Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

Far, faaaaaaaar less than what it is now (12k per student per year in MN - 10k being average). Google search says about 3k a year. Market discipline will cause prices to go as low as they can.

Also, again, vouchers. Vouchers ensure everybody has a chance for an education.

Ask your parents to add 30% of their Federal Income tax to whatever percent of their state tax that goes to education (factor in local taxes if you're rad enough - those percentages are probably hard to find though), and see what it comes out to.

Let's assume your parents don't make quite enough - vouchers kick in to make up the difference. Let's assume your parents have exactly enough for school - well it's a wash, but private school prevails with other benefits that I'll get to. Let's say they have money left over, you can be sent to a better school or it could be pocketed for awesome Christmas presents.

In any case, you get the golden benefit of being able to choose what school you go to. On top of that, every squabble about creationism vs. evolution, religion in school, etc basically disappears.

On top of that, you being childless don't have to pay for the education of other people's children. You certainly can, but you don't have to.


I'm betting there's more to/something awfully wrong with that study.

I don't think anybody thinks the wealthy shouldn't pay income taxes.


I'd expect as much from a masochist.

In my scenario, you could go to Nipple Ripper's School and I could go to Weenie Hut Jr.'s School. Then I don't have to cry like a bitch from penis chains, and you don't have to cry like a bitch from boredom.

And everybody wins.

Uniforms are a waste of time and money.

If you're going to have a six day week, you shouldn't abolish all of summer vacation. 5 day week and getting rid of summer vacation would be a great idea though. then teachers can finally get paid what their education would ask. don't know where you'd get those big bucks though.

Interestingly enough, the Japanese still send people over here to study our school systems. One of the downfalls of their style is that their students lead the world in suicide. If you fuck up in school in Japan then YOU BRING DISHONOR TO FAMERY!!

I remember at Ohio State, there was this building that was all grad student housing, and it was the only building on campus with bars on all the windows. Apparently they had serious issues with the asian grad students jumping out of them after receiving sub-par marks.

There needs to be a balance, is what I'm saying.

because japanese grad students arent' smart enough to find another building without bars to jump out of.

I've been a student in Virginia all my life and I'm not sure if other states operate the same way, but during 6th grade we were given every elective that was offered in middle school in 6-week sessions. Each student would get a taste of different electives (chorus, drama, band, computers, home life and others) so they had an idea what to pick during 7th and 8th grades. Each student in middle school had to pick a performing art, an elective and a foreign language or government/civics course. In High School we had two paths: High School Diploma and an Advanced High School Diploma, where the advanced course had your AP classes, foreign languages, more advanced math and science, etc.

What I would rather do is re-structure the seven-period school day for 6th and 7th graders. Each student would get their math course (or advanced math course), English, science and history/government classes. Each student would also have their mandatory PE course just so they don't get fat. The final two periods over the two-year period would be mandatory learning, each lasting a semester long. The idea is to expand on what the state of Virginia is already doing by really getting a students feet wet with a broad range of studies:

* Information Technology: Basic computer usage, trouble shooting issues, networking concepts, and an introduction to programming.
* Vocational Studies: Wood shop, automotive shop, residential understanding and repairs
* Health and Wellness: Intro to the human body, nutrition and diets, proper exercise
* Performing Arts: Basics of acting, intro to music theory, L2Sing/Recorder
* Government and Law: Basics of federal and state governments, L2Constitution, debate, mock student trial
* Home Economics: 'Sugar Babies' and the costs of raising children, cooking, sewing
* Finances and Accounting: Managing personal finances, budgeting, manage bills, accounting exercise
* Cultural Studies: Cultural history and studies

Yea, I just made that shit up. Who knows if that's what would be settled on but each student would have a 20 week course on each of those topics, covering things listed to the right. Each student would just kinda learn a bit to say, "Yea, I kinda like working with computers" or "sure, I can see myself crunching numbers and working the ledgers" or "I hate changing tired and oil"... At the end of each semester the student would take a personal survey of the course saying what they liked and didn't like. The school would hold onto this stuff until 8th grade when the student can pick a HS Path. Like I mentioned earlier, we had two paths in High School: Normal and Advanced Diplomas. Those would still exist, letting the student take a wide range of classes and electives. There would be additional 'advanced paths' that open up which would be more focused towards the students interest or towards vocational studies (like HVAC, Electrical, Landscaping, Plumbing, etc.)

For instance, if the student really liked "Health and Wellness" in Middle School, they could elect for the "Health and Wellness" path, which would offer specific classes for those students that wouldn't be available to others. Health and Wellness students wouldn't elect for Physics I-II but would rather take Chemistry I-II, Biology, Human Physiology, four years of PE, Intro to Sports Medicine and a Nutrition and Wellness course in addition to their normal classes, with less of a need for advanced math classes and fewer foreign languages. Maybe the student enjoyed working on cars... they would take Physics I-II, Automotive Repair I-IV, Business and an ASE Certification course. Government and Law could be more focused on Government, Public Speaking, Debate, Creative Writing and English/History and less on Science/Math. A student pursuing the Electrical path would get his Physics I-II, Electrical I-IV, Business, Spanish I-III, State License Preparation. At any time, a student can drop one of the focused paths and just move towards your 'Advanced Diploma', using the focused classes as substitution credits.

