| Welcome to Die Hard Baseball. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| This one gets complicated...; What should a teacher be allowed to say. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 5 2006, 01:18 PM (369 Views) | |
| eye95 | Mar 6 2006, 08:58 AM Post #21 |
![]()
Gorilla...'nuff said
![]()
|
A) No doubt, those who want to remove all vestiges of religion in America would sue. We can't let the fact that they would do so deter us. If the lawsuits prove insurmountable, I would support a constitutional amendment: "Parents have the right to spend any money that a state would spend on their children for education at any accredited school of their choice, including religious schools." B ) Schools must be accredited. There are many well-established private organizations that exist solely to evaluate schools. Also, the marketplace created by such a system would result in standardized test scores being publicly available so parents could "shop" in an informed way. C) It would save money. The private school I used to teach at spent about 70% of what the public schools did per student, and, being small, that school was grossly inefficient. However a government choose to raise funds for education in its locality would not need to change. They would just have to then cut some checks to purchase educational services from private schools and cut fewer checks to support their own operations. |
<O> Danny's take on Israel LINK-->
| |
![]() |
|
| artvark | Mar 6 2006, 10:08 AM Post #22 |
![]()
|
A) Not only those who wish to remove religion from Governmental decisions and influence. Any religious or ethnic minority feeling slighted in the process would sue as well. An amendment is the only option imo and good luck with that. B ) Standardized test results are published now and parents may want to move their children, but there's no where for them to go. The market isn't nearly large enough and won't be for years. C) It may save money, but at what cost in protections and services? Also, Perhaps a good moneysaver would be getting rid of NCLB...the most inefficient boondoggle out of DC in education in my lifetime. |
|
"Get out the tapemeasure...looooong gone." Pat Hughes is baseball radio magic. | |
![]() |
|
| eye95 | Mar 6 2006, 10:19 AM Post #23 |
![]()
Gorilla...'nuff said
![]()
|
A) Any minority religion claiming that they would be against this because they will feel slighted would be disingenuous. They would have just as much right to send their kids to a religious school as any member of a major religion. Choice increases freedom for the choosers. B ) All the more reason to get started NOW! BTW, you'd be surprised at how many private schools there already are and how quickly they can spring up once the incentives are in place. C) Free markets provide more protections and services than government does. Concerns over "protections and services" are the worst reason not to move to the private sector! |
<O> Danny's take on Israel LINK-->
| |
![]() |
|
| artvark | Mar 6 2006, 10:38 AM Post #24 |
![]()
|
A) They wouldn't be against it, they'd be suing to insure they got what they believed to be their share...for a total of about 387% of the available amount after everyone's had their lawsuit heard and settled. B) I'm not suprised as I'm fairly well aware of the education environment being a teacher and parent. There aren't enough and it would be an undertaking the size of which this nation has never seen. Again, this is my opinion, but it's somewhat informed. C) Here I definitely disagree. I do not trust the market. The market exists to make money by any means possible. Avarice and predatory practices constantly need to be brought to heel and eradicated. How is that accomplished? By governmental intervention and prosecution. All privatization would do would be to add another special interest to the beltway buffet line. Enron would become Edron and those with the most money would have their needs met. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" with the distinct possibility of it being worse. No thanks. |
|
"Get out the tapemeasure...looooong gone." Pat Hughes is baseball radio magic. | |
![]() |
|
| eye95 | Mar 6 2006, 11:38 AM Post #25 |
![]()
Gorilla...'nuff said
![]()
|
