ha this is so true, although there is a few exceptions.
I have actually never attended public school. I went to kindergarten, and pre-k at a private school. My older brother went to public school until 4th grade, because of public school he does not know how to spell or phonics worth a shit. My brother was an honor student, and always got good grades, he didnt goof around in school, he did what he was supposed to do and they didnt teach him worth a shit. From 4th grade to 6th he attended the same private school that I did. There was a bit of a learning curve for him, but he was a smart kid, so it wasnt long before he was doing very well there as well and actually learning something, but he would miss the easy things because he didnt know the basics. From 7th grade on he was Homeschooled.
My Mom, is an extremely smart woman, she has two masters degrees, was in the army for 13 years, was a supervisor for men who were her same age and experience. She was in a nursing feild but actually helped to run a business. She asked for a discharge when she married my Dad, because they wanted to move her but my Dad couldnt leave the area (He was working for a development company known as BlueGreen, he is a Broker) and they didnt want to be apart mostly because they were trying to make me. After the army she worked for a Medica-oriented company (I cannot recall the name right now) and was getting payed a lot of money a year plus benefits, then sensed the company was getting into some trouble and she bailed (There were also some private reasons, one was to homeschool my brother and I). Now she does a medical Triage over the phone, where she deals with 40+ a day who call with medical problems, she helps to treat the symptoms and tells them whether or not to go to the emergency room. Point being, my mom is smart.
She used to homeschool us, we would have a lot of fun, but we also learned a lot, you would be surprised how much a kid can learn in a day, I would wake up at 6 am (By choice), and be done with all of my school by 9 or 10. Now I go to a "Class Day" which once a week people organize teachers who are essentially tutors because of how small the classes are. We goof around, have fun, the teachers tell life stories that have nothing to do with what we need to do, but the way they teach give us enough time to do that (In a good way obviously) and if we didnt learn something specific they will give us homework to finish before the next week, books to read, math problems to do, ect. One of the kids going there, is getting into a Catholic private school, who 80% of its graduates get full college rides, it isnt easy to get into. A lot of these families that go arent rich, at all, in fact one of my best friends families is pretty poor and they can afford doing it, it is inexpensive, you learn self reliance, get social interaction, now sadly I doubt this will be a viable alternative for many because of lack of respect/caring about education. But for those who do care, it would be great, also leaving pretty much every day of the week free (If you do it right).
Anyway, im rambling, just my musings, the teachers love the students and the students love the teachers, they have a mutual respect for each other and actually learn. If there wasnt a good teacher there, they wouldnt be asked to teach again, and essentially be fired. So the teachers do a good job, and are very well liked. The privatization of schools may be hard to do, but I suppose hardship families could get some kind of subsidization. Okay im really done now :P
yes, students critising teachers is nothing new...
perhaps you'd like to hear my personal experiances.
Around 12 years ago, a political party called New Labour won the electon here in the UK, it set about implementing a delicious mix of capitalism and socialism.
That is, it vastly expanded the banking sector in The City (like a British Wall Street)
It deregulated and allowed bankers to run free in their ways to create massive wealth.
It also put heavy taxes on that wealth.
These taxes were spent mostly on public eduation and health. Now I cant speak for the health sector because I dont work there and I've stayed out of hospital in the past 10 years.
But I can speak for education.
The schools benefitted massivly from the government investment, not only did we have awesome new facilities, we also attracted some of the top talent.
Obviously, if a maths graduate wanted to make money, he or she would become a banker in The City. But if they wanted a nice mix between their subject and money then teaching was for them.
There were also large advertising campaigns to get people to become teachers.
In fact I remember one of my maths teachers used to be an accountant, and then some military person that calculated where artillary shells would land before becoming a teacher.
It would be the equivalent of a person who graduated Harvard or Yale choosing to teach in a school.
Also, its no coincidence that the National Union of Teachers (N.U.T.) is one of the best funded, best organised and most successful unions in the UK.
What happened to the bankers? Well dispite the taxation, they still had enough money to buy supercars, rare works of art and nice houses. But of course I dont know for sure since I wasnt a banker who was around then.
Also, the deregulation of banks caused the recession and almost everyone in the UK is blaming it on New Labour, who look very likely they are going to lose the next election. Ah well, it was good while it lasted.
In short, the wealth of capitalism was used for socialist purposes.
