Total Posts:59|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What's wrong with US ed?

innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 11:13:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm a little tired of hearing that we don't spend enough money because that's absolute nonsense. I haven't seen a direct coloration between the amount of money spent per student and their educational success.

I think that the constant dumbing down of our tests and textbooks are more a symptom than a cause (obviously).

I believe it's cultural more than any other factor. The Washington D. C. public schools spends just under $25K per student, and they continually rank among the nations worst. Why? They are mostly from under privileged families, and this seems to be a commonality among low achievers despite the amount spent, despite the location. Why in an under privileged areas no matter the opportunity and government program of incentive do the students fail?

I also hold great contempt for the teacher's union. I have seen first hand what their agenda is, and it has nothing to do with education. Actually the net effect of their agenda is anti education.

Pretty much everyone on DDO i consider a bit above, if not a lot above, the national average in academic achievement (although i have nothing to base that on other than my anecdotal interaction). Why would you say you were able to accomplish your academic position versus the average student in DC?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 11:21:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 11:13:43 AM, innomen wrote:
I'm a little tired of hearing that we don't spend enough money because that's absolute nonsense. I haven't seen a direct coloration between the amount of money spent per student and their educational success.

I think that the constant dumbing down of our tests and textbooks are more a symptom than a cause (obviously).

I believe it's cultural more than any other factor. The Washington D. C. public schools spends just under $25K per student, and they continually rank among the nations worst. Why? They are mostly from under privileged families, and this seems to be a commonality among low achievers despite the amount spent, despite the location. Why in an under privileged areas no matter the opportunity and government program of incentive do the students fail?

I also hold great contempt for the teacher's union. I have seen first hand what their agenda is, and it has nothing to do with education. Actually the net effect of their agenda is anti education.

Pretty much everyone on DDO i consider a bit above, if not a lot above, the national average in academic achievement (although i have nothing to base that on other than my anecdotal interaction). Why would you say you were able to accomplish your academic position versus the average student in DC?

I gave a sh*t about learning things, and went above and beyond the call of the classroom in learning things that interested me.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 11:23:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Government is the problem. All of the evidence shows that parental control over their kid's schooling is the best way to improve academic achievement. As control is taken away from the parents and given to bureaucrats, the quality of education decreases. The best way to fix this would be for parents to have to choose which school their child goes to, rather than just sending kids to whichever school is closest. Some parents, of course, still wouldn't care about their child's education, but even those kids would benefit. As long as a lot of parents did try to find the best school for their child, the competition would force improvement in all schools, so even someone picking a school at random would likely pick a better school than the schools in the current system.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 11:24:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 11:13:43 AM, innomen wrote:
I'm a little tired of hearing that we don't spend enough money because that's absolute nonsense. I haven't seen a direct coloration between the amount of money spent per student and their educational success.

I think that the constant dumbing down of our tests and textbooks are more a symptom than a cause (obviously).


I believe it's cultural more than any other factor. The Washington D. C. public schools spends just under $25K per student, and they continually rank among the nations worst. Why? They are mostly from under privileged families, and this seems to be a commonality among low achievers despite the amount spent, despite the location. Why in an under privileged areas no matter the opportunity and government program of incentive do the students fail?

The parents have a HUGE part in it. My children go to one of the highest ranking schools in our State. They are all in advanced classes that are provided by more money being spent. But there are still a number of children that fall behind. They have the same teachers as my children and all the same chances. I believe the key is to go meet the parents.

Here is another opinion on why the school system in my area is doing so great.

They still pray in their school. :)

I also hold great contempt for the teacher's union. I have seen first hand what their agenda is, and it has nothing to do with education. Actually the net effect of their agenda is anti education.


Pretty much everyone on DDO i consider a bit above, if not a lot above, the national average in academic achievement (although i have nothing to base that on other than my anecdotal interaction). Why would you say you were able to accomplish your academic position versus the average student in DC?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 11:27:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 11:23:26 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Government is the problem. All of the evidence shows that parental control over their kid's schooling is the best way to improve academic achievement. As control is taken away from the parents and given to bureaucrats, the quality of education decreases. The best way to fix this would be for parents to have to choose which school their child goes to, rather than just sending kids to whichever school is closest. Some parents, of course, still wouldn't care about their child's education, but even those kids would benefit. As long as a lot of parents did try to find the best school for their child, the competition would force improvement in all schools, so even someone picking a school at random would likely pick a better school than the schools in the current system.

I think that this, albeit obvious, is huge. I think that the lower the income scale the more apt you are to relinquish control to others who are happy to take it, namely the government.

I think this is a gigantic part of it, but also, why would Cody give a sh!t and a kid in DC not? I remember that it was important for me to do well and it wasn't because of my parents, but because i had smart friends and i wanted to be as good as they.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 11:30:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 11:27:39 AM, innomen wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:23:26 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Government is the problem. All of the evidence shows that parental control over their kid's schooling is the best way to improve academic achievement. As control is taken away from the parents and given to bureaucrats, the quality of education decreases. The best way to fix this would be for parents to have to choose which school their child goes to, rather than just sending kids to whichever school is closest. Some parents, of course, still wouldn't care about their child's education, but even those kids would benefit. As long as a lot of parents did try to find the best school for their child, the competition would force improvement in all schools, so even someone picking a school at random would likely pick a better school than the schools in the current system.

I think that this, albeit obvious, is huge. I think that the lower the income scale the more apt you are to relinquish control to others who are happy to take it, namely the government.

I think this is a gigantic part of it, but also, why would Cody give a sh!t and a kid in DC not? I remember that it was important for me to do well and it wasn't because of my parents, but because i had smart friends and i wanted to be as good as they.

Peer pressure is important, but parental involvement is a huge factor as well. If parents had to actively choose their child's school, they might be more involved in their education. And if parents had to actually pay for some or all of their kid's education, they would almost certainly get more involved.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 11:33:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 11:30:57 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:27:39 AM, innomen wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:23:26 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Government is the problem. All of the evidence shows that parental control over their kid's schooling is the best way to improve academic achievement. As control is taken away from the parents and given to bureaucrats, the quality of education decreases. The best way to fix this would be for parents to have to choose which school their child goes to, rather than just sending kids to whichever school is closest. Some parents, of course, still wouldn't care about their child's education, but even those kids would benefit. As long as a lot of parents did try to find the best school for their child, the competition would force improvement in all schools, so even someone picking a school at random would likely pick a better school than the schools in the current system.

I think that this, albeit obvious, is huge. I think that the lower the income scale the more apt you are to relinquish control to others who are happy to take it, namely the government.

I think this is a gigantic part of it, but also, why would Cody give a sh!t and a kid in DC not? I remember that it was important for me to do well and it wasn't because of my parents, but because i had smart friends and i wanted to be as good as they.

