Public education system

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

07-06-2009, 07:27 PM
Capricorn

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Klean

Now I see a lot of people throwing around a number of 45k per year for teaching a High School class. Now I personally know 2 teachers, a math teacher, and a music teacher. I have known them for quite a long time and they both have quoted me quite less, a 25k-30k range.

I think it really really depends on how much education the teacher has and how good of a teacher they are. Two past teachers I had, one was math and the other art both made extraordinary amounts of money for teaching high school. However my math teacher used to teach university stuff, hes a great guy and one of the few math teachers I enjoyed, and my art teacher well all I know is he is awesome. Anyway I know for a fact that that math teacher was making around 70 thousand a year and I am quite confident my art teacher was near there too. But this is Canada.

Quote:

Teachers’ salaries depend on their location, level of education, and the number of years they’ve been teaching. For example, those just starting their career with a Bachelor of Education degree can earn between $30,000 and $45,000 a year. On the other hand, a teacher with a master’s degree and 10 years of experience can earn $80,000 or more a year. Those in senior administrative positions, like principal or vice-principal, can earn even more.

The average salary for high school teachers in Canada is approximately $57,000 a year.

Teachers are very, very well off.
07-07-2009, 02:47 AM
Grunt

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakman

JAD, that is pretty sad, I'm afriad I'm out of ideas and i dont know how to help. :(

but with privatised education, I think the objection to that is the thought at what would happen to those people who cant afford it.
you yourself have said that due to personal circumstances you cant go to private school or homeschool. If all schools were privatised tomorrow what would you do tomorrow?

If you want to think of it in terms of invisible hands, you could say that private schools highest priority is profit and not children's learning. Today they all have to provide good learning because they have to compete with public schools which have the massive advantage of not caring about profit, but what happens if they are all privatised and theres no more public schools to compete with?

Well schools can always compete with themselves. But there is many adverse social effect that could result from such sudden change. The cost of education include the price of the education of a certified teacher and also teaching materials. Without private or government subsidies, some students and their family cannot cover this cost. This might even lead into a cycle of poverty.

The fact is, making a school a completely private business would mean that some students cannot afford education. This is too adverse of a social effect. One which we cannot let our free-market idealism justify.
07-07-2009, 03:11 AM
JAD

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakman

JAD, that is pretty sad, I'm afriad I'm out of ideas and i dont know how to help. :(

but with privatised education, I think the objection to that is the thought at what would happen to those people who cant afford it.
you yourself have said that due to personal circumstances you cant go to private school or homeschool. If all schools were privatised tomorrow what would you do tomorrow?

If you want to think of it in terms of invisible hands, you could say that private schools highest priority is profit and not children's learning. Today they all have to provide good learning because they have to compete with public schools which have the massive advantage of not caring about profit, but what happens if they are all privatised and theres no more public schools to compete with?

What would happen if public schools were eliminated would be my parents could keep much more of their check that could be used to pay for private school. The government could even keep taxes where they are and use the money that used to go to private schools to help people in need go to private schools (because it is very important that every kid gets an education; I would be all for that). Taxes could still be lowered though even with financial aid considering how much of our taxes go to public education each year for the rest of our lives (even when parents' kids aren't in school).

When all companies are out for is a profit, they will have to do a good job to get a profit. So the schools (at least fairly good private schools) will have to get good teachers and those teachers will have to work hard to keep their jobs, so people go to their schools. The reason they will teach kids well is because they will have to for kids to keep going to their school. Government hardly cares if we absolutely love their school or not because they get our tax money either way.

I really think that private schools would be much more efficient than government run ones for my reasons posted above. And if that's the case, then all that money that's going to public education would definitely be enough to help pay for people who need help sending their kids to private school, and taxes could be cut to help other parents send their kids to school.
07-07-2009, 04:23 AM
Grunt

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAD

What would happen if public schools were eliminated would be my parents could keep much more of their check that could be used to pay for private school. The government could even keep taxes where they are and use the money that used to go to private schools to help people in need go to private schools (because it is very important that every kid gets an education; I would be all for that). Taxes could still be lowered though even with financial aid considering how much of our taxes go to public education each year for the rest of our lives (even when parents' kids aren't in school).

