|
Re: Science Education in America: Why I\'m Homeschooling My Kid in Scie
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I've sent my kids to both public and private schools and the private schools are much more sticklers for organization and base their grades much less on knowledge of the subject than on other issues. [/ QUOTE ] I'd say the "private" school market is a sliver of what it would be if the government were entirely out of the way. The obvious explanation for what you observe is that the private schools are generally tied towards religious groups today. In a truly free market with less barriers to entry, other people would be able to provide the service. [/ QUOTE ] But surely according to the theory of comparative advantage, if someone is providing free education then the surviving schools that charge should be much better than the average in a free market? |
Re: Science Education in America: Why I\'m Homeschooling My Kid in Scie
[ QUOTE ]
Also, wasn't the author of the linked article angry about his kid's grade, not the amount of science he learned? As other people said, why would you expect this to be different in a private school? And I think Phil is bringing up good points worthy of discussion and I don't know why you are doing what you are doing. You are just brushing his points aside without any debate - some sort of reverse-trolling. [/ QUOTE ] Its a shame because its important stuff. I assume the argument for non-state education is that if you're paying fees and unhappy with the school you can take your business elsewhere whereas if you're paying from taxation you have to pay again or take what's offered. In any case a system that allows people willing and able to arrange notepads to do better then people understand the subject far better is aweful for science education and a disaster because it fills the world with people who value presentation over content. chez |
Re: Science Education in America: Why I\'m Homeschooling My Kid in Scie
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I've sent my kids to both public and private schools and the private schools are much more sticklers for organization and base their grades much less on knowledge of the subject than on other issues. [/ QUOTE ] I'd say the "private" school market is a sliver of what it would be if the government were entirely out of the way. The obvious explanation for what you observe is that the private schools are generally tied towards religious groups today. In a truly free market with less barriers to entry, other people would be able to provide the service. [/ QUOTE ] But surely according to the theory of comparative advantage, if someone is providing free education then the surviving schools that charge should be much better than the average in a free market? [/ QUOTE ] Why do you think this? If the government made us all pay a tax so that they could provide free sub sandwiches to everyone, and then they set up sub shops in every neighborhood where they gave away free subs, do you think this would improve or decrease the quality of food you'd be able to get from a private sub maker? Hint: People like free subs. Sub makers would not be able to compete fairly, so the market (if it existed at all) would be a far cry from what it would be if it did not have this competitive barrier. And all the tax money that was taken to provide subs would have been better used by individual sub shop owners who have an obvious interest in providing a good service. Moreover, I haven't looked into it, but I'm sure there are a plethora of laws that restrict who can provide schools and where, which I would of course argue interfere with what would be a better service if the market determined these things. |
Re: Science Education in America: Why I\'m Homeschooling My Kid in Science
"there are a huge number of people . . . unable to recognize that it is the structure of the system itself that is ultimately destructive to genuine understanding and creativity."
Include me among those people. Please, then, explain why. I'm not being snide here, I truly want to hear the argument. The article cited by Borodog was about a particular teacher who is a stickler for organization. I've known many teachers--both my own and those who taught my kids, and noth in public and private schools--who were the same way and were wonderful teachers. |
Re: Science Education in America: Why I\'m Homeschooling My Kid in Scie
[ QUOTE ]
And I think Phil is bringing up good points worthy of discussion and I don't know why you are doing what you are doing. You are just brushing his points aside without any debate - some sort of reverse-trolling. [/ QUOTE ] Maybe because Phil made it pretty clear he was more interested in petty trolling than actual debate? I really don't understand why he gets all bent out of shape even if this WAS meant to be an AC thread (which, I don't think it necessarily was, especially when you consider that Boro is a man of science and could easily have been motivated by only that). Is being an ACist not allowed? Since the state in some way will affect basically everything we could talk about, I guess Phil would rather Boro just not start threads, since they *could* all be construed as an "AC thread in disguise" whenever someone asked him a question that begged that answer. If in one of Phil's threads someone asked him a question that he answered with something to the effect of "public school is good," would Boro or any free market fans bash him for making the thread? "ZOMG this is a state thread in disguise!!1!!!1!" No way. And it's not because we're necessarily any more polite than Phil. It's just that when you're confident in your message you don't really feel the need to resort to nonsense to attack other messengers. If you had to deal with this guy doing this to all of your threads, you'd probably ignore him too, even if he found a nut every once in a while. I don't get why you, especially as a moderator, would defend Phil here. You accuse Boro of "reverse-trolling".... shouldn't you be more worried about the person doing the "-trolling"? If you want to layout what exactly you'd like an answer to though, I'm sure someone will address it. |
Re: Science Education in America: Why I\'m Homeschooling My Kid in Scie
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you think this? If the government made us all pay a tax so that they could provide free sub sandwiches to everyone, and then they set up sub shops in every neighborhood where they gave away free subs, do you think this would improve or decrease the quality of food you'd be able to get from a private sub maker? [/ QUOTE ] It would increase the average quality of food from private sub-makers, while decreasing their number. This is because they have to compete with a free product. This competition will drive anyone who doesn't provide a premium, high-quality product out of business. Basic economics. |
Re: Science Education in America: Why I\'m Homeschooling My Kid in Scie
[ QUOTE ]
Read this for example: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/19/op...mp;oref=slogin [/ QUOTE ] This article seems a little weak on data. The article appears to state quality of education varies from school to school. Seems to be a reasonable assertion. I think the primary difference between private and public, is that private allows you to choose your poison. You're not proximally "stuck" with the quality of the local public school. Regardless of where your politics lie, almost all in the US would agree that there are many problems in the public primary school system. OP is just demonstrating, anecdotally, one of the many issues (science falling into the abyss currently occupied by geography skills) that currently plague the US public schools. |
Re: Science Education in America: Why I\'m Homeschooling My Kid in Scie
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Why do you think this? If the government made us all pay a tax so that they could provide free sub sandwiches to everyone, and then they set up sub shops in every neighborhood where they gave away free subs, do you think this would improve or decrease the quality of food you'd be able to get from a private sub maker? [/ QUOTE ] It would increase the average quality of food from private sub-makers, while decreasing their number. This is because they have to compete with a free product. This competition will drive anyone who doesn't provide a premium, high-quality product out of business. Basic economics. [/ QUOTE ] So basic you might even say "fictitious." How would the intangible drive to "compete with a free product" (in the absence of magic wands or fairy god mothers) result in a market doing things that seem impossible? They're not already doing their best to provide the best service? Say I'm a professional baseball player. I'm working hard. Been perfecting my craft all my life, and working particularly hard the last few years. Lift weights an hour a day, 10 hours of cardio a week, 3 hours of batting practice every day. Spend lots of time with my coaches fine tuning my mechanics. Eat healthy, live healthy. Such a small edge between me and the next guy, and I want to maximize it. Everything is a well oiled machine. I've finally gotten to the point where I have enough of an edge to expect a starting job next season. Then, baseball playing robots show up. They're a big step quicker, stronger, and just plain better than me. They do things I could only dream of. Do I (and my comrades) just magically "get better" because now there is a really high bar to compete with, or do you think maybe we're faced with something we just can't overcome, no matter how hard we might try? The reason the subs are free at one place is not because the market found that price as an efficient solution. If such were the case, I would agree that this is great for the industry. But it's not the case. It's artificial. And no sub shop can compete with it (in the absence of holding a gun to someone's head and making them support my business). The result is you will eat stale bread. Your post is actually pretty enlightening. I can actually see why people would support government interference in markets when they hold such flagrant misconceptions of how economics actually works. |
Re: Science Education in America: Why I\'m Homeschooling My Kid in Scie
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you think this? If the government made us all pay a tax so that they could provide free sub sandwiches to everyone, and then they set up sub shops in every neighborhood where they gave away free subs, do you think this would improve or decrease the quality of food you'd be able to get from a private sub maker? [/ QUOTE ] Canada has a decent ( but not great) government medical system. It's almost impossible ( for legal reasons) to set up private services in most of the field. But some manage to, and they thrive. Politicians win and lose there power over the quality of the sandwiches, as seen by the voters, that is the control system. The evolution debates indicate that the voters aren't that informed to be able to act as quality control agents. Potholes they can understand. luckyme |
Re: Science Education in America: Why I\'m Homeschooling My Kid in Scie
Uh... His point is that any sub shops that DO survive must have some advantage over the free ones. Not that the free ones make the for-pay sub shops better magically somehow.
