Re: OT - gimme that old time religion ....

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 06:11:09 GMT, langkd_NO_SPAM@xxxxxxx (Road Glidin'
Don) wrote:

>On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 18:00:10 -0600, Bob Mann <wiley48@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 21:12:08 GMT, langkd_NO_SPAM@xxxxxxx (Road Glidin'
>>Don) wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 20:53:58 -0900, "Robert Bolton"
>>><robertboltondrop@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Like Timberwoof I too wonder
>>>>if the end result wouldn't be a double standard of education, but I don't see
>>>>any harm in trying it. The state promised (ha-ha) they wouldn't sacrifice
>>>>public school funding to fund private schools.
>>>
>>>The fact that people have been made so afraid to try something
>>>different, even when faced with the failed state of public education
>>>is amazing.
>>>
>>>Milton Friedman, interviewed by Charlie Rose last night put it well.
>>>When you have a problem delivering something to the consumer, where do
>>>you spend money to fix the problem? If, for instance, poor people
>>>aren't recieving sufficient food, where do you put the money to ensure
>>>they get it? Subsidize the grocery store that provides the food? Or
>>>give food stamps to the poor? Everyone knows what will happen to the
>>>money if you give it to the stores.
>>>
>>>Additionally, there's no better way to get parents more involved in
>>>schools than to give them vouchers for education - which is exactly
>>>what we need more of. But maybe that's what teacher's unions and the
>>>elite who think they know better than you fear...
>>>
>>>If you give people vouchers to chose the schools they think are best,
>>>there is nothing for the poor to fear. They will be able to choose
>>>which school to send their children to.
>>>
>>>Suppose the current cost of public schooling is $10,000 so everyone
>>>gets $10,000/year for each child to spend on the school they choose.
>>>
>>>Suppose the rules were such that, if they find a school that costs
>>>less, the excess has to be deposited in an account that can only be
>>>used for the child's university or technical education later on (and
>>>if, as many suspect, private enterprise can deliver things at half the
>>>price of government... there could be a whole lot more people
>>>suddenly able to afford higher education, using those savings).
>>>
>>>Suppose they want to spend more than $10,000. They can kick in for
>>>the extra. Rich people have been doing that for years already
>>>(they're the ones who want your children forced to stay in public
>>>schools because, unlike them, you aren't educated or enlightened
>>>enough to make intelligent choices for your children). Either way,
>>>vouchers will result in keen interest by parents about how the school
>>>is spending *their* money and changes made if they don't like what
>>>they see.
>>>
>>>Suppose people were free to not send their children to schools that
>>>promoted things at odds with what they believe? Wonder why government
>>>and special interest groups depending on the schools to force their
>>>agendas on children don't like that idea?
>>>
>>>Suppose the teachers' unions didn't have a monopoly? Wonder why
>>>they're opposed to the idea? Wonder why the teachers' unions spend so
>>>heavily on certain political parties?
>>>
>>>Suppose we got back to who schools are in existence to serve in the
>>>first place?
>>
>>That's an awful lot of ifs and supposes there.
>>
>>Considering the average private school is already funded to some 80%
>>of the funding giiven to public schools and they still charge some
>>$5,000+ on top I can't see how you figure they will do the job
>>cheaper.
>
>Actually, that percentage varies hugely, depending on the province
>you're in. In Ontario they get practically nil, from last I heard.

Manitoba is higher. The amount was increased by a former Conservative
government.
>
>And that percentage is not the whole story. It's just the operating
>expenses. Zero is given for purchase of the land, the buildings and
>their upkeep - a huge portion of any school's budget.

On the other hand, if it is sold they get to keep it all. Even if they
make a profit.
>
>At the school my children attended (for a sum of 15 or so years), the
>difference that had to be made up (even after reducing costs
>dramatically by volunteer labour) was about $5,000 per year; about
>equal to what the government kicked in.
>
>So, from the government's perspective, their obligation to provide
>education was fulfilled at about 50% of the price to the public.
>Great deal for them (at the expense of parents who paid their taxes
>just like everyone else).

I agree. It does seem somewhat unfair until you consider that everyone
pays those taxes, even if they have no kids at all.
That's because of the benefit to csociety of having an educated
population.
>
>And, in case you're wondering, that's $400/month, 12 months a year
>coming out of an ordinary, working class, mostly-single-income
>families. Sacrifice involved? You bet.

