipline problems increased. Morale dropped, for both teachers and students.

As scores drop, more emphasis is put on the basics. This means there are fewer options (electives, honors, high level classes) for the really good students. This means more good students consider leaving. The death spiral begins. Soon there's no one left to take calculus. Or to teach it.

Also with enrollment drops, staff besides teachers are cut. This means janitors, technical staff, office staff, administrators. Despite needing more assistant principals (because discipline starts to tank) you have less.

This is like vouchers in that some students chose to leave their default school for a perceived better one.

It is unlike vouchers in that economics is less of an issue for students/families -- since the new magnet schools were public, cost was not a factor. (This makes it somewhat more equitable.) Since it was all public, the idea of "savings" is not quite the same -- someone had to pay for the new magnet schools, after all. This would put more pressure to balance the books.

But, absent any requirement to reduce class sizes to a meaningful number, school districts will look to the bottom line first. This all took place in one school district, and they could see and understand the effects of their decisions. They knew that the two magnets would do somewhat better (though, all things considered, not as well as they perhaps should have). They also knew the other schools would suffer the consequences. They did it anyway. The wishful thinking that it would all work out somehow didn't exactly work.

Vouchers will end up causing one of two effects:

1) The decrease in enrollment is not meaningful. Going from 38 kids to 35 kids in a class, while better, isn't going to accomplish much.

2) The decrease in enrollment is meaningful. Enrollment drops significantly. Cuts begin.

In either case, losing the best and brightest students (and they are the ones most likely to go, with the greatest incentives and means) is a dubious way to effect savings. The effects of them leaving are far greater than the economics involved.[/QUOTE]But there are plenty of people who would prefer it that way, that the best students go to one school and the rest are stuck in the other schools with all the problems you stated. Because they don't want those "other" students bringing down the best.
 
[quote name='Clak']But there are plenty of people who would prefer it that way, that the best students go to one school and the rest are stuck in the other schools with all the problems you stated. Because they don't want those "other" students bringing down the best.[/QUOTE]

Should good students be held back because of the bad students?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top