Likewise, the private schools that can survive in the face of the same thing being given away for free must be surviving because they have some other advantage. In this case, they provide a perceived better education. For some, this means a better religious education. For others, it means a better science education. Jam's point, though, is that the best private schools should already exist and getting rid of the public school system will just create a bunch of mediocre private schools. |
Re: Science Education in America: Why I\'m Homeschooling My Kid in Scie
Boro-
[ QUOTE ] Getting that C- consistently really took a toll on him, he couldn’t understand what was going on. He really knows his stuff and always scored well on tests [/ QUOTE ] I realize this isn't your site, but wtf? Shouldn't this kid be able to figure out why he's getting a C-? The teacher is obviously handing back his notebook with a F on it or whatever and the kid has to know that the notebook is worth so much of his grade. |
Re: Science Education in America: Why I\'m Homeschooling My Kid in Scie
[ QUOTE ]
Boro- [ QUOTE ] Getting that C- consistently really took a toll on him, he couldn’t understand what was going on. He really knows his stuff and always scored well on tests [/ QUOTE ] I realize this isn't your site, but wtf? Shouldn't this kid be able to figure out why he's getting a C-? The teacher is obviously handing back his notebook with a F on it or whatever and the kid has to know that the notebook is worth so much of his grade. [/ QUOTE ] As an honor student that missed a lot of classes, I may have shown up if they docked enough marks, perhaps even sober. ( I didn't have that decision, whewww). Since the kid was learning science apparently, why didn't the dad show him the secret of good marks. He's going to end up with a kid that knows science but keeps terrible notebooks, he had that to start with. There's got to be more to the story. luckyme |
Re: Science Education in America: Why I\'m Homeschooling My Kid in Scie
[ QUOTE ]
Uh... His point is that any sub shops that DO survive must have some advantage over the free ones. Not that the free ones make the for-pay sub shops better magically somehow. [/ QUOTE ] My point is that the market as a whole would be stronger if the free government shop was not there. The sub shops that DO survive (if there are any) do so DESPITE the enormous artificial competitive barrier, and would be better still if the artificial free sub shop did not exist. If you agree that magic should not enter the equation, why exactly will private sub shops perform better now? They just weren't trying before? [ QUOTE ] Jam's point, though, is that the best private schools should already exist and getting rid of the public school system will just create a bunch of mediocre private schools. [/ QUOTE ] And Jam's "point" is as poorly thought out as your defense of it. The best private schools "should" already exist in maybe the figments of your own confusion. But in reality, the best private schools do not already exist, because they face so many artificial barriers. Fair competition is the solution, not the problem. I foresaw people maybe quibbling with the merits of my sub/school analogy, but not actually taking the stance that the private sub market will be improved when you introduce an artificial barrier. Wow. |
Re: Science Education in America: Why I\'m Homeschooling My Kid in Scie
[ QUOTE ]
In any case a system that allows people willing and able to arrange notepads to do better then people understand the subject far better is aweful for science education and a disaster because it fills the world with people who value presentation over content. [/ QUOTE ] But as Andy has said, this is also the case in some private schools. This is an individual teacher and student here. |
Re: Science Education in America: Why I\'m Homeschooling My Kid in Scie
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I've sent my kids to both public and private schools and the private schools are much more sticklers for organization and base their grades much less on knowledge of the subject than on other issues. [/ QUOTE ] I'd say the "private" school market is a sliver of what it would be if the government were entirely out of the way. The obvious explanation for what you observe is that the private schools are generally tied towards religious groups today. In a truly free market with less barriers to entry, other people would be able to provide the service. [/ QUOTE ] But surely according to the theory of comparative advantage, if someone is providing free education then the surviving schools that charge should be much better than the average in a free market? [/ QUOTE ] So you think that restricting and outlawing competition makes for better competition? You think that black market drug trade makes for a (much) better product than said product in a free market system? You believe that theft, extortion and others forms of violence can create something good? |
Re: Science Education in America: Why I\'m Homeschooling My Kid in Scie
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe because Phil made it pretty clear he was more interested in petty trolling than actual debate? [/ QUOTE ] In this thread? [ QUOTE ] I really don't understand why he gets all bent out of shape even if this WAS meant to be an AC thread (which, I don't think it necessarily was, especially when you consider that Boro is a man of science and could easily have been motivated by only that). Is being an ACist not allowed? Since the state in some way will affect basically everything we could talk about, I guess Phil would rather Boro just not start threads, since they *could* all be construed as an "AC thread in disguise" whenever someone asked him a question that begged that answer. If in one of Phil's threads someone asked him a question that he answered with something to the effect of "public school is good," would Boro or any free market fans bash him for making the thread? "ZOMG this is a state thread in disguise!!1!!!1!" No way. And it's not because we're necessarily any more polite than Phil. It's just that when you're confident in your message you don't really feel the need to resort to nonsense to attack other messengers. [/ QUOTE ] My problem is that I'm seeing more of threads that go something like what we see here. OP: -Link- "Blah blah blah" Responder: What about -link- "Blah blah blah?" OP: Stop trolling me. Responder: I'm not trolling you. I'll say again what about this point? OP: You're a troll. etc. etc. etc. And nothing gets discussed - which is the point of this forum. [ QUOTE ] If you had to deal with this guy doing this to all of your threads, you'd probably ignore him too, even if he found a nut every once in a while. I don't get why you, especially as a moderator, would defend Phil here. [/ QUOTE ] Phil and I have had some battles before. I briefly considered ignoring him but got past it, quit with the insults, and started debating his points and I think it worked itself out. [ QUOTE ] You accuse Boro of "reverse-trolling".... shouldn't you be more worried about the person doing the "-trolling"? [/ QUOTE ] Again, I didn't see much in the way of trolling here by Phil. It seems like Borodog has been doing this lately: makes a declaration, people try to debate with him, he responds with the "Market is better than anything.", "You haven't read what I've read", or "you're a troll" instead of discussing the issue at hand. There is a ton of stuff on public vs. private schooling. Instead of talking about the studies, flaws, etc. we get nothing done. I asked whether or not these problems could be fixable because he did just give an anecdote about one individual teacher and student. He gave a stock answer, Phil brought up a study disagreeing with Borodog's point and then the T-word started getting tossed out. Borodog also said that I "really didn't want to hear the answer" which seems kind of odd. Maybe I'm a troll too I guess. [ QUOTE ] If you want to layout what exactly you'd like an answer to though, I'm sure someone will address it. [/ QUOTE ] I don't necessarily care about an answer, I just want to see some actual discussion. Also, straight AC threads go in politics. Debating public vs. private education stays here. |