Peer pressure is important, but parental involvement is a huge factor as well. If parents had to actively choose their child's school, they might be more involved in their education. And if parents had to actually pay for some or all of their kid's education, they would almost certainly get more involved.

Wouldn't strong parent involvement in the studies/homework of their child help that child to excel in any school?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 11:35:41 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 11:33:27 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:30:57 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:27:39 AM, innomen wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:23:26 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Government is the problem. All of the evidence shows that parental control over their kid's schooling is the best way to improve academic achievement. As control is taken away from the parents and given to bureaucrats, the quality of education decreases. The best way to fix this would be for parents to have to choose which school their child goes to, rather than just sending kids to whichever school is closest. Some parents, of course, still wouldn't care about their child's education, but even those kids would benefit. As long as a lot of parents did try to find the best school for their child, the competition would force improvement in all schools, so even someone picking a school at random would likely pick a better school than the schools in the current system.

I think that this, albeit obvious, is huge. I think that the lower the income scale the more apt you are to relinquish control to others who are happy to take it, namely the government.

I think this is a gigantic part of it, but also, why would Cody give a sh!t and a kid in DC not? I remember that it was important for me to do well and it wasn't because of my parents, but because i had smart friends and i wanted to be as good as they.

Peer pressure is important, but parental involvement is a huge factor as well. If parents had to actively choose their child's school, they might be more involved in their education. And if parents had to actually pay for some or all of their kid's education, they would almost certainly get more involved.

Wouldn't strong parent involvement in the studies/homework of their child help that child to excel in any school?

I wouldn't say any school. And my point was that not only would freedom improve the quality of the schools themselves, but it would also cause parents to become more involved.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 11:38:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 11:35:41 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:33:27 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:30:57 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:27:39 AM, innomen wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:23:26 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Government is the problem. All of the evidence shows that parental control over their kid's schooling is the best way to improve academic achievement. As control is taken away from the parents and given to bureaucrats, the quality of education decreases. The best way to fix this would be for parents to have to choose which school their child goes to, rather than just sending kids to whichever school is closest. Some parents, of course, still wouldn't care about their child's education, but even those kids would benefit. As long as a lot of parents did try to find the best school for their child, the competition would force improvement in all schools, so even someone picking a school at random would likely pick a better school than the schools in the current system.

I think that this, albeit obvious, is huge. I think that the lower the income scale the more apt you are to relinquish control to others who are happy to take it, namely the government.

I think this is a gigantic part of it, but also, why would Cody give a sh!t and a kid in DC not? I remember that it was important for me to do well and it wasn't because of my parents, but because i had smart friends and i wanted to be as good as they.

Peer pressure is important, but parental involvement is a huge factor as well. If parents had to actively choose their child's school, they might be more involved in their education. And if parents had to actually pay for some or all of their kid's education, they would almost certainly get more involved.

Wouldn't strong parent involvement in the studies/homework of their child help that child to excel in any school?

I wouldn't say any school. And my point was that not only would freedom improve the quality of the schools themselves, but it would also cause parents to become more involved.

Why would "freedom" cause parents to become more involved? My wife and I are highly involved in the studies of our children.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 11:38:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Personally, my sh*t-giving had to do primarily with my unsatisfiable curiosity. I could never learn enough. With every level of knowledge came a level of justificatory knowledge which I didn't possess, and sought to possess. Peer pressure didn't have much to do with it, since I was usually considered to be the "most intelligent" child among children. Maybe there was some impetus there, then, to ensure that I remained at the top of the intellectual ladder.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 11:43:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 11:35:41 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:33:27 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:30:57 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:27:39 AM, innomen wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:23:26 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Government is the problem. All of the evidence shows that parental control over their kid's schooling is the best way to improve academic achievement. As control is taken away from the parents and given to bureaucrats, the quality of education decreases. The best way to fix this would be for parents to have to choose which school their child goes to, rather than just sending kids to whichever school is closest. Some parents, of course, still wouldn't care about their child's education, but even those kids would benefit. As long as a lot of parents did try to find the best school for their child, the competition would force improvement in all schools, so even someone picking a school at random would likely pick a better school than the schools in the current system.

I think that this, albeit obvious, is huge. I think that the lower the income scale the more apt you are to relinquish control to others who are happy to take it, namely the government.

I think this is a gigantic part of it, but also, why would Cody give a sh!t and a kid in DC not? I remember that it was important for me to do well and it wasn't because of my parents, but because i had smart friends and i wanted to be as good as they.

Peer pressure is important, but parental involvement is a huge factor as well. If parents had to actively choose their child's school, they might be more involved in their education. And if parents had to actually pay for some or all of their kid's education, they would almost certainly get more involved.

Wouldn't strong parent involvement in the studies/homework of their child help that child to excel in any school?

I wouldn't say any school. And my point was that not only would freedom improve the quality of the schools themselves, but it would also cause parents to become more involved.

Oh yeah, I didn't mean excel over all. Excel to the highest standard of any school that the child was attending.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 11:43:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 11:38:06 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:35:41 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:33:27 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:30:57 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:27:39 AM, innomen wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:23:26 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Government is the problem. All of the evidence shows that parental control over their kid's schooling is the best way to improve academic achievement. As control is taken away from the parents and given to bureaucrats, the quality of education decreases. The best way to fix this would be for parents to have to choose which school their child goes to, rather than just sending kids to whichever school is closest. Some parents, of course, still wouldn't care about their child's education, but even those kids would benefit. As long as a lot of parents did try to find the best school for their child, the competition would force improvement in all schools, so even someone picking a school at random would likely pick a better school than the schools in the current system.

I think that this, albeit obvious, is huge. I think that the lower the income scale the more apt you are to relinquish control to others who are happy to take it, namely the government.

I think this is a gigantic part of it, but also, why would Cody give a sh!t and a kid in DC not? I remember that it was important for me to do well and it wasn't because of my parents, but because i had smart friends and i wanted to be as good as they.

Peer pressure is important, but parental involvement is a huge factor as well. If parents had to actively choose their child's school, they might be more involved in their education. And if parents had to actually pay for some or all of their kid's education, they would almost certainly get more involved.

Wouldn't strong parent involvement in the studies/homework of their child help that child to excel in any school?

I wouldn't say any school. And my point was that not only would freedom improve the quality of the schools themselves, but it would also cause parents to become more involved.

Why would "freedom" cause parents to become more involved? My wife and I are highly involved in the studies of our children.