I agree, it is difficult and one reason I didn't do it. Another was
that my kids didn't want to go to a private school. (The one I would
have sent them to was a Mennonite school at $2500 a year extra)
My kids got the education they wanted. One got a lot out of it and the
other didn't. He didn't want a lot out of it and nothing we could do
could change that, even paying extra.
>
>We'd do it all again the same way because we thought it the right
>thing to do for our kids, but that does not excuse the injustice and
>unfair hardship caused. We paid in way more than our share and the
>government got to keep half of our education dollars. And then, after
>saving the system hundreds of thousands of dollars, we're also
>depicted as not good citizens too, right?

Nobody said that. Not me anyway.
If you think it is the right thing to do that is your choice. I kniow
plenty of people who have used private schools, mostly for religious
reasons, but I haven't yet seen any evidence that their kids received
a better education. They were just kept out of the public system
that's all.
>
>No. The good citizens are the ones who do what the government says.
>Mommy and daddy, you both must pursue careers and leave the hired help
>to raise the kids - while those unenlightened types who think that's a
>poor approach to parenting pay extra taxes from their one-person
>incomes so that you can afford a new car each and the requisite,
>exotic holiday each year, restaurant meals, brand name clothes, etc.

I don't think anyone said that either. No need to create straw men.
In fact, that whole bitter argument has the tang of personal grudge
there somewhere. If people want to work that is their choice just as
it if they don't want to. My wife didn't work until the kids were both
in school full time. Yes, that took a lot of miney out of our pockets
but I am not bitter about people who use subsidized day care or have 2
incomes or go on vacations.
>
>This coersion and (dare I say it?) persecution from the government we
>accept when it comes to how one raises our children is an intolerable
>injustice, in my opinion. No one cares more, is more dedicated, or is
>more willing to sacrifice for their children than the parents are.
>And no one will have to deal with the life-long consequences of having
>neglected their duty in this regard more than parents will. It's a
>huge responsibility and you can't go back, years later, and re-do it
>better. You have to do your best and your utmost the first time.

Better get the tin foil hat out Don. Nobody is coercing or persecuting
anyone. Of course, there are minimum standards for raising kids, I
can't see you being against that. Because, unlike what you say, some
parents are not dedicated to raising their kids and we don't need
those kids thrown on society's scrap heap. Those parents will also not
suffer the consequences, the kids will. It is a responsibility and
most of us accept that, but not all.
>
>But, thanks to liberal think-speak, we have the track records of one
>or two percent of parents who are unsuitable used to deny trust in all
>the rest of us, when it comes to deciding what's best - so, of course,
>the government has to make our decisions for us... for the good of
>the children!

That's just plain paranoia Don. Society in general has been moving in
this direction for the past 50 years. Liberal, Conservative or
otherwise. And nobody is denyiong trust in you, they are just laying
down standards to try to protect those in that 2 percent (which of
course is made up).
Nobody is making your decisions for you and people who don't like that
stadards with that amount of vehemence have often run afoul of the
authorities for some reason.
>
>And then, the worse government's meddling screws up the family and
>society, they accumulate even more excuses to make more of our
>decisions for us.

My family has never been screwed up and neither is my society. What
have they done to you? I mean really done?
>
>>Considering that no matter who does the teaching, and the same
>>teachers will still be doing it unless you have a ready supply of new
>>ones in your back pocket, they still have to stick to the approved
>>curriculum.
>
>As someone who has been on the board of a private school for several
>years, here's a dirty little secret for ya: People who truly feel a
>calling to be teachers will still teach, even without being paid $60K
>a year. And it is not difficult to get a supply of teachers. It's
>not one of the hardest degrees to get and there's a perpetual
>over-supply.

No. it's easy to get more techers if you treat them like WalMart wage
slaves so that they won't stick around. When teaching become a less
desirable career, people with something on the ball will get out and
doo something else. Altruism only goes so far and this is something
that bothers me about too many conservatives. They cry free market but
when you scratch the surface it's because someone else is making more
money than they think they should. To save themselves some money they
want others to make less.
>
>And yes, ours (like other private schools) stuck to the
>government-mandated curriculum and used government-qualified teachers,
>just like the public schools. And the children were educated at 50%
>of what it cost to do in the public system and had higher-than-average
>test scores. Should be impossible, huh?

Well, this discussion started out by you saying that they should teach
what you wanted them to. If the whole system was private you could
pick a school that taught how you wanted school taught.
Of course they have higher than average test scores, they don't have
the kids whose parents don't give a ***, have learning disabilities,
come from poverty or broken homes. Just the ones who would do well if
they were in the public system. They would still do above average.
I did above average and so did my oldest son. It means nothing.
>
>>Considering that universities will not accepot kids that have a
>>non-standard education, unless you are going to start up independent
>>universities to go along with the independent schools. Which of course
>>only like thinking employers will touch.
>
>Gee, that would be such a good point if it had any semblance to the
>real situation on the ground. Teachers unions do expend considerable
>resources getting their point of view out to trick the electorate into
>believing it though, so it's not surprising you would think it. ;)
>
It's not like they should just roll over and allow people like
yourselves to scrap their jobs and rehire them at half the pay is it?
It's also not like opponents of the system don't spend money to
promote their points of view either.
Somehow when the union, the only people representing the teacher's
point of view, does it, that is wrong.

>>Considering the majority of the public does not want the wholesale
>>privatization of the public school system.
>>Considering the fact that 99% of the people are well served by the
>>public school system, unless you consider that you, if you went there,
>>are poorly educated.
>>Considering many people wouldn't have a clue where to send theior kids
>>if it was thrown wide open.
>>Considering the best schools will all charge extra and screen out your
>>kids unless you can stump up the extra leaving you with the same
>>standard of education you already have available. Unless you are
>>really poor in which case you get the dregs. Because few people
>>actually want to work in the inner cities with problem kids.
>>I got a decent education, my kids got decent educations, at least the
>>one who gave a *** did.
>>Considering all that, you are deluded into thinking that the way
>>things are isn't working for you.
>>When it all comes down to it, with the way private induatry works.
>>Will you be able to afford the designer education or will your kids be
>>stuck with the Walmart education for the masses. Don't forget that the
>>big shots still need a ready supply of peopns, even if they have to
>>ensure the supply themselves.
>
>Those are all things that the *parents* should be the judge of.

The majority of parents want and use the public system and would like
to see it improved.
>
>I'd say, based on the way our society is going (increasing murder,
>drug use, out-of-wedlock births, suicide, divorce, lack of respect for
>authority, attitudes of entitlement, property theft) the schools are
>part of the problem and do not have anything to brag about. If they
>truly had a strong case and the teachers unions hadn't everything to
>lose here, there wouldn't be resistance to letting parents choose.
>The protection of the status quo is disingenuously driven by special
>interests and not primarly aimed at the needs of children.

The murder rate in Canada is about the same as it has ever been. In
the US it is generally going down in many places.
Out of wedlock births aren't significantl;y higher, what is higher is
the number of young mothers who choose to keep their kids.
Suicide isn't any higher.
Divirce may or may noit be but what is worse, living together in
hatred or divorcing? A broken home is still broken even if the parents
stay together.
Schools are not part of the problem, they are just as much a victim of
the problem as anyone else. Schools don't teach these values. The
parents who you say are dedicated to their kids teach these values, TV
teaches these values, society in general has become more permissive
>
>Our courts are cluttered with all kinds of groups demanding rights
>under the Charter.

Are you not in favour of rights?
>
>However, when it comes to deciding who it is that, next to you, will
>exert the greatest influence on your children, you have virtually no
>say in the matter. And those who try to make it on a single income so
>that one parent can be available for the children full-time get no
>support. Instead, they get the heck taxed out of them (which may then
>force them to both work) to support the greed of those who don't take
>their responsibility as seriously. There's our justice for you.

Actually, sngle earbers pay less tax because they have more deductions
and less earnings. They qualify for the child tax credit, GST rebates.
Other than that, everyone gets the heck taxed out of them and since
the Conservatives are just as busy as the Liberals trying to spend the
surplus your taxes aren't likely to go down.
Oh, and by the way, sice you live in Alberta, you pay the lowest taxes
in the country so don't expect too much sympathy there.

>
>The main advantage of the system now is that it leaves people little
>to compare to. Were parents given choice (i.e. vouchers), it would
>soon become apparent which methods of delivery of education work best.
>And I'll guarantee you one thing: Teachers unions and the other
>vested interests in the educational establishment already know it
>would not serve their interests best.

Well, most are happy with the system we have. It's simpler and
standard. We have a lot of choice within the system to send out kids
to any school we can get them to.
For the most part the schools do a good job as we have one of the
higher standards of education in the world.
The only thing teachers unions are looking out for is teachers and
that is what they are paid to do. Just like my union looked out for me
and my coworkers.
You are way too paranoid Don.
--
Bob Mann
Thanks to TV and for the convenience of TV, you can only be one of two kinds
of human beings, either a liberal or a conservative.
- Kurt Vonnegut
.

Loading