I consider education to be the most valuable thing on earth, right behind life. However, many do not.

I agree with you, competition of schools/education system would create more efficient ones. However, here in the U.S., we believe in equal opportunity. If schools were privatized, better schools would cost more to attend as dictated by supply-and-demand. (assuming that parents rank schools mostly because of the quality of education) Poor kids would be stuck with bad schools (less qualified teachers and less resources) and other poor kids. Someone poor who could have taken Apush with my excellent history teacher would miss the opportunity.

Alot of public schools already have the resources (at least in the U.S.) it's the students who drag down the school. As someone of enlightenment ideals, I believe the education system should mandate certain classes from early on, so everyone is at the same base. The held-back system should be used more for those who fail. I agree that people should have a right to choose their education, but I don't think 12 year old students have the right to do the same. During this early, young impressionable years, they should learn what is needed to become opportunity inventors.

So yes it would save money. The education system would be more efficient. Maybe we would even get higher caliber students and they would, I don't know, make a cure for cancer or something. However, this measure would create too much of an unfair advantage for those who have the money to afford better education for their kids, the kids could in turn afford better education for his or her children. While the poor begets poor. A cycle incompatible to the ideals of the equal proprietors that founded the United States.
07-07-2009, 04:43 AM
bullzeye95

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grunt

I consider education to be the most valuable thing on earth, right behind life. However, many do not.

I agree with you, competition of schools/education system would create more efficient ones. However, here in the U.S., we believe in equal opportunity. If schools were privatized, better schools would cost more to attend as dictated by supply-and-demand. (assuming that parents rank schools mostly because of the quality of education) Poor kids would be stuck with bad schools (less qualified teachers and less resources) and other poor kids. Someone poor who could have taken Apush with my excellent history teacher would miss the opportunity.

Alot of public schools already have the resources (at least in the U.S.) it's the students who drag down the school. As someone of enlightenment ideals, I believe the education system should mandate certain classes from early on, so everyone is at the same base. The held-back system should be used more for those who fail. I agree that people should have a right to choose their education, but I don't think 12 year old students have the right to do the same. During this early, young impressionable years, they should learn what is needed to become opportunity inventors.

So yes it would save money. The education system would be more efficient. Maybe we would even get higher caliber students and they would, I don't know, make a cure for cancer or something. However, this measure would create too much of an unfair advantage for those who have the money to afford better education for their kids, the kids could in turn afford better education for his or her children. While the poor begets poor. A cycle incompatible to the ideals of the equal proprietors that founded the United States.

You're right that the US was based on equal opportunity. However that does not mean Robin Hood philosophy of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. It means that people are given the right to earn what they have, including an education. If a kid's parents can't afford to send him to school, that doesn't give him a right to the money of those who can afford it. It means that he must work on a farm or at McDonalds and pay for it himself, possibly with some support from his parents. If he doesn't want to work for an education, then that's fine. He can work on a farm for the rest of his life. We still need people to do that.
07-07-2009, 07:44 AM
Grunt

Quote:

You're right that the US was based on equal opportunity. However that does not mean Robin Hood philosophy of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor.

I didn't quite understand your position. Do you believe it's ok to use tax money to create equal opportunity? (notice I don't mean equal outcome)

I do, because I think it's consistent to the reason why we pay taxes. We pay taxes and sacrifice certain freedom to have our property protected. (The distribution of rewards under capitalism is controversial, so I won't get into that.) But, if there is too much of a gap, then there will be social unrest. There is a reason why populism keeps on resurfacing in South America.

Quote:

If a kid's parents can't afford to send him to school, that doesn't give him a right to the money of those who can afford it. It means that he must work on a farm or at McDonalds and pay for it himself, possibly with some support from his parents.