It isn't necessary, of course. It would merely encourage that sort of behavior. Don't you think that parents that had to pick out and pay for their child's school would be more involved in the child's education? Many parents would be a lot more upset at failing classes and grades if they had to pay for those failures, than if the taxpayer pays for it either way.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 11:48:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 11:43:37 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:38:06 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:35:41 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:33:27 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:30:57 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:27:39 AM, innomen wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:23:26 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Government is the problem. All of the evidence shows that parental control over their kid's schooling is the best way to improve academic achievement. As control is taken away from the parents and given to bureaucrats, the quality of education decreases. The best way to fix this would be for parents to have to choose which school their child goes to, rather than just sending kids to whichever school is closest. Some parents, of course, still wouldn't care about their child's education, but even those kids would benefit. As long as a lot of parents did try to find the best school for their child, the competition would force improvement in all schools, so even someone picking a school at random would likely pick a better school than the schools in the current system.

I think that this, albeit obvious, is huge. I think that the lower the income scale the more apt you are to relinquish control to others who are happy to take it, namely the government.

I think this is a gigantic part of it, but also, why would Cody give a sh!t and a kid in DC not? I remember that it was important for me to do well and it wasn't because of my parents, but because i had smart friends and i wanted to be as good as they.

Peer pressure is important, but parental involvement is a huge factor as well. If parents had to actively choose their child's school, they might be more involved in their education. And if parents had to actually pay for some or all of their kid's education, they would almost certainly get more involved.

Wouldn't strong parent involvement in the studies/homework of their child help that child to excel in any school?

I wouldn't say any school. And my point was that not only would freedom improve the quality of the schools themselves, but it would also cause parents to become more involved.

Why would "freedom" cause parents to become more involved? My wife and I are highly involved in the studies of our children.

It isn't necessary, of course. It would merely encourage that sort of behavior. Don't you think that parents that had to pick out and pay for their child's school would be more involved in the child's education? Many parents would be a lot more upset at failing classes and grades if they had to pay for those failures, than if the taxpayer pays for it either way.

It might help, but i am pretty sure that even some o the private schools in DC are less good than some public schools elsewhere.

I think Cody's giving a sh!t is more of a part of it than we think. I also think that his academic standing is more of it than he thinks. Look at Asians. They always seem to do well, not just by their parents demands (although that's huge), individually they give a sh!t about their education. Inner city kids not so much.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 11:48:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 11:43:37 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:38:06 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:35:41 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:33:27 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:30:57 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:27:39 AM, innomen wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:23:26 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Government is the problem. All of the evidence shows that parental control over their kid's schooling is the best way to improve academic achievement. As control is taken away from the parents and given to bureaucrats, the quality of education decreases. The best way to fix this would be for parents to have to choose which school their child goes to, rather than just sending kids to whichever school is closest. Some parents, of course, still wouldn't care about their child's education, but even those kids would benefit. As long as a lot of parents did try to find the best school for their child, the competition would force improvement in all schools, so even someone picking a school at random would likely pick a better school than the schools in the current system.

I think that this, albeit obvious, is huge. I think that the lower the income scale the more apt you are to relinquish control to others who are happy to take it, namely the government.

I think this is a gigantic part of it, but also, why would Cody give a sh!t and a kid in DC not? I remember that it was important for me to do well and it wasn't because of my parents, but because i had smart friends and i wanted to be as good as they.

Peer pressure is important, but parental involvement is a huge factor as well. If parents had to actively choose their child's school, they might be more involved in their education. And if parents had to actually pay for some or all of their kid's education, they would almost certainly get more involved.

Wouldn't strong parent involvement in the studies/homework of their child help that child to excel in any school?

I wouldn't say any school. And my point was that not only would freedom improve the quality of the schools themselves, but it would also cause parents to become more involved.

Why would "freedom" cause parents to become more involved? My wife and I are highly involved in the studies of our children.

It isn't necessary, of course. It would merely encourage that sort of behavior. Don't you think that parents that had to pick out and pay for their child's school would be more involved in the child's education? Many parents would be a lot more upset at failing classes and grades if they had to pay for those failures, than if the taxpayer pays for it either way.

I do pay. Taxes. If my child was trying and the school system failed then yes I would be upset. This school system has an excellent collage rate. Many students go on to college, and not on athlete scholarships (our football team is less then excellent). The taxes are higher here, but you get a better school system.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 11:49:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
The schools are working just as intended.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 11:50:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I don't know how it is in DC but I find that a lot of times, marks are kept private, so nobody has to know you're stupid. In schools where marks are publicized (ie. in Africa, Asia), people tend to work harder, in my opinion. I had a math teacher who would hand out tests by who got the highest mark first---if you got your test back last it was the biggest shame. Therefore you studied harder lol
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 11:50:33 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 11:48:28 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:43:37 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:38:06 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:35:41 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:33:27 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:30:57 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:27:39 AM, innomen wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:23:26 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Government is the problem. All of the evidence shows that parental control over their kid's schooling is the best way to improve academic achievement. As control is taken away from the parents and given to bureaucrats, the quality of education decreases. The best way to fix this would be for parents to have to choose which school their child goes to, rather than just sending kids to whichever school is closest. Some parents, of course, still wouldn't care about their child's education, but even those kids would benefit. As long as a lot of parents did try to find the best school for their child, the competition would force improvement in all schools, so even someone picking a school at random would likely pick a better school than the schools in the current system.

I think that this, albeit obvious, is huge. I think that the lower the income scale the more apt you are to relinquish control to others who are happy to take it, namely the government.

I think this is a gigantic part of it, but also, why would Cody give a sh!t and a kid in DC not? I remember that it was important for me to do well and it wasn't because of my parents, but because i had smart friends and i wanted to be as good as they.

Peer pressure is important, but parental involvement is a huge factor as well. If parents had to actively choose their child's school, they might be more involved in their education. And if parents had to actually pay for some or all of their kid's education, they would almost certainly get more involved.

Wouldn't strong parent involvement in the studies/homework of their child help that child to excel in any school?

I wouldn't say any school. And my point was that not only would freedom improve the quality of the schools themselves, but it would also cause parents to become more involved.

Why would "freedom" cause parents to become more involved? My wife and I are highly involved in the studies of our children.

It isn't necessary, of course. It would merely encourage that sort of behavior. Don't you think that parents that had to pick out and pay for their child's school would be more involved in the child's education? Many parents would be a lot more upset at failing classes and grades if they had to pay for those failures, than if the taxpayer pays for it either way.

I do pay. Taxes. If my child was trying and the school system failed then yes I would be upset. This school system has an excellent collage rate. Many students go on to college, and not on athlete scholarships (our football team is less then excellent). The taxes are higher here, but you get a better school system.

