A political question

[TheJord]

HARD CORE CONSERVATIVE! Okay that isn't entirely true. I do believe in social programs BUT I believe those programs should come from sources other than government. The government has three roles in my opinion

1. build infrastructure (IE roads)
2. maintain a military (borders, language, culture)
3. print currency (but not too much. 14 trillion dollars of debt is WAY too much.)

Some people think this is naive. However, I would say spending more money on social programs than your tax base offers is naiveté. Look at all the global upheaval caused by too many government social programs. Heck, look what happened in Greece. However, to be fair, some people think the the private sector can not create social programs because they are profit driven. I never said the private sector had to create the programs. That is what religion is for, caring for others. Let the churches help support the poor and the needy, let the honest folk earn their living, make money, and take care of themselves, and let the government protect the country's border, language, and culture. One of the scariest things I hear is, "I'm from the government, I'm hear to help!"

Did you miss out education, or do you believe those should be provided privately?

[jdizzy001]

schools should be funded privately. In theory (theory mind you, not practice) one major reason for the property tax in the United States is to fund schools. If the education portion of the property tax were removed (since there are no public schools to fund) you could use the extra cash in your wallet to send your child to the available private schools. There would be no tax used to pay teachers, no teacher/administrator retirement plans (funded by taxpayer money), no teachers benefits (again funded by taxpayers), no teachers unions to get tax kick backs, etc. etc. This, again in theory, would give the taxpayer more disposable income with which to educate their child. Then, the best part, once your child is educated you could use your disposable income to improve your own standard of living.

[TheJord]

Not much incentive to become a teacher then...

Would the prices for these private schools reflect the incomes of the area? How would you control pricing for it? This would be an economists nightmare; price ceilings, deadweight loss et al

[macheteman]

but why send your kid to school when you can use that extra dough for a new BMW? my point being, there are plenty of parents out there who would not educate their children with that "extra money"

in my opinion, a school system that is free to anyone is an enormous privilege. i just think it should be operated very strictly. in my area our public schools are HORRIBLE. kids aren't actually getting any sort of education. to graduate, all you have to do is show up.

i think one way to help fix this is to kick out the students who are smoking pot at school, beating up other students, etc... in my opinion, these sorts of students have abused their privilege of free education, and should at least be expelled for an extended period of time. in theory this practice would keep the schools full of kids who actually want to learn. and probably reduce the enrollment significantly which would in turn reduce the number of teachers required, which in turn would help the overall quality of teachers to rise because good, qualified teachers will hold the majority of teaching positions.

not saying doing this one thing will fix the massively broken system, but steps like this need to be taken to fix a school system as messed up as america's. it is amazing that we have free education, but seriously, lets try not to take it for granted.

[jdizzy001]

Not much incentive to become a teacher then...

Would the prices for these private schools reflect the incomes of the area? How would you control pricing for it? This would be an economists nightmare; price ceilings, deadweight loss et al

Market forces would drive a teachers salary. If a teach improves their craft and becomes an excellent instructor then the variety of private schools would compete for the teachers services. By compete I mean offer better salaries, benefits, and retirement stuff. Since teacher involves molding the minds of young 'uns, more competition should be implemented so teachers don't feel "safe" just because they have a public sector job. MM is right, the system right now is messed up. most of the taxes paid by people which goes to schools ends up in the pockets of administrators and retired instructors. Last I checked, those types of peoples aren't students. Running a school like a lagit business would improve the quality of teacher and student as the private school would have to compete for your business.

@MM: there is no such thing as a free education. someone is paying for it. As mentioned in my previous post, property taxes are used to fund schools. However, I do agree we need to find a way to get the students who want to learn in an environment where they can succeed.