Why would you want more people to be ignorant? I thought this thread was about how to make PUBLIC education better, not denying education to children.
07-07-2009, 09:18 AM
bullzeye95

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grunt

I didn't quite understand your position. Do you believe it's ok to use tax money to create equal opportunity? (notice I don't mean equal outcome)

I do, because I think it's consistent to the reason why we pay taxes. We pay taxes and sacrifice certain freedom to have our property protected. (The distribution of rewards under capitalism is controversial, so I won't get into that.) But, if there is too much of a gap, then there will be social unrest. There is a reason why populism keeps on resurfacing in South America.

My position on taxes is simple: it is immoral. I don't support the use of force by the government if it is not to protect taxpayers. By taxpayers, I mean (in my view of an ideal society) people who voluntarily pay taxes for government protection.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grunt

Why would you want more people to be ignorant? I thought this thread was about how to make PUBLIC education better, not denying education to children.

I think this thread was meant as a rant/discussion against public education, not how to make it better. I also never said anything about denying education. If a kid's parents aren't willing to pay for his/her education, what is stopping him/her from working for it? A truly useful person will be willing to work for his/her education. College students do it all the time.
07-07-2009, 09:38 AM
Rubix

yeah, my wonderful math class, our final average class grade was a 41% out of 100%, i had a 64% and still somehow managed to get the AP math class next year?
07-07-2009, 12:36 PM
JAD

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grunt

I consider education to be the most valuable thing on earth, right behind life. However, many do not.

I agree with you, competition of schools/education system would create more efficient ones. However, here in the U.S., we believe in equal opportunity. If schools were privatized, better schools would cost more to attend as dictated by supply-and-demand. (assuming that parents rank schools mostly because of the quality of education) Poor kids would be stuck with bad schools (less qualified teachers and less resources) and other poor kids. Someone poor who could have taken Apush with my excellent history teacher would miss the opportunity.

Alot of public schools already have the resources (at least in the U.S.) it's the students who drag down the school. As someone of enlightenment ideals, I believe the education system should mandate certain classes from early on, so everyone is at the same base. The held-back system should be used more for those who fail. I agree that people should have a right to choose their education, but I don't think 12 year old students have the right to do the same. During this early, young impressionable years, they should learn what is needed to become opportunity inventors.

So yes it would save money. The education system would be more efficient. Maybe we would even get higher caliber students and they would, I don't know, make a cure for cancer or something. However, this measure would create too much of an unfair advantage for those who have the money to afford better education for their kids, the kids could in turn afford better education for his or her children. While the poor begets poor. A cycle incompatible to the ideals of the equal proprietors that founded the United States.

America was founded as a place where success is endless. Communist countries are equal opportunity because everyone gets the same opportunity. You said that you meant equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. But if government is taking away from my opportunity to make someone else's better, then that is equal opportunity, but not unlimited success anymore.

The main debate between politics right now is a trade off between equity and efficiency. Republicans tend to lead more towards making things more efficient instead of equal, and democrats the opposite. All of our socialist programs (welfare, social security, medicare, medicaid, public education...etc) sacrifice efficiency for equity. Welfare makes things more equal by giving poor people money, but sacrifices efficiency because now there is less of an incentive to work harder (due to the more money you make, the more money the government takes, so it's much less rewarding to succeed). On the other hand, we can't have people dieing on the streets either from hunger, and have half the population uneducated.

I am sorry if because you are poor you cannot go to the best private school in the world, but you can get the same education at a cheap school if you really really want to that you could at a super expensive one. I am going to community college now (saves 20k+ a year), and then I am going to one of the cheapest four year universities in the state for my last 2 years. It may not be harvard, but it doesn't have to be. Maybe if my initials were JAG, or JAW (JA Gates, JA Walton, or some other rich family) then I could go to harvard, but you know what, I am fine with not going there.

My point is that if you are poor, you could still go to a cheaper private school under this system, that would still be 10x more efficient then the current education system. It would be more uneven education for everyone, but everyone's education would be better off. Does it matter if education is more uneven although everyone's is still better?

I really don't know if anything I just said above made sense though because I'm really tired :p
07-07-2009, 01:16 PM
bullzeye95

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAD

Republicans tend to lead more towards making things more efficient instead of equal, and democrats the opposite.

