Dismantle Public Education

Bardan wrote:
One side of this debate has my hands full right now. But if you're short-handed maybe you can hire one of those tutors?

One side? You're arguing against the opposing side rather than presenting any evidence for your side. A tactic most often used by creationists, climate change skeptics and other people who can't present a properly constructed argument.

Isn't the student the consumer? That's how we do it at my house and I could tell you some stories...

A 5 year old student with no income or finances cannot be the consumer.

I understand why they cannot be the financier. But can you elaborate on why they cannot consume?

Maybe you've talked on msn about how my family works?

For example, my 9yo boy sent me to the Warehouse to buy him a mouthguard today for rugby. The $10 came out of his activity fund which I pay into in return for extra chores at home. It's a fund for sports and recreation and extra school activity that he decides how to spend. He keeps it in a sock which he handed to me thismorning.

He is also the consumer of his own clothing and needs to spend it wisely. I believe he will take better care of his clothing too, knowing first hand of the value. (His clothing fund is a right so we pay into it weekly without asking for extra chores.)

Seems to me there is not an age limit for being a consumer.

My baby is 4.5 months old and even he has clearly defined preferences that microeconomics identifies as primary to the economic agent!

Bardan wrote:Isn't the student the consumer? That's how we do it at my house and I could tell you some stories...

A 5 year old student with no income or finances cannot be the consumer.

I understand why they cannot be the financier. But can you elaborate on why they cannot consume?

Maybe you've talked on msn about how my family works?

For example, my 9yo boy sent me to the Warehouse to buy him a mouthguard today for rugby. The $10 came out of his activity fund which I pay into in return for extra chores at home. It's a fund for sports and recreation and extra school activity that he decides how to spend. He keeps it in a sock which he handed to me thismorning.

He is also the consumer of his own clothing and needs to spend it wisely. I believe he will take better care of his clothing too, knowing first hand of the value. (His clothing fund is a right so we pay into it weekly without asking for extra chores.)

Seems to me there is not an age limit for being a consumer.

My baby is 4.5 months old and even he has clearly defined preferences that microeconomics identifies as primary to the economic agent!

Being a good parent, in the situation you've suggested I would imagine you'd have an 'education fund' into which you placed money for your son to spend on his education.

Not all parents are good.

Not all parents value education.

Not all parents have their childs education fund at the top of their priorities.

Just because it would work for your children, doesn't mean it would work for the general populace.

Waireka wrote:

Bardan wrote:Isn't the student the consumer? That's how we do it at my house and I could tell you some stories...

A 5 year old student with no income or finances cannot be the consumer.

I understand why they cannot be the financier. But can you elaborate on why they cannot consume?

Maybe you've talked on msn about how my family works?

For example, my 9yo boy sent me to the Warehouse to buy him a mouthguard today for rugby. The $10 came out of his activity fund which I pay into in return for extra chores at home. It's a fund for sports and recreation and extra school activity that he decides how to spend. He keeps it in a sock which he handed to me thismorning.

He is also the consumer of his own clothing and needs to spend it wisely. I believe he will take better care of his clothing too, knowing first hand of the value. (His clothing fund is a right so we pay into it weekly without asking for extra chores.)

Seems to me there is not an age limit for being a consumer.

My baby is 4.5 months old and even he has clearly defined preferences that microeconomics identifies as primary to the economic agent!

Being a good parent, in the situation you've suggested I would imagine you'd have an 'education fund' into which you placed money for your son to spend on his education.

Not all parents are good.

Not all parents value education.

Not all parents have their childs education fund at the top of their priorities.

Just because it would work for your children, doesn't mean it would work for the general populace.

But education apparently isn't a right, it's a privilege. If those kids don't have the wherewithal to be born into good families, they don't deserve a good education.

Right barden?

Who chose the school/schooling system?

Can you back up your allegations of indecent education?
...is education, but in terms of political and mercantile application, it was not "decent".
So I guess what you meant to argue from the start is that the vaue of education is that it makes one politically and entreprenerially efficacious?
You deliberately misunderstand me. I speak in terms of upward mobility

Sorry, doing my best. May we say then that decent/quality education enables upward mobility? Agreed?

I feel like I'm missunderstanding you here. But if we establish that people were able to raise above their station previous to 1876 will that refute your point?
Not at all... because I said "little" not "no". Not that hard to understand.