But you pay those taxes no matter how well or poorly your child does in school. If parents had to pay more for their kids to make up failing classes, most would be more likely to make sure their kids passed. Obviously, parents like you will make sure that their kids do well no matter who's paying for the school, but a lot of parents aren't like you.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 11:53:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 11:48:16 AM, innomen wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:43:37 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:38:06 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:35:41 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:33:27 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:30:57 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:27:39 AM, innomen wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:23:26 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Government is the problem. All of the evidence shows that parental control over their kid's schooling is the best way to improve academic achievement. As control is taken away from the parents and given to bureaucrats, the quality of education decreases. The best way to fix this would be for parents to have to choose which school their child goes to, rather than just sending kids to whichever school is closest. Some parents, of course, still wouldn't care about their child's education, but even those kids would benefit. As long as a lot of parents did try to find the best school for their child, the competition would force improvement in all schools, so even someone picking a school at random would likely pick a better school than the schools in the current system.

I think that this, albeit obvious, is huge. I think that the lower the income scale the more apt you are to relinquish control to others who are happy to take it, namely the government.

I think this is a gigantic part of it, but also, why would Cody give a sh!t and a kid in DC not? I remember that it was important for me to do well and it wasn't because of my parents, but because i had smart friends and i wanted to be as good as they.

Peer pressure is important, but parental involvement is a huge factor as well. If parents had to actively choose their child's school, they might be more involved in their education. And if parents had to actually pay for some or all of their kid's education, they would almost certainly get more involved.

Wouldn't strong parent involvement in the studies/homework of their child help that child to excel in any school?

I wouldn't say any school. And my point was that not only would freedom improve the quality of the schools themselves, but it would also cause parents to become more involved.

Why would "freedom" cause parents to become more involved? My wife and I are highly involved in the studies of our children.

It isn't necessary, of course. It would merely encourage that sort of behavior. Don't you think that parents that had to pick out and pay for their child's school would be more involved in the child's education? Many parents would be a lot more upset at failing classes and grades if they had to pay for those failures, than if the taxpayer pays for it either way.

It might help, but i am pretty sure that even some o the private schools in DC are less good than some public schools elsewhere.

I think Cody's giving a sh!t is more of a part of it than we think. I also think that his academic standing is more of it than he thinks. Look at Asians. They always seem to do well, not just by their parents demands (although that's huge), individually they give a sh!t about their education. Inner city kids not so much.

Obviously some public schools are better than some private schools. But all else equal, kids are better off going to any random private school than any random public school. Intrinsic personal motivation is a huge factor, yes, but that's not exactly something that can be changed through a change in public policy.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 11:55:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 11:50:33 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:48:28 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:43:37 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:38:06 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:35:41 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:33:27 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:30:57 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:27:39 AM, innomen wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:23:26 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Government is the problem. All of the evidence shows that parental control over their kid's schooling is the best way to improve academic achievement. As control is taken away from the parents and given to bureaucrats, the quality of education decreases. The best way to fix this would be for parents to have to choose which school their child goes to, rather than just sending kids to whichever school is closest. Some parents, of course, still wouldn't care about their child's education, but even those kids would benefit. As long as a lot of parents did try to find the best school for their child, the competition would force improvement in all schools, so even someone picking a school at random would likely pick a better school than the schools in the current system.

I think that this, albeit obvious, is huge. I think that the lower the income scale the more apt you are to relinquish control to others who are happy to take it, namely the government.

I think this is a gigantic part of it, but also, why would Cody give a sh!t and a kid in DC not? I remember that it was important for me to do well and it wasn't because of my parents, but because i had smart friends and i wanted to be as good as they.

Peer pressure is important, but parental involvement is a huge factor as well. If parents had to actively choose their child's school, they might be more involved in their education. And if parents had to actually pay for some or all of their kid's education, they would almost certainly get more involved.

Wouldn't strong parent involvement in the studies/homework of their child help that child to excel in any school?

I wouldn't say any school. And my point was that not only would freedom improve the quality of the schools themselves, but it would also cause parents to become more involved.

Why would "freedom" cause parents to become more involved? My wife and I are highly involved in the studies of our children.

It isn't necessary, of course. It would merely encourage that sort of behavior. Don't you think that parents that had to pick out and pay for their child's school would be more involved in the child's education? Many parents would be a lot more upset at failing classes and grades if they had to pay for those failures, than if the taxpayer pays for it either way.

I do pay. Taxes. If my child was trying and the school system failed then yes I would be upset. This school system has an excellent collage rate. Many students go on to college, and not on athlete scholarships (our football team is less then excellent). The taxes are higher here, but you get a better school system.

But you pay those taxes no matter how well or poorly your child does in school. If parents had to pay more for their kids to make up failing classes, most would be more likely to make sure their kids passed. Obviously, parents like you will make sure that their kids do well no matter who's paying for the school, but a lot of parents aren't like you.

And who's fault is it then? The governments? You just said that obviously parents like me make sure their kids do well no matter what? Is it the school systems fault that some students don't do well because their parents don't encourage and support learning?

I'm against leaning on AND blaming the government (or anyone else) for my problems. It's just plain stupid, and will get a person no where.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 12:00:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 11:53:18 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:48:16 AM, innomen wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:43:37 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:38:06 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:35:41 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:33:27 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:30:57 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:27:39 AM, innomen wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:23:26 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Government is the problem. All of the evidence shows that parental control over their kid's schooling is the best way to improve academic achievement. As control is taken away from the parents and given to bureaucrats, the quality of education decreases. The best way to fix this would be for parents to have to choose which school their child goes to, rather than just sending kids to whichever school is closest. Some parents, of course, still wouldn't care about their child's education, but even those kids would benefit. As long as a lot of parents did try to find the best school for their child, the competition would force improvement in all schools, so even someone picking a school at random would likely pick a better school than the schools in the current system.

I think that this, albeit obvious, is huge. I think that the lower the income scale the more apt you are to relinquish control to others who are happy to take it, namely the government.

I think this is a gigantic part of it, but also, why would Cody give a sh!t and a kid in DC not? I remember that it was important for me to do well and it wasn't because of my parents, but because i had smart friends and i wanted to be as good as they.

Peer pressure is important, but parental involvement is a huge factor as well. If parents had to actively choose their child's school, they might be more involved in their education. And if parents had to actually pay for some or all of their kid's education, they would almost certainly get more involved.

Wouldn't strong parent involvement in the studies/homework of their child help that child to excel in any school?

I wouldn't say any school. And my point was that not only would freedom improve the quality of the schools themselves, but it would also cause parents to become more involved.

Why would "freedom" cause parents to become more involved? My wife and I are highly involved in the studies of our children.

It isn't necessary, of course. It would merely encourage that sort of behavior. Don't you think that parents that had to pick out and pay for their child's school would be more involved in the child's education? Many parents would be a lot more upset at failing classes and grades if they had to pay for those failures, than if the taxpayer pays for it either way.

It might help, but i am pretty sure that even some o the private schools in DC are less good than some public schools elsewhere.