When the student graduates from HS, their Diploma would read which path they took... "High School Diploma", "Advanced High School Diploma", "Advanced High School Diploma of Automotive Technologies/Information Technology/Health and Wellness/Performing Arts/Etc." This doesn't mean that the student is forced into that field... hell, they could still go off to college to get their under-grad in Art History with their Automotive Technology diploma

I guess I see it this way: The students will get a more focused and tailored education based on their interests (at the time) rather than a large swath of shit they probably won't remember or have little interest in. The idea is they would pay more attention to things that interest them. Also, just because you didn't know you wanted to be a lawyer doesn't mean some kid is just as indecisive as you were at the same age. These courses might give them a jump-start on college-level courses by introducing the material to them at a younger age... or they might say they're completely not interested in that field after a couple years of High School, leaving them still available to pursue other things in college. (Let's be honest... not everyone knows what they want in college and not everyone uses their college degrees) The benefit to the vocational studies is the students in those paths would be getting the hours and experience needed to get their contractors licences so they can enter the workforce (without college) and start being productive at their chosen field. If someone picks a vocational study and then runs off to college to become a lawyer, then at least you'll have a lawyer that isn't worthless when it comes to fixing a car or doing landscaping on their yard.

This ideological argument is no different than Communism. It works on paper. In real life, not so much.

Private schools are vastly more expensive per capita and have less economy of scale.



Everyone already has a chance at education. That is the point of public schooling.



And where are those vouchers coming from? That's right - OTHER people's taxes.

This is the central fallacy and hypocrisy of libertarianism/voucher movements. It really boils down to, "I got mine", "I want all the benefits of government and federal funding, but I want someone else to foot the bill", "If anything is to be cut, let it not be the services I use and enjoy".



What if that private school won't accept your kid?
What if there simply isn't a private school in your area because they think your area is too marginal to be worthwhile?
What if the private school won't accept you for any number of silly but very real reasons such as bigotry or social elitism?

Free choice is not necessarily choice.

Bottom line is:
Public education exists because we tried the private sector alternative. It sucked. So now we have this.

People who want to go back to what didn't work have an oversized sense of entitlement. They enjoy the benefits of the status quo but do not appreciate what it took to get to this point. They just want more.

Also Weena, let me ask you this... what makes you think that the voucher system will be any more rational or economical than areas where we already use that kind of system, like military procurement or healthcare? What makes you think that the market will, in fact, keep prices down any more than it does with college textbooks or the cost of military hardware or simple procedures like getting an X-ray? What makes you think market principles will work as you describe when they NEVER have? Why should it work for us when it doesn't and isn't working for any other country in the civilized or semi-civilized world that all use public schooling?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

They believe that because it's what historically happens. When the idea for the income tax was originally floated, it was only supposed be on "the wealthy." Except for a brief period during the Civil War, the US had funded itself through tariffs on goods. Then, as now, politicians were spending ever more money, pushing these tariffs higher-and-higher, which was unpopular because those taxes disproportionately impacted lower and middle income earners and their families, but had little impact on the wealthy. Ratification of the 16th Amendment only came about because #1: wealth envy and #2: the promise that the tax would only be on 'the wealthy' (the original income tax was a 2% flat tax on all incomes in excess of $4000 a year). The income tax didn't replace the tariffs, and the tax was eventually expanded to encompass everyone. The estate tax was only supposed to impact "the wealthy," but many families lost farms and homes to it who weren't named Kennedy or Rockefeller. In short, people oppose it because they know they'll be a part of it someday.



The ACLU and proponents for 'poor' parents (who just won't be able to afford those uniforms) will impede efforts for uniforms, just as teacher's unions will impede any efforts that result in teachers spending more time at work.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

And if none of that had happened we'd still be living in an Upton Sinclair or Charles Dickens novel. And if you think that's not true go visit Wuhan.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

We have had public schooling since the late 1800's. Our private education before that was fundamentally different in that it indeed was not available to the poor.

Ergo, we haven't really tried what I said in real life. Nor have we tried a shift to more private schooling in modern society. So what empirical evidence do you have that says it doesn't work?

Also, as I demonstrated before, private schooling is far less expensive per capita - Roughly 3k a year for private compared to roughly 10k a year right now for public.


This sounds like an argument, but it doesn't really argue anything.


It is coming from other peoples taxes (and it should partly be coming from one's own), but it's taking a far lower amount and reducing governments touch.
I'd like to see everyone educated, sorry if that's too "I got mine." At the same time, I want as little government involvement as possible. Vouchers are having as little government involvement as possible, while still seeing everyone educated.

