Yes, they are overpaid and underworked
No, they are not overpaid and underworked
I don't see this as being an issue, and it's yet another example I was discussing a couple days ago about additional privileges of those with expendable wealth (can't remember if it was with you or someone else, but I think it's with you).Originally Posted by Blackdog
One of the advantages of living in an area with a higher standard of living and property tax is that the schools are better (and better schools are also a reason why some property values are higher, making it a bit of a chicken-and-egg scenario). I have no qualms with parents who can afford a better school district to take advantage of such. Poor schools don't have to necessarily have all the fringe benefits of a "rich" school. So an inner city school may not have a pool. It may not have new computers. It may not have a kickass racquetball court. It may not have a high school equivalent to Cowboys Stadium in Dallas. All of these may assist in education, but only in a minor facet. There is nothing wrong with working hard and elevating yourself through the system, even when you're at the lower end of the system. It builds character. The people who succeed in these conditions are the true warriors of society, and they can also assist in future generations of their family and heritage.
I see using a school's endowment as a sole determinant on the potential success of the student as a cop-out.
It's to important. To deny a good education because they were born impoverished is no excuse. Under your plan the person who could cure cancer being poor would never get the chance because of circumstance out of his/her control.
Last edited by Black Dog; 09-05-12 at 08:19 PM.
No Lives Matter
Perhaps some people are ungrateful for the people that work for them, and perhaps that is a problem of sorts, but that is not required here. He can in return not be grateful for the opportunities that were given to him and like the business owner he is not required to be grateful.
Last edited by Henrin; 09-05-12 at 10:33 PM.
Blackdog raises some good points, as many schools lack the resources to even adequately enforce their own attendance policies........and simply allowing the students to stop attending won't work either as part of the "mystery formula" for measuring a school's effectiveness involves tracking those students who originally enroll all the way through to graduation. Essentially the school is penalized for students who drop out or just stop attending on a regular basis. Is this fair?
Discipline is also a major issue. Try penalizing a student for using his/her I-phone during class to text or to play games and more often than not, you get angry parents who bitch and whine that they "spent hard-earned money to buy their precious that phone and WANT their kid to have it simply for the sake of convenience."
In closing, I will say that I, personally know of at least eight teachers in our school district alone, whose contracts were "not renewed" in the past year, directly as a result of their students' standardized test scores. In many parts of this nation, teachers' unions simply do not have the "throttlehold" on education that many would have you believe. I think you may have watched "Waiting on Superman" one to many times and allowed this obviously biased look at public schools to paint you a stereotypical view of what may or may not be occuring in the majority of our public education system. There IS indeed a bigger picture. You should broaden your horizon a bit.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." - Dr. Carl Sagan
As am I. Libertarianism is essentially left-leaning in social issues.Originally Posted by Blackdog
Whoa whoa whoa. I never said that economically depressed schools and districts should get bad education. I'm just saying that rich districts should get more luxuries which may have ancillary benefits in education. I think you're seeing this as zero-sum, where rich districts get all the education and the ghetto/inner city/slum districts get the leftovers. That's not what I'm saying at all. I favor all schools, regardless of median incomes within any particular district, to get as quality of an education as feasibly allowable.I don't disagree because you are necessarily wrong (the fiscal conservative in me, lol) I disagree because we should provide a good education no matter where you live or what economic group you are part of.
And I disagree. Are students really that crippled if they have to use computers with Windows XP instead of Windows 7/8? If they have to use Word/Excel 2003 over 2007 and newer? I don't think they are. Is the life story of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Napoleon Bonaparte, or Winston Churchill any different now than it was in 2008? Negative. Sorry if I don't believe in giving the poor all the "bells and whistles".If your school has no money for new computers or up to date history books etc. This should never be an issue for k-12.
They'd get the chance. It just wouldn't be as easy.It's to important. To deny a good education because they were born impoverished is no excuse. Under your plan the person who could cure cancer being poor would never get the chance because of circumstance out of his/her control.
It absolutely is. Nobody can bitch about quality of education in the poorer schools when the kids themselves refuse to go.Originally Posted by Fluffyninja
Then you don't do it. There is a massive difference between having the ability to educate and recipients having the desire to be educated. If students want to skip school, text in class, and generally refuse to learn, they should have that right - but I'd be adamantly against a complete waste of money being used for that purpose. Just let the school suffer, along with the students in it, who don't seem to give a damn anyway (nor do the parents). That's the rub about education - it has to be achieved under one's own volition. You can lead a horse to water, after all...Discipline is also a major issue. Try penalizing a student for using his/her I-phone during class to text or to play games and more often than not, you get angry parents who bitch and whine that they "spent hard-earned money to buy their precious that phone and WANT their kid to have it simply for the sake of convenience."
I will just agree to disagree and leave it at that..
No Lives Matter
I'm not sure about that. There are many libertarian-like policies and social experiments that never have and, probably, will never see the light of day. They're too much of a system shock to what's in place.Originally Posted by Blackdog
However, the voucher system is not one of them. There are microcosms of this theory and experiment already put in place out in the real world. In time, we'll see...instead of the old "agree to disagree" walkaway when two people can't meet common ground because one's argument will never be put into effect.