[Not a Zombie]

Would the prices for these private schools reflect the incomes of the area? How would you control pricing for it? This would be an economists nightmare; price ceilings, deadweight loss et al

This is already a problem. Since schools are funded by local property taxes, poorer areas have much lower quality schooling. Education is a tricky one... I very much agree that there shouldn't be mandatory education, but then how do we ensure that those who actually want to be there aren't being held back by parents or other factors? wish I could post a  bit more, but I have to go to school

[FM]

There's a flaw on jdizzy001's argument about taxes that need to be pointed out. I'm not american, but of course, I beleive tax systems are not THAT different than those from Brazil, which means I have a small grasp on how it works, having studied it in Law.
While, yes, property taxes are used to fund the school system, those are based on neighborhood and property value (correct me if I'm wrong, as I said, I'm applying the logic of our system), which means that, in a nutshell, those with more money pay more (which is the fundamental of tax law), which also means that some people that pay such taxes do no need to use said system, as they can (and will) afford private schools for their children.
Because of this, if the school system were to be privatized, the amount of money left over for the poorest families from not having to pay the appropriate amount of property tax (probably a PART of it, not the thing as a whole) wouldn't be enough, on its own, to make it possible to afford their children's education. Also, lest us not forget the government would probably simply apply the tax elsewhere, I mean, people are "used to paying it anyway", so, why not direct the money somewhere else (even if "somewhere else" means "their pockets")?
I'm not saying the system should stand as is, since it's really messed up (and to this, I again apply the logic of our system of Public Education here, although ours is not as bad as yours, so I hear). One thing that COULD be done is looking at our Public University systems (in Brazil, people compete to get into PUBLIC Universities, they are better than Private ones by a fair margin, having better students, due to the rough selection process, and having better teachers, due to the whole career plan they have), which, while ALSO a bit flawed, still works. In our Federal Universities, for instance, people compete for a spot in, say, Med School at a rate of 130 people for each spot, rising to close to (or even over) 300 in the best Med School we have in a Federal University. For instance, Law, where I live, has the overall 3rd or 4th course in the country (all Federal Universities, also), and it closes in on 80 people per spot. Seeing as we have a #$&*@! of a 3-day test to get it, and there's no such thing as an "application" that will be read by a Board (we do write an essay, but those are univesal for all courses and unidentified, so the people grading it have no idea even in which course that person is trying to get in, let alone who it is), you have to study pretty hard to get in, meaning the Private Universities, basically (there are exceptions, I know a few), get what is "left over" from those students, meaning, the ones that were not smart enough or that were too lazy to try and get into one of the Public ones, meaning the Federal and State (heck, even City ones where they exist) Universities get better human material to work with from the get go, meaning we post higher gradings on national tests and stuff, not to mention we tend to do better in tests to get into great jobs (where competition is even more dire), resulting in yet another plus for the public system (and it looks awesome in your resumé, as well, it alone can get you some jobs). Funny, though, how we can't get this across to Public Schools, it simply does not work. Used to, some 20+ years ago, but has simply stopped. I could name a few reasons why I believe this happened, but it would generate a whole other discussion.

[macheteman]

@MM: there is no such thing as a free education. someone is paying for it. As mentioned in my previous post, property taxes are used to fund schools. However, I do agree we need to find a way to get the students who want to learn in an environment where they can succeed.

lol, i was in way way saying that providing education is cost free. i was basically saying that of all the things the government does with taxes, providing education for all citizens is one that i actually am glad my taxes support. i'm happy that my tax money is used to help children of all demographics receive an education. my problem is that because of our flawed system, they aren't really receiving a decent education. this isn't how it has always been, even when my parents graduated high-school, a diploma actually meant something. my generation needs a bachelor's degree just to get a job.

[legolas3333]

i think one way to help fix this is to kick out the students who are smoking pot at school, beating up other students, etc... in my opinion, these sorts of students have abused their privilege of free education, and should at least be expelled for an extended period of time. in theory this practice would keep the schools full of kids who actually want to learn. and probably reduce the enrollment significantly which would in turn reduce the number of teachers required, which in turn would help the overall quality of teachers to rise because good, qualified teachers will hold the majority of teaching positions.