Of course, I could have made a great misunderstanding, since I'm not a member of the government or in any position to understand this properly, I just did some research and this is how I understand it.
I've seen a lot of you talk about things like "the government are just trying to throw money at the schools". You strongly suggest that this investment or "throwing money" isnt going to work and I really dont see why, it worked for me.
I think you problem in America is that you take the ideals of capitalism too deeply to heart.
According to that, if someone goes to public school in America, it means their parents cant afford private school or homeschooling, that means they didnt work hard or were lazy. In other words, if you're poor, its your own fault.
If a childs parents are drunkards or drug addicts, I feel it is societies duty to take them away and put them in foster care or something similar, after all, why should that child suffer through no fault of their own?
But its the same story with American public schools, a child is being punished for the actions or inactions of their parents, when it should be societys duty to see that all children get a decent education.
Of course I could understand that if it happened in a third world country somewhere in Africa, but it hasnt, its happened in the United Stated, the land of opportunity.
I'm sorry to say this JAD, but I think your bad public schools are a direct result of you embracing capitalism, it has the given you the attitude that you wont help those less fortunate then yourself. You can have your cake and eat it too.
Join the Official SRL IRC channel. Learn how to Here.



I was going to reply to your whole post, but I think it would get us too far off topic, so I will reply to this part, which is what I disagree with most. You say that bad public schools are because of capitalism, when pure, laissez-faire capitalism would never allow a publicly paid for schooling system. It has not given people the attitude that they won't help those less fortunate than themselves; it was given people the knowledge that they are forced to help those less fortunate than themselves. You also say that like helping people that are less fortunate than you is one of the best things you can do, and that it is your duty. I don't agree, especially when I am forced to help them under penalty of law. I'm not sure what you're trying to say in your last sentence.. no matter how selfish you are, you cannot have your cake and eat it too.
Yakman,
You say that it worked for you in the UK giving more money to the schools to better education. That's great; it's not working here. Our schools have tons of money and I go to a very nice building with very nice stuff to learn with. If the teachers make us sit in a class room and do nothing though, it doesn't matter how much money the government gave us.
Teachers need to gain something by working hard and teaching their students well. That is capitalism. Do teachers gain something by teaching us well now? No, it doesn't matter if they are great or bad, they still keep their job and don't make any less/more because of it. That is not capitalist, that is communist. Our public education system does not represent capitalist ideas well at all because in a capitalist job, the harder you work, the more money you make, and then the harder you want to work.
I think our bad school systems is a direct result of us NOT embracing capitalism, because we have yet to do that. It is a direct result of embracing communism. This has nothing to do with not wanting to help those "less fortunate" then me. I myself am not fortunate enough right now to go to a private school. If the public schools were better at teaching, wouldn't that be better for everyone?
Last edited by JAD; 07-05-2009 at 01:15 AM.
bullzeye95
first off i never said, implied or hinted that America was pure, laissez-faire capitalism. Instead, i merely hinted that many people are trying to make it as close to one as possible.
Also, something being your duty doesnt mean you have to enjoy it.
For instance if someone has a cardiac arrest in front of you, most people would feel that it is their duty to start CPR and the kiss of life, but if the dude's mouth smells like cigarrette smoke and if he recently vomitted then it will probably be really disgusting to you.
Likewise if your country is attacked by a foregn army, most people would feel it is their duty to join their national army if it needs them, never mind the true horrors of war that would make them hate the experiance. But it would be their duty, no matter how much they hated it.
I have a hunch at whats happened in America. You started off with enough taxes to properly fund schools, but then the attitude of people forced politicians to lower taxes, so there was not enough money left.
For me at least, I would blame that attitude that the people had which made them demand lower taxes
Its a very difficult problem to solve. I cant think a very good solution except perhaps this one, if it was me I would somehow go about trying to convince people that their attitude is wrong, which would allow me to give schools enough funding. Now this counts as cultural colonialism, so of course its by no means perfect.
Like I said, a very difficult problem to solve for people that share my view.
JAD
first off you cant equate the UK system with the US one just like that. Even noting that New Labour is a left-leaning party and the American Republican party leans to the right is enough to arouse suspicions.
next, it seems the schools dont have enough money, or they are not spending it properly if they are not attracting enough talent to teach.
teachers do gain something by teaching well, if their students do badly they will lose their job (at least in the UK its like this)
e.g. your class had a 30% pass rate this year, while your fellow chemistry teachers class had 70% pass rate. you're fired!
