I'm always amazed how people, when I engage them in a political discussion, defend the government. This defense in spite of the fact that the government fails at everything they do. As you can read in this article, the government can't even provide safe drinking water to our nation's kids while they're at school.
Can you imagine the outcry in the Congress if this water was provided by a private company?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
The article looks like it's less about the water supply and more about aging pipes in the schools.
People would have more of a problem if the federal government actually stepped in and fixed the pipes in these schools. They'd complain about more of their taxes going to education. No, this is tied to a larger problem of schools being funded by the property taxes of the communities that they reside in. How much would you like to wager that the schools profiled in this article serve lower-income districts? If we really want to complain about "the government" not doing something right, let's complain about that.
The ROOT cause of the problem is that the gunvamint is in the education business. Get them out, and we'll see better schools and less taxes.
No, the root cause of this is that these schools are old enough to even have lead pipes or solder. Why is that? It's obviously not because the gunvamint is giving them too much money, so how much less do you want them in education? Honestly, how do you see this panacea of yours working in the real world? Corporate sponsorship of the 100,000 public schools in this country? Biology sponsored by Philip Morris? Nutritional classes sponsored by Pepsi? Do you really see this as a valid, better solution than government financed education?
Right now, there's no competition between schools, so there's no incentive. Since bureaucrats run the show, and they have no money at risk, they do a crappy job. Privatize the schools and let them compete. Some schools will compete on price. Others on having the best teachers, or the best football team, or the best computer labs, or the best after school programs. The list is endless. Right now, they compete on nothing and the schools are terrible, particularly the high schools. I teach the product of public schools. These poor kids have no vocabulary, write fragmented sentences, and know virtually nothing of history. The proof's in the pudding. Have the entrepreneurs, with their own money at stake, and they will do a much, much better job. Markets work, central planning doesn't. If central planning was so good, why isn't the Soviet Union still around?
You're wrong. There's too much competition now. There's competition between different districts for teachers and for funding (students). Our current public school system is more like a free market than you realize. You have communities building their own (public) schools and competing against other communities. Which community loses? The one with the least amount of money, usually inner city minorities. The districts with the higher income population have higher property taxes and therefore more funding, which translates into better schools in a perpetuating cycle. The poorer districts have lower property taxes, more renters, less funding for good teachers, good facilities, and good educational tools. You wonder why our public schools are bad?
Privatizing schools brings with it a whole different set of issues such as the disenfranchisement of the poor who can't afford them, teachers not being accredited or even having college degrees, the potential of coercive religious teaching, no standardization, and the list goes on. Reforming education into a national standard with uniform funding requirements prevents problems like this where buildings are so old they're leaking lead.
I see your red herring and raise you one: If socialism is so bad, then why is the United States still around?
Let me address the first of your errors Will: standardization. Who needs it? It's something that's touted by the entrenched bureaucrats, but it's nonsense. Who cares if a student in H.S."A" doesn't read A Tale of Two Cities and instead reads The Pearl. The opposite happens in H.S. "B." So what? The employer doesn't care, as long as the student can read. It's just a buzzword that the NEA and the petty bureaucrats push out there, and the non-thinkers buy it. In a free market, those schools that did not teach students how to read well would not get as many customers (students) because their reputation would suffer.
Second of Will's wrongs: religious teaching. In a complete free market, parents would select religious schools, schools with zero religious ties, schools with some religion, etc etc. It's up to the parent.
Third of Will's shortsightedness: Accreditation. This would also be handled in the free market by private firms. And how many crappy schools are accredited now under the public school system? It's a joke. Last of Will's wrongs for now: teachers not having degrees. So what? There are people in this world who have the ability to teach and they have no degree. Even if it was a big deal, once again those schools would be punished in the marketplace with a loss of credibility, reputation, and ultimately, customers (students). Will, start with Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. It will go a long way toward clearing up your confusion and you'll begin healing. Your sad devotion to big government is quite unappealing.
First, it sounds like you're misunderstanding what standardization is. Standardization isn't reading the same books or forcing teachers to adopt the same curriculum, it's making sure that everyone is actually taught to read, or more specifically, actually taught the levels of math, science, history, language, etc. that constitute a good education. Standardization means that every school has the teachers, supplies, and facilities to teach all children the same subjects. That isn't happening now, and you're seeing the result of that in your classes.
Secondly, the overwhelming majority of people in this country are religious. Privatization of all schools in the manner that you're advocating would limit educational options for those who are not religious or follow a religion that isn't widely adopted. Just because there's a "free market" doesn't mean that those needs will be filled due to the dispersed population of people in those groups (e.g. if I'm the only atheist in a small town, my tuition moneys aren't going to be able to support a secular school). So unless they live in an area with a concentrated area with people of the same persuasion, they would likely be forced to attend religious schools that they may not necessarily believe in. Religious coercion by majority tyranny.
Your arguments against accreditation and higher education seem conflicted. On one hand you're saying they're unneeded, and on the other, saying that the private sector will do it better or they'll be punished. So which is it?
I'll read Economics in One Lesson if you'll read Krugman's Peddling Prosperity: Economic Sense in a Nonsense Age of Diminished Expectations. Deal?
Sorry pal, have read enough of Krugman already. I can't stand reading nonsense, and I can't stand reading crap from a guy who's wrong 100 percent of the time. And you're wrong about standardization. Of course any school is going to have teachers and supplies - what a croc. Go on the New York Daily News blogs with the rest of statists and big government lovers. They love Krugman there too.
Post a Comment