I think Cody's giving a sh!t is more of a part of it than we think. I also think that his academic standing is more of it than he thinks. Look at Asians. They always seem to do well, not just by their parents demands (although that's huge), individually they give a sh!t about their education. Inner city kids not so much.

Obviously some public schools are better than some private schools. But all else equal, kids are better off going to any random private school than any random public school. Intrinsic personal motivation is a huge factor, yes, but that's not exactly something that can be changed through a change in public policy.

Take one of those uber over achieving Asian kids and put him in a DC school then take the average kid and put him in the best private school, and i am guessing that the Asian kid will still do better. I dunno, i think that we are stuck in some union created paradigms that don't let us explore things like charter schools, magnet schools, and other non traditional schools. Tax benefits to parents who send their kids to private schools should be endorsed as well. At this point, the schools are failing and they really don't get to choose what happens as far as i'm concerned.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 12:01:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 11:55:43 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:50:33 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:48:28 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:43:37 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:38:06 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:35:41 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:33:27 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:30:57 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:27:39 AM, innomen wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:23:26 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Government is the problem. All of the evidence shows that parental control over their kid's schooling is the best way to improve academic achievement. As control is taken away from the parents and given to bureaucrats, the quality of education decreases. The best way to fix this would be for parents to have to choose which school their child goes to, rather than just sending kids to whichever school is closest. Some parents, of course, still wouldn't care about their child's education, but even those kids would benefit. As long as a lot of parents did try to find the best school for their child, the competition would force improvement in all schools, so even someone picking a school at random would likely pick a better school than the schools in the current system.

I think that this, albeit obvious, is huge. I think that the lower the income scale the more apt you are to relinquish control to others who are happy to take it, namely the government.

I think this is a gigantic part of it, but also, why would Cody give a sh!t and a kid in DC not? I remember that it was important for me to do well and it wasn't because of my parents, but because i had smart friends and i wanted to be as good as they.

Peer pressure is important, but parental involvement is a huge factor as well. If parents had to actively choose their child's school, they might be more involved in their education. And if parents had to actually pay for some or all of their kid's education, they would almost certainly get more involved.

Wouldn't strong parent involvement in the studies/homework of their child help that child to excel in any school?

I wouldn't say any school. And my point was that not only would freedom improve the quality of the schools themselves, but it would also cause parents to become more involved.

Why would "freedom" cause parents to become more involved? My wife and I are highly involved in the studies of our children.

It isn't necessary, of course. It would merely encourage that sort of behavior. Don't you think that parents that had to pick out and pay for their child's school would be more involved in the child's education? Many parents would be a lot more upset at failing classes and grades if they had to pay for those failures, than if the taxpayer pays for it either way.

I do pay. Taxes. If my child was trying and the school system failed then yes I would be upset. This school system has an excellent collage rate. Many students go on to college, and not on athlete scholarships (our football team is less then excellent). The taxes are higher here, but you get a better school system.

But you pay those taxes no matter how well or poorly your child does in school. If parents had to pay more for their kids to make up failing classes, most would be more likely to make sure their kids passed. Obviously, parents like you will make sure that their kids do well no matter who's paying for the school, but a lot of parents aren't like you.

And who's fault is it then? The governments? You just said that obviously parents like me make sure their kids do well no matter what? Is it the school systems fault that some students don't do well because their parents don't encourage and support learning?

I'm against leaning on AND blaming the government (or anyone else) for my problems. It's just plain stupid, and will get a person no where.

I'm not suggesting that anyone complain about the government rather than focus on their education. I'm saying that educational quality in the U.S. is poor in large part because of government schools. It doesn't matter if you'd consider it the government's "fault" that parents aren't involved in their kids' education. That doesn't change the fact that if government wasn't involved, parents would be more involved.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 12:06:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 12:00:49 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:53:18 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:48:16 AM, innomen wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:43:37 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:38:06 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:35:41 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:33:27 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:30:57 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:27:39 AM, innomen wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:23:26 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Government is the problem. All of the evidence shows that parental control over their kid's schooling is the best way to improve academic achievement. As control is taken away from the parents and given to bureaucrats, the quality of education decreases. The best way to fix this would be for parents to have to choose which school their child goes to, rather than just sending kids to whichever school is closest. Some parents, of course, still wouldn't care about their child's education, but even those kids would benefit. As long as a lot of parents did try to find the best school for their child, the competition would force improvement in all schools, so even someone picking a school at random would likely pick a better school than the schools in the current system.

I think that this, albeit obvious, is huge. I think that the lower the income scale the more apt you are to relinquish control to others who are happy to take it, namely the government.

I think this is a gigantic part of it, but also, why would Cody give a sh!t and a kid in DC not? I remember that it was important for me to do well and it wasn't because of my parents, but because i had smart friends and i wanted to be as good as they.

Peer pressure is important, but parental involvement is a huge factor as well. If parents had to actively choose their child's school, they might be more involved in their education. And if parents had to actually pay for some or all of their kid's education, they would almost certainly get more involved.

Wouldn't strong parent involvement in the studies/homework of their child help that child to excel in any school?

I wouldn't say any school. And my point was that not only would freedom improve the quality of the schools themselves, but it would also cause parents to become more involved.

Why would "freedom" cause parents to become more involved? My wife and I are highly involved in the studies of our children.

It isn't necessary, of course. It would merely encourage that sort of behavior. Don't you think that parents that had to pick out and pay for their child's school would be more involved in the child's education? Many parents would be a lot more upset at failing classes and grades if they had to pay for those failures, than if the taxpayer pays for it either way.

It might help, but i am pretty sure that even some o the private schools in DC are less good than some public schools elsewhere.

I think Cody's giving a sh!t is more of a part of it than we think. I also think that his academic standing is more of it than he thinks. Look at Asians. They always seem to do well, not just by their parents demands (although that's huge), individually they give a sh!t about their education. Inner city kids not so much.

Obviously some public schools are better than some private schools. But all else equal, kids are better off going to any random private school than any random public school. Intrinsic personal motivation is a huge factor, yes, but that's not exactly something that can be changed through a change in public policy.

Take one of those uber over achieving Asian kids and put him in a DC school then take the average kid and put him in the best private school, and i am guessing that the Asian kid will still do better. I dunno, i think that we are stuck in some union created paradigms that don't let us explore things like charter schools, magnet schools, and other non traditional schools. Tax benefits to parents who send their kids to private schools should be endorsed as well. At this point, the schools are failing and they really don't get to choose what happens as far as i'm concerned.

