It worked for the prison system. Halliburton is making a killing.
The primary Republican goal is More Money for Rich People.
Republicans are in favor of lots of government spending when it can be channeled into the pockets of major Republican donors. They like spending lots of money on the military, for example. They like spending lots of money on privately run prisons. They’d like to convert Social Security to a private program so stockbrokers can get a piece of that action.
Public schools represent a big untapped honeypot. The goal is to direct as much government spending as possible away from the public school system and into the pockets of private school owners. This is accomplished by driving down the quality of public schools (encouraging parents to defect) and creating voucher programs so public dollars can be paid to private educators.
All the noise about God is just to get the fundamentalist vote … which the party elites need because there aren’t enough rich people to pass anything by themselves.
I did not say everything.
Oh come on. Congress doesn’t run the schools.
I didn’t think I made any unusual or controversial statements that would necessitate a cite. You could just ask, instead of being so snide about it.
Okay.
Shall I continue?
They want schools that do a good job. If American kids weren’t doing as poorly as they are compared to other countries I don’t think you’d be hearing a peep about them.
Question: back when our schools were really great, was there any talk from reps about charters, vouchers and the like? I don’t reacall any. I could be wrong, but it is my recollection that charter schools entered the conversation as a replacement for failed inner city schools. And that voucher schools is that idea expanded beyond replacements for failing schools.
Look, and I mean this sincerely, if you’re going to poison the well with such a ridiculously simplistic, jingoistic, ignorant, and down-right *wrong *statement as that don’t expect anyone to take anything else you say seriously. What’s your definition of ‘Rich People’? I’m guessing whether you know it or not, for you it means anyone middle to upper middle class. Well, those kinds of people don’t light Cuban cigars with $50 dollar bills. They’re mostly just white collar, both parents working, ordinary home owning families.
Sigh. Consider this: Do you know how much profit big, bad Exxon makes on each gallon of gas sold at the pump? A little more than a nickel. Sure, all those nickels add up, but do you know how much, say, the State of California makes on that gallon of gas? Over 50¢ a gallon in taxes! The company that does all the work, the R&D, the gathering & refining & delivery of their product, plus employs hundreds of thousands of people and pays billions of dollars in corporate income taxes, makes 5¢ on their product while the People’s Republic of California makes over ten times that. For doing absolutely nothing.
Who’s fleecing who?!
See post #16.
I think you did. First, I pointed out that voucher programs are good for students in public schools, and I backed that up with a link to a report that summarizes the results of 19 real research studies on the topic. You dismissed all of that research. Plainly when a huge amount of genuine research on a topic all supports one position, the burden of proof is on those taking the opposite position to defend it. Linden Arden and others opened up by saying that vouchers are intended to destroy public schools. When challenged to defend their position, they turned their tails and ran away. So now I ask you: do you have any real research to back up the claim that vouchers are bad for public schools, and if not, why shouldn’t I trust the research cited by Dr. Forster in his report?
And the countries doing so great don’t have voucher systems either. What a lot of them do have is the division of students into college bound and trade bound at an early age. This is great unless you are a slow developer.
In Germany at least it is standard practice to give all newly graduated job candidates a test of knowledge before the hiring process begins. Companies there don’t trust the schools, obviously.
I wonder if you’re thinking of the individual gas stations, who do get only 5 cents or so a gallon from selling gas, and make their money on c-store sales. But oil companies are a different story. I don’t know their profit margin, but 2% or so seems pretty strange on the face of it. After all, they were still profitable when gas was $2, which wouldn’t be the case if they are barely scraping by when it’s almost $4.
I see the word “improve” or variations thereof a number of times in the abstract of the report you link to. Do you have any quantitative information on exactly what kind of improvement it is refering to?
Wow. When did they start doing so badly? Have their profits been dwindling?