A) Why sue??? I am proposing that every child can opt out of the public school system, with the money that would have paid for their public education going to fund their private education. The only reason to sue would be to stop this. What you are proposing would happen makes no sense. B ) It is not an undertaking. It will evolve over time. The demand would outstrip supply for a while, but that would not matter. Kids would still have the public school option. I never see that going away. In Florida, when they implemented vouchers for special needs kids, the special needs private education industry sprang up overnight. I know this because the school I used to teach at is owned by the same private company that primarily IS that industry in Florida. C) Sorry, but I am a capitalist. Capitalism has proved over and over again that enlightened self-interest is a powerful force in meeting the needs of the community. Anyway, those enamoured of government's (perceived) ability to do a better job (despite having no real motivation to do a good job, not even the evil motivation of *gasp* profit), the public schools will still exist. However, those of us wise enough to realize the power of the profit motive to produce a better product would love the choice to shop elsewhere, rather than only from the government, whose primary motivation has always been to maintain its own bureaucratic self. |
<O> Danny's take on Israel LINK-->
| |
![]() |
|
| artvark | Mar 6 2006, 12:46 PM Post #26 |
![]()
|
A) Perhaps I have misunderstood what you propose, but I imagine a host of lawsuits will occur. Not only to stop it, but in the self interests of many groups to insure they receive their part of the pie. Forgive me if I don't understand exactly what you propose. It seems to give far too much credit to the litigious society as a whole. B ) Kids would still have the public school option whose funds are being siphoned off to pay for private sector education thereby lessening their efficacy. Not a good solution in my mind. C ) I am a capitalist with a deep sense of mistrust of my fellow capitalist. The government insures less fraud and abuse occurs. It cannot eliminate it as humans are fallable and prone to greed. The government can ameliorate the impact of less...honorable...capitalists. Profit is a seductive goal. How much is enough? At what price is profit unethical? Many many capitalists have answered these questions...poorly. "rather than only from the government, whose primary motivation has always been to maintain its own bureaucratic self" I wholeheartedly, profoundly and strongly disagree. |
|
"Get out the tapemeasure...looooong gone." Pat Hughes is baseball radio magic. | |
![]() |
|
| eye95 | Mar 6 2006, 07:46 PM Post #27 |
![]()
Gorilla...'nuff said
![]()
|
A) The credit belongs to the family to use at any accredited school they choose, including religious schools. B ) Funds would be siphoned off only to the extent that kids leave the public schools. If 75% of the students leave the public schools, the public schools need to teach only the remaining 25% using 25% of the resources. That is reasonable--unless they have a bloated superstructure (they do) that they are not willing to cut. C) Having worked in the government, I can assure you that fraud, waste, and abuse are more rampant in government operations than in private sector operations. In the private sector, the profit motive works to drive costs down to attract customers and increase profits. The government, having no such motivation, is more than happy to pay $200 for a hammer or a toilet seat. Again, the much smaller, private school I taught for saved about 30% per student on the cost of education compared to the local public schools. How did a small operation with less opportunity for economies of scale do that? The inherrent efficiency of the capitalist market place versus the waste and abuse of a governmental system with no motivation to be efficient. |
<O> Danny's take on Israel LINK-->
| |
![]() |
|
| artvark | Mar 7 2006, 07:18 PM Post #28 |
![]()
|
A) It will still be stymied in the courts, although not by myriad secular interests as I had originally thought. That alone should kill the proposal. B ) If by superstructure you mean administrative yahoos that piddle away time, resources and spirit, then yes. Cut the superstructure by as much as you wish. We won't miss the vast majority of them. C) I trust my government, even one led by our current President, far more than the private sector mucking about in the educational field. |
|
"Get out the tapemeasure...looooong gone." Pat Hughes is baseball radio magic. | |
![]() |
|
| eye95 | Mar 7 2006, 09:25 PM Post #29 |
![]()
Gorilla...'nuff said
![]()
|
A) Possible court challenges, even those that will likely succeed are lousy reasons not to make policy changes through legislation. The court challanges will let the legislature know exactly how to tweak the law (or how to amend the Constitution) to get the policy to pass court muster. B ) This is precisely the problem with getting government to do things instead of the private sector. Government is inherently wasteful. That superstructure isn't going anywahere. C) I trust the private sector a lot more than government, any government, not because the private sector is more honest than government (there are cheats and liars in both and good honest people in both), but because the private sector is motivated to do things efficiently and the government is not. I expect at least a 30% savings on educational spending with much greater achievement if the private sector is given the job. Coincidentally, a study was released today that demonstrated no correlation between money spent and academic achievement. But, that's what you get from the government: lotsa bucks spent, tiny bang. |
