Yet another statement that cannot be argued with. My subliminal argument that government is infallible has been exposed and ripped to shreds by this insightful comprehension, sterling analysis, and devastating counterpoint.
Never have I felt so thoroughly manhandled in a debate on an Internet forum. Please take mercy on me; your rhetoric is too strong for me to handle.
ETA: Notwithstanding my extreme embarrassment, I would still like a comment from the OP on the eradication of two afflictions that have plagued mankind for thousands of years, the impact on the poor, and his thoughts on government involvement there. I think the virtual end of polio and smallpox are one of the most amazing achievements of mankind but gets very little notice, and I’m curious as to the OP’s views on the subject.
No, it wouldn’t. The good schools would refuse to take the poor children, and they’d end up going to scam “schools” that take the money and provide no real education at all.
The government is currently in the business of not leaving students behind, they would still be free to do so (for the same amount as the vouchers)
And honestly, some students won’t go to school and that’s fine with me.
I think in regards to schooling (where the government is pretty hamstrung) they get a bad rap. Teachers aren’t paid enough, yet they aren’t really able to fire tenured ones (a mistake) They can’t tell the crappy students to get out but they should. If the government had the cream of the crop to work with, they’d probably do fine. Yet, they can’t.
Poor children tend to be worse students, for all sorts of reasons. Poor nutrition, for one. Just as important, they are regarded as inferior students, and are therefore be treated as such whether they actually are or not. And on top of that, good schools are run for the better off; they won’t let poor kids in for class hierarchy reasons. Not their kind, you know.
And if so, would it cover the cost of going to a supposedly superior private school, or would it be a partial payment that might send the poorer students to a crappy private school?
So, what’s you’re supporting is a subsidy program for education. Have you thought a lot about the economic wisdom of subsidies, as opposed to the provision of a service? I always found this interesting that many conservatives find subsidies to be quite bad government policy because of the market distortions that they create. Like, food subsidies tend to be bad (for example, increasing demand for something that’s subsidized would tend to cause prices to rise because of the subsidy, but there may be countervailing effects too) but for some reason the idea of subsidies for education and health care are popular ideas among conservatives.
There are plenty of studies that show that schools on voucher systems will reject poor students because they are more difficult to teach (for various socioeconomic reasons), meaning higher costs and a risk of their overall ‘score’ as a school going down. It’s a risk to them. Ever heard of the term ‘low hanging fruit?’
Some things you simply cannot run universally like a business. Health and education are two of them.
If education were like a business, schools would have the freedom to choose only the pupils it wants to deal teach, and leaving the rest. Again, if it worked like a business, the pupils would be able to reduce in ‘price’ to make them more attractive; but how can you reduce in price as a human being?
Without the government, these kids would be left with nothing at all to provide them with an education. That’s where the government has to come in.
Yes, it’s grossly inefficient; I don’t think people argue it isn’t. But that isn’t an argument to shut it down. It’s an argument to figure out a better way to educate those children.
There’s your problem. It is naive to say that government (or anyone) should strive for perfection - kind of a statement you’d expect to find in a self help book. Better it should strive for the optimal return on investment. Eliminating fraud is good, but if it will cost you $1 million to eliminate the last $1,000 of fraud, maybe a bit of fraud is okay. Same for voting - disenfranchising 10,000 to keep 10 fraudulent ballots being cast is not good. To be fair, though, striving for perfection has nothing to do with this effort.
Just an aside, but the only reference I can find for Director’s Law (as per wikipedia) is the paper the OP linked to here published in 1970 by George J Stigler, where the first paragraph states
(bolding and italics are mine).
Was a empirical study ever done on this or referenced in newer material?
Not in this thread perhaps. But I challenge you to find a single government program (that doesn’t involve bombing people) that some conservative somewhere doesn’t say is bad. We’ve got the very popular and effective Social Security and Medicare as two examples. We’ve got people even objecting to the FDIC. Plenty to the FDA.
Liberals seem to be perfectly willing to see flaws in government systems that aren’t working. Conservatives have a hard time seeing any good points, and want to strangle most of them.
Let’s think about some semi-hypothetical students:
Lars’s mom and dad are split up. Mom hates dad, who just got out of prison. Lars missed 37 days of second grade and only came to a teacher conference because of a court order; that same order, hanging over her head, is all that gets her to wake Lars up each morning and get him to school this year.
Shelly’s dad is awaiting trial for aggravated assault; he’s already spent 30 years of his life in prison, and he’s likely to go back. The only reason Shelly and her eight siblings still live with her mom is because, after dad’s abuse was discovered by a teacher, mom agreed to kick dad out of the house. Mom still leaves the kids alone at home sometimes so she can go visit dad. Shelly never ever does her homework, not even after a social worker has gone to Shelly’s house and helped mom set up a homework schedule.
Bill’s dad is out of the picture entirely. Mom has been in and out of the court system. She hates schools, comes to them mainly to yell at teachers about how her kids are getting picked on, even though Bill has a bad tendency to instigate fights with his classmates. Bill never does homework, has a hair-trigger temper, and frequently talks about how he hates school and doesn’t want to learn anything.
Laura’s parents are divorced but attend conferences together. When Laura slacks off on homework, her teacher emails her parents, and homework plus additional assignments come in the next day. Her parents email her teacher whenever they have a question. They do independent research and discover supplementary materials to use to teach math to their daughter, who is struggling in math. They let the classroom teacher know about these materials and ask for guidance on incorporating them with the classroom work.
If you think that Bill, Shelly, or Lars has a chance in hell of getting into a charter school, you’re–well, let’s say mistaken, out of deference for the forum.
Set aside the question of whether they’d get accepted by the charter school (or the private school). In all these cases, none of these parents are both able and willing to jump through the necessary hoops to get their kid into an alternative school.
As for the kids? Bill, Shelly, and Lars are very likely to suffer from PTSD. They’re likely to witness or experience violence on a regular basis at home. They’re likely to have zero support from their parents on homework, to the extent that their parents don’t even give them a quiet space and time in which they can complete their assignments. They’re likely to come to school in fight-or-flight mode, treating school like a warzone–and in so doing, bringing a little bit of the battlefield with them to school.
A transfer to a generic charter or private school, one that’s not designed specifically to help kids undergoing PTSD (although we should take that P away), isn’t going to change any of that. Instead, if somehow these kids got some support from someone beside their parents so that they got enrolled in a charter or private school, you’d see the battlefield enter those environments as well.
You want to solve the problems with public schools? Start with the unendurable environments these kids experience after school.
I agree with the first part. If it costs $1 m to stamp out $1k, then obviously you shouldn’t spend it to save nothing. So what rationale do we start with? Economic? I would. If it can be afforded (and the people want it), then do it. Otherwise, don’t.
Voting might be a different animal and I wouldn’t lump both of those together in this case.
The health professionals that I know all seem to agree that medicaid is too generous. There isn’t a sliding scale. You qualify and everything is free (well there might be a copay but they can’t make you pay it), you don’t and nothing is free.
I don’t know which side you are on but in the Republican vs Democrat debate THESE DAYS, there might be enough blame to go around but it is not equally shared. The lions share of the blame falls on Republicans.
I think we need to clear the air because the Republican party has been remorseless and too eager to just pretend that everyone is equally at fault for everything that they threw on our heads.