The "I want all the benefits of government, but someone else to foot the bill" fits those who want more entitlements. This doesn't even remotely fit to the philosophy - it might fit to certain people claiming to follow said philosophy - but not to the philosophy itself. And to pertain specifically to the federal funding part, schools should not be funded federally in any way, whether they're public or private.

The "If any thing is to be cut... blah blah" part might ring true - except I think every thing should be cut back.


Find a different school.


This, coupled with your previous question, is probably your best argument.

That might require a need for public schooling to facilitate, but that doesn't mean we need a public school everywhere. So if states have areas that are not being educated due to logistics, then there's a legitimate argument that to fulfill a desire of everyone being educated, government is going to have to do a little more. Maybe fully private schooling is too light of a touch, I'll concede that. But public schooling as it stands right now - even if their price per student was in line with average private schooling - is too heavy of a touch.


I don't know of any voucher systems in healthcare. Medicare is an undefined benefit system. Which means that as long as you're sick, you're paid for... except you're not, because it doesn't always pay for the full cost, shifting the cost onto the hospital itself. So hospitals have to charge more to make up for that.

Looking up military vouchers... what are these vouchers for married couples to travel to see their military spouses or what? I'm assuming 'procurement' is the obtaining of items and men for war. There's no vouchers there. I'm not sure how to answer, because I'm not sure what the question is.

Are you saying vouchers for spouses to do that are irrational and bad economics?
I'd say yeah, you're right. But this argues for less government action.

Sure it was. They just didn't have the money to pay for it. That equation hasn't changed.



Just because a bad idea hasn't been tried in 200 years doesn't mean it's become any better, it just means we've forgotten the hard lessons we learned in the past.
What in "modern" society has changed the equation of education and wealth?



I challenge you to link me any private school that charges 3k a year. Any. At all.
I'm serious.



It definitely does. It undercuts the premise of your argument which is that private education is necessary to equalize access. Public education exists towards that end, therefore private education, which is what it was needed to supplant, will not do this any better than it has in the past.



...except voucher funding, apparently.

You want vouchers to pay for schooling. Vouchers will only benefit those who get more from them than they pay in the taxes towards that end. Ergo, vouchers only have utility if someone else is paying for them. Which adds up to the same thing as public school, just less efficiently. Or any other form of entitlement.



Did this work during the days of Jim Crow or Russian Empire jew quotas? Hell, is this even true in the world of Harry Potter...I mean Eton? Or what if all private schools decide they want affirmative action?
What makes you think society is now so egalitarian that private institutions will behave any differently than they have in the past?



Public schooling is cheaper by far due to economy of scale, lower wages and lack of a profit motive. Private schools also have much higher teacher-to-student ratios which drives prices up even further.

Under the premise that "we don't need a public school everywhere", only in needy areas, then won't that mean that public schools will become the poor family's option, and serve to exacerbate class imbalance? What if employers discriminate on the basis of alma mater (as they do now with colleges) - won't that defeat equal opportunity and make life less free?



That's exactly what insurance, private or public, is, a voucher system.

You see doctor, get medication, whatever, you hand over your insurance card - your voucher - and you get service. Same with military hardware. Pentagon wants a new piece of equipment, different contractors submit bids, the generals buy whatever they like and pass the bill on to materiel command.

All a "voucher system" really means is: party A provides a service, party B chooses party A as the contractor, and party C reimburses party B to pay party A.

And this system has proven terrible for cost control. Again, what makes you think it's going to work any better for schooling?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Fucking thread sucks.

Why? Would you prefer WoW General? Or perhaps WSJ forums?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Arguing that the privatization of schooling would equate to lower costs is bullshit. Want an example? Look at the cost of private colleges vs public ones.

Also, comparatively, look at the prices of school in Asia and Europe where schooling is almost exclusively subsidized by the government. It's MUCH cheaper, and generally a better education than an equivalent American experience. Your idealism blinds you.

Also, another shocker - totally agree with Eturnal regarding offering more vocational programs. College/University is not for everyone, and allowing for those who know what they want to do an opportunity to pursue it only benefits our society as a whole.

[url]crab.rutgers.edu/~ccoe/courses/soe/Powerpoints/Vouchers.ppt[/url]

If that doesn't bring about an understanding, then I don't know how else to convey it.

Because I still don't feel like typing.

Watched it. Brings nothing new to the table.

-Two faulty premises: that people are rational (loooooooooooool) and that private schools are cheaper (they aren't)
-"Public schools are inappropriate in a free market system" ... because someone says so? No quite the opposite; public schooling ensures equality of opportunity under a free market system
-The people cited in favor are neo-liberals (people who think you can have your cake and eat it too) and religious groups that want taxpayer money

Answer my challenge. Show me the private school that costs 3k a year.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.