Dismantle Public Education

I enjoyed and appreciated this youtube essay and couldn't put it better myself. If you've never heard libertarian ideas before this is going to knock your socks off.

I have heard many libertarian ideals. A lot of them sound like shit. About three of them I can agree with, but never remember them

I think you're gonna have a rough job getting anyone to watch/listen to a 10 minute essay, to be honest.

>public school system is a monopoly

Well duh, I guess I'll keep watching, not like my DS has any battery left anyway...

Okay, I guess I've seen enough Libertarian ideas and propaganda to get how they run their message, this video was really no exception, it ran of a greatly exagerated idea of the current school system, concluding that just because the government can indoctrinate that it would. I do agree about Teachers Unions though, my dad is a school principal and even he doesn't like the union. However the idea of a free market school system doesn't work in small countries like New Zealand, furthermore it assumes that a lower cost school system funded by a large multinational couldn't undercut the other schools and promote its own radical agenda instead. The free market is a beautiful thing, the school system however is something that it doesn't jell with...

However the idea of a free market school system doesn't work in small countries like New Zealand

I can't think why not. Can you explain to me?

I ration that the money for it does simply not exist, maybe I should expand on that I'm referring to New Zealand owned and operated, I mean christ it takes the government to run our "NZ" owned bank. Trans-tasman, maybe, furthermore as per a free-market based approach, New Zealands population is extremely splintered, think of how many man tiny 17-50 student schools there are in the country side, who would want to run a school out there, it would generate little profit and be enormously costly to maintain staff and supplies in an isolated community.

superarmy wrote:I ration that the money for it does simply not exist, maybe I should expand on that I'm referring to New Zealand owned and operated, I mean christ it takes the government to run our "NZ" owned bank.

Nah, I disagree. You're only thinking of a "start big" affair rather than a "work your way up from scratch" policy, the way most business start. The best ones would prosper while the crap ones would flag and go out of business. I see what you mean in that it'd be incredibly expensive to start up a school that caters for 3000 or so from the get go, but I don't think that'd happen. Not unless there were state schools one day, then out of the blue, none the next.

superarmy wrote:it would generate little profit and be enormously costly to maintain staff and supplies in an isolated community.

Make a great little home-based business for someone though, eh?

The free market is a beautiful thing, the school system however is something that it doesn't jell with...

Are you thinking of the Greeks, the Romans, the Scholastics, the early Oxford and Cambridge Universities? The freelance music teachers and after-school tutors there have always been, as now?

What failure do you perceive?

When you said the free market was a beautiful thing my heat leaped.

New Zealands population is extremely splintered, think of how many man tiny 17-50 student schools there are in the country side, who would want to run a school out there,

But that problem exists now and we see the government closing such schools as remain. The solution at present is correspondence schools. Australia has a long history of using long-range radio to educate remote students, as well as via post. With the advent of computers and the internet these difficulties diminish.

Now what say you?

Bardan wrote:Now what say you?

Trollolololol.

Pretty sure my signature was written with this guy in mind.

Apologies for a late reply, work sucks....

Nah, I disagree. You're only thinking of a "start big" affair rather than a "work your way up from scratch" policy, the way most business start. The best ones would prosper while the crap ones would flag and go out of business. I see what you mean in that it'd be incredibly expensive to start up a school that caters for 3000 or so from the get go, but I don't think that'd happen. Not unless there were state schools one day, then out of the blue, none the next.

I think that what you have to remember is that we are essentially creating an entire market of private schools. You are asking parents to begin paying for education they long took for granted, a significant proportion of the lower class would not send there children to school, unless the government mandated that all children must go to school and then from the ensuing outcry among the lower class subsidised the system, oh wait we are back where we started....


Make a great little home-based business for someone though, eh?
But what we are trying to track down are talented teachers who will simply migrate to the cities. What you would be left with woudl be the unqualified community members. Sure they can teach PE and stuff, but in areas like mathematics, english and science, it as absolutely crucial for these skills to be taught clearly and effectively.

Are you thinking of the Greeks, the Romans, the Scholastics, the early Oxford and Cambridge Universities? The freelance music teachers and after-school tutors there have always been, as now?

What failure do you perceive?