Re: Science Education in America: Why I\'m Homeschooling My Kid in Scie
[ QUOTE ]
If you had to deal with this guy doing this to all of your threads, you'd probably ignore him too, even if he found a nut every once in a while. [/ QUOTE ] I just have to point out that this is untrue. Look at his last 100 posts and several OPs (or any time before that) and see how many times I've responded to him...none apart from this thread. I respond to maybe 1 in 10 of his OPs (mostly when he posts thinly disguised AC rants in SMP that are contradicted by evidence) and virtually none of his posts. There is no pattern of trolling at all like you suggest. As for the person who said the article is light on data - it references this report, which is one of the most comprehensive reports ever done on public vs private schooling: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard...es/2006461.asp Some highlights: [ QUOTE ] In the first set of analyses, all private schools were compared to all public schools. The average private school mean reading score was 14.7 points higher than the average public school mean reading score, corresponding to an effect size of .41 (the ratio of the absolute value of the estimated difference to the standard deviation of the NAEP fourth-grade reading score distribution). After adjusting for selected student characteristics, the difference in means was near zero and not significant. [/ QUOTE ] 14.7 points difference on a 500 point scale...and this includes the subset of the wealthy, who do better in in school [ QUOTE ] In the first set of analyses, all private schools were again compared to all public schools. The average private school mean mathematics score was 7.8 points higher than the average public school mean mathematics score, corresponding to an effect size of .29. After adjusting for selected student characteristics, the difference in means was -4.5 and significantly different from zero. (Note that a negative difference implies that the average school mean was higher for public schools.) [/ QUOTE ] 7.8 points on a 300 to 500 point scale (depends on the grade - not sure of the details). This is including the fact that the elite private schools attract the best teachers available, and many are academically selective - which means they're already skewed toward picking up the most capable students already. Even if there was no effect from private school education, private schools should significantly outperform public schools...yet they don't. Why are private schools failing as badly as public schools? Surely competition from the significant middle-upper class in the US is sufficient to provide market driven improvements in school quality and outcomes? BTW, private schools make up roughly 10% of the nation's schools. In other countries, this volume of kids would provide half or more the nation's education needs. Are you saying that this is insufficient to work? That the wealthy and those who care about their kids enough to pay for private school, are unable to choose the best one in their area and petition for improvements? It's a bizarre position that you guys have on this point. One other point - the US trails significantly behind the Western world in terms of student proficiency - near the bottom, in fact. Yet they have one of the most decentralized educational systems in the Western world, and similar private school percentages to other countries who outperform them. So why are they failing? RDuke asks above: Do you think this is fixable? Well, clearly it is, as other public school systems outperform both the public and private schooling system of the US. So, you can keep posting "statist clown" pictures if you want, and blindly asserting your AC mantras, but the silence of you guys regarding the actual evidence is deafening.... |
Re: Science Education in America: Why I\'m Homeschooling My Kid in Science
[ QUOTE ]
"there are a huge number of people . . . unable to recognize that it is the structure of the system itself that is ultimately destructive to genuine understanding and creativity." Include me among those people. Please, then, explain why. I'm not being snide here, I truly want to hear the argument. The article cited by Borodog was about a particular teacher who is a stickler for organization. I've known many teachers--both my own and those who taught my kids, and noth in public and private schools--who were the same way and were wonderful teachers. [/ QUOTE ] The idea that the federal government should be standardizing curriculum (ID or no ID, sex ed or no sex ed, etc. etc. etc.) is a symptom of the problem, not the solution. Nationwide standardization by definition means that you're going to have to play to the lowest common denominator -- students who are just barely aware of the existence of certain ideas in science by the time of their graduation. My pre-college years in the school system can best be described as "a colossal waste of time." I remember getting excited in the 2nd grade (after looking ahead in the science book) that we were finally going to learn about atoms, and then being utterly dismayed at discovering over the next nine years that nobody in my school had the slightest clue (beyond the utterly trivial) what scientists actually thought about atoms, or why. It was highschool chemistry before I learned the words "quantum mechanics," and a whole new set of questions could be dismissed with a wave of the hand in favor of emphasis on memorizing the names and correct spelling of the elements (which naturally bored me to death and earned my parents the standard "if only your son would apply himself" speech, as well as recommendations against my requests to take advanced math classes). This kind of thing is bound to happen when the same people who are worried about "falling graduation rates" in their district and the future of their funding are managing a one-size-fits-all science curriculum. There is no way in hell that I'm going to let any children of mine be victimized in this way. |
Re: Science Education in America: Why I\'m Homeschooling My Kid in Scie
Hopefully the thread is getting back on track.