If you put one of those over-achieving Asian kids in the average DC public school, he'd probably get shot. But yeah, a lot of the problem with schools is because of the unions and their resistance to any reform.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 12:06:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 12:01:31 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:55:43 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:50:33 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:48:28 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:43:37 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:38:06 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:35:41 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:33:27 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:30:57 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:27:39 AM, innomen wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:23:26 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Government is the problem. All of the evidence shows that parental control over their kid's schooling is the best way to improve academic achievement. As control is taken away from the parents and given to bureaucrats, the quality of education decreases. The best way to fix this would be for parents to have to choose which school their child goes to, rather than just sending kids to whichever school is closest. Some parents, of course, still wouldn't care about their child's education, but even those kids would benefit. As long as a lot of parents did try to find the best school for their child, the competition would force improvement in all schools, so even someone picking a school at random would likely pick a better school than the schools in the current system.

I think that this, albeit obvious, is huge. I think that the lower the income scale the more apt you are to relinquish control to others who are happy to take it, namely the government.

I think this is a gigantic part of it, but also, why would Cody give a sh!t and a kid in DC not? I remember that it was important for me to do well and it wasn't because of my parents, but because i had smart friends and i wanted to be as good as they.

Peer pressure is important, but parental involvement is a huge factor as well. If parents had to actively choose their child's school, they might be more involved in their education. And if parents had to actually pay for some or all of their kid's education, they would almost certainly get more involved.

Wouldn't strong parent involvement in the studies/homework of their child help that child to excel in any school?

I wouldn't say any school. And my point was that not only would freedom improve the quality of the schools themselves, but it would also cause parents to become more involved.

Why would "freedom" cause parents to become more involved? My wife and I are highly involved in the studies of our children.

It isn't necessary, of course. It would merely encourage that sort of behavior. Don't you think that parents that had to pick out and pay for their child's school would be more involved in the child's education? Many parents would be a lot more upset at failing classes and grades if they had to pay for those failures, than if the taxpayer pays for it either way.

I do pay. Taxes. If my child was trying and the school system failed then yes I would be upset. This school system has an excellent collage rate. Many students go on to college, and not on athlete scholarships (our football team is less then excellent). The taxes are higher here, but you get a better school system.

But you pay those taxes no matter how well or poorly your child does in school. If parents had to pay more for their kids to make up failing classes, most would be more likely to make sure their kids passed. Obviously, parents like you will make sure that their kids do well no matter who's paying for the school, but a lot of parents aren't like you.

And who's fault is it then? The governments? You just said that obviously parents like me make sure their kids do well no matter what? Is it the school systems fault that some students don't do well because their parents don't encourage and support learning?

I'm against leaning on AND blaming the government (or anyone else) for my problems. It's just plain stupid, and will get a person no where.

I'm not suggesting that anyone complain about the government rather than focus on their education. I'm saying that educational quality in the U.S. is poor in large part because of government schools. It doesn't matter if you'd consider it the government's "fault" that parents aren't involved in their kids' education. That doesn't change the fact that if government wasn't involved, parents would be more involved.

I'm willing to guess that the private schools have dropped a bit too in their ability have students reach their potential.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 12:10:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 12:01:31 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:55:43 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:50:33 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:48:28 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:43:37 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:38:06 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:35:41 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:33:27 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:30:57 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:27:39 AM, innomen wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:23:26 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Government is the problem. All of the evidence shows that parental control over their kid's schooling is the best way to improve academic achievement. As control is taken away from the parents and given to bureaucrats, the quality of education decreases. The best way to fix this would be for parents to have to choose which school their child goes to, rather than just sending kids to whichever school is closest. Some parents, of course, still wouldn't care about their child's education, but even those kids would benefit. As long as a lot of parents did try to find the best school for their child, the competition would force improvement in all schools, so even someone picking a school at random would likely pick a better school than the schools in the current system.

I think that this, albeit obvious, is huge. I think that the lower the income scale the more apt you are to relinquish control to others who are happy to take it, namely the government.

I think this is a gigantic part of it, but also, why would Cody give a sh!t and a kid in DC not? I remember that it was important for me to do well and it wasn't because of my parents, but because i had smart friends and i wanted to be as good as they.

Peer pressure is important, but parental involvement is a huge factor as well. If parents had to actively choose their child's school, they might be more involved in their education. And if parents had to actually pay for some or all of their kid's education, they would almost certainly get more involved.

Wouldn't strong parent involvement in the studies/homework of their child help that child to excel in any school?

I wouldn't say any school. And my point was that not only would freedom improve the quality of the schools themselves, but it would also cause parents to become more involved.

Why would "freedom" cause parents to become more involved? My wife and I are highly involved in the studies of our children.

It isn't necessary, of course. It would merely encourage that sort of behavior. Don't you think that parents that had to pick out and pay for their child's school would be more involved in the child's education? Many parents would be a lot more upset at failing classes and grades if they had to pay for those failures, than if the taxpayer pays for it either way.

I do pay. Taxes. If my child was trying and the school system failed then yes I would be upset. This school system has an excellent collage rate. Many students go on to college, and not on athlete scholarships (our football team is less then excellent). The taxes are higher here, but you get a better school system.

But you pay those taxes no matter how well or poorly your child does in school. If parents had to pay more for their kids to make up failing classes, most would be more likely to make sure their kids passed. Obviously, parents like you will make sure that their kids do well no matter who's paying for the school, but a lot of parents aren't like you.

And who's fault is it then? The governments? You just said that obviously parents like me make sure their kids do well no matter what? Is it the school systems fault that some students don't do well because their parents don't encourage and support learning?

I'm against leaning on AND blaming the government (or anyone else) for my problems. It's just plain stupid, and will get a person no where.

I'm not suggesting that anyone complain about the government rather than focus on their education. I'm saying that educational quality in the U.S. is poor in large part because of government schools. It doesn't matter if you'd consider it the government's "fault" that parents aren't involved in their kids' education.

That doesn't change the fact that if government wasn't involved, parents would be more involved.

I don't see how. Parents like me will do everything in our power to ensure a good education for our children, regardless. Parents that don't won't, regardless. Period. Unless you can tell me otherwise of course.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 12:14:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 12:10:55 PM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 12:01:31 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:55:43 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:50:33 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:48:28 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:43:37 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:38:06 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:35:41 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:33:27 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:30:57 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:27:39 AM, innomen wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:23:26 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Government is the problem. All of the evidence shows that parental control over their kid's schooling is the best way to improve academic achievement. As control is taken away from the parents and given to bureaucrats, the quality of education decreases. The best way to fix this would be for parents to have to choose which school their child goes to, rather than just sending kids to whichever school is closest. Some parents, of course, still wouldn't care about their child's education, but even those kids would benefit. As long as a lot of parents did try to find the best school for their child, the competition would force improvement in all schools, so even someone picking a school at random would likely pick a better school than the schools in the current system.