University is a little different, we are no longer teaching the vitals of human life, the maths and sciences. Tutors act perfectly as a supplement and I'm sure could work fine independently too. But we do not have sufficient manpower for 1-1 teaching. We need a simplified system to get a broad message across, sure pick out thebrightest and zip them on ahead, as per current practice. The private option is always avaliable, sure there is nothing saying that more cheaper private school can't compete with a government option, BUT THEY DO NOT, simply because people ration that if tax dollars are paying for it they should use it. Now you will say that, "then cut tax payer dollars from funding schools, with increased money in their pockets, they can pay for education", but as a pointed out above, the lower class will not be able to pay for it, the only way these are funded is by the bourgeoisie, who are in turn created from a mix of the proletariat and bourgeoisie background. Therefore, stopping tax payer dollars will create a huge class based gap between the two groups. Government subsidies would then be required.

When you said the free market was a beautiful thing my heat leaped.

Of course it is, I have sitting in front of me a small device slightly bigger than my palm. It is capable of storing the picture and favourite song of every single person I have ever met. Socialism could never come up with something so ingenious. The free-market has created innovations and revolutions that continue to shape the world we live in today.

But that problem exists now and we see the government closing such schools as remain. The solution at present is correspondence schools. Australia has a long history of using long-range radio to educate remote students, as well as via post. With the advent of computers and the internet these difficulties diminish.

Now what say you?

Who shall be the one to lay expensive fiberoptic cables all the way out to these communities? Is that old figure over the horizon *gasp* the crown?

"____
on Sat Mar 20, 2010 8:20 pm"

You desperately want a pissing contest, but can't supply the penis?

I think that what you have to remember is that we are essentially creating an entire market of private schools. You are asking parents to begin paying for education they long took for granted, a significant proportion of the lower class would not send there children to school, unless the government mandated that all children must go to school and then from the ensuing outcry among the lower class subsidised the system, oh wait we are back where we started....

I know it. If it had had to happen naturally instead of the government stepping in when it did, then we'd probably have a Telecom and a Vodafone of the schooling system by now competing to keep the prices down and a Slingshot firing off correspondence (see what I did there? I crack me up .. ahh sad)lessons to the kids who live out beyond the black stump.

But what we are trying to track down are talented teachers who will simply migrate to the cities. What you would be left with woudl be the unqualified community members. Sure they can teach PE and stuff, but in areas like mathematics, english and science, it as absolutely crucial for these skills to be taught clearly and effectively

Sure. THe talented teacher will go where the money is, and if they're that talented, they'll be headhunted. It's no problem really. Unqualified community members can teach if they desire, but it's not really going to be a lucrative proposition for them... I wouldn't be paying for it, unless it was someone I considered to be effective - quals or not.

To add a little cynical note to this: absolutely crucial for these skills to be taught clearly and effectively

Do you mean like they are now? May I point you in the direction of Smile City and ask you to note how many people don't know the difference between their/there/they're and your/you're? And how many of them, off the top of their head, know how to multiply fractions - primary school stuff?

I don't know that it would take much to get it done better tbh.

You are asking parents to begin paying for education they long took for granted
Legislatively, we're ceasing to pay them to take it for granted. I think we should also give families their money back. What's the fiscal budget for education expenditure? How many families are paying twice now by being taxed and the spending on private schools anyway?

And what might happen to this market if it were a free market? Competition tends to drive prices down, for example.

Sure they can teach PE and stuff, but in areas like mathematics, english and science, it as absolutely crucial for these skills to be taught clearly and effectively.

Effectively like the system we have is teaching them? As FT points out, you've got to hold that standard to the socialist model we have now too. How could freedom be worse?

The free market is a beautiful thing, the school system however is something that it doesn't jell with...
Are you thinking of the Greeks, the Romans, the Scholastics...We need a simplified system to get a broad message across

If students want to be low-end consumers why suppose a free market wont offer that too?
And, I don't understand why you think schools before 1870 didn't jell? The ancients were pretty smart dudes. And, lots of smart people came to us (E=Mc^2) from outside the school system of course.

compete with a government option, BUT THEY DO NOT, simply because people ration that if tax dollars are paying for it they should use it.

Are you suggesting that people are less interested in performing an economic opperation they have already paid a government agency to take over and run for them?

Now you will say that, "then cut tax payer dollars from funding schools, with increased money in their pockets, they can pay for education",

Fuckin' oath!

but as a pointed out above, the lower class will not be able to pay for it,

I think you mean that they'll be able to afford less of it, don't you? What sort of marketplace do you imagine would emerge? Something like Plato's Academy or the travelling Sophists? French Salons?

Socialism could never come up with something so ingenious. The free-market has created innovations and revolutions that continue to shape the world we live in today.

So, I'm not sure why we wouldn't return learning to the same process too- just as it used to be.