What I was starting to get at with the "fix" question (I wasn't being a socratic ass or anything - I just wasn't sure of what I was trying to say) was that I think the problem is that with educating a crapload of students it's difficult to measure the quality of the education. Many people talk about the No Child Left Behind Act as the main villain here and I think that idea definitely has merit but the problem goes past that. In this case public schools need to meet some benchmark for continued funding. Meeting that benchmark results in a kind of "training for the test" education that is certainly not optimal. But I think that this is also inherent to any large educational system, for public it's competing for tax dollars, for private it's competing for students. How do we assess the quality of education? The fixable solutions I'm wondering about is whether or not there are problems with the tests themselves (can the tests be fixed) or with the idea of testing itself - should we use some other metric to grade education? If so, what should it be? |
Re: Science Education in America: Why I\'m Homeschooling My Kid in Scie
[ QUOTE ]
My pre-college years in the school system can best be described as "a colossal waste of time." I remember getting excited in the 2nd grade (after looking ahead in the science book) that we were finally going to learn about atoms, and then being utterly dismayed at discovering over the next nine years that nobody in my school had the slightest clue (beyond the utterly trivial) what scientists actually thought about atoms, or why. It was highschool chemistry before I learned the words "quantum mechanics," and a whole new set of questions could be dismissed with a wave of the hand in favor of emphasis on memorizing the names and correct spelling of the elements (which naturally bored me to death and earned my parents the standard "if only your son would apply himself" speech, as well as recommendations against my requests to take advanced math classes). [/ QUOTE ] But do you think you were not the typical student? How many pre-high schoolers would you say could really understand the kinds of things you are talking about? And I'm not disagreeing with you that there are problems with the mentality you are talking about. I'm wondering how to fix that. And please no general "free market will take care of it answers", I think there will be a similar problem there in measuring quality of education and as I said in my previous post. If the free market is better, why specifically in this regard? |
Re: Science Education in America: Why I\'m Homeschooling My Kid in Scie
[ QUOTE ]
I just have to point out that this is untrue. Look at his last 100 posts and several OPs (or any time before that) and see how many times I've responded to him...none apart from this thread. I respond to maybe 1 in 10 of his OPs (mostly when he posts thinly disguised AC rants in SMP that are contradicted by evidence) and virtually none of his posts. There is no pattern of trolling at all like you suggest. [/ QUOTE ] I don't really care to sift through old threads to determine the extent of your trolling, so I'll take your word for it that it's not as bad as I suggested. Would you agree though that you and Boro aren't exactly chums and the discourse between you is usually unproductive? I don't really care who says what and am fine with retracting my claim that you are entirely to blame, but I think you'd agree that it should be no real stunner if Boro just doesn't want to deal with you (even if you raise a legitimate point once in a while). [ QUOTE ] In the first set of analyses, all private schools were compared to all public schools. [/ QUOTE ] Stop right there. If we're determined to talk about this from an AC/state angle, then there are no "private" schools compare to. I personally have no interest in defending the "private" schools that exist in a saturated market, and would be entirely open to the idea that public schools maybe even outperform them. This should not be seen as the same argument as "in the absence of all government interference, private schools would be better still." It's possible that given a certain arrangement of laws (such as my sub sandwich example) the market just could not provide a product that was a better quality than the one government forced people to pay for. [ QUOTE ] Why are private schools failing as badly as public schools? Surely competition from the significant middle-upper class in the US is sufficient to provide market driven improvements in school quality and outcomes? [/ QUOTE ] Is it enough to overcome the enormous barrier that is artificially free schooling existing in the "market"? Apparently not, if it's true that private schools perform as bad. You shouldn't look at these schools as a result of what the free market would provide. If what you want is to compare public schools vs private schools in an unfair market, then all your arguments apply. But the latter is not something I care to defend, because I admit it might be equally flawed (or in some cases even worse). [ QUOTE ] One other point - the US trails significantly behind the Western world in terms of student proficiency - near the bottom, in fact. Yet they have one of the most decentralized educational systems in the Western world, and similar private school percentages to other countries who outperform them. So why are they failing? [/ QUOTE ] One of the most decentralized systems? How so? The difference between US public education and European public education is awfully small compared to the difference between either and a free market (which is, I think, what you claim to be arguing against). A better example would be to look at the US university system, where public interference is small enough to be at least a passable insight into what a market provides. I don't think it's coincidence that the US system blows everyone else away. [ QUOTE ] So, you can keep posting "statist clown" pictures if you want, and blinding asserting your AC mantras, but the silence of you guys regarding the actual evidence is deafening.... [/ QUOTE ] Maybe ACers are silent because your evidence and questions don't have anything to do with AC, so we have nothing to defend. I have to say, you're awfully good at deflecting the actual issue into something slightly different that makes you appear to have raised a good point. Since my hunch is you actually believe what you're saying, I think you must do this on a subconscious level. Either way, you have quite a knack for it. You should be a politician, or maybe a cable news personality. If what you want to do is empirically compare public school systems with varying degrees of interference and slightly different sets of laws to determine which one is worse, then carry on. But it really has nothing to do with AC or our positions on education, so don't be surprised when we show no interest. |
Re: Science Education in America: Why I\'m Homeschooling My Kid in Scie
[ QUOTE ]
But do you think you were not the typical student? How many pre-high schoolers would you say could really understand the kinds of things you are talking about? [/ QUOTE ] The point is precisely that a one-size-fits all curriculum is DESTINED to screw non-typical students. It can't help but screw them, by design. [ QUOTE ] And I'm not disagreeing with you that there are problems with the mentality you are talking about. I'm wondering how to fix that. And please no general "free market will take care of it answers", I think there will be a similar problem there in measuring quality of education and as I said in my previous post. If the free market is better, why specifically in this regard? [/ QUOTE ] Practically anything would be a step in right direction, compared to the one-size-fits-all centrally regulated system (unless you're just a bit below average ability and the standard curriculum is just enough of a challenge to lift you to new intellectual heights). Not only is the standard quality of education poor, but it eats up time during which an interested individual could be learning something useful. If someone would have told me to knock myself out and surf Wikipedia for 8 hours a day for four years instead of going to class, I would have learned a hell of a lot more prior to university. What we need is flexibility, and this is precisely what centrally regulated systems are least-equipped to deliver. You don't have to be an ACist to understand that free markets are going to be more flexible than government. |
Re: Science Education in America: Why I\'m Homeschooling My Kid in Scie
Some of what you say is reasonable. But the main problems I have with your post are these:
- You're merely asserting that schooling would be much better if it was all private. Where is the evidence? - I don't find your saturated market comments compelling. Mainly because: a) private schools need to significantly outperform public schools to get parent dollars; b) There are more than sufficient private schools in many areas for parent choice to exist, which is the sole driver of market improvement; c)The 10% driving the market are equivalent to a fully private solution in a lower population country (such as Australia or Holland). New providers already have the guarantee that x number of people in their local area will be seeking private education. Private education levels have been stable for a long time. It seems strange to argue that the market will fail in these circumstances, or that it requires a certain population size in order to be viable. [ QUOTE ] One of the most decentralized systems? How so? The difference between US public education and European public education is awfully small compared to the difference between either and a free market [/ QUOTE ] I'd agree with you, but I made that point against those who are arguing in a knee jerk fashion against centralization. The US system is fairly decentralized compared to other systems (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educati...States#Control for example) [ QUOTE ] I don't think it's coincidence that the US system blows everyone else away. [/ QUOTE ] The US has an ivy league built by those with immense wealth and power. Apart from that, it's fairly mediocre compared to the rest of the world. BTW - the best of the US private high school system (mainly for the elite) blows everyone else away as well, which invalidates your point I think. I'd suggest that wealth is the key factor in both. [ QUOTE ] Maybe people are silent because your evidence and questions don't have anything to do with AC, so we have nothing to defend. [/ QUOTE ] This thread isn't about AC...it's about the state of the public vs private education system in the near future, and how to fix it. AC is not going to come about in the next 20 years, nor is the public school system going to go away any time soon. So while the AC stuff is an interesting (or boring, depending on your perspective) intellectual exercise, it has little relevance to the actual state of affairs as they'll exist in the foreseeable future. And again...do you have any evidence for what you assert, beyond "the market will fix it", which is theory, and not evidence. |
Re: Science Education in America: Why I\'m Homeschooling My Kid in Scie
I'm abit curious as to why newspapers weren't contacted, the scoolboard or the parents' association etc. Surely there are plenty of tools at one's disposal to try and remedy this situation? Makes one wonder if the official stance from some posters here is that that once schools get completely privatized, all bad teachers will magically disappear and we never have to take action. |
Re: Science Education in America: Why I\'m Homeschooling My Kid in Scie
[ QUOTE ]
No child of mine will ever be fed to the public "school" system. [/ QUOTE ] For those of you who do not have a spouse at home full time to home school, or the money for a private school, there are some things that help cope with the public schools. 1. Schools teach your child resistance to illegitimate authority, which is a crucial lesson. In my sons third grade one day, they were discussing classification of animals, and put snakes in the reptile category. My son, who loves and owns snakes, volunteered that they used to be lizards, but lost their legs. Teacher asks class how lizards lost their legs. Lukas' hand shoots up and says "they evolved." Teacher said that was incorrect (no lie). She calls on a girl who quoted a Bible verse about the serpent being cursed by God for tempting Eve, and condemned to crawl on his belly and eat dust. Teacher says, "yes." My son knew that was dead wrong, and now knows to find truth from his own thinking, rather than accept force feeding from adult authority. Kids from touchy-feely free schools do not get the same experience in resisting forced stupidity. He carries around evolution books and is in the trenches, which society needs. At least he did last year, but now he's being homeschooled. 2. If you back you kid up against stupid rules, and incorrect information, they get stronger. The rules don't change, but the knowledge that you backed them, and that they are not crazy -- the school is -- is essential. 3. You have to supplement, especially in science, which is the worst. And in that link, they astronomer complaining 5th graders did not know man landed on the moon is a whiner. That stuff is rampant. You respond by providing the information, not bitching. I was talking to a 6th grade teacher once, and started to complain about the quality of the college freshmen. She stopped me, and said in every single grade, the teachers complain that last year's instructors did not properly prepare the kids. You take them where they are, and raise them up from there, rather than bellyache for the world that should be. |
Re: Science Education in America: Why I\'m Homeschooling My Kid in Science
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, a good class should be about knowledge of the subject matter, but it should also be about more than that. Learning to be organized and to do what you need to in order to prosper are, IMO, much more important skills than knowing science. [/ QUOTE ] Yes. This point is extremely valid. While marks in school should (in theory) measure your knowledge of basic subjects, they should also measure your ability to follow instructions and meet deadlines. I agree that 80% for notebooks is extreme (and should be significantly reduced), but I think that the problem here lies more with the child (who may feel a sense of entitlement) or the parent (who may feel a sense of entitlement on behalf of the child) than with the school system. I'm a product of the public school system myself. Although my school was behind many of the public schools in the area in terms of course offerings (did not offer foreign languages or math above pre-algebra, and this was a K-8 school in a small, semi-coastal, not wealthy, NJ town), there was never a noticeable curriculum gap (other than teaching religion obviously) between our school and the local parochial schools. Thinking back, it's also not clear whether my friends from public school or my friends from the local catholic school are doing better -- probably about the same. I understand that many large public school systems have problems. Large cities and small poor communities, especially. However, I think all but the best private schools are not worth it, except in the most extreme cases. With involved parents/family (which includes the child learning discipline at home), a child will likely come out of either school system with approximately the same knowledge, demeanor, and potential. |
Re: Science Education in America: Why I\'m Homeschooling My Kid in Scie
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] In any case a system that allows people willing and able to arrange notepads to do better then people understand the subject far better is aweful for science education and a disaster because it fills the world with people who value presentation over content. [/ QUOTE ] But as Andy has said, this is also the case in some private schools. This is an individual teacher and student here. [/ QUOTE ] Sure, I'm not arguing state vs fee-paying except that if you pay you can chose. The UK used to have a much deserved very high reputation for meaningful qualifications has had this ruined by grade inflation. Like the easy printing of money the government found short term votes in 'improving' education by ensuring more and more passed exams with higher grades. The method is to increasingly measure things that require very little ability or knowledge (as before this is popular so people going private will pay for it as well). Maybe some don't think this is a disaster, I do. it would make me very angry if I wasn't still thinking about the rugby. chez |
Re: Science Education in America: Why I\'m Homeschooling My Kid in Scie
[ QUOTE ]
- You're merely asserting that schooling would be much better if it was all private. Where is the evidence? [/ QUOTE ] But I don't intend what I said to be a thorough analysis of why privatized schooling would work. I'm merely saying that you also have not provided any evidence against a truly privatized system (since such a system doesn't exist and can't possibly be empirically explored). So if you think your arguments are valid empirical arguments against AC's assumptions, you're wrong. If anything, they merely suggest that government's interference in education handcuffs the market severely (which is what I would have assumed was true anyways). Do you have any evidence showing that in a truly free market schools would still be on par with government? [ QUOTE ] The US has an ivy league built by those with immense wealth and power. [/ QUOTE ] So if this is your argument, I could just as easily say "US high school education fails because we have so many urban blacks who have no interest in learning." But drawing out the good or the bad as separate from the system as a whole seems really pointless. [ QUOTE ] Apart from that, it's fairly mediocre compared to the rest of the world. [/ QUOTE ] LOL. Do your friends help you out by bending over so you have new and exciting [censored] to pull [censored] out of when it's convenient to a particular argument? After the Ivy leagues, the US universities are mediocre compared to the rest of the world. What a claim. It amazes me on two levels. One, because: "Yo, when you take the all-stars off the Spurs, they're mediocre compared to the rest of the league." It's just such an odd thing to need to say. "Other than that" I guess Mrs. Lincoln enjoyed the play. And second, it seems just blatantly wrong. Last time I checked, students emigrate from all over the world (much more than to any other country's schools) to attend MIT, Duke, Rice, Johns Hopkins, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Tufts, Wake Forest, Boston College, and a plethora of other names I could come up with if this argument of yours was actually worth putting further thought into. [ QUOTE ] BTW - the best of the US private high school system (mainly for the elite) blows everyone else away as well, which invalidates your point I think. [/ QUOTE ] It does!? [ QUOTE ] I'd suggest that wealth is the key factor in both. [/ QUOTE ] I agree! It's almost like there's a rational order to it all. People with more money will always have more and better goods than everyone else. Oh well. Rather than bring everyone down to one level so that some people won't feel bad, I'd rather people be free to do as they please, so that we'll all be richer than we would be otherwise. I just want people do be happy, Phil. It might be nice to think we can close our eyes, say a wish, and manually solve everyone's problems at once. But when you're in touch with the reality that this mindset makes problems worse, you feel like sort of a dick when you support the idea of trying, even if you can myopically represent some piece of data to give a glimmer of encouragement to your position. [ QUOTE ] This thread isn't about AC...it's about the state of the public vs private education system in the near future, and how to fix it. [/ QUOTE ] Fine, then don't wonder why ACers don't answer you or have an opinion on which policy they'd prefer, when our real answer is that we want no part of any of it. Someone asked Boro a question, and he gave his honest answer. If y'all don't want to talk about AC, then ignore his answer and move on. But you seem to be caught up in arguing "this thread is not about AC" while simultaneously trying to argue against AC! It's clear that you don't like AC. I guess you'd be happier if your misconceptions remained unchecked. But if you really don't want to talk about AC as a broad theory, then I'd suggest you stop compartmentalizing anyone who argues in a way that could be construed as opposing government as one entity. Since you're so big on evidence, if you want an example of this, you can look to the last post where you implicitly accused me of "posting statist clown pictures" etc., when I personally have been doing nothing of the sort, and am actually engaging you. [ QUOTE ] And again...do you have any evidence for what you assert, beyond "the market will fix it", which is theory, and not evidence. [/ QUOTE ] Again, what am I trying to assert? You assume I'm as interested in misrepresenting various pieces of data to defend deep rooted misconceptions as you are. My interest lies in avoiding the logical misconceptions. If you don't want to talk about the theory here, fine. My only claim here is that since AC has nothing to do with what you're saying, you shouldn't be surprised or act like you're being snubbed when ACers don't have any opinion on what you're saying (especially when you intentionally direct your musings specifically at us!). |
Re: Science Education in America: Why I\'m Homeschooling My Kid in Scie
[ QUOTE ]
Re: Science Education in America: Why I'm Homeschooling My Kid in Scie [Re: PLOlover] #12394436 - 10/07/07 03:05 AM Edit post Edit Reply to this post Reply Reply to this post Quote Quick Reply Quick Reply Quote: Quote: So are you a voluntaryist yet? criminal is probably the best label; I mean I can think. What? If you are purposely avoiding the question please state so. [/ QUOTE ] I consider myself a criminal. an outlaw. I consider the law unjust and therefore I consider myself outside the law. if force is used against me as I'm sure eventually it will be, I will consider it proper and just for me to meet force with force. |
Re: Science Education in America: Why I\'m Homeschooling My Kid in Scie
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you think this? If the government made us all pay a tax so that they could provide free sub sandwiches to everyone, and then they set up sub shops in every neighborhood where they gave away free subs, do you think this would improve or decrease the quality of food you'd be able to get from a private sub maker? Hint: People like free subs. Sub makers would not be able to compete fairly, so the market (if it existed at all) would be a far cry from what it would be if it did not have this competitive barrier. And all the tax money that was taken to provide subs would have been better used by individual sub shop owners who have an obvious interest in providing a good service. Moreover, I haven't looked into it, but I'm sure there are a plethora of laws that restrict who can provide schools and where, which I would of course argue interfere with what would be a better service if the market determined these things. [/ QUOTE ] substitute public universities with private universities and see what the result is. otoh I guess a lot of public money goes into "private" universities too. |
Re: Science Education in America: Why I\'m Homeschooling My Kid in Scie
[ QUOTE ]
"there are a huge number of people . . . unable to recognize that it is the structure of the system itself that is ultimately destructive to genuine understanding and creativity." Include me among those people. Please, then, explain why. I'm not being snide here, I truly want to hear the argument. The article cited by Borodog was about a particular teacher who is a stickler for organization. I've known many teachers--both my own and those who taught my kids, and noth in public and private schools--who were the same way and were wonderful teachers. [/ QUOTE ] I think he was talking about evolution vs. intelligent design. in evolution there is a system of thought that can be expanded upon, the whole scientific process/method, whereas ID just boils down to "this is how it is, because <somebody> says so". |
Re: Science Education in America: Why I\'m Homeschooling My Kid in Scie
[ QUOTE ]
So basic you might even say "fictitious." How would the intangible drive to "compete with a free product" (in the absence of magic wands or fairy god mothers) result in a market doing things that seem impossible? They're not already doing their best to provide the best service? Say I'm a professional baseball player. I'm working hard. Been perfecting my craft all my life, and working particularly hard the last few years. Lift weights an hour a day, 10 hours of cardio a week, 3 hours of batting practice every day. Spend lots of time with my coaches fine tuning my mechanics. Eat healthy, live healthy. Such a small edge between me and the next guy, and I want to maximize it. Everything is a well oiled machine. I've finally gotten to the point where I have enough of an edge to expect a starting job next season. Then, baseball playing robots show up. They're a big step quicker, stronger, and just plain better than me. They do things I could only dream of. Do I (and my comrades) just magically "get better" because now there is a really high bar to compete with, or do you think maybe we're faced with something we just can't overcome, no matter how hard we might try? The reason the subs are free at one place is not because the market found that price as an efficient solution. If such were the case, I would agree that this is great for the industry. But it's not the case. It's artificial. And no sub shop can compete with it (in the absence of holding a gun to someone's head and making them support my business). The result is you will eat stale bread. Your post is actually pretty enlightening. I can actually see why people would support government interference in markets when they hold such flagrant misconceptions of how economics actually works. [/ QUOTE ] you're forgetting that say "free" subs cost a nominal 1 dollar. well the private subs may cost 10 dollars or more to compete, because they compete on quality. a lot of people will pay 10 dollars rather than 1 or even 0, in order not to eat stale bread. |
Re: Science Education in America: Why I\'m Homeschooling My Kid in Scie
[ QUOTE ]
I just have to point out that this is untrue. Look at his last 100 posts and several OPs (or any time before that) and see how many times I've responded to him...none apart from this thread. I respond to maybe 1 in 10 of his OPs (mostly when he posts thinly disguised AC rants in SMP that are contradicted by evidence) and virtually none of his posts. There is no pattern of trolling at all like you suggest. As for the person who said the article is light on data - it references this report, which is one of the most comprehensive reports ever done on public vs private schooling: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard...es/2006461.asp Some highlights: Quote: In the first set of analyses, all private schools were compared to all public schools. The average private school mean reading score was 14.7 points higher than the average public school mean reading score, corresponding to an effect size of .41 (the ratio of the absolute value of the estimated difference to the standard deviation of the NAEP fourth-grade reading score distribution). After adjusting for selected student characteristics, the difference in means was near zero and not significant. 14.7 points difference on a 500 point scale...and this includes the subset of the wealthy, who do better in in school Quote: In the first set of analyses, all private schools were again compared to all public schools. The average private school mean mathematics score was 7.8 points higher than the average public school mean mathematics score, corresponding to an effect size of .29. After adjusting for selected student characteristics, the difference in means was -4.5 and significantly different from zero. (Note that a negative difference implies that the average school mean was higher for public schools.) 7.8 points on a 300 to 500 point scale (depends on the grade - not sure of the details). This is including the fact that the elite private schools attract the best teachers available, and many are academically selective - which means they're already skewed toward picking up the most capable students already. Even if there was no effect from private school education, private schools should significantly outperform public schools...yet they don't. Why are private schools failing as badly as public schools? Surely competition from the significant middle-upper class in the US is sufficient to provide market driven improvements in school quality and outcomes? BTW, private schools make up roughly 10% of the nation's schools. In other countries, this volume of kids would provide half or more the nation's education needs. Are you saying that this is insufficient to work? That the wealthy and those who care about their kids enough to pay for private school, are unable to choose the best one in their area and petition for improvements? It's a bizarre position that you guys have on this point. One other point - the US trails significantly behind the Western world in terms of student proficiency - near the bottom, in fact. Yet they have one of the most decentralized educational systems in the Western world, and similar private school percentages to other countries who outperform them. So why are they failing? RDuke asks above: Do you think this is fixable? Well, clearly it is, as other public school systems outperform both the public and private schooling system of the US. So, you can keep posting "statist clown" pictures if you want, and blindly asserting your AC mantras, but the silence of you guys regarding the actual evidence is deafening.... [/ QUOTE ] not sure from the quote if these are SAT scores or what. if they're grades then maybe private schools just grade harder? |
Re: Science Education in America: Why I\'m Homeschooling My Kid in Scie
[ QUOTE ]
One other point - the US trails significantly behind the Western world in terms of student proficiency - near the bottom, in fact. Yet they have one of the most decentralized educational systems in the Western world, and similar private school percentages to other countries who outperform them. So why are they failing? [/ QUOTE ] I strongly suspect that current education standards are inversely correlated with the current standard of living (within countries that have well developed eucational systems) So I'd expect the USA to do relatively badly and the question is would it do bettor or worse with fee-paying or state systems not how does it do compared to western europe. perhaps its a sign of success that the UK is catching down with the US. chez |
Re: Science Education in America: Why I\'m Homeschooling My Kid in Scie
ALaw - you're missing the point here.
ACists in this thread are aggressively and absolutely claiming that a privatized school system will be vastly superior, AND that it's the only solution to the problem, AND that centralization is the cause of the state of education in the US. The burden of proof is on THEM to prove their God. I am not making these kinds of huge claims. I am saying: - There is a lack of evidence that private education is greatly superior, in addition to some contradictory evidence. - That centralization is not the main reason for the terrible state of US schools relative to other countries with far better education systems and outcomes; - That the currently centralized system can indeed be improved. These are my only claims. They are backed up by plenty of evidence. The claims of ACers in this thread are not and they appear unwilling to provide evidence for their position - just a lot of bluster and hyperbole. [ QUOTE ] LOL. Do your friends help you out by bending over so you have new and exciting [censored] to pull [censored] out of when it's convenient to a particular argument? After the Ivy leagues, the US universities are mediocre compared to the rest of the world. What a claim. [/ QUOTE ] The US is the most powerful and wealthy country on Earth, with many nobel prize winning immigrants, a huge science and technology based industry, nearly a quarter of world GDP, and the largest middle class anywhere. Yet, according to the only rankings I can find, the US has only one quarter of the world's top 200 universities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educati..._status_ladder I maintain my position that the US has a small clustering of elite universities at the top, and the others are fairly mediocre by Western standards. Do I think that the elite universities have benefited from being private? Absolutely. The greatness of all of the ivy leagues is partly due to the freedoms of private ownership. But only partly...two of the top three universities in the world are public. It's obvious that the wealth and selection that goes into the pinnacle of any private system will produce elite outcomes that are superior to a public system. The larger question, and the only one relevant to this discussion, is whether the average case under private ownership is significantly better than public. I do not see it in the case of universities and I don't see it in the case of schools. It may well be the case, but you guys haven't shown a shred of evidence that it is. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] BTW - the best of the US private high school system (mainly for the elite) blows everyone else away as well, which invalidates your point I think. [/ QUOTE ] It does!? [/ QUOTE ] It's about the elite vs the average case. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I'd suggest that wealth is the key factor in both. [/ QUOTE ] I agree! It's almost like there's a rational order to it all. People with more money will always have more and better goods than everyone else. Oh well. Rather than bring everyone down to one level so that some people won't feel bad, I'd rather people be free to do as they please, so that we'll all be richer than we would be otherwise. I just want people do be happy, Phil. It might be nice to think we can close our eyes, say a wish, and manually solve everyone's problems at once. But when you're in touch with the reality that this mindset makes problems worse, you feel like sort of a dick when you support the idea of trying, even if you can myopically represent some piece of data to give a glimmer of encouragement to your position. [/ QUOTE ] It has nothing to do with bringing everyone down to the same level. Both you and Nielsio with his comments above about outlawing competition (wtf?) and choice are missing that people can already choose to send their children to private schools. And voucher systems have been tried, but they don't seem to have improved things much. [ QUOTE ] It's clear that you don't like AC. I guess you'd be happier if your misconceptions remained unchecked....You assume I'm as interested in misrepresenting various pieces of data to defend deep rooted misconceptions as you are. [/ QUOTE ] What is the point of this? You assume that my objections to AC comments are due to "misconceptions". Pretty arrogant, no? In reality, my objections to AC posts are the pathetic lack of evidence that accompanies bold assertions, the over-extrapolation of freshman economic assumptions that underly those assertions, and the unwillingness to examine the downsides. I'm entirely open to the idea that private education, and the competition/efficiency/experimentation it creates, may produce a vastly better outcome. But I can't find evidence for this position, and even the theoretical underpinnings are lacking in depth. So I'm disappointed that the subject isn't treated seriously, but instead blindly asserted from the most sophomoric of assumptions. |
Re: Science Education in America: Why I\'m Homeschooling My Kid in Scie
[ QUOTE ]
ALaw - you're missing the point here. ACists in this thread are aggressively and absolutely claiming that a privatized school system will be vastly superior, AND that it's the only solution to the problem, AND that centralization is the cause of the state of education in the US. The burden of proof is on THEM to prove their God. I am not making these kinds of huge claims. I am saying: - There is a lack of evidence that private education is greatly superior, in addition to some contradictory evidence. - That centralization is not the main reason for the terrible state of US schools relative to other countries with far better education systems and outcomes; - That the currently centralized system can indeed be improved. These are my only claims. They are backed up by plenty of evidence. The claims of ACers in this thread are not and they appear unwilling to provide evidence for their position - just a lot of bluster and hyperbole. [ QUOTE ] LOL. Do your friends help you out by bending over so you have new and exciting [censored] to pull [censored] out of when it's convenient to a particular argument? After the Ivy leagues, the US universities are mediocre compared to the rest of the world. What a claim. [/ QUOTE ] The US is the most powerful and wealthy country on Earth, with many nobel prize winning immigrants, a huge science and technology based industry, nearly a quarter of world GDP, and the largest middle class anywhere. Yet, according to the only rankings I can find, the US has only one quarter of the world's top 200 universities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educati..._status_ladder I maintain my position that the US has a small clustering of elite universities at the top, and the others are fairly mediocre by Western standards. Do I think that the elite universities have benefited from being private? Absolutely. The greatness of all of the ivy leagues is partly due to the freedoms of private ownership. But only partly...two of the top three universities in the world are public. It's obvious that the wealth and selection that goes into the pinnacle of any private system will produce elite outcomes that are superior to a public system. The larger question, and the only one relevant to this discussion, is whether the average case under private ownership is significantly better than public. I do not see it in the case of universities and I don't see it in the case of schools. It may well be the case, but you guys haven't shown a shred of evidence that it is. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] BTW - the best of the US private high school system (mainly for the elite) blows everyone else away as well, which invalidates your point I think. [/ QUOTE ] It does!? [/ QUOTE ] It's about the elite vs the average case. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I'd suggest that wealth is the key factor in both. [/ QUOTE ] I agree! It's almost like there's a rational order to it all. People with more money will always have more and better goods than everyone else. Oh well. Rather than bring everyone down to one level so that some people won't feel bad, I'd rather people be free to do as they please, so that we'll all be richer than we would be otherwise. I just want people do be happy, Phil. It might be nice to think we can close our eyes, say a wish, and manually solve everyone's problems at once. But when you're in touch with the reality that this mindset makes problems worse, you feel like sort of a dick when you support the idea of trying, even if you can myopically represent some piece of data to give a glimmer of encouragement to your position. [/ QUOTE ] Both you and Nielsio with his comments above about outlawing competition (wtf?) and choice are missing that people can already choose to send their children to private schools. [ QUOTE ] It's clear that you don't like AC. I guess you'd be happier if your misconceptions remained unchecked....You assume I'm as interested in misrepresenting various pieces of data to defend deep rooted misconceptions as you are. [/ QUOTE ] What is the point of this? You assume that my objections to AC comments are due to "misconceptions". Pretty arrogant, no? In reality, my objections to AC posts are the pathetic lack of evidence that accompanies bold assertions, the over-extrapolation of freshman economic assumptions that underly those assertions, and the unwillingness to examine the downsides. I'm entirely open to the idea that private education, and the competition/efficiency/experimentation it creates, may produce a vastly better outcome. But I can't find evidence for this position, and even the theoretical underpinnings are lacking in depth. So I'm disappointed that the subject isn't treated seriously, but instead blindly asserted from the most sophomoric of assumptions. [/ QUOTE ] But just because your position happens to be the status quo doesn't mean you aren't making a positive claim. By supporting the state system, you are supporting limiting my choices. In order to justify this, you need to show that it is the only possible way to provide quality information. All the ACists are saying is that it is wrong to tax for education, so if you plan on doing it you had better, at the very least, demonstrate how it is far superior to any product that the market could provide. You have the huge status quo advantage, but that isn't a trump card. |
Re: Science Education in America: Why I\'m Homeschooling My Kid in Science
I've had experience, both personal and with my kids, with many different school systems, public and private, in different states, and I didn't see this one-size-fits-all nationwide system which you're alluding to. That there might be national standards to adhere to doesn't necessarily mean that all teachers take the easy way out or do things the same way. Likewise, that some administrators are worried about falling graduation rates doesn't mean that education will necessarily suffer.
|
Re: Science Education in America: Why I\'m Homeschooling My Kid in Scie
[ QUOTE ]
But just because your position happens to be the status quo doesn't mean you aren't making a positive claim. By supporting the state system, you are supporting limiting my choices. In order to justify this, you need to show that it is the only possible way to provide quality information. All the ACists are saying is that it is wrong to tax for education, so if you plan on doing it you had better, at the very least, demonstrate how it is far superior to any product that the market could provide. You have the huge status quo advantage, but that isn't a trump card. [/ QUOTE ] I was waiting for the standard AC calling card. It goes like this: 1. Assert that a private system can do vastly better than a public system 2. Don't provide any evidence when challenged 3. When that's lost, say "taxes are evil...unless the public system is WAY better, we should go private" 4. Say "even if it's WAY better, what right to you have to steal and extort from me?? AC FTW" This happens in every freaking thread, and it's why you guys deserve zero respect. The question here is OP's claim that a private system will solve the education crisis in America and produce very favorable educational outcomes, as well as the question of whether the public system is irreparably broken, or if it can be fixed. Not about whether taxes are evil. [ QUOTE ] All the ACists are saying is that it is wrong to tax for education [/ QUOTE ] No, that isn't all that they're saying. Read their claims in this thread...I even listed their claims in the OP you quote. |
Re: Science Education in America: Why I\'m Homeschooling My Kid in Scie
[ QUOTE ]
By supporting the state system, you are supporting limiting my choices. In order to justify this, you need to show that it is the only possible way to provide quality information. [/ QUOTE ] I think we can accept that we will never satisfy your subjective sense of justice. Why do we "need" to do this? |
Re: Science Education in America: Why I\'m Homeschooling My Kid in Scie
But if we assume complete market control over the education system - with no 'state' to hold up a big contract saying 'education for everyone' hanging over their heads - shouldn't we assume that in areas where having a school would be a net profit loss that atleast in some cases a school would not exist? I guess what I'm saying is that there would be not right for education? No attempt at equalizing the possibilities (which I'll admit is not always carried out in a perfect manner by the state, but atleast it is an attempt)? Oh I'm certain grants, scholarships, community effort and similar could take some weight off - but all? |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:07 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.