I mean, it was just 2006 when they gave their outgoing boss a 400 million dollar bonus after “**Exxon made the biggest profit of any company ever, $36 billion”
**
And they seemed to be doing OK in 2010:
And in 2011:
bolding mine
First of all, tax revenue is not a “profit”. It doesn’t take into account administrative expenses of the IRS for instance. As for what the Californian state government does for Exxon: it maintains the roads the tankers use to transport the oil, it provides an education for the workers in order that they may provide the correct change and read credit card information and they provide the police in order to enforce contract law.
See California’s state budget here for more info.
Which of the schools with better education systems spends less of a percentage of its GDP on education? Which has a lower top marginal tax rate than the US?
At the risk of venturing off-topic, I feel compelled to point out how ridiculously simplistic, jingoistic, ignorant and downright wrong this statement is. Has it honestly never occurred to you that in return for your fuel tax the “Peoples’ republic of CA” is building and maintaining the bloody road you drove there on? Is monitering the meter at the pump to ensure that you are charged fairly and the storage tanks below, to ensure they are not leaking contaminants into the public water supply? Has, in many cases, provided the infrastructure by which the gas has got to your friendly local gas station? Oh, and the PROC also makes an effort (sometimes ineffectual) to protect the integrity of the infrastructure and ensure your personal safety while you’re using it. All paid for, wholly or in part by that 50-cent fuel tax that you claim to get nothing for.
You are, in fact receiving far better value for that $.5o/ gallon than you are for the $4.00/ gallon or whatever that you handed over to Exxon.
SS
I’ve never understood the argument that the private sector could not provide education services effectively. It sells food, clothing, cars, and a million other things effectively. Why is education so special that it must be government run (as opposed to simple vouchers and let companies run it)? Have the government set basic accreditation standards (just like basic health standards for grocery stores) and let the private sector have at it.
Think of all of the debates it would solve: You want school prayer? Send your kids to school A. You don’t? Send them to school B. You want paddling? School A. No paddling? School B.
Do you think that paying teachers $10 an hour is just fine? School A. Will paying teachers an opulent salary improve education? Do you want Olympic swimming pools and polo teams? School B. (But be ready to chip in above and beyond the government voucher you get to pay for these extras).
I know that some of you guys hate the free market and some people are dedicated to it above all else to the absurd point of privatizing roads, but why can’t education work in the private sector?
This is why. How long would it take until only the people who can afford it get a real education? Why not offer the same educational opportunities to all kids? Including the disadvantaged ones?
This thread is so frustrating. I can’t get cites because I am on my phone but the garbage some of these posters are writing is just so wrong.
Are schools are not failing, at least not to a greater extent then they ever where. They are more diverse with a far greater population of ELL students. IDEA has been great in getting kids with special needs into the classroom where they belong, but of course class averages have gone down. Average ACT scores are down, but there are many times the number is people taking the ACTs now then there were who took them before. It’s not just the elite who are trying to get into college anymore and so averages have gone down.
Why are so many teachers liberal? Is it because they are greedy pigs sucking at the teat of big government? No, they generally are very caring, very intelligent individuals who can see the struggles many of their students go through to get an good education. Most of them genuinely want what’s best for their students. I think the fact that they are mostly democratic when they are on the front lines, speaks very highly of the liberal platform. /rant over
First, we have decided as a society that each and every kid should get an education, and that the government should fund that education to some level. I trust you agree.
Second, it is a fact that some kids are cheaper and easier to educate than others.
Third, a for-profit system will encourage for-profit schools to accept the students they can make the most profit on. This can either be from quality student or those with rich parents. More difficult to educate students with poorer parents are not going to be desirable customers.
How do you propose to deal with them? The fact is that not all students today get equal resources, with special needs students getting more than average students. Do you want to pay more for them? Not give them the education they need?
Just as with healthcare, private industry does not want to deal with one-off expensive customers, those they will lose money on. That is not a moral judgment.
We also have the problem of critical timing. If someone buys a crap car, they can trade it in. If someone buys a dangerous car he can be in trouble, but jackbooted government thugs discourage car companies from making firebombs like my old Pinto.