The solution at present is correspondence schools. Australia has a long history of using long-range radio toWho shall be the one to lay expensive fiberoptic cables all the way out to these communities? Is that old figure over the horizon *gasp* the crown?

But the Crown didn't invent the postal system or radio, it simply nationalised them. Did the same with telephones, I'm afraid.

Enough to say, without getting into broadband, that correspondence schools were doing quite well long before we even had access to the dial-up internet we do now. And also before we could mail CDs to remote minority communities with no cellular network coverage. Supposing no further innovations occur in educational technology once it is in the hands of the free-market, there are already far more resources than our brilliant ancestors had.

Legislatively, we're ceasing to pay them to take it for granted. I think we should also give families their money back. What's the fiscal budget for education expenditure? How many families are paying twice now by being taxed and the spending on private schools anyway?

And what might happen to this market if it were a free market? Competition tends to drive prices down, for example.

I don't believe many people truely comprehend how much money is spent putting their child through the education system. The government however can hide it. Can you provide an example of a free-markte based school system? Competition drives prices down for products, labour costs however tend to go up, services go up. School is essentially a collossal day care service.

Effectively like the system we have is teaching them? As FT points out, you've got to hold that standard to the socialist model we have now too. How could freedom be worse?

The problem is, the talented teachers who can teach this content well will largely go the high end school in this system. This creates the problem that I raised before, the class divide between the proletariat and bourgeoisie will further propogate.

Are you suggesting that people are less interested in performing an economic opperation they have already paid a government agency to take over and run for them?

Clearly I am.

I think you mean that they'll be able to afford less of it, don't you? What sort of marketplace do you imagine would emerge? Something like Plato's Academy or the travelling Sophists? French Salons?

Get back to me when I finish reading the Republic. I feel that it will create a class based system which I talked about before and fault the diversity of the bourgeoisie. This will create an nigh impossible gap for the proliteriat to overcome.


Enough to say, without getting into broadband, that correspondence schools were doing quite well long before we even had access to the dial-up internet we do now. And also before we could mail CDs to remote minority communities with no cellular network coverage. Supposing no further innovations occur in educational technology once it is in the hands of the free-market, there are already far more resources than our brilliant ancestors had.

True, this could potentially work in a few years time...


My major problem with this idea as a whole is that it fails to provide equal education to all.

I appreciate your sense of honor from the other thread. But you don't seem to be in good company with values like these.

Can you provide an example of a free-markte based school system?

Yeah, I was thinking along the lines of Ancient Rome and Greece. Travelling tutors would be highly sought after and paid.

School is essentially a collossal day care service.

Dude, tell me about it. And as a parent myself trying not to give in to easy answers for what to do with the children like dump them at school or at television sets is tempting enough as it is.

This creates the problem that I raised before, the class divide between the proletariat and bourgeoisie will further propogate.

I understand what you're describing here. But I don't appreciate why you're concerned about it. Free markets do have high-ends and low-ends in terms of price and quality, it is true. But I assume you don't want to make sure everyone has a homogenous supply of prostitutes or cars, houses, beer, films or seat-class of airplane? If you do your work will never end when it comes to closing the gaps. I just don't understand why you would even start with that agenda? Market segmentation is our enemy?

Are you suggesting that people are less interested in performing an economic opperation they have already paid a government agency to take over and run for them?

Clearly I am.

Well, 'snap,' brother.

What sort of marketplace do you imagine would emerge?Get back to me when I finish reading the Republic. I feel that it will create a class based system which I talked about before

I've got a mate who thinks that's the most evil book ever written.

If teachers and schools engaged in competition would you expect good teachers to be highly paid and respected in society? And for their ability to be more transparent? Indeed, wouldn't even the low-end educators benefit from the methods and the resources practised by their betters which they seek to emulate? The quality of the education market would improve and even the least student would benefit from that.

My major problem with this idea as a whole is that it fails to provide equal education to all.

My feeling is that grades under the system we have now are distributed evenly about an average. Kids graduate with high, low, and average marks never equally educated. After all, they put in different amounts of work to earn those results.

Do you mean that a free market for learning would fail to provide equal opportunity for education?

Bardan wrote:This creates the problem that I raised before, the class divide between the proletariat and bourgeoisie will further propogate.

I understand what you're describing here. But I don't appreciate why you're concerned about it. Free markets do have high-ends and low-ends in terms of price and quality, it is true. But I assume you don't want to make sure everyone has a homogenous supply of prostitutes or cars, houses, beer, films or seat-class of airplane? If you do your work will never end when it comes to closing the gaps. I just don't understand why you would even start with that agenda? Market segmentation is our enemy?