No amount of crying to their union will save a teacher in that occasion.
But of course, there is no point firing someone if there is noone to take their place, and I suspect this is what may have happened in America.
You're not attracting enough talent, thats why you cant get rid of bad teachers, because theres noone to take their place.
Another thing teachers have to gain by being good is that their job will become easier.
If students are intrested in the subject, they will be easy to control.
If students are bored, they will talk in class, throw paper areoplanes around, whatever, I'm sure you've seen it. They will make a teacher's life living hell.
Students arent stupid, if you're a bad teacher, you will know about it.
If you cant make your subject intresting to students then teaching isnt for you and you're not the right kind of talent we're looking for.
Dont get me wrong, I agree with using invisible-hand like techniques to make teachers work, but that only works properly when there are many other unemployed teachers willing to take your place. That can only happen if you attract talent into teaching. You can attract talent by paying them lots, to fund that you can use capitalism to create loads of wealth, then use socialism to get that wealth where its needed.
For amusement reasons only, I actually found the older UK recruitment advertisments that they showed on TV. They also point out that teaching is more intresting then other jobs, which i had totally forgotten. Also it shows they actually paid you to train as a teacher, which I'd also forgotten. They're quite cheesy in a way and pretty annoying, but they worked, they're adverts, not hollywood movies...
(these videos last 40 seconds each)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGAYII6OhYw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbJ3VmCKhAM
Just out of intrest, were similar adverts ever shown on American television?
Join the Official SRL IRC channel. Learn how to Here.



Yakman, you misunderstood me. I meant that pure, laissez-fair capitalism wouldn't allow for publicly funded schools. I was not implying that the US is anywhere near pure capitalism. Therefore, embracing of capitalism would not result in bad schools, it would result in private schools.
About duties, I think you said it yourself: a person has no automatic duty to help other people; they enforce the duty upon themselves, and make themselves believe that they must do it or they are a bad person. A person (like me) who has no self-interest in helping others will not do it. I don't believe that it is my duty to pay for someone else's kid to go to school. If the kid's parents can afford to send him/her to school, then great. If not, too bad, not everyone needs an education.
First, let me say that teachers have to generally try to be liked, or else parents will call in, complain, and the teacher will probably be fired because the teacher isn't facilitating the kids. *rolls eyes*
Most of the education system up until 11th grade, as far as I know, is just BS.
In 10th grade, my only two "challenging" courses were Pre-Calc and AP Comp Sci A. In 11th grade, I will take Database management, which is a dual-enrollment course (with a college) and gets me certified as a database manager at the end of the year. I will also take Web Technologies, which is also dual-enrollment, and makes me a certified webmaster. All certifications are nationally recognised.
I will also take AP Computer Science AB (semester 2 of college-level Java) which gives me the remainder of the required knowledge to become Java certified.
Finally, I will take college-level Calculus; semester 1, to be exact.
...Which is a heck of a lot better than Pre-Calc and Semester 1 of college-level Java in 10th grade.
Honestly, I home-school myself a lot in the subjects I like. The courses in school go far too slow for me because they have to facilitate the slow students with those who can pick up on a subject in a very short amount of time.
Of course your freshman year in HS is going to be easy; it's easy for near everyone who tries. Look for challenging courses, and get in a good club (robotics has taught me A LOT about programming in the real world, working with time constraints, etc. Also requires over 20 hours/week), and it may improve for you.
~Macro_FTW
Current Project: Catching up. XD. Potentially back for the summer, depending on how things go.
Does the government in the US ever spend money properly? I don't know much about the UK's government, but in the US the government is EXTREMELY inefficient with their money. The schools HAVE to spend all of the money they receive by a certain time if they want to get extra money from the government the following year, so they end up spending it on stupid stuff that we don't even need just to get rid of it.