Accreditation standards might shut down a really bad school in a year or so, but I doubt you’d want to hire enough inspectors to really keep tabs on this. The students most at risk will be most likely to get ripped off, and are most at risk for getting behind. Sure schools are not perfect now, but there is no profit motive to skimp on resources for kids.
Anyhow we have a great test case already. In the college marked, regulated by accrediting agencies, we’ve got for-profit colleges and public colleges. Do you content that the for profit colleges do a better job?
If you required all providers of elementary education to be non-profits you might have a chance. Parochial schools seem to do a good job without ripping kids off. But business would have an absolute fit.
Agreement, and thank you! If these things were left to the profit-oriented free market – oh, wait, they used to be! And we had fuel leaks into the soil, air the color of a teenaged boy’s skivvies, rivers that caught fire, and gas pumps that sold two gallons at 55 cents for a total of $1.15. Your point about government calibration of pumps hits right at home for a lot of us, who remember old pumps that multiplied creatively.
(Hey, it was before pocket calculators and cell-phone cameras. They got away with it!)
Why do think privatizing education might be okay, but privatizing roads is absurd? I think if you’re in favor of privatizing one, you should be okay with privatizing the other. I’m not in favor of privatizing neither.
Nope, that’s not my definition of “rich” at all. People like that, people in the middle and upper middle class, people like me, have been pretty roundly screwed by the Republican Party over the last 30 years.
If what I said is so obviously stupid and wrong, it should be easy for you to demolish. However, instead of doing so, you decide to deflect the attack by attempting to handwave it away.
The modern Republican Party has no ideological consistency except for “Let’s figure out more ways to channel buckets of money to wealthy donors.” If it means cutting taxes on the richest Americans, they’ll do it. If it means awarding huge defense contracts, they’ll do it. If it means gutting the public schools so that private schools can turn bigger profits, they’ll do it. If it means sustaining the war on drugs so the private prisons stay full, they’ll do it. It’s not ever a matter of finding the best solution to the problems we face as a country – it’s always a matter of finding the best way to make the rich and powerful even richer and even more powerful.
If you read the report, you’ll see that the studies look at year-to-year improvements in tests scores at public schools. They compare such improvements at public schools where students did gain the opportunity to take vouchers and leave the school to those public schools where students didn’t gain such an opportunity. Those public schools where students had the opportunity to use vouchers and leave the school posted bigger gains in tests scores than the others.
I think you had better. Recall what you said: “Vouchers are not about improving education. They’re about paying religious institutions with taxpayers’ money to teach kids that humans and dinosaurs coexisted a few thousand years ago.” I’m sure that you’re smart enough to understand the that finding a tiny number of examples of schools that receive vouchers and do something you don’t approve is not proof of what you wrote in post #6. Taken as a whole, the cites that you provided seem to make a strong case for vouchers. They document how lousy the public schools are. From the second link you posted:
White…pointed out that many kids applying for vouchers are now enrolled in dismal public schools where two-thirds of the students can’t read or do math at grade level and half will drop out before they graduate high school.
For all your complaining about the possibility of a few Louisiana kids getting a bad education in a private, you seem remarkably unconcerned about the fact that huge numbers of Louisiana kids are getting bad educations or no education at all in public schools. The article also noted that Louisiana’s state approach only expands on a program started in New Orleans in 2008. That program focuses mainly on charter schools but contained a small voucher program. The article notes that the New Orleans program has been successful and popular, to which I say: no kidding.
From the first link you posted, the portion you quoted is immediately followed by this: “The state tightened up on accountability, requiring participating schools to earn pre-accreditation, among other changes.” By leaving that out, you gave a misleading representation of what the article is saying.
Broadly speaking, religious schools produce higher test scores than public schools. The Education Department’s annual Digest of Education Statistics confirms this. It also shows that the gap in test scores between private and public schools is larger for blacks and Hispanics than for whites. Thus, those who oppose vouchers are inflicting even greater harm on black and Hispanic children than on the student body in general.
I will hereby ask you for the third time whether you can provide any actual research to support the idea that voucher programs are bad for students.