My major problem with this idea as a whole is that it fails to provide equal education to all.

My feeling is that grades under the system we have now are distributed evenly about an average. Kids graduate with high, low, and average marks never equally educated. After all, they put in different amounts of work to earn those results.

Do you mean that a free market for learning would fail to provide equal opportunity for education?

Education is something we get for the first 1/4 of our life in order to contribute for the next 1/2 of our life.

Between 5 & 18 we are unable to generate income or make real choices about quality of cars, houses or even education. It's in our parents hands.

Is it right to leave it up to a parent to provide the best for the child? Ideally yes, but realistically will it happen? I say no. Current social problems we have prove this.

So I do think free market for learning would fail to provide equal opportunity for education.

Is it right to leave it up to a parent to provide the best for the child? Ideally yes, but realistically will it happen? I say no. Current social problems we have prove this.

Isn't it fair to blame the current social problems we have on the current social system we have?

If we change the incentives the parent has how do you know their self-responsibility will not change too?

So I do think free market for learning would fail to provide equal opportunity for education.

You mean...because some people have more purchasing power than others? If so, that's not an inequality of educational avalability. It's still for sale. It's just that some have more money than others and who's complaining about that?

Bardan wrote:Is it right to leave it up to a parent to provide the best for the child? Ideally yes, but realistically will it happen? I say no. Current social problems we have prove this.

Isn't it fair to blame the current social problems we have on the current social system we have?

If we change the incentives the parent has how do you know their self-responsibility will not change too?

So I do think free market for learning would fail to provide equal opportunity for education.

You mean...because some people have more purchasing power than others? If so, that's not an inequality of educational avalability. It's still for sale. It's just that some have more money than others and who's complaining about that?

A child doesn't choose what it's born into (see some African countries), so why should it be at a disadvantage based on what it is born into, it's something it has no control over. I consider education one of the basic rights for children and one of the most likely to be chucked out by a parent if it's a choice between food, accomodation and education.

Your logic applies to a person with means to alter their circumstance, such as uni students, but for a child I don't see it as 'fair'.

Blank

Were the personal insults at the start intended to throw Bardan on the defensive from the get-go, Diaz? Is this your way of getting the upper hand? It's not usually what I see from you, and therefore all I can suppose is that you're feeling that your territory has been invaded adn you need to look superior by any means necessary. It reminds me of the behaviour of a ram who lived in the same paddock as a horse I trained. He used to charge and butt into the tailgate of the horse float. It never fought back, but he was still of a mind that it needed to be shown who was dominant.

How about you talk to Bardan, and ask him if you know him from SC and if he's trolling or whatever else you believe, instead of making snide comments to other people where you know he can see? That'd be the honest thing to do.

How intellectually lazy can you be.
you end up with the fictionalisation of past history
self-serving stance substitutes for knowledge and understanding.

Michelle, I came to this forum by request because it was hoped I could bring a bit of variety and stimulation. You were singled out as having the ability to process new ideas without being abusive and defensive. We hoped you would engage and were glad when you did.

Here, once again, you are resorting to dishonoring me and my views even after explicit requests to play the ball not the man. You're a smart girl. Will you please let your ideas do the talking not your expletives?

I also think it would be fine if you would confront me directly about any concerns rather than conspire to speculate with the cowardly elsewhere. I have nothing to hide.

Here is the challenge: Find me any primary and secondary education system that relies on a market model education system and has greater success for society as a whole than a public system.

I will counter with Finland, and New Zealand. Now you know my argument, you should find it very easy.

And... go!

Here is the challenge: Find me any primary and secondary education system that relies on a market model education system and has greater success for society as a whole than a public system.

Here's 30+ from http://www.tutorshome.co.nz/

Tutoring Subjects
Accounting (83)
Art (34)
Biology (167)
Chemistry (170)

Commerce (48)
Computer (136)
Design (12)
Economics (75)

Engineering (34)
English (485)
French (81)
Geography (35)

German (34)
History (64)
Italian (12)
Japanese (57)

Korean (6)
Language (47)
Law (25)
Management (35)

Mandarin (63)
Maori (6)
Marketing (18)
Maths (598)

Music (83)
Philosophy (10)
Physics (195)
Science (182)

Spanish (37)
Sport (7)
Statistics (91)
Others (199)

I will counter with Finland, and New Zealand. Now you know my argument, you should find it very easy.

If that was satisfactory to you, yes it was easy.