Agreed, 100%, the problem with public schools in the U.S. is not the system (it is a fiscally sound system) it is the people who use it, the students who, as MM mentioned, do drugs and use other students as punching bags, and the teachers who aren't invested in educating (The teachers unions are a huge part of the problem because once you're a teacher, as long as you don't say physically abuse a student or resort to other inexplicable actions, it is virtually impossible for you to lose your position even if your charges learn nothing).

[jdizzy001]

FM brings up a good point about proportioned taxes. The only way I could see a student who wants to gain an education in an all private school system would be scholarships. He/She would have to find an organization, be it a corporation or military or medical, and convince that owner/board member that their services are invaluable to their organization. That's how I got my scholarship. It wouldn't be easy in an all private school system but those who really wanted an education would find a way to get one. Heck that is what the whole theory of evolution is about, survival of the fittest!

[TheJord]

This seems like the biggest challenge, balancing social and economic factors to produce peak output.

I think the most logical solution would be to allow the Borg to assimilate us.

[jdizzy001]

I think the most logical solution would be to allow the Borg to assimilate us.

Finally, someone who sees things my way! Resistance is futile!

Seriously though, I think this is one of, if not the best political thread I've seen on the boards. They usually degenerate to name calling and blame throwing. Well done gents.

[Gil-Estel]

Agreed, 100%, the problem with public schools in the U.S. is not the system (it is a fiscally sound system) it is the people who use it, the students who, as MM mentioned, do drugs and use other students as punching bags, and the teachers who aren't invested in educating (The teachers unions are a huge part of the problem because once you're a teacher, as long as you don't say physically abuse a student or resort to other inexplicable actions, it is virtually impossible for you to lose your position even if your charges learn nothing).

I am a teacher, I am a taxpayer in the Netherlands, so I also have a say in things. Education is by far the best investment a country can do. Especially a small country as the Netherlands is depending on knowledge, since we have little to no resources to fall back to.
For me the bottomline is that everyone should have access to good education, and that the government, us the people, should determine what good education is. There should be standards that are being met by schools. Simply because it is in the best interest of the country.
1 thing though what I dislike about the marketsystem, transferred to educationsystem, is the assumption that it will 'produce' better teachers, or better students. There are a lot of variables. Fact is that the brain is developing until people are in their twenties and that 1 of the last connections made is the one that sets adults apart from youngsters: the ability to be responsible for your actions. Making decisions based upon reason and the ability to see the consequences of those actions.
I read that some should be excluded, but you're only creating new problems. I can say, based upon years of experience, empiric and told by other, more experienced colleges, that there are no kids that are troublesome, there are a lot of kids with troubles. That is an important difference. Kids can come from different social backgrounds and can experience different problems, such as divorced parents, abuse -both verbally as physically- that make kids do stupid things. In a hard system, they become victims of that system, only keeping the troubles alive. I'm not saying that a 'soft' system is the answer, because I see that in our system a lot of people are not taking their responsibilities. I only want to point out that it is difficult to address all the troubles one can face when it comes  to education.
But, as said, I believe that:
- education is a main concern of the government
- government should provide standards
- those standards are for students and teachers alike
- there should be a trigger for teachers to keep investing, both subjectbound as pedagogical
- there should be a trigger to keep investing in your self

[Gate Troll]

Canada probably has the weirdest political system in existence. Everything from the powerless Senate to the Governor General, the strange party hierarchy and French problem (Quebec came this close to seceding in the 1990's) make it unfathomably complicated. All that, and, unless in the case of a vote of no confidence, the PM gets to call elections.

I imagine we'll see yet another fractured coalition government with some sort of uneasy alliance between the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Quebecois.

EDIT: Canadian politics are fascinating, and I just wanted to get this topic back on track.

[TheJord]

The main point was how dissociated party leaders, and their party's policies are.

My mother in law is a Liberal supporter, but hates Michael Ignatieff. So she will probably vote NDP.

And to whoever voted my comment down, this is my thread, go hate somewhere else.