<O> Danny's take on Israel LINK-->
| |
![]() |
|
| artvark | Mar 7 2006, 10:14 PM Post #30 |
![]()
|
As long as this private sector nonsense is stymied until my children are safely through school, I'll settle for that. I happen to like where they go to school. I like it a great deal. I make considerable sacrifices to make it happen. A public school doing a bang up job of teaching children. Who'dathunk? After my children are through, I still don't want to see corporate greed and avarice take hold of a good and decent public institution. If it happens, it happens. Many things have that I disapprove of and the world somehow still manages to rotate on it's axis. On another note, "Government is inherently wasteful"? Why bother having one then if it's such a bad thing? Rhetorical question, don't worry. I'm not going to convince you governmental involvement is a good thing and you're not going to convince me that it's a bad thing. I don't trust corportations whose sole motive to exist is to seize every last penny. You see them as...I'm not sure what. A better alternative I suppose. So be it. |
|
"Get out the tapemeasure...looooong gone." Pat Hughes is baseball radio magic. | |
![]() |
|
| eye95 | Mar 7 2006, 11:08 PM Post #31 |
![]()
Gorilla...'nuff said
![]()
|
Convincing you (or anyone else I discuss with) is not a priority. Others are listening. They are who I am really hoping to sway. Anyway, I'll answer your rhetorical question anyway. If government is so wasteful, why have it do anything? Because it sometimes is the only entity that can do some tasks. Those are the only tasks I want government to perform! Only government suited to raising revenue by taxation to pay for universal education. Since not only government is suited to actually conducting education, others can conduct it much better. |
<O> Danny's take on Israel LINK-->
| |
![]() |
|
| artvark | Mar 8 2006, 10:07 PM Post #32 |
![]()
|
The reason the question was rhetorical is that I did not mean for it to be answered. Of course Government is the only entity capable of performing certain tasks. You and I disagree what those tasks are. I was trying to overstate the obvious to make a joke. It would seem to have failed rather badly. So, perhaps a more sober approach. Private industry's sole purpose is to make a profit...as large as possible. No other notion is in play. No other motive considered. Government exists to serve it's society as best as possible. Governmental service. There's not a motive for profit because it's not in place to make a profit from those it serves. After two, four or six years, if their service is seen as wanting, they are removed. Simple. I don't see the allure in opening up more and more venues to rapacious CEOs. It would be a fitting punishment on our society if we allowed this to happen, but is it worth taking a chance with children and the avarice of profit? Simple answer to me... Never. I don't trust corporations. Now, to be fair, you don't think it is taking a chance. You believe the opposite is true; that we are taking a chance with our children's futures by staying the course. I respect your well worded and thought out opinions even if I do not agree with them. Thanks for taking time to share your ideas. |
|
"Get out the tapemeasure...looooong gone." Pat Hughes is baseball radio magic. | |
![]() |
|
| eye95 | Mar 8 2006, 11:40 PM Post #33 |
![]()
Gorilla...'nuff said
![]()
|
While I disagree with you greatly, I also appreciate the intelligent, well-spoken, and civil way you present your ideas. I do want to challenge one last point you made. You say that corporate America has one motive, the largest possible profits. I agree. You say that government exists for one purpose: to serve. I agree. What I disagree with is the juxtaposition of these two ideas which results in a misimpression. Your second statement is not a statement of motivation like the first was. This is the key to understand the failings of government. No matter how noble the purpose of government, what matters is the motivation of those in government, which has little to do with the purpose of government. The profit motive of business my seem, on the surface, to be somehow worldly and selfish, but if you bear in mind that the "selfishness" (actually enlightened self-interest) that drives business to provide a product that people would want motivates quality, then is becomes apparent that business has a motive to educate well, while government has no such natural motivation. Disclaimer: the focus on business may have left the impression that that is who will conduct all education in a government-funded, but not necessarily government-run, educational system. Business won't be the prime provider. Initially, I expect government still to run most schools, dropping off over time as other sources prove more effective. I expect all sources to include (in order of numbers of students served) private foundations, religious organizations, government, for-profit corporations, home-schooling. This closely mirrors higher education, except for an increased role for religion and home schooling. It also closely mirrors the current situation, except for the prominence of government. |
<O> Danny's take on Israel LINK-->
| |
![]() |
|
| artvark | Mar 9 2006, 10:32 PM Post #34 |
![]()
|
After a very long day and one filled with goofy challenges, you're going to ask me to wade through THAT? That is worthy of a philosophy prof essay and out of my league for tonight. I'll tackle that when I have had a less taxing day. I look forward to our next debate. |
|
"Get out the tapemeasure...looooong gone." Pat Hughes is baseball radio magic. | |
![]() |
|
| steveox | Mar 10 2006, 02:18 AM Post #35 |
![]()
|
The Teacher should be fired from his job. |
![]() ![]() ![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| artvark | Mar 10 2006, 01:27 PM Post #36 |
![]()
|
The motives of those who enter Governmental service can vary widely, it's true. However, the majority enter to serve their country first the best they can. I have no empirical data to back this up, but I feel it to be true...why else would I believe government to be the answer to many societal problems? The motives of those who enter corporate life is not to make a better product for people to buy; it's to make a product better (i.e. more efficiently) in order to increase profit margin. The ultimate goal is to increase the profit margin. It's easier to cull workers and cut corners than it is to make a better product. People will spend money. The goal is to trick/cajole/convince them into spending it on your product. Two out of three of those methods are unethical. Those corporations who seek to convince you to buy their product are the ones making a better product. Those are the ones in possession of the enlightened self interest you spoke of. Those corporations are in the minority. I don't trust them. |
|
"Get out the tapemeasure...looooong gone." Pat Hughes is baseball radio magic. | |
![]() |
|
| artvark | Mar 10 2006, 01:28 PM Post #37 |
![]()
|
Any particular reason why? |
|
"Get out the tapemeasure...looooong gone." Pat Hughes is baseball radio magic. | |
![]() |
|
| eye95 | Mar 10 2006, 07:31 PM Post #38 |
![]()
Gorilla...'nuff said
![]()
|
I see no reason to believe that those who enter government service have any more altruistic reasons than those who enter private service. Having worked extensively in both sectors, I can safely say that my experience is that both take jobs for the same reasons: pay, benefits, working conditions, location... Very few government workers They stay for vastly different reasons, though. Government workers tend to stay because the workplace becomes comfortable, safe, and undemanding. Private workers tend to stay because the firm and the employee are mutually satisfied and benefitting from the relationship. The first creates a "don't rock the boat" workplace. The latter creates a dynamic and productive workplace. On the trust issue: I also see not reason to trust government workers over private workers. Corruption occurs at all levels of any power structure. However, I don't think it is a trust issue. Honesty has little to do with the quality of an educational product. Instead, it is more an issue of who will provide a better educational product. Having seen the motivation level of government and private employees for years each, I am absolutely convinced that private employees are more highly motivated to provide a good product than government workers. Government service keeps and compensates anyone who wants to stay using a seniority-laden system. The private sector keeps only employees who produce and then compensates them more according to production. I don't trust either more than the other. However, I have much more faith in the private sector to strive to excel. Government usually aims to "meet expectations"-- but often misses. |
<O> Danny's take on Israel LINK-->
| |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2












7:39 PM Jul 10