I know I'll probably get us off topic, but I have to say this..
Republicans do usually tend to lean towards making things efficient, but both parties are undoubtedly for a mixed economy. The Democrats are a bit more socialist leaning, but it's like comparing McDonalds to Burger King: you might like one more than the other, but in the end, they both suck.

In every issue (by issue I mean a real issue, not a personal preference like red vs. blue) there is a right side and a wrong side. I don't understand why someone would ever mix the two of them, like the Republican and Democrat parties, as that always means having some of the wrong. This is why I choose to be a pure, laissez-faire capitalist, and, when old enough, will vote for the party that is closest to my beliefs -- probably the Libertarian party -- not one of the corrupted parties that have an actual chance of winning.

..Well, that was definitely enough off-topic for one day.
07-07-2009, 03:13 PM
Grunt

Quote:

I think this thread was meant as a rant/discussion against public education, not how to make it better.

I need to clarify my statement. I think we can all agree that public education needs some improving. I believe JAD proposes privatized schools or at least tax subsidies to parents who send their kids to private schools, this would lead to more efficient schooling/(distribution of resources). While I was playing the role of party pooper, by telling him it would lead to social unrest.

I say that our culture is what leads to inefficient education. Learning can't be taught. ( I believe that most textbooks and online resources are adequate enough to teach a student who really want to learn. Unfortunately, I only speak from personal experience and have no empirical evidence to support what I said. Everything that I learned from a teacher, I can learn it myself. Maybe, I was lucky to go to a big high school (6000) kids. But anyway, I don't see how more efficient schools would change the incentives that already exist for those who want an education. The incentives were always there. Yet, many refuses to learn or is unable to because they don't have the basis to do it. And this is where I believe we can fix our education system the most. If teachers taught students the tools to learn at an early age, then they can learn without the crutches of teachers. Unfortunately, a private school has no intention to do that.

Quote:

I also never said anything about denying education. If a kid's parents aren't willing to pay for his/her education, what is stopping him/her from working for it? A truly useful person will be willing to work for his/her education. College students do it all the time.

We are talking about children here. If they don't learn at an early age, then they risk not adequately developing their reading/math skills quickly enough. This would put him or her in a disadvantage situation, when they can do nothing about it.

Yes, college students do it all the time. But look how much time/resources they are wasting by working in side jobs when they could use the time to focus on their studies.

Quote:

America was founded as a place where success is endless. Communist countries are equal opportunity because everyone gets the same opportunity. You said that you meant equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. But if government is taking away from my opportunity to make someone else's better, then that is equal opportunity, but not unlimited success anymore.

Equal opportunity can lead to unequal outcome. I never heard of unlimited success. The constitution mentioned protection of property from the majority/government , but also the government's right to tax that property. The essence of your point is true. (Sorry, I just didn't like the choice of word, to me "unlimited success" implied more than the protection of property) Well, I am glad you and I recognize the more complicated issues implied, I think we will have a nice debate on this.

Quote:

The main debate between politics right now is a trade off between equity and efficiency. Republicans tend to lead more towards making things more efficient instead of equal, and democrats the opposite. All of our socialist programs (welfare, social security, medicare, medicaid, public education...etc) sacrifice efficiency for equity. Welfare makes things more equal by giving poor people money, but sacrifices efficiency because now there is less of an incentive to work harder (due to the more money you make, the more money the government takes, so it's much less rewarding to succeed

Imo, the 2 parties all try to pursue happiness for all. Republicans want people to get the most they can get, while democrats want to make sure your peers are not making 3x as you.

Quote:

On the otherhand, we can't have people dieing on the streets either from hunger, and have half the population uneducated.

Well, I am glad you agree with on this point. This kind of human price for pure-market idealism is too high, even if it means a more efficient system.

Edit: Dang someone needs to summarize the points, I am losing track of what is getting said. Too tired to continue...I am calling it a night.
07-13-2009, 05:32 AM
R0b0t1

Reading sirlaughsalot's post, makes me think that money should not buy opportunity.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page