Sure thing. So if we establish that peole were able to raise above their station en mass previous to the nationalisation of education then this would do?

I have an essay on almost exactly the topic, if it's on this computer still, I will post it tomorrow.

I'd much prefer to deal directly with the points we already have in play than to go read papers- even if they are your own.

when it is backed by research (read evidence)... it means a lot. Heard of the peer review process?

Tell you what, lay your arguments on the table using whatever superior background knowledge you have and I'll use the Rick-review process.

Sorry, doing my best. May we say then that decent/quality education enables upward mobility? Agreed?

As long as we are dealing with society as a whole, yes.

Sure thing. So if we establish that peole were able to raise above their station en mass previous to the nationalisation of education then this would do?

Unless you ignore societal shifts akin to revolutions and wars, why not?

I'd much prefer to deal directly with the points we already have in play than to go read papers- even if they are your own.

It's an essay on social reproduction, privatisation of education, decile funding, and knowledge as a commodity. All points raised here. I may have lost the soft copy in my formatting anyway.

Tell you what, lay your arguments on the table using whatever superior background knowledge you have and I'll use the Rick-review process.

I have made my arguments, I have supplied ample references to start with. I will think you will find you have done neither.

I think the closes you came was when you were asked for a National system and you provided a list of tutors... by no means national.

Just because it would work for your children, doesn't mean it would work for the general populace.

No comment. I between you and I we are discussing the possibility of an educatablly aged child being a consumer. I'd like to press you to address the effort I've gone into explaining my understanding, please.

But education apparently isn't a right, it's a privilege. If those kids don't have the wherewithal to be born into good families, they don't deserve a good education.

Right barden?

Honestly, I don't follow your reasoning there. I can't see why one misfortune in family life would necessitate a second in the life of learning. Especially not in a free market.

Who chose the school/schooling system?

Our children picked their own schools. Things are not going well for our 12yo girl and we are letting her try her brother's school this Thursday. She will then be in a position to change class, stay put, or shift schools. Her brother went through this and did the latter last year. Home schooling is also always on offer.

My partner likes to say that we are not raising children. We are raising adults. And I'd really better go get into bed with her now!

Bardan wrote:Just because it would work for your children, doesn't mean it would work for the general populace.

No comment. I between you and I we are discussing the possibility of an educatablly aged child being a consumer. I'd like to press you to address the effort I've gone into explaining my understanding, please.

But education apparently isn't a right, it's a privilege. If those kids don't have the wherewithal to be born into good families, they don't deserve a good education.

Right barden?

Honestly, I don't follow your reasoning there. I can't see why one misfortune in family life would necessitate a second in the life of learning. Especially not in a free market.

Who chose the school/schooling system?

Our children picked their own schools. Things are not going well for our 12yo girl and we are letting her try her brother's school this Thursday. She will then be in a position to change class, stay put, or shift schools. Her brother went through this and did the latter last year. Home schooling is also always on offer.

My partner likes to say that we are not raising children. We are raising adults. And I'd really better go get into bed with her now!

The way you make your children 'consumers' is much like my parents did. You've given them the power to be consumers, it's not something they've achieved for themselves.

Raising children to be adults is all well and good but as far as I am concerned the greatest path to adulthood is the one where you were a child first!
We dont own our children we are the guardians of their souls for a certain amount of time, I would rather my child believe in the tooth faere (omg easy money) than save up in a sock for a mouthguard....providing sporting equipment for my child is MY responsibility , him doing chores to earn money for gifts for friends /family and himself? to be sure to sure.

As for this debate, then I believe every child has a right to be educated and I am more than happy for my taxes to go toward all children having the same quality ,We did it hard when I was growing up and I thank the govt for allowing me the chance to change my circumstances< I would not have had this chance if my education was left up to my parents ability to buy it.

I have a sense of an almost" born again christian" quality in regards to your economic studies Barden.

woody67 wrote:Raising children to be adults is all well and good but as far as I am concerned the greatest path to adulthood is the one where you were a child first!
We dont own our children we are the guardians of their souls for a certain amount of time, I would rather my child believe in the tooth faere (omg easy money) than save up in a sock for a mouthguard....providing sporting equipment for my child is MY responsibility , him doing chores to earn money for gifts for friends /family and himself? to be sure to sure.