I really think that our socialist programs are run extremely poorly in the US, because government is run very poorly. If you read my school schedule in the first post, all of the bad teachers I described actually were not new teachers. Most have been teaching there at least 7-15 years, some more.teachers do gain something by teaching well, if their students do badly they will lose their job (at least in the UK its like this)
I really think that you would be shocked to go to one of our schools yakman. The UK is higher up on the charts with their public education system than the US as far as I know. Our math program alone is like 45th+ in the world. It's awful. I took Algebra 2 my freshman year and was there with a bunch of juniors and seniors, some sophomores, and 1 other freshman. Everyone was doing awful in the class, so my teacher had us do group tests with 4 people in each group. Then if we still did bad, she would hand the same tests back after grading them and let us try again at the questions we got wrong! Half the questions we got wrong even had corrections next to them by the teacher. So everyone "passed" because the teacher made sure of it; not by teaching better, but pretty much by just changing the grade.e.g. your class had a 30% pass rate this year, while your fellow chemistry teachers class had 70% pass rate. you're fired!
No amount of crying to their union will save a teacher in that occasion.
I guess this may be true, although I actually think that teachers do just fine financially. They get a pretty much guarenteed job contract for 20 years, make 45k+ for nine months of work with many long weekends and breaks inbetween, get a pension after 20 years for retirement, and get health care benefits and all that. Doesn't sound too bad to me.But of course, there is no point firing someone if there is noone to take their place, and I suspect this is what may have happened in America.
You're not attracting enough talent, thats why you cant get rid of bad teachers, because theres noone to take their place.
I see what you are saying here, but trust me, most teachers do not look at it that way here.Another thing teachers have to gain by being good is that their job will become easier.
If students are intrested in the subject, they will be easy to control.
If students are bored, they will talk in class, throw paper areoplanes around, whatever, I'm sure you've seen it. They will make a teacher's life living hell.
You actually do make some good points though Yakman. If the government spent their money more wisely to try to attract a bigger pool of teachers, and bad teachers got fired, then our education system would be better off, although I still do believe in private schooling as the ultimate solution. If we all went to private schools, then the top private schools would be paying teachers more money and there would be a bigger supply of teachers and a higher quality.
There is a huge difference between teachers being liked and teachers teaching well. Most students like teachers that don't make them do anything, and most will not complain about it.
Last edited by JAD; 07-05-2009 at 05:41 AM.
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. Now as I was stating in my other post, I had a really good High school and I was taught a lot. Not saying it was the greatest I could of had, but compared to what I am reading in other places around the thread, I am realizing that it was quite, quite good. We have a nice building for the High School, the middle school is getting a bit used yes, it's a 30+ year old building, and the elementary school is had it's better days. (70+ years)
Pretty much from what I had learned from my middle school teachers was that they were going to teach, but only teach to the class once. The few times that I tried going for help on something most of them just quoted a page in a book or a worksheet, not really helping you understand any concepts. Not saying this is a bad idea to teach by in certain circumstances, but not all the time.
I think people are becoming teachers because they couldn't get into a more advanced field, or just found it easy. People don't have the ambition to love to teach or just grow up with the idea that they want to teach. Yes, some do, but where do they go? Most likely in a higher field so they can make more money. People don't like to make sacrifices, and definitely not any sacrifices in the money area.
I guess that is my two cents for now.
My Apush teachers told the students the problems with the public education system is that the kids are not learning what they are supposed to, as a result they get behind. The whole role of a PUBLIC education system is to give everyone the same advantage in the racetrack of life.
quote from the teacher, more or less:
"The public education system failed because it encourages kids to learn skills to take advantage of opportunities created by others, rather to learn what is needed to become opportunity-creators."
I agreed with what he said, I thought it was very insightful, but I guess that's why he has a pHD.
30 years ago, the counselors recommended girls to take dictation classes to become secretary. By the time these girls came out of high school, computer and typewriters came out.
The same counselors told boys that they can work as a mechanic for GM in the 1980, instead of learning math and doubleE to design better more efficient cars.
Edit: after 20 years, they close to 100K in Michigan
Last edited by Grunt; 07-06-2009 at 04:56 AM.
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?
Last edited by Yakman; 07-06-2009 at 07:45 PM.
Join the Official SRL IRC channel. Learn how to Here.
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.
Teachers are very, very well off.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.
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.
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.
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.
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)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 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.
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.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.



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.
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.
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?
<Wizzup> And he's a Christian
<Wizzup> So he MUST be trusted
___________________________________________
<Wizzup> she sounds like a dumb bitch
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![]()



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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)