I think that this, albeit obvious, is huge. I think that the lower the income scale the more apt you are to relinquish control to others who are happy to take it, namely the government.

I think this is a gigantic part of it, but also, why would Cody give a sh!t and a kid in DC not? I remember that it was important for me to do well and it wasn't because of my parents, but because i had smart friends and i wanted to be as good as they.

Peer pressure is important, but parental involvement is a huge factor as well. If parents had to actively choose their child's school, they might be more involved in their education. And if parents had to actually pay for some or all of their kid's education, they would almost certainly get more involved.

Wouldn't strong parent involvement in the studies/homework of their child help that child to excel in any school?

I wouldn't say any school. And my point was that not only would freedom improve the quality of the schools themselves, but it would also cause parents to become more involved.

Why would "freedom" cause parents to become more involved? My wife and I are highly involved in the studies of our children.

It isn't necessary, of course. It would merely encourage that sort of behavior. Don't you think that parents that had to pick out and pay for their child's school would be more involved in the child's education? Many parents would be a lot more upset at failing classes and grades if they had to pay for those failures, than if the taxpayer pays for it either way.

I do pay. Taxes. If my child was trying and the school system failed then yes I would be upset. This school system has an excellent collage rate. Many students go on to college, and not on athlete scholarships (our football team is less then excellent). The taxes are higher here, but you get a better school system.

But you pay those taxes no matter how well or poorly your child does in school. If parents had to pay more for their kids to make up failing classes, most would be more likely to make sure their kids passed. Obviously, parents like you will make sure that their kids do well no matter who's paying for the school, but a lot of parents aren't like you.

And who's fault is it then? The governments? You just said that obviously parents like me make sure their kids do well no matter what? Is it the school systems fault that some students don't do well because their parents don't encourage and support learning?

I'm against leaning on AND blaming the government (or anyone else) for my problems. It's just plain stupid, and will get a person no where.

I'm not suggesting that anyone complain about the government rather than focus on their education. I'm saying that educational quality in the U.S. is poor in large part because of government schools. It doesn't matter if you'd consider it the government's "fault" that parents aren't involved in their kids' education.

That doesn't change the fact that if government wasn't involved, parents would be more involved.

I don't see how. Parents like me will do everything in our power to ensure a good education for our children, regardless. Parents that don't won't, regardless. Period. Unless you can tell me otherwise of course.

Giving parents control over which school their kid goes to through voucher or tax credit programs has been shown to get parents more involved in their kids education. That's when the parents don't even have to pay for the schools, just choose them. And you're saying that having parents pay for it if their kid fails classes won't encourage them to try to prevent their kid from failing classes? That part seems self-evident.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 12:17:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 12:14:29 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 12:10:55 PM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 12:01:31 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:55:43 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:50:33 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:48:28 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:43:37 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:38:06 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:35:41 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:33:27 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:30:57 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:27:39 AM, innomen wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:23:26 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Government is the problem. All of the evidence shows that parental control over their kid's schooling is the best way to improve academic achievement. As control is taken away from the parents and given to bureaucrats, the quality of education decreases. The best way to fix this would be for parents to have to choose which school their child goes to, rather than just sending kids to whichever school is closest. Some parents, of course, still wouldn't care about their child's education, but even those kids would benefit. As long as a lot of parents did try to find the best school for their child, the competition would force improvement in all schools, so even someone picking a school at random would likely pick a better school than the schools in the current system.

I think that this, albeit obvious, is huge. I think that the lower the income scale the more apt you are to relinquish control to others who are happy to take it, namely the government.

I think this is a gigantic part of it, but also, why would Cody give a sh!t and a kid in DC not? I remember that it was important for me to do well and it wasn't because of my parents, but because i had smart friends and i wanted to be as good as they.

Peer pressure is important, but parental involvement is a huge factor as well. If parents had to actively choose their child's school, they might be more involved in their education. And if parents had to actually pay for some or all of their kid's education, they would almost certainly get more involved.

Wouldn't strong parent involvement in the studies/homework of their child help that child to excel in any school?

I wouldn't say any school. And my point was that not only would freedom improve the quality of the schools themselves, but it would also cause parents to become more involved.

Why would "freedom" cause parents to become more involved? My wife and I are highly involved in the studies of our children.

It isn't necessary, of course. It would merely encourage that sort of behavior. Don't you think that parents that had to pick out and pay for their child's school would be more involved in the child's education? Many parents would be a lot more upset at failing classes and grades if they had to pay for those failures, than if the taxpayer pays for it either way.

I do pay. Taxes. If my child was trying and the school system failed then yes I would be upset. This school system has an excellent collage rate. Many students go on to college, and not on athlete scholarships (our football team is less then excellent). The taxes are higher here, but you get a better school system.

But you pay those taxes no matter how well or poorly your child does in school. If parents had to pay more for their kids to make up failing classes, most would be more likely to make sure their kids passed. Obviously, parents like you will make sure that their kids do well no matter who's paying for the school, but a lot of parents aren't like you.

And who's fault is it then? The governments? You just said that obviously parents like me make sure their kids do well no matter what? Is it the school systems fault that some students don't do well because their parents don't encourage and support learning?

I'm against leaning on AND blaming the government (or anyone else) for my problems. It's just plain stupid, and will get a person no where.

I'm not suggesting that anyone complain about the government rather than focus on their education. I'm saying that educational quality in the U.S. is poor in large part because of government schools. It doesn't matter if you'd consider it the government's "fault" that parents aren't involved in their kids' education.

That doesn't change the fact that if government wasn't involved, parents would be more involved.

I don't see how. Parents like me will do everything in our power to ensure a good education for our children, regardless. Parents that don't won't, regardless. Period. Unless you can tell me otherwise of course.

Giving parents control over which school their kid goes to through voucher or tax credit programs has been shown to get parents more involved in their kids education. That's when the parents don't even have to pay for the schools, just choose them. And you're saying that having parents pay for it if their kid fails classes won't encourage them to try to prevent their kid from failing classes? That part seems self-evident.

Do you support the government fining parents for failing grades? Do you also support parents doing jail time/fines for child attendance?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 12:24:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 12:17:19 PM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 12:14:29 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 12:10:55 PM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 12:01:31 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:55:43 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:50:33 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:48:28 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:43:37 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:38:06 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:35:41 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:33:27 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:30:57 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:27:39 AM, innomen wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:23:26 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Government is the problem. All of the evidence shows that parental control over their kid's schooling is the best way to improve academic achievement. As control is taken away from the parents and given to bureaucrats, the quality of education decreases. The best way to fix this would be for parents to have to choose which school their child goes to, rather than just sending kids to whichever school is closest. Some parents, of course, still wouldn't care about their child's education, but even those kids would benefit. As long as a lot of parents did try to find the best school for their child, the competition would force improvement in all schools, so even someone picking a school at random would likely pick a better school than the schools in the current system.