As for this debate, then I believe every child has a right to be educated and I am more than happy for my taxes to go toward all children having the same quality ,We did it hard when I was growing up and I thank the govt for allowing me the chance to change my circumstances< I would not have had this chance if my education was left up to my parents ability to buy it.

I have a sense of an almost" born again christian" quality in regards to your economic studies Barden.

Children in NZ don't get the same quality of education, but the public system is the minimum standard, we have alternative options if we are willing to pay for it or qualify for provided scholarships.

The minimum standard is a necessity.

Blank

Diaz wrote:

Wanker.

And I mean that as a personal insult. Don't insult my intelligence any more by trying to claim you're the better man or that anything you say deserves my respect and I'm just being nasty because you proved my point right there and then with your lie. You are just trolling, never takes long before they show their true colours and flinging a bit of mud in the hope it will stick is a classic tactic.

OK I can be banned now. Nothing like being the first.

Nah, not by me anyhow. Sorry to disappoint.

As you were.

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.
As if I'd bother, it's extremely arrogant to say the least to assume that I'd even care enough to do such a thing.

Apart from hijacking my threads you are the chief poster in an entire topic explicitly dedicated to putting me down. It is one of the top threads, traffic-wise, on Tartarus. Arrogant assumption? Who do you think you're fooling?

Wanker.
And I mean that as a personal insult.
OK I can be banned now. Nothing like being the first.

We're not going to kick you out. I want you to feel welcome here but for the merit of your mind rather than your capacity for fighting.

Bardan wrote:

Honestly, I don't follow your reasoning there.

You don't need to tell me that, it's quite clear.

My baby is 4.5 months old and even he has clearly defined preferences that microeconomics identifies as primary to the economic agent!

wow. that's fucken crazy.

My baby is 4.5 months old and even he has clearly defined preferences that microeconomics identifies as primary to the economic agent!
wow. that's fucken crazy.

I know! Blows me away too. When it comes to being hot, cold, hungry, dirty, uncomfortable, insecure, lonely, bored, etc he knows his business better than anybody else in the world. And, he was communicating it from the moment he was born.


Honestly, I don't follow your reasoning there.
You don't need to tell me that, it's quite clear.

Can you give a brother a hand?

You've given them the power to be consumers, it's not something they've achieved for themselves.

I prefer to think that what we have done is not give them that power, rather we have simply not taken it away. Many parents do, I suppose, take away consumer soverignty from children even though they are hungry for learning and to help out and are born curious. In the end a student is the consumer anyway, they are the recipient of the goods and services even if they are alienated from this process.

I would rather my child believe in the tooth faere (omg easy money) than save up in a sock for a mouthguard.

Don't you think you're helping set your child up for welfare dependency rather than self-initiated action? Or, at least delaying a lesson they must learn?

I have a sense of an almost" born again christian" quality in regards to your economic studies Barden

Well, I am quite high up in the "church" of New Zealand libertarianism. The people I usually debate with don't experience the same contrast of conviction you are.

Children in NZ don't get the same quality of education, but the public system is the minimum standard

I agree. If Woody wants sameness then she should be as opposed to the status quo as I am!

you ensure that we stratify future generations according to the wealth of the current.
Because there was no such thing as upward mobility and nouveau riche before state schools came along? News to me.But if we establish that people were able to raise above their station previous to 1876 will that refute your point?
Not at all... because I said "little" not "no".
Sure thing. So if we establish that peole were able to raise above their station en mass previous to the nationalisation of education then this would do?
Unless you ignore societal shifts akin to revolutions and wars, why not?

Sure thing. So if we establish that upward mobility was more than a little bit possible for our ancestors prior to the state take-over of schools then you will conceed?

It's an essay on social reproduction, privatisation of education, decile funding, and knowledge as a commodity. All points raised here. I may have lost the soft copy in my formatting anyway.

You and I already have worked hard on a template for agreement. I'm just wary that you don't like the corner you're talking yourself into and want to pull a new debate out of the woodwork. That's all.

I have made my arguments, I have supplied ample references to start with. I will think you will find you have done neither.

Your arguments have been countered and your offer to 'go read a book' turned down.

The one idea you seem to be pushing concerns 'social reproduction' and some frozen hell of class entrenchment which you shy away from questions about. Bring it on.

I think the closes you came was when you were asked for a National system and you provided a list of tutors... by no means national.

Actually you asked for an "education system" and the answer I happened to give was a series of national educational systems.

And, as I said right before you fell silent on this issue: If that was satisfactory to you, yes it was easy.

You haven't countered any arguments and you're completely unwilling to look at the evidence that shows exactly why you're wrong. What is it you're aiming to accomplish?

By the way, not everything in life can be looked at in terms of economics. You remind me of a med school student who has just started studying and develops hypochondria as a result.

You haven't countered any arguments

Does anybody still believe that students do not consume education?

That there are no private national quality education systems?

Raise your hands, I'll counter you some more.

and you're completely unwilling to look at the evidence that shows exactly why you're wrong. What is it you're aiming to accomplish?

Evidence rules my life, post it. Don't ask me to go read a book though because that's unfair. I've got shelves full of books too but I don't do it to you lot. I want a one-to-one mind-to-mind debate not a contest of citation.

By the way, not everything in life can be looked at in terms of economics. You remind me of a med school student who has just started studying and develops hypochondria as a result.

Maybe you're right but I don't think education is one of those things. I invite contradiction. Get your dancing shoes on and tell me why Liberty isn't the measure of all things.

Bardan wrote:You haven't countered any arguments

Does anybody still believe that students do not consume education?

That there are no private national quality education systems?

Raise your hands, I'll counter you some more.

BWS.

Explain what you mean by 'private national quality education systemm' please.

Bardan wrote:
Evidence rules my life, post it. Don't ask me to go read a book though because that's unfair. I've got shelves full of books too but I don't do it to you lot. I want a one-to-one mind-to-mind debate not a contest of citation.

So you want evidence, but we're not allowed to provide evidence that you're going to have to read. OK, that makes sense, good luck with that, sunshine

I'm not "setting" my child up for welfarism by taking responsibility for his sports activities and allowing him for a tiny part of his young life to believe in wee myths IMO.....

(he is nine now and knows about santa etc)

Your post re your son having so much fiscal responsibility at nine? seems a tad harsh.

Of course there are opportunities for better education for those with money and also opportunities for those with less to gain scholarships etc,
Maybe I am looking at this through the eyes of a parent of a nine year old...if we are talking privatisation of say the tertiary system then I could perhaps see some merits in your debate,from the age of five to 14 years I believe every child has the right to the minimum standards our govt has set , and whilst some may feel these standards are low I personally think our education system is doing good, there will always be those that could do with more challenges re education and as far as I'm concerned the parents have the ability to ensure out of school hours that they do, and not forgetting that within the public school system they are also given more challenging tasks.

I am a bit annoyed at how you took one sentence of my post regarding how I teach my son money sense,in replying I think you should have responded to the fact that yes he does have to save for gifts and (some) of his own toys.
Just as when he is older I will buy him his first car , however he will have to take responsibility for its upkeep.
I am happy if he chooses to go to uni to pay his start up costs but not for his living/entertainment.

Explain what you mean by 'private national quality education systemm' please.

A good non-governmental nation-wide teaching infrastructure. For example, piano teachers or driving instructors.

So you want evidence, but we're not allowed to provide evidence that you're going to have to read

Reading is fine. Researching I leave to you. Put your ideas on the this table! I can't imagine you'd reciprocate if I sent you away to read John Taylor Gatto or Maria Montessori or ACT's latest book Free To Learn. That would be a cop out for me making my own case.

Maybe I am looking at this through the eyes of a parent of a nine year old...

I know I am!

I'm not "setting" my child up for welfarism

Well, not you. But you can see how people who plan their lives anticipating state welfare handouts and lottery windfalls probably didn't have Dads like me. And isn't Winz and Keno a little bit like a grown up tooth fairy??

in replying I think you should have responded to the fact that yes he does have to save for gifts and (some) of his own toys.

You're right, I'm sorry. That part is my idea of good parenting too.

Just as when he is older I will buy him his first car , however he will have to take responsibility for its upkeep.

I believe Sam, my boy, will value is car more because he will have earned it. You realise of course that by finding ways to help him earn his way it means more work for me as a parent than if I just gave him a cash hand-out? I'm not taking an easy road here.

I am happy if he chooses to go to uni to pay his start up costs but not for his living/entertainment.

Once again, I think that the kids will care more about every dollar spent if it is their own.

I think life is like this when you grow up and teaching children the opposite of how to value and aquire (Easter, Christmas, Birthdays, Fairies,..) delays their development if not retarding them beyond repair.