|
Post by n00b on Feb 15, 2021 14:22:56 GMT -5
Jesus Christ, n00b. I literally said "here's a good place to start" largely because I thought the NCEE did a good job of providing high-level overviews. You also clearly only read the "Overview" page (for one single country). It's going to be hard to engage with you on this if you aren't at least going to pretend to make a good faith effort. Back to this again. I ask a question and the response is ‘Google it’. Or read a report. Not a summary of the report, but a whole 50 page report. It’s going to be hard to engage with you on this if you aren’t at least going to pretend to make a good faith effort to answer questions on your own.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Feb 15, 2021 14:38:29 GMT -5
Jesus Christ, n00b. I literally said "here's a good place to start" largely because I thought the NCEE did a good job of providing high-level overviews. You also clearly only read the "Overview" page (for one single country). It's going to be hard to engage with you on this if you aren't at least going to pretend to make a good faith effort. Back to this again. I ask a question and the response is ‘Google it’. Or read a report. Not a summary of the report, but a whole 50 page report. It’s going to be hard to engage with you on this if you aren’t at least going to pretend to make a good faith effort to answer questions on your own. Oh f*ck off. You get caught reading like 1% of a resource I provide to you, and now you're mad because I won't type up a dissertation for you on comparative education policy. Yeah, you should Google things! I research before 50% of my posts on here -- it's called being humble and educating yourself. Do you really think that the answer to "how do we solve the United States' education problem" can be solved without reading a 50 page report? LOL. I don't really care if you look at my links or not. I wasn't honestly expecting you to, considering you time and time again resort back to relying on your unsupported conservative fantasies. The main thrust of my argument was "school choice as a positive solution is unsupported internationally." In fact, after more research (see what I did there?), it appears to cause more problems than it solves (see: Chile and Sweden). Alas, not holding my breath for you to be able to engage with this.
|
|
|
Post by HOLIDAY on Feb 15, 2021 15:36:52 GMT -5
You are an obnoxious ass.You can’t even be decent to blue noob? Two of the most respectful posters on this board. It’s time for you to grow up.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 12,938
|
Post by bluepenquin on Feb 15, 2021 15:40:41 GMT -5
BTW, the first thing we need to do - stop tying education to property taxes and where you live. Money should be tied to the kid at the state level with the kid having the opportunity to go to any of those schools. Heck, just make them all public schools as they are now - and this would be an improvement. The keys being, 1) kids/parents have a choice, and 2) schools have an incentive to be good - otherwise kids will stop going and that school will go out of business. Stop subsidizing (or trying to fix) failing schools and allow them to be replaced by better ones. Hmmm. If a local community wants to invest more into their education than a different community I think they should be allowed to do that. I’m all for doing things to make the worst public schools better. But if all funding is at the state level, I’d have to think that it would also make the best public schools worse. I don’t think that’s a good trade off and would ultimately push more families to private schools. We talk about being able to vote and participate in school boards and tax rates that lead to funding for schools, but I find this very inefficient. The choices aren't the same if the 'rich' district wants to kick in the equivalent of $15K per kid vs. another district at $10K. That is why I think it needs to be done at the state level. I don't think there is avoiding the likely outcome of 'elite' schools where parents kick in extra bucks. We see this with colleges. So I don't think it will lead to the best schools being worst. But then the key is to make sure we don't end up with something similar to now - where there are bad schools and essentially no choice (because of cost) for poor kids to get a good education.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 12,938
|
Post by bluepenquin on Feb 15, 2021 15:48:14 GMT -5
Of course the problem with assuming private enterprise will respond to stuff like this is that responding to it is unprofitable. It's like the rural mail delivery problem. The US mail delivers to rural addresses because they are required to. It's their mandate under law. But private delivery services either would have to charge much higher rates or simply not deliver there at all -- or just rely on the USPS to do it for them, which is often what they do now. That pushes their costs for handling this unprofitable business over to the USPS while they can skim off the more profitable market. Private schools often do the same. They take the most profitable students and leave the more costly ones to let the public schools deal with. You see the same issue with mandatory car insurance. States require all drivers to have car insurance, but not all drivers are profitable to the insurance companies. So states have to require companies to participate in high-risk pools, and even so those drivers must pay a lot more for less coverage. Now you could say that these people have earned it, by getting DUIs or causing too many accidents or whatever. But have disabled kids "earned" paying more for less education? How about kids with mental illness? Abused kids with emotional problems? You think private schools want to have to serve those markets? Most of them are not interested. Sure, it's a market niche, but it's not a profitable market niche unless they get a huge amount of money to serve it. There can be a solution to disabled, mental illness, etc... We really have that problem now with the current system. I don't know the 'best' practice for this - from the outside, it doesn't seem like an efficient solution. But once we agree on the right way to handle special needs - we can regulate into a choice system. This is something I don't know anything about (and a different topic) - What is the best way to handle kids with special needs? Seems like it was isolation when I was a kid and it is assimilation today? That seems like a really tough choice between improving the school for 90% or improving the life for the 10%? How does Sweden and other countries handle special need students - I am curious.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 12,938
|
Post by bluepenquin on Feb 15, 2021 15:55:39 GMT -5
While we are on school choice - and bringing in teacher unions and the Democratic Party - I find this article rather interesting. I don't know how 'progressive' this writer is - but I do believe the education of parents kids will trump politics. The way many urban and Red State's have handled public school during COVID is pushing kids with richer parents to private schools. And in my opinion - is exposing the inherent problems with not allowing school choice for poorer kids. Also some pretty big shots at the teacher unions in the article - from someone who claims to have picketed with teacher unions in the past. rmbodenheimer.medium.com/a-progressive-parents-rant-about-the-politics-surrounding-school-reopening-a816cae963fdThe article talks about blue states having a knee-jerk reaction to Trump. I think that is probably overly simplistic and a big contributor is that big cities with big, dense school districts have different concerns than much smaller and often rural school districts. That said, it's not like I trust the democrats not to over-politicize the issue. We can never know, but I wonder what would have happened if Trump had acted like a leader and gone all in on closing the borders, social distancing, no large gatherings, masking, shutting down schools, massive production of test kits and masks. All the things we know could have stopped the pandemic in its tracks. I wonder if the democrats would then have been the party pushing to open schools and get people back to work. It was more of a rant by a parent than an article - but she did seem very logical and going against her normal political instincts. She mentions Trump - but the core of her 'rant' was the teachers unions and their ties to the Democratic party. I don't think this is that much about (anti) Trump. I think it is due to the political power of teacher unions in this country - and their power is significantly more with the Democratic party. So we are seeing in person school much more likely in red states than blue states - even when accounting for urban/rural differences.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Feb 15, 2021 16:17:18 GMT -5
The article talks about blue states having a knee-jerk reaction to Trump. I think that is probably overly simplistic and a big contributor is that big cities with big, dense school districts have different concerns than much smaller and often rural school districts. That said, it's not like I trust the democrats not to over-politicize the issue. We can never know, but I wonder what would have happened if Trump had acted like a leader and gone all in on closing the borders, social distancing, no large gatherings, masking, shutting down schools, massive production of test kits and masks. All the things we know could have stopped the pandemic in its tracks. I wonder if the democrats would then have been the party pushing to open schools and get people back to work. So we are seeing in person school much more likely in red states than blue states - even when accounting for urban/rural differences. Source for this (specifically controlling for urban/rural)?
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Feb 15, 2021 16:43:44 GMT -5
Certainly not the same kind of choices for rural kids. I guess if a rural school sucks - some investor could see the opportunity to bring in a better school. Investor? Can we go back to this? Do you think for-profit private schools should be an alternative to public education? Should those schools receive public funds?
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 12,938
|
Post by bluepenquin on Feb 16, 2021 7:39:55 GMT -5
Can we go back to this? Do you think for-profit private schools should be an alternative to public education? Should those schools receive public funds? Yes - if they can provide a quality school that people want to attend. Again - we provide public funds for food stamps and welfare that can be used towards for-profit businesses. We would likely run into trouble if somehow the Government makes some of these schools a monopoly by restricting entry. They have to be allowed to fail and we cannot regulate such that a bad school (for-profit or otherwise) is able to continue because no one else is interested.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 12,938
|
Post by bluepenquin on Feb 16, 2021 7:42:13 GMT -5
So we are seeing in person school much more likely in red states than blue states - even when accounting for urban/rural differences. Source for this (specifically controlling for urban/rural)? As I understand - Florida and Texas (among other states) has had full in-person school since fall. There are plenty of urban areas in those states. Therefore it sounds like this isn't just an urban/rural thing.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Feb 16, 2021 9:52:25 GMT -5
Can we go back to this? Do you think for-profit private schools should be an alternative to public education? Should those schools receive public funds? Yes - if they can provide a quality school that people want to attend. That's some sicko sh!t right there. For-profit k-12 education? Schools- for children, mind you- that will have their first responsibility to shareholders instead of students? That's . . . not the same thing? SNAP has its flaws (not the least of which the fact it's not nearly as effective or efficient as it could be) but at least when you use food stamps, you actually can get . . . food. This doesn't address even the first issue I raised, of a rural public school failing and leaving nobody to serve that community.
|
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 30,491
|
Post by trojansc on Feb 16, 2021 10:29:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by HOLIDAY on Feb 16, 2021 11:15:53 GMT -5
Democrats new target seems to be Florida, who dared to support the former president. They must be punished. So the news I’ve noticed has picked apart the entire state of Florida. And like a good little trojan soldier you’re going along with it.
|
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 30,491
|
Post by trojansc on Feb 16, 2021 13:39:27 GMT -5
Democrats new target seems to be Florida, who dared to support the former president. They must be punished. So the news I’ve noticed has picked apart the entire state of Florida. And like a good little trojan soldier you’re going along with it. Not everything is about Donald Trump. Man, you are beyond obsessed. I've spent the majority of my life in Florida, and am very familiar with the school in question (Island Coast).
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Feb 16, 2021 14:31:50 GMT -5
That's some sicko sh!t right there. For-profit k-12 education? Schools- for children, mind you- that will have their first responsibility to shareholders instead of students? I think this is massive hyperbole. I get the concerns about a for-profit school. And it could even be right. I’m not sure if support them. But the way for a for-profit business to actually turn a profit is to have satisfied customers. So their responsibility to shareholders IS to provide a quality education and experience to their students. Just like a grocery store’s job is to provide quality food and service. If that doesn’t happen, the business fails and they’ve failed their shareholders.
|
|