I think that this, albeit obvious, is huge. I think that the lower the income scale the more apt you are to relinquish control to others who are happy to take it, namely the government.

I think this is a gigantic part of it, but also, why would Cody give a sh!t and a kid in DC not? I remember that it was important for me to do well and it wasn't because of my parents, but because i had smart friends and i wanted to be as good as they.

Peer pressure is important, but parental involvement is a huge factor as well. If parents had to actively choose their child's school, they might be more involved in their education. And if parents had to actually pay for some or all of their kid's education, they would almost certainly get more involved.

Wouldn't strong parent involvement in the studies/homework of their child help that child to excel in any school?

I wouldn't say any school. And my point was that not only would freedom improve the quality of the schools themselves, but it would also cause parents to become more involved.

Why would "freedom" cause parents to become more involved? My wife and I are highly involved in the studies of our children.

It isn't necessary, of course. It would merely encourage that sort of behavior. Don't you think that parents that had to pick out and pay for their child's school would be more involved in the child's education? Many parents would be a lot more upset at failing classes and grades if they had to pay for those failures, than if the taxpayer pays for it either way.

I do pay. Taxes. If my child was trying and the school system failed then yes I would be upset. This school system has an excellent collage rate. Many students go on to college, and not on athlete scholarships (our football team is less then excellent). The taxes are higher here, but you get a better school system.

But you pay those taxes no matter how well or poorly your child does in school. If parents had to pay more for their kids to make up failing classes, most would be more likely to make sure their kids passed. Obviously, parents like you will make sure that their kids do well no matter who's paying for the school, but a lot of parents aren't like you.

And who's fault is it then? The governments? You just said that obviously parents like me make sure their kids do well no matter what? Is it the school systems fault that some students don't do well because their parents don't encourage and support learning?

I'm against leaning on AND blaming the government (or anyone else) for my problems. It's just plain stupid, and will get a person no where.

I'm not suggesting that anyone complain about the government rather than focus on their education. I'm saying that educational quality in the U.S. is poor in large part because of government schools. It doesn't matter if you'd consider it the government's "fault" that parents aren't involved in their kids' education.

That doesn't change the fact that if government wasn't involved, parents would be more involved.

I don't see how. Parents like me will do everything in our power to ensure a good education for our children, regardless. Parents that don't won't, regardless. Period. Unless you can tell me otherwise of course.

Giving parents control over which school their kid goes to through voucher or tax credit programs has been shown to get parents more involved in their kids education. That's when the parents don't even have to pay for the schools, just choose them. And you're saying that having parents pay for it if their kid fails classes won't encourage them to try to prevent their kid from failing classes? That part seems self-evident.

Do you support the government fining parents for failing grades? Do you also support parents doing jail time/fines for child attendance?

No, of course not. The idea is that if schools were private, and a student failed a grade, their parents would pay extra for them to make up the work.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 12:28:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 12:24:56 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 12:17:19 PM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 12:14:29 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 12:10:55 PM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 12:01:31 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:55:43 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:50:33 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:48:28 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:43:37 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:38:06 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:35:41 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:33:27 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:30:57 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:27:39 AM, innomen wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:23:26 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Government is the problem. All of the evidence shows that parental control over their kid's schooling is the best way to improve academic achievement. As control is taken away from the parents and given to bureaucrats, the quality of education decreases. The best way to fix this would be for parents to have to choose which school their child goes to, rather than just sending kids to whichever school is closest. Some parents, of course, still wouldn't care about their child's education, but even those kids would benefit. As long as a lot of parents did try to find the best school for their child, the competition would force improvement in all schools, so even someone picking a school at random would likely pick a better school than the schools in the current system.

I think that this, albeit obvious, is huge. I think that the lower the income scale the more apt you are to relinquish control to others who are happy to take it, namely the government.

I think this is a gigantic part of it, but also, why would Cody give a sh!t and a kid in DC not? I remember that it was important for me to do well and it wasn't because of my parents, but because i had smart friends and i wanted to be as good as they.

Peer pressure is important, but parental involvement is a huge factor as well. If parents had to actively choose their child's school, they might be more involved in their education. And if parents had to actually pay for some or all of their kid's education, they would almost certainly get more involved.

Wouldn't strong parent involvement in the studies/homework of their child help that child to excel in any school?

I wouldn't say any school. And my point was that not only would freedom improve the quality of the schools themselves, but it would also cause parents to become more involved.

Why would "freedom" cause parents to become more involved? My wife and I are highly involved in the studies of our children.

It isn't necessary, of course. It would merely encourage that sort of behavior. Don't you think that parents that had to pick out and pay for their child's school would be more involved in the child's education? Many parents would be a lot more upset at failing classes and grades if they had to pay for those failures, than if the taxpayer pays for it either way.

I do pay. Taxes. If my child was trying and the school system failed then yes I would be upset. This school system has an excellent collage rate. Many students go on to college, and not on athlete scholarships (our football team is less then excellent). The taxes are higher here, but you get a better school system.

But you pay those taxes no matter how well or poorly your child does in school. If parents had to pay more for their kids to make up failing classes, most would be more likely to make sure their kids passed. Obviously, parents like you will make sure that their kids do well no matter who's paying for the school, but a lot of parents aren't like you.

And who's fault is it then? The governments? You just said that obviously parents like me make sure their kids do well no matter what? Is it the school systems fault that some students don't do well because their parents don't encourage and support learning?

I'm against leaning on AND blaming the government (or anyone else) for my problems. It's just plain stupid, and will get a person no where.

I'm not suggesting that anyone complain about the government rather than focus on their education. I'm saying that educational quality in the U.S. is poor in large part because of government schools. It doesn't matter if you'd consider it the government's "fault" that parents aren't involved in their kids' education.

That doesn't change the fact that if government wasn't involved, parents would be more involved.

I don't see how. Parents like me will do everything in our power to ensure a good education for our children, regardless. Parents that don't won't, regardless. Period. Unless you can tell me otherwise of course.

Giving parents control over which school their kid goes to through voucher or tax credit programs has been shown to get parents more involved in their kids education. That's when the parents don't even have to pay for the schools, just choose them. And you're saying that having parents pay for it if their kid fails classes won't encourage them to try to prevent their kid from failing classes? That part seems self-evident.

Do you support the government fining parents for failing grades? Do you also support parents doing jail time/fines for child attendance?

No, of course not. The idea is that if schools were private, and a student failed a grade, their parents would pay extra for them to make up the work.

Or the parent would take that child out of school if they couldn't pay or was offended by the requirement. Now what? It seems you are forcing more on people's liberty at this point. Maybe not?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen