Ikonboard » Printable Version of Topic

Forum: Politics
Topic: Public Edumacation
started by: CatKnight

Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 03 2002,00:25

To those who think the republicans are trying to take away 'desperately needed funds' to public schools, who 'need every penny they can get', I ask you this. Why are the two best funded school systems in the country, Philly and DC, THE WORST public schools in the country, whos graduates don't know how to read? Students there recieve $18,000 for their education at this horribly run down schools. That's more then my tuition costs!

How did they get so bad? Because instead of punishing those who do poorly, the feel-good liberals want everyone to graduate, because 'failure leads to emotional scars' or some such nonsense. So, these kids pass no matter what they do, so there is no motivation to do better. I know, I went to one of these schools.

The teacher's union works in the same way. Does a 12th grade english teacher fail a teachers exam that is based on 12th grade material? Don't fire her, claim the test was unfair! Teachers unions and the department of education make these officials completely unaccountable to anyone, because there is no competition.

You see, it is in government program's interest to screw up. If the department of education does a piss-poor job, they claim that they need more money, and they get it. same goes for just about any government program. they get paid to screw up. furthermore, their programs will never be disbanded because that would put so many government employees out of work. So it is in their interest to always screw up, and to never 'fix' the problem. Same goes with jesse jackson. If racism went away tomorrow, he would be out of a job. He has to CREATE racism to embezel his millions.

How do we fix the problem? We can start with school vouchers, letting parents choose which school they want to send their kids to. Force public schools to compete in the free market, that way the teacher's union doesn't have the power to let incompetent teachers continue to work. Once people see that the voucher schools do much better, the public schools will be forced to either improve or shut down. Once this process begins to work, implement tax credits to those parents who send their kids to private schools. Then eventually, reform or disband the department of education (although I doubt this will ever happen).

Education has been going down the tube ever since the department of education was first created in the 70's. I think it's time to rectify their mistakes.

Posted by demonk on Jun. 03 2002,00:47

CK, your basing your opinions on just a few extreme examples. Yes, those two schools such major ass. I have a feeling that there is some coruption in the adminitration though. You can't get that much money per student with seeing something for it (better paid teachers, better school groups, something). If not, then the money must not be actually staying in the schools. Can you say embezzeling? Wouldn't be the first time I've heard of that.

In my area of the country (Northwest), this is not happening. The teachers are all smart people who care about their students. If a student is failing, the teachers do their best to help them, because after all, that's why they are there. I've known plenty of students who didn't graduate because they chose to totally fuck around.

While I don't doubt the school you went to is as bad as you decribe it, that doesn't mean that all schools everywhere are as bad. Most are full of underpaid, overworked, dedicated teachers who just want to see their students succeed and be happy.

Posted by chmod on Jun. 03 2002,01:32

I agree with CK 100 percent.... the reason that public schools suck is that politicians think that throwing money at them will improve the problem. So rather than increase competition among schools (which is what really needs to happen) and teacher accountability, the shitty schools just become shitty schools with excessive funding.

Vouchers would be the necessary incentive to get public schools to clean up their act and reach a level comparable to private schools.... I don't get why people think it's going to "trap underprivileged kids in failing schools" like Al Gore says.

Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 03 2002,02:01

You just sort of proved my point demonk. Your school, where the teachers are underpaid and overworked, are half-decent. the ones that recieve a lot of money are the ones that are corrupt and failing. so why do we need to give them even more money? the solution is to give them LESS money and force them to compete.

Posted by demonk on Jun. 03 2002,02:11

I don't know 100% how the funding works, so I'm just going to guess.

When the money is being doled out, they look at how many students you have. They look at how much you were given last year and how much you are asking for this year. They base the amount they give you apon how much you spent in particular areas (whole other rant about why you can't spend the extra money left over from buying computers on other things), and then say we will give you X amout per student. Now, when students start to leave, they start to take that X amount with them. While it does seem logical that it shouldn't really affect those students who are left, it will. The costs of running the school physically don't change linearly with the number of students present. So, as the number of students decrease, the percent of money each student gets spent on running the school increases. Instead of using (I'm just throwing numbers out here) 40% on basic building maintance when you have 4000 students, you have to spend 60% when there are 3000 students. Buildings still need to be heated, lights powered, and interenet payed for. These don't change with the number of students. That means that less is left over for the students left. Teachers will be fired inorder to make up for this, thus increasing the unemployment rate (hell, if a public school doesn't want a teacher, why would a private school?).

It's very said to say this, but this will always increase the racial gap in our country. A significant percentage of the poor are minorities. They wouldn't be able to pay for private school even with the vouchers, while the predominate white middle-class students can. So, you will have private schools made up of mostly white students and public schools made up of the minorities. This just helps to reinforce the seperatism that is a problem in our country. It sets up the idea that whites are better since they have the nicer schools and the better, easier future ahead of them, and the minorities are left with the run down, underfunded, ill-staffed schools and a future of nothing but struggle to get just a small part of what private school kids are handed.

I agree that there are problems in the education system. But jumping ship via vouchers will not fix the situation, but make the larger problems even bigger and create new ones. I have more, but I think this is enough to get CK foaming at the mouth.

Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 03 2002,03:04

voucher schools ARE public schools, and I'd MUCH rather "jump ship" then stay with a sinking one!!

Posted by demonk on Jun. 03 2002,03:59

Who told you voucher schools are public schools? They are private! They can turn away any student they want to! If the student isn't the right religion, doesn't know the right people, isn't the right nationality, they can be turned away. Hence the name PRIVATE!

Posted by Dysorderia on Jun. 03 2002,04:34

Quote (CatKnight @ 02 June 2002,19:25)

good idea CK, but such ideas aren't easy to implement.

Posted by veistran on Jun. 03 2002,20:57

There needs to be a fundamental change in how our public schools go about teaching people in general. A considerable portion of the whole "school experiance" is devoted to making you into a good factory worker.

Posted by TheTaxMan on Jun. 03 2002,21:27

Quote (CatKnight @ 02 June 2002,18:01)

Yeah, cut salary for teachers, that's the intelligent thing to do.

Instead of requiring degrees to teach, or paying them so not everyone feels the need to be a prof in college we should cut their pay? That's foolish. Every math teacher I had in HS had at least a Masters in something to do w/ math and guess what? I know math. MY teachers for english all had at least masters degrees in english and guess what? I know how to read and write! Pay teachers and require degrees. Take money out of defense, and put it into the education system. Pay teachers more. Do it! Require degrees. Do it! My sister is in the shitty Fla. HS system and she isn't learning shit. You know why? The teachers all suck horribly. I have to teach this kid math becasue they're isn't a single person in a 30 mi. radius that wants to teach at a HS. Why? They don't get paid for what they have to do. These people are responsible for everything that will eventually happens in the country and we pay them nothing. Fail the fuck ups, and pay the literate, learned teachers.

That is all.

Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 04 2002,02:01

fine by me except for "Take money out of defense, and put it into the education system."

Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Jun. 04 2002,02:18

a nation filled with well-paid, well-educated schoolteachers... now THAT would be interesting.

something tells me the "free market" isn't going to produce that, though.

Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 04 2002,03:03

why wouldn't it? you are assuming that the teachers are in a free market now, which they are by all means not. if teachers had to compete then only the best would get the jobs. schools would have an incentive to hire the best teachers, and to fire the worst, if they had to compete to stay open. because of today's teachers unions and the requirements for an education degree instead of a subject degree, teachers are getting worse and worse. because they are in a union, and because most parents don't have a choice of what school to send them to, there is no competition, therefore no free market.

Posted by demonk on Jun. 04 2002,04:16

You are forgetting someting CK. It doesn't matter the quality of the teachers that are out there, the demand is high and is rising with no signs of it leveling off. Teacher demand is the highest is has ever been, and we don't see a bunch of people studying to be teachers. So, no matter how much you like to think that the free market will create a better education environment, it will not. All that will happen is that the more well funded (there's that term you don't like) schools will be able to attract the best teachers in the nation. The worst will go to the lowest funded ones. And who will goto the best schools? The wealthy because they can afford it. Who will be at the worst schools? The poor. So, your solution will aggrivate an already bad situation. The lucky few will be able to jump ship and get a better education, while the unwashed masses will be left to fight over the garbage that gets thrown out from the wealthy schools. Free market is a good thing, but it is not THE solution to all our problems.

Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 04 2002,04:34

you are looking at this problem from a logical point of view which is good normally. however, the department of education is far from logical. there are some loopholes in your argument because of this. you claim that the schools with the highest funding will recieve the best teachers. this is obviously not the case, as pointed out before, therefore there must be something interfering with the process. most likely government or teachers unions. you also claim that the rich white kids will end up going to the best funded schools. this is also not true, the rich white kids go to private schools, which usually run at a much lower cost then public schools. again, a telling sign that the free market is not in effect here.

basically, if the demand is very high, but the supply is non existant, only government could be the cause, because people aren't that stupid.

Posted by demonk on Jun. 04 2002,04:49

Quote

basically, if the demand is very high, but the supply is non existant, only government could be the cause, because people aren't that stupid.

Or it could be that the job sucks. Being a teacher is one of the toughest, least rewarding professions out there. And since it takes a major investment in training before you can be a teacher, it's no wonder that there is such a shortage in supply. Just blaming the government doesn't take into account the complexeties of life.

Here's something you could answer for me. I don't really know how private schools operate since I didn't goto one, maybe you have more informaton about this than I. I'm thinking that since private schools are just that, private, they can do things with their money that public schools aren't allowed to, such as investing and buying stock. What if one of the reasons that the cost per student is lower for private schools is because they can suppliment their income from sources that public can't? If this is true, then here is one problem that we could address without having to scrap the entire system. Again, it is all conditional on my premis that private schools have sources of income that public schools aren't allowed to take advantage of. What do you think?

Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 04 2002,05:20

you are still missing the whole point, which is that school's don't need exorbident amounts of money to operate well, and the ones that do recieve lots of money end up being the worst schools. funding is not the problem.

as for:

Quote

Or it could be that the job sucks. Being a teacher is one of the toughest, least rewarding professions out there.

that's just bull. the best teachers are the ones who love their job and love teaching. they may not get paid a lot, but they love what they do so it is very rewarding to them. if you are a teacher, and you think your job sucks, then you shouldn't be teaching at all!!

Posted by demonk on Jun. 04 2002,06:57

Would you want to go teach CK? I doubt it. I know I don't want to teach. And it has nothing to do with the pay either. It's the same for all professions. It takes a special breed to teach. The point I was making is that there aren't enough people like that. If there were, they would already be teaching and we wouldn't have a shortage. If a person wants to teach in this country and they have the creditials, they can find a job (usually).

To address your other point about the worst schools having the most money, I still want you to show me more than just two schools. I can go right now and show you plenty of schools where they are full of good, dedicated teachers who could do a better job if they had more money to spend. But so far you have only showed me two schools where the opposite is true. I'm willing to listen to your side as I have proven so far, so please, provide more than just two examples. A sample population of just 2 is usually concidered poor data to base an entire hypothesis on, so more will really help to strength your case.

Posted by kuru on Jun. 04 2002,12:17

Teaching does suck.

Ingrateful students who hate you and think their entire mission on this planet is to make your life a living hell every single day. Complete and utter disrespect for you tied to the attitude 'I don't have to do what you say.'

Every freaking day is a constant fight with students to try to get them to even SHOW UP when they're required to. Getting them to do any kind of homework is next to impossible, as a teacher you spend about as much time at home doing work (unpaid) as you do at work because there's always some kind of planning or something that has to be done which doesn't fit into the 7.5 hours a day you're paid to be at work.

So many people start out loving it, but if you give it a couple of months, you end up

and ready to tear every single hair out of your head one at a time.

It's absolutely insane how fast burnout happens when you deal with the conditions teachers deal with. And supposedly I teach adults who aren't forced to be where they are. They're the ones who CHOSE to go on to school. I imagine it's only worse with students who wouldn't be there except for force of law.

Posted by Nikita on Jun. 04 2002,16:39

I wouldn't want to teach either. Hell no.

My mom teaches and she sometimes has to buy school supplies for the kids out of her own pocket. Knowing that she does that, I have to resist the urge to kick in the teeth of some screaming, misbehaving brat when I visit her at work.

I'm glad I have a research assistant contract instead of a teaching one. Never again do I want to deal with arrogant pre-meds who think they know everything, lesson plans, grading, proctoring exams, office hours (where nobody will show up most of the time and you get mobbed right before exams).

My roomie is a TA for German and she has total slackers who do absofuckinlutely nothing and whine "hey, I deserve better than a C!" when they really deserve an F.

To those that teach, damn you have guts, bravo, good luck, and fail those who deserve it.

Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 04 2002,20:24

There are 200 something public schools in philly, and 100 or so in DC, most of which have extremely poor standardized test rankings.

Posted by DuSTman on Jun. 04 2002,20:49

I think the way education is handled in general needs a bit of a looking at.

Exams are not an effective means of discovering what a student knows. The point of education is to commit to long term memory the concepts and facts of how things work in subjects that will be required in the workplace. Therein is the point : Long term memory. Something I learn while cramming on the morning of the exam and then forget the day after is of no interest at all to employers or other education establishments that will be evaluating the student on the grade from the exams. But sure enough, that'd get the mark.

Exams also tend to become the whole point of education. Do badly on an exam and you fail the course (never mind that you may have done badly for other reasons, like being extremely tired and stressed and distracted by having an extremely sweaty ass crack (as always happens to me in exams)). Never mind that you'll take away a lot of valuable understanding of the subject.

In my GCSE (high school) we weren't given much in the way of data in exams.A constant here, a table of hardness values comparing chalk and fingernails here, but no equations. Do I remember the equations now as a result of that? Yes.

In my A-level they gave you the equations on a data sheet in the exam.. Do I remember the equations now? Mostly no. Why? Because i didn't need to actually learn them for the exam..

Peoples minds are different. Different people learn best by different means and batching people together into classes will only result in lowered efficiency for everyone's learning. Clearly it is necessary due to staff concerns, but a sort of teach-yourself paradigm may be profitable overall.

Of course some means of assesment is necessary, but for accuracy sake, the effect of short term memory should be removed (eg by not telling students when the exam is and suprising them. The only marks they'd get on the exam would be for things they actually *knew*)

Posted by demonk on Jun. 04 2002,22:05

Quote (CatKnight @ 04 June 2002,12:24)

There are 200 something public schools in philly, and 100 or so in DC, most of which have extremely poor standardized test rankings.

I know that DC is something like 70% blacks, and while I don't know the exact number for Philly I'm pretty sure it is also high. So, the lowest grades in the country are from schools in areas that are predominatly black. Hmmm, I smell something other than just your "more money makes schools worst" hypothesis.

Posted by TheTaxMan on Jun. 04 2002,23:54

Possible Solutions:

Fund all public schools the same, and increase funding over all. All schools should be getting more money (mostly going to teacher salaries) than the richest public school now.

Do not give "bonus money" based on standardized testing.

Remove standardized testing completely. These tests serve no purpose, but the government seems to love them. I know the President filled the Texas school system w/ them, and it really was nothing more than a detriment to actual learning (I don't care about numbers of graduating seniors, they -hurt- learning).

Fail the students who deserve it. Burger Flippers will still be needed after the education system improves.

Leave private schools alone. It's mosty an elitist or religious thing now and it should probably remain such.

What I think will result (short and long term):

More teachers => Smaller Classes => Better Learning Environment => More Learning => More Learned People (pardon for not remembering symbol that refelcts direct propotionality, I'm a product of US schools).

Some schools will continue to be worse (lower percentage graduating seniors). This can then be attributed to another thing, such as environment/parenting. Only the stupid will blame it on the schools. However, I think in the extreme long term, the schools will even out, no way to actually prove it tho.

More learned people! Only good can result from this (unless you delve into conspiracy!

).

All I care to think up now, but it seems resonable from these eyes.

Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 05 2002,01:15

Taxman, you propose we cover up the problem and pretend it doesn't exist, instead of finding out exactly what the problem is and trying to fix it. You just stated exactly the actions that would plunge our public and higher education systems into chaos. Remove all incentive and accountability, and then blur the lines between the stupid and the smart. You are the grown-up kindergardener who was taught "When the system is fair, everyone wins!". This statement is complete bollox, because if the system IS fair, then everyone CAN'T win. In order for everyone to win, the system must be unfair and give advantages to those who aren't as smart. If the system was fair, then only the smartest would go to college and the rest would go to technical schools or whatever. You are one of those bleeding-heart liberals who feels sad because the stupid don't get to go to college, so you try to change the system so that everyone can get in. That is why our education is going to crap.

Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 05 2002,01:21

Quote

Hmmm, I smell something other than just your "more money makes schools worst" hypothesis.

well, you tell me. I was one of the 5% of white students at an overwhelmingly predominant black and hispanic school. I did rediculously well without even trying, while the rest of the students did very poor on extremely easy curved assessments. For a county wide algebra test, the AVERAGE score for my school was 28% (I got a perfect score, it was very easy). Most of the schools in the county got under 40%, while the honors high school for science people got 60% average (because it was half magnet and half locals). So, you tell me, what IS the problem?

(note: I know what the problem is, I want to hear what you think first, based on my previous post.)

(note2: my school was a brand brand new building (my class was the first to graduate from it), and we had rediculous amounts of money. we had 3 computer labs with 50 brand new gateways each, a T3 line, a 32" tv in ever classroom, all teachers had a computer for electronically recording attendance and grades, etc)

Posted by TheTaxMan on Jun. 05 2002,03:37

Quote (CatKnight @ 04 June 2002,17:15)

Wtf? You claim I said the opposite of what I really did.

I said fail the idiots, and don't give them benefits over everyone (which would be a very bleeding heart thing to do) else.

The incentive is that people won't be as dumb as fuck as they are now. That should be incentive enough.

Posted by TheTaxMan on Jun. 05 2002,03:41

Quote (CatKnight @ 04 June 2002,17:21)

Quote

Hmmm, I smell something other than just your "more money makes schools worst" hypothesis.

The problem is people don't teach. They babysit.

Don't give the school system money, give the teachers money.

Stop teaching the test and teach -math-. If someone doesn't want to learn, fail them until they see the reasons they have to. When they're 18, they'll leave the school system and be a burger flipper. Too fucking bad.

You gave a generic respone to my post w/o actually reading it, it seems.

Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 05 2002,04:24

It's not that I didn't read your post, it's that you don't really know what you are talking about. You contradicted yourself in terms of what action should be taken. You said schools shouldn't recieve bonuses for improving their education, and that schools should abolish standardized testing altogether, and then you said schools should fail the stupid students and teach better.

If standardized tests are banned, who is to prevent schools from making their standards so low, that no one fails (current situation in DC and philly)? Especially if there are no consequences for failing (no standardized test = no basis for comparison, no bonuses = no penalties).

Posted by TheTaxMan on Jun. 05 2002,04:37

Ok, I assume most people here have taken a good math test at some point in their life (esp. during high school). People know (esp. teachers that have degrees in said subject) what good testing is. If there is no standard, and no favoritism about testing involving funding, then there is no reason to deviate from the standard. You teach it because that is the course.

Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 05 2002,04:54

Quote

If there is no standard, ... then there is no reason to deviate from the standard.

uhh, yeah...

besides there is no such thing as a "course" without a standard.

Posted by TheTaxMan on Jun. 05 2002,05:04

I see your point.

This is modifing what I said, but it means basically the same:

We already have a standard. People who have been to college (teachers, hopefully) know what a good test is like, and should know how to write it before they begin teaching. This is all probably too much to ask from 'people' though.

Posted by Wiley on Jun. 05 2002,06:12

Good teachers are rare. I once had a philosophy teacher that was voted the worst teacher on campus every year. He was a sneaky evil minded son of a bitch but he did teach me at least one thing ...so I guess he can't be all bad.
When the class first started we went over the basic rules and what he expected out of us and such ...he even made us sign the rules stating that we read them and understood them. They were very simple and included You are not dismissed from my class until our scheduled time is up or I dismiss you, there are no exceptions and missed work cannot be made up. Yeah ...yeah ...whatever. We all signed and went on with our lives. He really wasn't that tough of a teacher, he just had a knack for calling you out when you were talking out your ass and only accepted honest answers. And then there was the midterm...
When we all took our seats he passed out testing books and wrote one short essay question on the board and said only "begin" ...then sat down and started to read. The question was very easy and everybody was finished in 20 minutes. Everybody was just kind of looking at each other and then a few people started to pack up and leave as in comon after a midterm. The teacher hardly lookup up from his book as they walked out the door and after some time a few more people turned in their papers and left. About fifteen minutes before the official end of class the teacher stood up and stretched ...then walked to the board and wrote another question. "This question" he said "is worth 70% of your midterm grade".
Yep ....I learned a lot that day. If teachers weren't afraid to fail people who don't listen then maybe our school system would be better off.

Posted by demonk on Jun. 05 2002,07:05

I want to bring up another point that has only been mentioned in passing: parents.

I don't know how many of you have had the opportunity to watch Boston Public, but I think it is a good show that really has a bit of reality to it. The teachers and faculty aren't just fighting the students, they are also fighting the parents, sometime both at once! It's hard to try to find ways to get little Johnny to do his homework while at the same time defend yourself when little Johnny's parents are blaming you and jumping down your throught for his failing grades. We could have a 'perfect' education system in our country, and it will always get screwed up by the parents who will never be able to agree with everything that a school tried to do.

Also, I wanted to address CK's comment about how much money his school had. CK, your school had a lot of computers, which you interpreted as meaning that had a lot of money. This is not the case. The way money for schools is allocated is totally fucked up. Schools are given a sum of money that can ONLY be spent on computers and the like. If they don't spend all that money, they can't spend it anywhere else without committing fraud (I know, it's completely fucked up and the fault of the bean counters). Then, come next fall when money is being handed out, they look at how much you spent the previous year. If you didn't spend all of it, they reduce the amount you get, and it is damn hard to increase the amount they give you. So, your school chose to take the money they got in that area and actually spend all of it. Computers and computer equipment is pretty cheap right now, so a new school equiping itself for the first time will be able to get a LOT of new, nice equipment. The better way to tell how much a school distric is getting is looking at the salaries of the teachers. This always seems the last thing to get increased.

(P.S., in answer to you CK, see my section about parenting above. I blame the parents and living situation of most of the students in your school for their problems.)

Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 05 2002,15:50

In inner city New York and Detroit (and probably other places in inner cities) classes are filled beyond capacity, spilling out into the hallways, janitor's closets, and bathrooms. Teachers are is short supply, and are underpaid in gereral, but SEVERELY underpaid in heavily urban districts. My mother is a teacher at Northville High School, a suburban school in a high tax bracket. She is paid (with tenure) more than twice (approximately) what a Detroit public school teacher would get with the same tenure. Meanwhile, the city teacher has to put up with substandard environment (dirty, falling apart building; lack of supplies, etc.) Suburban schools don't need help, it's usually urban schools (and some rural schools, especially in the south) that need extra cash to get by. They need expansions, new supplies, and well paid teachers to allow the students, most of which are black poor to have a better chance at a job than McDonalds or Meijer.

Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 05 2002,18:24

I'm going to have to call you on that first statement again, as someone else already has. I think that is a sensationalist lie. proove me wrong.

as for your mom making twice as much as a inner city teacher, could that be because she is more qualified then those teachers?

those poor black students wouldn't have to go to those decrepit schools if they weren't forced to by the department of education, in the name of "diversity".

Posted by demonk on Jun. 05 2002,21:23

Quote (CatKnight @ 05 June 2002,10:24)

those poor black students wouldn't have to go to those decrepit schools if they weren't forced to by the department of education, in the name of "diversity".

Ok CK, I'm going to catch you on that one. You aren't making a valid argument with that statement. Those schools they are being "forced" to goto are in their neighborhoods. Where do you think most poor blacks and other minorities live? They live in dirt cheap, falling apart apartments that can almost always be found in the ghetto parts of cities. They don't have any dirt cheap, falling apart apartments (well, not many anyway) out in the suburbs. So, these are not students being forced to go to inner city schools. They are just going to the schools they are closest to. Your statement is rendered invalid.

Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 06 2002,00:31

Check out The Awful Truth, season 2, I think it's episode 10, but I could be wrong. There's some footage during the New York rotten apple tour of children in a New York school in the hallways, and in a janitor closet. The same thing happens in Detroit. Even if they weren't, student/teacher ratios have been growing everywhere, especially here in Michigan. My HS, Northville High just built a new school to hande the students, and it's projected they'll need an expansion next year to handle the kids. Now, imagine an inner city school without Northville money, and you can see that there's no way to expand or build a new school.

The poor black kids are not the ones being "bussed." They're the ones that walk 1-2 blocks to school. I think you got confused, so I'll overlook that accusation. Let's try to be civil, CK. I don't call you a liar.

Also, as for my mom's salary, it's based on district, not talent. If pay were proportional to talent, some teachers I know would be millionaires, while some would owe the school money, due to their ineptitude.

Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 06 2002,01:43

don't you think poor families should have the choice to get their tax money back/recieve tax credits/recieve actual funds to send their kids to private schools? first let's tackle that question, then we'll move on.

Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 06 2002,05:18

When I pay taxes, I don't get to say "I don't want to pay for this government program," or "I don't want this money going to (insert country here)" If you pay taxes, you fund public schools. Some whiny people would like to not support public schools because they want private or home schooling. To that I say too bad. You pay taxes that let kids go to school. So does your neighbor. So does everyone else who pays taxes. The taxes are to make schools possible. If enough people get vouchers, schools suffer, which leads people to say "public schools don't work, I want vouchers for private schools." Vouchers can create the real possibility of a cessation to public schools. Then the poor children have it worse, no school instead of a cramped one. Public schools are (after taxes, and assuming a local school) free to every child. If the parents choose not to use them, that's fine, but they should pay for the alternatives.

Poor families don't need vouchers, they need good schools so their kids can do something other than store clerk or drug dealer for the rest of their lives.

Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 06 2002,05:36

so...your answer is, no, poor black families should not be able to choose what school to send their kids to. k just checking.

if a school is not accountable to anyone, it doesn't matter how much money they get, they will still continue to screw up, because they get paid to.

if schools only get money when they do well, they will improve. if the principle and all the teachers would be fired if all the students left because no one wanted to go to their school, then the system would work. the school would either improve or be shut down, and another school would take its place and try again.

Quote

Vouchers can create the real possibility of a cessation to public schools.

and you're afraid of that...why?

Posted by Dysorderia on Jun. 06 2002,05:45

Quote (CatKnight @ 06 June 2002,00:36)

so...your answer is, no, poor black families should not be able to choose what school to send their kids to. k just checking.

CK is twisting people's words out of proportion...

why does this not surprise me in the least?

Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 06 2002,15:18

Quote (CatKnight @ 06 June 2002,01:36)

Quote

Vouchers can create the real possibility of a cessation to public schools.

and you're afraid of that...why?

Poor families can still choose private schools, but they'd have to get the money somewhere else. It's not fair to just ask for your taxes back.

If a school is doing poorly because of lack of funds, how will they do better to get funds? They don't get paid to screw up.

If all the students in a district quit, along with all the teachers, then there's no school for a lot of kids. I doubt the private schools could handle the influx. Another school woudn't take it's place, that's not how that works. Schools aren't free markets, theyr'e SCHOOLS! Treating them like abusiness is going to screw over a generation of kids.

I'm afraid that if there are only private schools, then they'll be so flooded with kids, they'll raise prices. (supply & demand) Because prices are so high, some kids get to go to school, and some don't. THAT IS WHY PUBLIC SCHOOLS WORK! Kids get to go to school. Even learning in a janitor's closet is better than nothing.

Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 06 2002,19:12

funny that you are critsizing my speculations with more speculation.

It's not fair to just ask for your taxes back.

funny, I didn't think it was fair to take taxes to begin with...

If a school is doing poorly because of lack of funds, how will they do better to get funds?

they aren't doing poorly due to lack of funds, I have made that point with lucidity several times.

I doubt the private schools could handle the influx. Another school woudn't take it's place, that's not how that works. Schools aren't free markets, theyr'e SCHOOLS! Treating them like abusiness is going to screw over a generation of kids.

I don't care about what you doubt will happen, because you are hardly an expert. Maybe I'm not either, but atleast I do a little digging first.

And you just blurted out my point right there. You are right, schools aren't in the free market, and they should be. Name me ONE government program that has ever outperformed a private program, and I will pay pal you $5.

Oh yeah, and our generation of kids are ALREADY screwed up.

I'm afraid that if there are only private schools, then they'll be so flooded with kids, they'll raise prices. (supply & demand) Because prices are so high, some kids get to go to school, and some don't. THAT IS WHY PUBLIC SCHOOLS WORK! Kids get to go to school.

I want everyone to go to school and get an education too, it is YOU who does not, as previously stated.

Posted by incubus on Jun. 06 2002,20:11

Quote (Dysorderia @ 05 June 2002,21:45)

CK is twisting people's words out of proportion...
why does this not surprise me in the least?

shut up about catknight

cheers

Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 06 2002,22:17

Quote (CatKnight @ 06 June 2002,15:12)

funny that you are critsizing my speculations with more speculation.

It's not fair to just ask for your taxes back.

funny, I didn't think it was fair to take taxes to begin with...

If a school is doing poorly because of lack of funds, how will they do better to get funds?

they aren't doing poorly due to lack of funds, I have made that point with lucidity several times.

I doubt the private schools could handle the influx. �Another school woudn't take it's place, that's not how that works. �Schools aren't free markets, theyr'e SCHOOLS! �Treating them like �abusiness is going to screw over a generation of kids.

I don't care about what you doubt will happen, because you are hardly an expert. Maybe I'm not either, but atleast I do a little digging first.

And you just blurted out my point right there. You are right, schools aren't in the free market, and they should be. Name me ONE government program that has ever outperformed a private program, and I will pay pal you $5.

Oh yeah, and our generation of kids are ALREADY screwed up.

I'm afraid that if there are only private schools, then they'll be so flooded with kids, they'll raise prices. (supply & demand) �Because prices are so high, some kids get to go to school, and some don't. �THAT IS WHY PUBLIC SCHOOLS WORK! �Kids get to go to school.

I want everyone to go to school and get an education too, it is YOU who does not, as previously stated.

California used to have a government run power system. Then it deregulated it. Prices shot up, and there are rolling blackouts. Enron collapsed. The media was in an uproar.

This is just one case, but you only need one valid counterexample. I don't know how you will paypal me $5, but forget it. I wouldn't want to deprive you of the money you worked to earn.

Despite your claims that it is untrue, some schools are run down, and have substandard supplies. These are real problems which could be fixed by money.

You say you want every kid to go to school, but what do you tell little johnny whose parents can't afford private school after the public sector has been privatized? Sorry?

I want children to get an education, which is why I support local millages, and advocate public schools. Anyone can go to public school, but you need money to go to private school. That is the major reason public schools haven't already been privatized, it wouldn't work. You don't need to be an expert to see that if it costs money, some people might not be able to afford it.

About taxes: A long time ago there was an evil king who taxed his colonies without representation. The colonies rose up, and made their own country, without any taxes. But then the government couldn't run. So they amended their constitution, and now that country is the most powerful nation on earth. The end. Goodnight boys and girls, and don't let the bedbugs bite.

Posted by Wiley on Jun. 06 2002,23:19

Quote (CatKnight @ 06 June 2002,11:12)

Name me ONE government program that has ever outperformed a private program, and I will pay pal you $5.

NASA - I don't see private companies getting too many shuttles in orbit or selling tickets to NSYNC guys for 20 million a pop! Just for one ride ..I call that out performing.

FAA - Name a private company who can see any plane anywhere at any time.

The Post Office ...still cheaper after all these years and FedEx and UPS can't touch them in volume.

The US Federal Prison System - Don't count it out, the federal prison system keeps more inmates locked away then all the private re-habilitation centers put together.

Army - If I wanted to invade a small country, do you think a private security company could accommodate me? I think not. Our government run military program is the best in the world.

WhooHooo ....I'm gonna be rich!!!

Seriously though, the government has an advantage in that it is not accountable to shareholders and has near limitless working capital. Granted, government programs are not very efficient when it comes to using money but they can turn out some programs that work in areas that just can't be privatized. The school system must be re-worked, that we all agree on. But seeing how EVERY child needs to have access to a good education there is no way to privatize the system. As far as vouchers go, here is my view:

Vouchers won't help the poor because they won't cover the price of the private school ...not in the slightest bit. Why? Enter supply and demand. Lets say that private school costs $1000 a month and everybody now gets a $1000 school voucher every month. Well the rich still are willing to pay the same $1000 they were paying before the voucher system and so the private school just bumps up the price to $2000 a month ....with no impact on attendance. The poor are sitting twiddling their thumbs with a nice new shiny $1000 voucher that won't buy them anything. The voucher system is flawed ...it doesn't give anybody a choice that they don't have today. Simple economics. If you give everybody a 5% raise then the price of goods and services just goes up 5% to match.

Posted by Dysorderia on Jun. 07 2002,00:06

Quote (incubus @ 06 June 2002,15:11)

Quote (Dysorderia @ 05 June 2002,21:45)

CK is twisting people's words out of proportion...
why does this not surprise me in the least?

shut up about catknight

cheers

eh?
since when did you start agreeing with CK, incubus?
or am i asking a stupid question?

Posted by Darth Liberus on Jun. 07 2002,01:06

Wiley, sometimes your reasoning shocks me... but other time you hit it on the head.

the free market is not the answer to everything!

There have been scores of cases where public school districts turned over school administration to a private company... and in virtually every case, the schools went downhill faster than you can say "profiteering."

Then the districts had to spend millions of $$$ to get out of the contract, essentially buying their own district back.

That's what you get for swallowing the Big Lie of "The free market solves everything."

Government doesn't have to please the shareholders, it doesn't have to make a profit, it doesn't have to keep an eye on market share...

Having worked for the government, I can tell you that most government workers work really hard, and they are very proud of the job they do. �The biggest problem isn't the front-line workers. �It's not the lady who pulls down $80K a year to type in your info at the DMV, or the janitor who makes $30 an hour picking up the garbage. �I know from direct experience that those people know they're getting a great deal, and they work damn hard because of it.

The problem is too much management. �The micromanagement fad isn't confined to the private sector. �There's nothing like a bunch of bored, overpaid authority figures who know they're useless to ruin an otherwise good thing.

Vouchers are yet another attempt by the Religious Right to force their beliefs on the rest of us, or at the very least force the government to pay to send their kids to religious schools and degrade the quality of that darn Secular Humanist education while they're at it.

And they know it.

Remember, these are the same folks who are trying to get the schools to put disclaimers on evolution (if not eliminate it entirely) and teach Scientific Creationism to your kids.

As for standardized testing... California schools used to have an awful lot of local control. �For years, we had the #1 school system in the nation.

About thirty years ago we implemented standardized testing and a standardized curricula, and the quality of our schools immediately started to plummet. �Teachers could no longer identify the needs and values of a community and use those things to develop their courses. Instead, they had to follow a State-imposed curricula and teach to the tests.

In short, they could no longer do their jobs.

Our school system is now #48 out of 50.

That's what a blind belief in "accountability" gets you.

Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 07 2002,05:19

tons of crap:

Boze:

Quote

California used to have a government run power system. �Then it deregulated it. �Prices shot up, and there are rolling blackouts. �Enron collapsed. �The media was in an uproar.

thats because deregulation never actually happened.

Quote

You say you want every kid to go to school, but what do you tell little johnny whose parents can't afford private school after the public sector has been privatized? �Sorry?

are you not listening to me? read previous post.

Quote

. �But then the government couldn't run. �So they amended their constitution, and now that country is the most powerful nation on earth. �The end. �Goodnight boys and girls, and don't let the bedbugs bite.

that is totally fallacious! you are insinuating that because we have federal taxes, we are the most powerful world in the nation, as if the two were connected. wrong!

Wiley:

Quote

NASA - I don't see private companies getting too many shuttles in orbit or selling tickets to NSYNC guys for 20 million a pop! �Just for one ride �..I call that out performing.

where do you think nasa gets all their crap? the space shuttle was built by boeing and lockheed martin. nasa is just the bureaucracy part. they contract private companies.

Quote

FAA - Name a private company who can see any plane anywhere at any time.

the company that built their radar equipment? you are missing the point of my challenge, you are naming government programs that have no private competition, because the government won't allow competition, just like public schools.

Quote

The Post Office �...still cheaper after all these years and FedEx and UPS can't touch them in volume.

umm...the post office is crap compared to ups and fed ex for packages. and they have no competetion for regular mail, so no comparison there.

Quote

The US Federal Prison System - Don't count it out, the federal prison system keeps more inmates locked away then all the private re-habilitation centers put together.

prisons are run by private companies.

Quote

Army - If I wanted to invade a small country, do you think a private security company could accommodate me? �I think not. �Our government run military program is the best in the world.

army is the only one that is an even close to valid answer, however, that is the one program that government is supposted to run! so no credit there.

the government has an advantage in that it is not accountable to shareholders

you say that is an advantage? how so??

and has near limitless working capital

certainly, you jest. there's no such thing as a free lunch.

Simple economics.

too simple. you are wrong there.

DSL:

Quote

There have been scores of cases where public school districts turned over school administration to a private company... and in virtually every case, the schools went downhill faster than you can say "profiteering."

Then the districts had to spend millions of $$$ to get out of the contract, essentially buying their own district back.

That's what you get for swallowing the Big Lie of "The free market solves everything."

SHOW ME ONE EXAMPLE, OR STOP SPOUTING YOUR BS. I'm sick of this bullshitting with no sources.

Quote

Having worked for the government, I can tell you that most government workers work really hard, and they are very proud of the job they do.

jesus christ man! you are fucking crazy! you have NO idea what you are talking about. there is NO ONE that would agree with you on that statement, ANYWHERE.

Quote

and degrade the quality of that darn Secular Humanist education while they're at it.

degrade it down to what? I think they have hit rock bottom as it is. Besides, even if you don't agree with the religious types, that doesn't mean the secular types are any closer to the truth. They still preach global warming as truth, when it has been proven to not exist (new topic later).

Quote

As for standardized testing... California schools used to have an awful lot of local control. �For years, we had the #1 school system in the nation.

About thirty years ago we implemented standardized testing and a standardized curricula, and the quality of our schools immediately started to plummet. �Teachers could no longer identify the needs and values of a community and use those things to develop their courses. Instead, they had to follow a State-imposed curricula and teach to the tests.

if you are suggesting that having kids take standardized tests made them stupid, you are almost as bad as boze. what really happened was all of the kids were indoctrinated instead of educated, but no one knew until they took the tests. just because you don't like the results, doesn't mean you can blame the test.

Posted by demonk on Jun. 07 2002,05:55

<arguing style of CK>
Everything you just said is total crap! Man, your stupidity astounds me anew every day! Since you don't agree with me, you are completely wrong. And I don't care if you said one thing, I'm going to act like you said something different but similar that I can easily make fun of and therefore dismiss you entire post as crap. I'm right, your wrong, when will you people realize this?!?!?! Bow before me, for I am CatKnight, the all knowing, all right physics god!
</arguing style of CK>

Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 07 2002,07:18

What? You made a post? I'm going to criticize you because every little anecdote you mentioned isn't properly cited! I'm not going to cite anything! I don't have to! I'm right! Your'e refuting what I say? HAH! I'll just pretend you don't understand me, and that you're afraid to answer me!

Now that I have ranted a bit, onto the retort.

Yes, the deregulation happened. Companies in California are fully capable of producing energy, even during summer when energy consumption is highest. (Air conditioning is a bitch) There is still not enough to go around. Why? It's more "profitable" to keep prices as they are now. Too bad grandma, you'll just have to die of heat exhauston.

*sigh* I'm gonna try once more. We're going to play make believe. Lets go to CK's magical fantasy world where all the schools are private. Now, let's say they charge you X dollars to enroll your kid. X dollars isn't too much, but it's a bit. Now, let's look at a low income family. Let's pretend they make minimum wage, and have 3 kids. Now, let's also pretend that with living expenses and all other costs of living besides school, their disposable income is less than 3x. One (or two or three) of their kids can't go to school becase it's too expensive, even if X is a reasonable amount. Now, let's go back to the real world. All of the kids can go to school, as long as it's local, for free! You see, CK, private school systems screw over the working poor, which is why we need public schools.

Oh, and I was being REAL serious about the fairy tale. Besides, you missed the point. The whole biggest nation thing is irrelevant. The point is, with no taxes, the government can't run. I'd rather pay a little of those "unfair" taxes than see what happens with no federal government. Uh oh! Here comes the Michigan Millitia!

Yeah, NASA is all private companies, working under a buerocracy. *snicker* That's why NASA employs extremely talented astrophysicists and physicists to do research and run experiments. I think you're confusing who makes the toys with who plays with them.

Uh, yeah, the company that BUILT it... They sure can see lots of planes... What was their name again? To whom are they accountable? What are their responsibilites? Why are they the same as the FAA in any way? THEY MAKE EQUIPMENT! The FAA uses that equipment to monitor planes.

Post office IS cheaper, and has more volume. Some other services are faster, but how exactly has the post office failed?

Not every prison is private, and have you even heard RUMORS about our prison systems today? Watch OZ, it may be fiction, but art is imitating life. The series is based on how bad prisons are.

Why would you give no credit to the army, just because the government is supposed to run it? That doesn't make sense, theyr'e supposed to have a post office, a criminal justice(prison) system, and a whole bunch of other things, like infrastructure. I don't see how "it's supposed to be like that" disqualifies the statement. Please clarify.

Your'e yelling at DL just because he wasn't specific?
"Mr. Kettle, you're just too black."
"Well fuck you Mr. Pot!"

My roomate John works at the Avian Disease and Oncology government laboratory on MSU campus. He works 9 to 5 monday to friday, AND goes in for hours at a time on weekends, and after his shift is over on weekdays, sometimes AFTER MIDNIGHT. I'd say he works pretty damn hard for the government. He's pretty proud to be doing research for the government at MSU too. Hey! I just used a SPECIFIC EXAPMLE! BOOYA!

I dunno, education can go down a lot further, by teaching only abstinence education, without birth control or reproductive information. Hell, let's teach actual creationism rather than even hinting at natural selection. I know! Let's teach JUST THE BIBLE! AND MAKE EVERYONE PAY TO GO TO SCHOOL! See? We CAN sink a LOT lower!

Tests can't make you stupid, but curricula sure can. You see, CK, what DL was saying was that because there was a test, teachers adapted their curricula to cater to the test, not to inform the students. Plus, you CAN blame tests if theyr'e bad tests. It's possible to do tests wrong. My friend Matt who's going into education (because he loves teaching) told me about how NOT to make a test. There are certain techniques that can help avoid misleading or unnaturally difficult questions that can skew results. Tests can be fallible. I'm not saying the California tests ARE wrong, in all probability theyr'e not too bad. But just because it is a test doesn't mean the results are meaningful. And besiedes, DL's point was that introducing the tests changed the way classes were taught, for the worse. Whether the test was good or not is irrelevant. The curricula could not adapt to the children's needs, it was simply put there.

*PHEW!* Long post! And because CK is going to take each point and draw misleading statements from them using faulty reasoning, the next one might have to be longer.

Scotty: "The keyboard is over heating, captain!"

Kirk: "Scotty, I need 45 words per minute, fast, or we're all DEAD!"

/end Star Trek parody

Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 07 2002,18:47

< no, > < deregulation did > < not happen. >

when did I ever say that people should pay for their own education? never. so stfu about kids not being able to afford private schools. I think the government should still pay for it, just not run it.

Quote

Hey! I just used a SPECIFIC EXAPMLE! BOOYA!

*sigh* i am getting sick and tired of you guys taking what I say out of context. When you make a general statement that "all government employees are nice and work hard", specific examples don't mean jack shit. I could care less whether your cousin bob or my mom (whom does work for the government) is hard working and loves their job. Take a look at a post office, or the DMV, etc, for better examples.

I don't think you can blame the SAT's for being an unfair test to californians when they are a perfectly fair test that gives accurate enough results for everyone else in the country.

blah more stuff later

Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 07 2002,18:52

as for nasa, the post office, the military, etc, I think you guys need to re-read the question.

Quote

Name me ONE government program that has ever outperformed a private program, and I will pay pal you $5.

has nasa outperformed a private company equivalent? no, because there has been none. exactly my point.

has the post office outperformed a private mail company? no, because they have a monopoloy on regular mail. however, even for packages, UPS and FedEx are much better then USPS.

as for the military, they aren't supposed to be run by a private company (although private companies do make the gear). there is nothing in the constitution about a federal postal system, however, there are statements about a standing army for the protection of our citizenry.

Posted by demonk on Jun. 07 2002,20:02

Quote (CatKnight @ 07 June 2002,10:47)

I don't think you can blame the SAT's for being an unfair test to californians when they are a perfectly fair test that gives accurate enough results for everyone else in the country.

He's not referring to the SAT's. Those are a private run testing program anyway. He was referring to the tests that students at in grades 6, 8, 10, and probably earlier. These tests are used to determin exactly how well a school is performing. His point was that before these test, teachers actually taught subjects and would gladdly explore new ideas and subjects with their classes instead of just teaching the material needed to take the tests. Students were actually encouraged to learn and to explore this world that we are in. Now, they are told to sit down, shutup, and study pages 12-67. Ever seen how they teach class on Boston Public? That's how it used to be. It's not that way anymore, or at least not at any schools I've ever seen. There aren't any free form classes in this day and age.

Posted by chmod on Jun. 07 2002,20:25

Quote

Students were actually encouraged to learn and to explore this world that we are in. Now, they are told to sit down, shutup, and study pages 12-67. Ever seen how they teach class on Boston Public? That's how it used to be. It's not that way anymore, or at least not at any schools I've ever seen. There aren't any free form classes in this day and age.

Sure, it would be great to let students "explore this world" as you put it, without pressures of learning the material for standardized testing, but there's a problem with that. If we just let teachers teach however the hell they wanted to, there would be no way of making sure that the students are learning, the teachers aren't being lazy, and that the school is working, and there would be even less accountability in the education system. Yes, standardized tests are a pain in the ass and they may distract classes from learning in more effective and engaging ways, but for the current structure of our education system they are a necessary evil.

Posted by demonk on Jun. 07 2002,20:57

What about letting the teachers be responsible to the prinicple, which is in turn responsible to the parents and the community the school is in? I would think this would allow more freedom for the teachers while making the schools MORE accountable because it's no longer some beuracrat off in DC deciding if the school is effective but the parents and the people who live and see the results of the school directly.

Here's something that I've had on my mind for a while now. I've heard many of the parents say that they never learned as much back in their day when they went to school. Stuff that students are learning now is stuff that many didn't learn until college, if at all. And in the material that they did learn back in the day, they learned a lot less about it and at a slower pace. So, if all this is true, then that means that the average student today is being asked to learn more material at a fast past and to a greater depth. While I think this is good, I also think it kind of skews how we look at schools. Yes, so the test scores are lower, but could that be because we are placing higher standards than were placed back in the 50's and 60's? I don't know, it's just something that I've wondered about.

Posted by Darth Liberus on Jun. 07 2002,22:08

demonk, you took the words right out of my mouth

With local control, teachers answered directly to the parents. If you, as a parent, weren't happy with the teacher's response, you could talk to the principal, or the superintendent, or the school board.

If none of those people satisfied you, you could vote the superintendent / school board out in the next general election, held every two years.

It worked very well.

There are still some schools, teachers, principals, superintendents, and districts that do what they can to hold on to the old system. When I was going through school, for example, most of my teachers taught however they damn well pleased. When test time came around, we'd spend a couple weeks cramming for them... basically, our teachers would tell us what was going to be tested on the exam and how to make really good educated guesses. Although we didn't get the highest scores that way, we all managed to pass.

I recently discovered that this system continues on to this day with the full faith and support of the parents. My niece has been in private schools her whole life, but recently her mom decided that her daughter wasn't getting the education she deserved, and if she was going to get a mediocre education anyway it may as well be a free one.

She went down to the public elementary school (my alma mater!

to find out about registration and talk to the principal. She walked out of there with the feeling that her daughter is going to get a *much* better education there than at her private school... and her private school is one of the top-rated private schools in the area!

Why?

Because the principal told her that "our standard here is that third-graders should have no more than a half-hour to an hour of homework a night, and that there should be a couple nights a week where they don't have any. We feel that children gain much more from play time than they do from rote memorization. Our test scores are lower because of this, but we have a ton of parents from [a high-scoring neighbor district] fighting to get their kids into ours, and only a few parents in our district trying to get into theirs. So we think we're doing a pretty good job."

looks like the parents are voting with their feet, lol

Posted by Dysorderia on Jun. 08 2002,01:12

Quote (CatKnight @ 07 June 2002,13:47)

*sigh* i am getting sick and tired of you guys taking what I say out of context.

*sigh* we are already sick and tired of you taking what we say out of context.

turn-about is a bitch, eh CK?

Posted by incubus on Jun. 08 2002,01:58

6-->

Quote (Dysorderia @ 06 June 2002,16

since when did you start agreeing with CK, incubus?
or am i asking a stupid question?

Dysorderia,

It's not that I agree or disagree with CK, I just get wound up at your incessant slating of him. �You just sit there throwing rocks at him and add nothing valid to the conversation except, "CK sucks! �Everything CK says is wrong!"

Oh yeah, and what I may or may not think about CK is my own damn business.

That is all.

Posted by editor on Jun. 08 2002,02:02

Interesting situation;

I'm trying to get CK to calm down and several people are trying to provoke him.

Although I think the How Many thread was more like ribbing.

Posted by Wiley on Jun. 08 2002,02:15

Quote

Wiley: the government has an advantage in that it is not accountable to shareholders
CK: you say that is an advantage? how so??

Because they don�t have to report information on how much money is being spent or where it is going. �This gives them an edge in making long term spending decisions because they don�t have to fear that shareholders will not approve the immediate spending, leading to a change in leadership. �Corporations are constantly forced to appease the majority shareholders ��sometimes without the best interest of the corporation in mind. �This is why companies buckle to lobbyists that get to their majority shareholders and fill their minds with the evils that their corporation is doing. �You can�t see how this can be a disadvantage? �Government agencies need this leeway as the public may not understand the need to fund projects that may not be profitable ��the complete opposite to a corporation. �School systems for example are not profitable, if a public school system were a corporation the investors would surely back out.

Quote

Wiley: and has near limitless working capital
CK: certainly, you jest. there's no such thing as a free lunch.

Did I say it was a free lunch? �I said The government has near limitless working capital. �This point is well illustrated in times of war when the government funds itself with monies far surpassing any private sector endeavor. �Should I dig up the cost of Dessert Storm to compare to the working capital of any Fortune 500 company?

Quote

Wiley: (Paraphrased by me) Vouchers will not work. �If you gave every family in the US a voucher for the cost of public schooling to use toward private schooling, then the cost of private schooling would increase. �Private schooling for the poor would be no more of an option then it is today. �Simple economics.
CK: too simple. you are wrong there.

Well shit � �.CK says I�m wrong. �CK, you got some really poor argumentative strategy here. �You present nothing to dispute my economic theory. �Maybe you haven�t studied Econ yet, so I will let your pathetic retort slide.

Quote

CK: Name me ONE government program that has ever outperformed a private program, and I will pay pal you $5.
Wiley: NASA
CK: has nasa outperformed a private company equivalent? no, because there has been none. exactly my point.

When did you ever make that point? �And are you saying that no private company has ever put a rocket into space? �Think real hard here ��don�t force me to make you look like an ass.

Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 08 2002,06:14

Quote

Because they don�t have to report information on how much money is being spent or where it is going.

you must be clinton's secretary! down on your knees, bitch!

CK: Name me ONE government program that has ever outperformed a private program, and I will pay pal you $5.
Wiley: NASA
CK: NASA what? What private company has NASA outperformed?

Posted by Wiley on Jun. 08 2002,06:35

Quote (CatKnight @ 07 June 2002,22:14)

Quote

Because they don�t have to report information on how much money is being spent or where it is going.

you must be clinton's secretary! down on your knees, bitch!

� I take that as you not having any argument on that then?

Quote

CK: Name me ONE government program that has ever outperformed a private program, and I will pay pal you $5.
Wiley: NASA
CK: NASA what? What private company has NASA outperformed?

�I tried to warn you
< International Launch Services >
j00 h4v3 b33n 0wn3d
Thank you �...and good night �

Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 08 2002,10:42

Quote (CatKnight @ 07 June 2002,14:47)

Quote

Hey! �I just used a SPECIFIC EXAPMLE! �BOOYA!

OK, let me get this straight. First, the deregulation that DID happen your'e discounting because the government instituted a price freeze, and put other restrictions on the market. That is bullshit, the fact that there are non-government run companies says at least SOME deregulation happened, just that whiny profiteers don't get to charge outrageous prices. You see, the government doesn't just put out a price freeze to give the compaines the finger, they do it so grandma doesn't die of heat exhaustion during the summer, and so poor families can afford to keep their refrigerator plugged in. The sites you used to "prove" there's no deregulation also use words like "Bolshie" or phrases like "channeling his inner lenin." Are you sure these sites are fair, unbiased opinions? I'm not.

*SIGH* Private schools cost money. Private schools ALSO don't have to accept everyone who applies to them. What you want is a public school system PAID FOR by the government, but RUN by local school business/companies. You implied that people should pay for their education by saying all schools should be private. This is unfeasible. You are asking th egovernment to pay for something, and have ABSOLUTELY NO SAY IN WHAT THAT THING DOES. I don't think that would work, there would be clashes in what the companies and the government think are "good ideas" in education. It would be an extremely complicated legal mess.

And as for the specific example, that was just there because you said no one would agree with DL that government workers work hard and are proud. Also, let me restate something I said in a previous thread. There are exceptions to every rule. Life is an excersise in exceptions. When someone made that statement, they obviously didn't mean EVERY government worker went to work with a smile on their face and a song in their heart. But you took it out of context. Funny that.

Posted by Darth Liberus on Jun. 08 2002,12:48

Quote (Bozeman @ 08 June 2002,02:42)

The sites you used to "prove" there's no deregulation also use words like "Bolshie" or phrases like "channeling his inner lenin." �Are you sure these sites are fair, unbiased opinions? �I'm not.

"channeling his inner Lenin" roflmao...

CK : bad sources is worse than no sources at all.

without sources you actually have to think

Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 08 2002,23:47

Wiley, how has NASA outperformed ILS?

bozeman, I guess you tried quoting me out of context, and that didn't work, so you have resorted to quoting my sources out of context? and DSL, you blindly follow without reading the article? for shame.

In case you were wondering, this is exactly the reason why I'm not really motivated to argue here any more. All you guys do is bash and flame and misquote and flame, etc. I've given up trying to reason with you because you are so closed-minded.

Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 09 2002,00:16

Quote

Whoah! Did we just explain the California power crisis? I think we did.

But that's not how politicians see the matter. Channeling his inner Lenin, Gov. Gray Davis announced, "Never again can we allow out-of-state profiteers to hold Californians hostage."

Actually, the in-state profiteers in the power industry lobbied for that ridiculous "deregulation" bill -- though they're real sorry now. And the law was approved unanimously in the state legislature -- the sort of vote that ought to prompt somebody to follow the paper trail.

Davis' proposed solution has the same bolshie flavor as his blame-laying. He wants to make the state itself a major electricity broker. Of course, he's not going to saddle his bureaucrat buddies with a ban on long-term contracts, and he plans to build a few power plants, too. He's also talking about seizing existing operations: "[I]f I have to use the power of eminent domain to prevent generators from driving consumers into the dark and utilities into bankruptcy -- then that's what I will do."

This was taken from one of your sources, CK. If I did it right, the examples I saw should be emboldened. If not, there's going to be an "edited by Bozeman" tag on this post.

If I took it out of context, I would enjoy hearing you tell me what it means. And how do you know DL didn't read the article?

Posted by Darth Liberus on Jun. 09 2002,02:52

Quote (CatKnight @ 08 June 2002,15:47)

I've given up trying to reason with you because you are so closed-minded.

roflmaopmp

Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 09 2002,03:44

I don't understand what you think is wrong with those phrases. The first one was meant as a joke and the second one was referring to the bolshivick party confiscating publicly owned enterprise...

See DSL, you laugh, but you hardly realize what a hypocrite you are. That's why I laugh at you. And that's why I don't take anything you say seriously.

Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 09 2002,04:55

There's nothing particularly WRONG with them, they just show an extremely biased opinion in the column writer.

Posted by Wiley on Jun. 09 2002,09:21

Quote (CatKnight @ 08 June 2002,15:47)

Wiley, how has NASA outperformed ILS?

Um ...because you didn't even know a private space program existed until I posted one. �The NASA brand name alone is worth more then the profit ILS brings in. �These days the price of a companies stock is traded more on brand recognition and market saturation then actual bottom line. �NASA also has more launches per year and more launch sites. �Next do you want me to argue with you that McDonald's outperforms Hotdog-on-a-stick? �

Quote

In case you were wondering, this is exactly the reason why I'm not really motivated to argue here any more. All you guys do is bash and flame and misquote and flame, etc. I've given up trying to reason with you because you are so closed-minded.

You have never argued here �...you only state your opinion as fact and say anything anybody else posts is wrong. �Closed-minded? �Jumping Jesus on a pogo-stick, how can you call anybody closed minded? �I have never once seen you accept a fact that opposes one of your opinions.
Just one of many examples: You say that the government can never run a program as successful as a private industry (your opinion) and challenge us to name one. I say that it can (my opinion) and I name one (fact). �You discredit my finding because you don't count a program without a private industry equivalent. �Fine, I find a government program that has outside competition. �You discredit this because there is a grey area as to how we are defining success �...though I do think that it is pretty clear that NASA has a far more successful space program then the ILS (my opinion). �But if we need to clarify it further then just let me know what facts you would like to use to judge success. �Then it will be crystal clear in everybody�s mind that Your Opinion that I am arguing is not factually sound.
Though somehow I doubt you will ever accept those facts �...yet you have the nerve to call others closed-minded?

Posted by Beldurin on Jun. 09 2002,17:22

I've noticed that it's almost impossible to get into one of these debates unless you were there at the beginning. While I'd like to put my 2c in, I'm not sure where the debate stands.

Posted by Wiley on Jun. 09 2002,19:10

Beldurin,
It's just like jumping onto a moving train ...run like hell, close your eyes and jump. Then you get to laugh at all the people who just aren't quick enough and get grinded up by the spinning wheels.
Just keep in mind that the last time I was wrong the ...wait ...I've never been wrong ...scratch that last part.

Posted by Darth Liberus on Jun. 09 2002,20:00

did anyone watch Saturday Night Live last night? they had a skit making fun of The O'Reilly Factor. it reminded me of CatKnight so much I damn near died laughing.

Scientist: So we've discovered greenhouse gases like CO2 on top of...
O'Reilly: Hold it! CO2?
Scientist: Yes. Carbon dioxide.
O'Reilly: I'm not buying it.
Scientist: You're not buying what?
O'Reilly: Well, C is carbon, and O is oxygen. And my gut tells me those two are never going to get together to make "CO2."
Scientist: But it's a well-known fact!
O'Reilly: I'm still not buying it. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
Scientist: Uh... OK. Well, as I said, we found this "CO2" on top of Mount Everest.
O'Reilly: And you say this "Mount Everest" is the tallest mountain in the world?
Scientist: Yes...
O'Reilly: I'm not buying it.
Scientist: Uh, what's the tallest mountain in the world then?
O'Reilly: Space Mountain.
Scientist: (blank stare)

etc.

Posted by Dysorderia on Jun. 09 2002,21:39

Quote (editor @ 07 June 2002,21:02)

I'm trying to get CK to calm down and several people are trying to provoke him.

we don't need to provoke him, he gets all worked up enough on his own.

Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 09 2002,22:27

Bill O'Reiley is just like that. After 9/11, a lawyer for three firemen who were having a dispute over a statue was his guest. Bill denied that Fox News paid royalties to the photographer of a picture shown. The lawyer had the most priceless face. It was a combination of "how can you be so stupid?" and "god, I want to throttle you!" with a little "how did you get your own SHOW?" thown in on the side. It's fun to watch that show to see what kind of idiotic things he says.

Too bad he's on during Star Trek. *click*

Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 12 2002,01:07

lol I rest my case

(btw this post got deleted by someone so I reposted it.)

Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 12 2002,02:35

Your'e RESTING?

*snicker* OK......

Posted by editor on Jun. 12 2002,03:55

*stretches*

cough

If someone deleted your post, it wasn't me.
Tell me about these things.
I would like to know.

Posted by veistran on Jun. 12 2002,10:00

I feel glad I didn't get very involved in this thread.

Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 12 2002,15:41

Hey Wiley, did you get your $5 from CK yet?

Posted by WillyPete on Jun. 12 2002,17:49

I DEFINITELY go in late on this one and although I don't have any argument to offer to either side of this case regarding US schooling, I have noticed that a lot of western schools aren't doing their job.

It was previously brought up that kids are mainly being taught to pass tests and not to learn.
You can see how this has been ingrained in our culture by just sitting in ONE university class. I lost count of how many times I'd hear, "Is this going to be in the exam?" followed by furious scratching out of notes taken if the lecturer were to answer to the negative.
All we're concerned about is meeting the minimum to get what we want and not to explore and expand our knowledge.

And then you get this shit:
< http://www.arizonarepublic.com/news/articles/0610sunrisegrad10.html >
(Student threatens to sue because she was failing)

The most important thing I think we're missing teaching kids is responsibility for their actions.
When they leave school and get jobs, these kids think they're OWED money or work.
At school, nothing is done when they abuse staff or property, cheat or steal. Abuse of other students is common and drug abuse isn't punished as much either.
Try any of that shit in the work place and you get your pink slip instead of a diploma. Drug use doesn't receive counseling, you get fired.

TEACH THESE LITTLE SHITS ABOUT THE REAL WORLD for godssakes!

In the UK they're trying to get kids to stay in school by giving them an allowance of about �40 a week. A good plan, now if they up the standard required, it will be better value for their money.

/end rant

Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 12 2002,18:36

I don't know if PAYING students to go to school is the right message to send. How much is 40 Pounds in United States Dollars?

I totally agree about the whole college situation. "Is this going to be on the test?" I hear that a lot.

I read the article you posted, that girl deserved to fail, in my opinion. She had a chance to attend a make up paper-writing session, but didn't even show. Good article to be brought to this thread, WillyPete!

Posted by veistran on Jun. 12 2002,19:49

it hangs around $1.40 to $1.50 to the pound.

Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 12 2002,21:38

hey boze, the $5 is still up for grabs, as no one has answered the question yet.

Posted by TheTaxMan on Jun. 12 2002,22:56

Wiley beat you CK. ILS is outperformed by NASA in at least one respect. You didn't define anything as "outperforming" so...

Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 12 2002,23:00

i said somewhere that "recieving more money does not constitute outperforming".

and the phrase "in one respect" is meaningless because I could counter that NASA has had so many accidents that they are far inferior to modern day pivate launching companies.

btw I never responded to the statement "And are you saying that no private company has ever put a rocket into space?" because that was not the question. wiley somehow fooled himself into thinking that it was, that is why he hasn't won $5 yet.

Posted by TheTaxMan on Jun. 13 2002,00:31

Summary of previous post:

Define the values of "outperformance."

Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 13 2002,00:39

some examples of out performing a private company: getting more/better results with LESS money (remember cr0bar's old editorial on the voodoo 5?), higher efficiency, driving a private company out of buisness by competitive means (NOT regulation or monopolozing), etc.

Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 13 2002,05:45

Quote (CatKnight @ 12 June 2002,20:39)

NASA outperforms other space programs. They spend money. Efficiency? I'd call going to the moon, exploring every planetary body (yes, even Pluto, they have pictures) putting sattleites in orbit, creating the most useful space telescope (the hubble) and soon to have worked with Russia and a few other suppliers to create the first international space station efficient. NASA has more money than private companies. You cannot say "they don't count because they have more money." I'd say that, for what LITTLE we pay for NASA (a fraction of the budget compared to other programs, with constant cutbacks) we get our money's worth in scientific data and research. I don't think NASA is being outperformed, but if they are, could it be because Republicans cut back on funding?

You said NASA is inefficient because they had more accidents. To say NASA is inefficient because of Challenger or Apollo 13 or Apollo 1 or any other accident is foolish. NASA has made great strides in technological advancement. Due to the extreme volume of missions flown ever since their inception, statistically there are going to be accidents. How long have private space compaines been around? How many launches have they done? I'd bet that they'd have as many accidents, if not more, if they would come even remotely close to NASA's volume. I just don't see how with all these accomplishments why you say NASA is not "outperforming" private companies.

I also have a question for you, CK, where do government weapons contractors fall? Are they government or private? The government runs, pays for, and supplies specifications and previous research. The generals call the shots, they get whatever they want. However, the company creates the weapon, gets the results, and supplies personnel. Is this government? Private? They obviously get results, look at footage of smart bombs crashing through one wall and blowing up another one behind it. Look at stealth technology. Computer guided bombs. These are results to be proud of. Paid for, and started by the government, but worked on by private companies. What category do they fall under?

Posted by Wiley on Jun. 13 2002,18:14

Why ask a question if you aren't going to accept an answer?

You: Bet you can't give me a number between 1 and 5
Me: 4
You: The number must be less then 4
Me: 3
You: The number must have two digits
Me: um ...there aren't any
You: Ha!! See ...I told you

I mean, we all know it is impossible to compare the successfulness of a government agency to a private company in terms of how money is taken in or spent because they have different rules. The government agency doesn't have to show profit or worry about not having enough capital to operate; it's just given to them. Their worth also doesn't change with the opinions of the equities market as private companies do. Government agencies are also allowed to show failure without consumer recourse. Ford puts some bad tires on an SUV and every consumer group sues. The Air Force tests out a new jet that crashes on take-off and it's just whoops. So how can you use these two ideas as grounds for comparing performance? Trying to make an objective comparison I'm rating the performance of NASA and ILS on only the success of putting equipment into space and not the many, many other facettes of NASA or the financial responsibilities of ILS. For the comparison I look at volume of launches, reliability of technology used and the efficiency of deployment/maintenance. I score NASA as being way ahead of ILS in those categories. (I'll show data if you need it) Thus, I feel I have pointed out an instance where a Federal program has outperformed a private industry. It can happen.

Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 13 2002,20:02

Quote

The government agency doesn't have to show profit or worry about not having enough capital to operate; it's just given to them.

that's not true at all. scientists who work for the government don't get free money. they have to compete for research grants.

Quote

Trying to make an objective comparison I'm rating the performance of NASA and ILS on only the success of putting equipment into space and not the many, many other facettes of NASA or the financial responsibilities of ILS.

you are completely missing the point of this whole challenge to begin with. you can't use one facet for comparison, this is exactly my point. you could say public schools graduate more students then private schools, but this comparison is meaningless because of a) the quality of education (or lack there of), b) the number of students who go to each, c) the kinds of students who go to each. you can't say public schools are better just because more students go there. by the same logic, you can't say nasa is better then ILS just because they launch more or less sattellites.

Quote

I'd bet that they'd have as many accidents, if not more, if they would come even remotely close to NASA's volume.

would you bet $5?

Posted by Wiley on Jun. 13 2002,22:31

Quote (CatKnight @ 13 June 2002,12:02)

Quote

The government agency doesn't have to show profit or worry about not having enough capital to operate; it's just given to them.

that's not true at all. scientists who work for the government don't get free money. they have to compete for research grants.

1) I'm talking about Federal employees ...not people who don't work for the government and are doing contract work. (ie Scientists who work for NASA as opposed to scientists who got grant money to work on a project directed by NASA ...big difference)
2) By saying that my statment is not true at all you are saying that government agencies have to show profit and worry about operating costs? Have you ever worked for a government agency? I remember having a budget that was just given to us without having to publish an annual report showing where all the money went like a corporation is required to do ...operating costs such as computers and vehicles was given to us and didn't come out of monies we collected ...but that's just real-world experience and not as valid as your opinion I guess.

Quote

CK: Name me ONE government program that has ever outperformed a private program, and I will pay pal you $5.
Wiley: NASA
CK: NASA what? What private company has NASA outperformed?
Wiley: And are you saying that no private company has ever put a rocket into space?"
CK: btw I never responded to the statement "And are you saying that no private company has ever put a rocket into space?" because that was not the question. Wiley somehow fooled himself into thinking that it was, that is why he hasn't won $5 yet.

Yeah ...I'm way off base there. How could I possibly get that far from your original question? Oh yeah ...because you put me there!!

Quote

some examples of out performing a private company: getting more/better results with LESS money (remember cr0bar's old editorial on the voodoo 5?), higher efficiency, driving a private company out of business by competitive means (NOT regulation or monopolozing), etc.

NASA gets $0 from venture capital firms ...talk about huge results with less money!! How do they do it? Oh yeah, they some how convinced the US government to give them money without having to pester investors ...genius!! I wish I had thought of that.

But seriously ...if I could get a Wall St. Analyst to say that he would recommend the purchase of NASA's stock over ILS because he puts more value on the performance of NASA would you concede the point that NASA out performs at least one of it's private competitors? Keep in mind that these are the same analysts that are used to compare the performance of two private companies and determine who is ahead of who.

Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 13 2002,23:16

nasa doesn't have stock you moron

Posted by rit on Jun. 14 2002,00:28

that's a bit much to read. i do aplogize, but i have other thing i need to do. i would like to add this though.

i went to private school until 8th grade. at thaty point, i transfered to a public school in the woods. once i got there, and got over the shell shock, i realized that i was at least two grades ahead of 90% of my class.

i can't help but think that private schools do a better job of teaching children. so my question is this: why aren't all schools privatel owned?

Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 14 2002,00:55

you're right on rit. that's a good question. it's a combination of the department of education gaining more and more power, bureaucrats who don't want to lose their jobs, and the teacher's unions.

Posted by TheTaxMan on Jun. 14 2002,02:09

Quote (rit @ 13 June 2002,16:28)

I was abused as a child by my step-father.

All step-fathers must be abusive.

(btw, my parents are still married and this has no factual base in reality)

Posted by Wiley on Jun. 14 2002,02:19

Quote (CatKnight @ 13 June 2002,15:16)

nasa doesn't have stock you moron

No shit dumbass we coved the lack of stock in government departments earlier in the thread, neither does ILS BYW ...it's a hypothetical.
If I can get a well published analyst to review the two and give a recommendation (assuming they were both private companies) on which one performed better in his expert opinion (since that's what a Wall Street analyst does) would that be an acceptable performance comparison?

Posted by demonk on Jun. 14 2002,02:22

Quote (rit @ 13 June 2002,16:28)

i went to private school until 8th grade. at thaty point, i transfered to a public school in the woods. once i got there, and got over the shell shock, i realized that i was at least two grades ahead of 90% of my class.

Maybe you were just smart. Or maybe you were with a bunch or morons going out to school in the woods. If we are to do a decent comparison, we need to have two schools geographicly similar (ie, middle of suburbia) and relatively the same size (there is a big difference between a 1,000 person school and an 8,000 person school). And we also need to compare all the students, not just a few, and not with standardized tests. As we have already discussed, those just fuck up the teaching style.

Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 14 2002,03:01

just because we discussed standardized testing doesn't mean anyone agreed on the matter.

actually i think we agreed that standardized tests were nescessary back there.

Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 14 2002,05:24

Quote (CatKnight @ 13 June 2002,16:02)

Quote

I'd bet that they'd have as many accidents, if not more, if they would come even remotely close to NASA's volume.

would you bet $5?

Well, since NASA has been around for decades, and the # of rockets they send up (as well as test planes, remember, they're teh National AERONAUTICS and Space Administration) it stands to reason that there should have been accidents. Humans make mistakes, and sometimes it sucks, hard. Corporations are just as human as NASA scientists and engineers. I'd put $5 on the line that a private corporation has a couple accidents by the time theyr'e half a century old they'd have an accident or two. Unfortunately, because they didn't blow up the first crew of the Apollo missions (Apollo 1) or a schoolteacher (Challenger) they woudn't get as much press, other than "A rocket blew up, back to you in the studio Tom." So, let's say that by the year 2035 (being generous here) if no private corporation has ever had any accident, I owe you $5. With inflation, that's probably the price of a Coke in 33 years, so I'll buy you a coke, CK. How does that sound?

Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 14 2002,20:18

fair enough