Community› Wedding Discussion Boards› Chit Chat
Chit Chat
New Discussion

If the presidential election were tomorrow...

135

Re: If the presidential election were tomorrow...

  • kkitkat79kkitkat79 member
    Fourth Anniversary 100 Comments 100 Love Its Name Dropper
    @Fran1985, wow, a lot to address here.

    I am going to ignore most of the personal stuff because it has no relevance here. If you want to debate my alleged homophobia, racism, sexism, and antisemitism we should probably do it in a separate thread. 

    I will say that I have never demanded civility, I was just surprised by the lack of it in that particular thread. I definitely was not upset. My arguments (aside from the unfortunate fake ad) were never offensive, you just took offense.

    Now for the relevant parts. Suggestion to move away from current welfare system to some sort of variation of national guaranteed income is definitely not my idea and it is hardly new. Let me know and I will google it for you. I happen to believe it has a lot of merit. 

    I also never suggested that people should be forced to take in children. I am not sure what foster care has to do with anything, it was not what I suggested.

    Suggestion to allow children free choice of schools is based on research that shows that ability to choose improves long term outcomes. It was an actual experiment conducted in an actual city. I linked to the study, but just let me know and I will provide it to you again. If you could only combat your conservatism for just a bit, you would see that there is room for innovative solutions. You could learn a lot from what people are doing outside of the USA.

    I will "shut up, listen, and learn"  to and from you when you will make a good argument. If I remember correctly you often make good arguments and I often find myself agreeing with you. But not in this instance. And I did have occasions to change my mind after discussions on these boards. If you would like to know in what ways I'll be happy to share it with you. It should probably be in a separate thread.     
    Anniversary
    Report Reply
  • kkitkat79kkitkat79 member
    Fourth Anniversary 100 Comments 100 Love Its Name Dropper
    @Fran1985, you are right, you are not arguing, you are making claims. Claims about me that are completely baseless. 

    I am not actually asking you or anyone to teach me. In a discussion learning happens naturally through interaction and exchange of ideas. I think it is wonderful. 
    Anniversary
    Report Reply
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] member
    1000 Comments 500 Love Its First Answer First Anniversary
    AprilH81 said:
    kkitkat79 said:
    AprilH81 said:
    I voted Ted Cruz on the poll, but honestly I would vote any Rebublican over the a Democrat.
    I am curious whether you would vote for a Republican because you think they'll be more fiscally conservative. If that's the case you might want to look into it a bit further. Despite what one might think Obama's record is mu ch much better than Bush's when it comes to cutting government spending.  Check this out:

     Govt Spending After Recession

    Updated:

     Extend Krugman on Govt Spending


    It isn't just spending for me (although that plays a part). 

    First, Hillary Clinton is mired in scandals (Benghazi, email gate, issues with the Clinton Foundation, outrageous speaking fees, being fired from the Watergate investigation for lying and then the pesky little bit about people close to the Clintons dying in violent ways).

    Second, Bernie Sanders admits he is a socialist and while I admire his honesty we are not a socialist country and the biggest problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money to spend/give away.

    The current Republican field has its issues, there isn't a "perfect candidate".  I vote economics before social issues, and I want low taxes, low government involvement in my live (via fewer regulations) and less dependency on the government by US citizens.

    I'm not against the various assistance programs, I'm against the generational abuse where the government is the primary means of support for generations of the same family.  And before people start jumping all over me for my "white privilege" both of my parents grew up dirt poor and my Mom had an abusive step-father.  I'm talking no money to buy tampons and no running water in the house poor.

    Please consider reading, "Explaining White Privilege to a Broke White Person."

    http://thefeministbreeder.com/explaining-white-privilege-broke-white-person/
    Report Reply
  • TrixieJessTrixieJess member
    1000 Comments 500 Love Its Fourth Anniversary First Answer
    FeeleyToBe said:
    AprilH81 said:
    kkitkat79 said:
    AprilH81 said:
    I voted Ted Cruz on the poll, but honestly I would vote any Rebublican over the a Democrat.
    I am curious whether you would vote for a Republican because you think they'll be more fiscally conservative. If that's the case you might want to look into it a bit further. Despite what one might think Obama's record is mu ch much better than Bush's when it comes to cutting government spending.  Check this out:

     Govt Spending After Recession

    Updated:

     Extend Krugman on Govt Spending


    It isn't just spending for me (although that plays a part). 

    First, Hillary Clinton is mired in scandals (Benghazi, email gate, issues with the Clinton Foundation, outrageous speaking fees, being fired from the Watergate investigation for lying and then the pesky little bit about people close to the Clintons dying in violent ways).

    Second, Bernie Sanders admits he is a socialist and while I admire his honesty we are not a socialist country and the biggest problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money to spend/give away.

    The current Republican field has its issues, there isn't a "perfect candidate".  I vote economics before social issues, and I want low taxes, low government involvement in my live (via fewer regulations) and less dependency on the government by US citizens.

    I'm not against the various assistance programs, I'm against the generational abuse where the government is the primary means of support for generations of the same family.  And before people start jumping all over me for my "white privilege" both of my parents grew up dirt poor and my Mom had an abusive step-father.  I'm talking no money to buy tampons and no running water in the house poor.

    Please consider reading, "Explaining White Privilege to a Broke White Person."

    http://thefeministbreeder.com/explaining-white-privilege-broke-white-person/
    *Yoink* I'm stealing this! I have some Aboriginal friends who will love this the next time "white privilege" is brought up. 
    Report Reply
  • ViczaesarViczaesar member
    Ninth Anniversary 5000 Comments 500 Love Its First Answer
    edited August 2015
    AprilH81 said:
    kkitkat79 said:
    AprilH81 said:
    I voted Ted Cruz on the poll, but honestly I would vote any Rebublican over the a Democrat.
    I am curious whether you would vote for a Republican because you think they'll be more fiscally conservative. If that's the case you might want to look into it a bit further. Despite what one might think Obama's record is mu ch much better than Bush's when it comes to cutting government spending.  Check this out:

     Govt Spending After Recession

    Updated:

     Extend Krugman on Govt Spending


    It isn't just spending for me (although that plays a part). 

    First, Hillary Clinton is mired in scandals (Benghazi, email gate, issues with the Clinton Foundation, outrageous speaking fees, being fired from the Watergate investigation for lying and then the pesky little bit about people close to the Clintons dying in violent ways).  God in heaven, what is it with Fox news watchers' obsession with Benghazi?  I'm going to come back to the asinine dying comment in another post. 

    Second, Bernie Sanders admits he is a socialist and while I admire his honesty we are not a socialist country and the biggest problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money to spend/give away.  That's not actually how socialism works.  Please do some actual research.  Start by looking up "Democratic socialism."

    The current Republican field has its issues, there isn't a "perfect candidate".  I vote economics before social issues, and I want low taxes, low government involvement in my live (via fewer regulations) and less dependency on the government by US citizens.

    I'm not against the various assistance programs, I'm against the generational abuse where the government is the primary means of support for generations of the same family.  FFS, do some fucking research.  Start with looking at the abuse rate for assistance programs.  Then go to generational poverty and endemic poverty.  And before people start jumping all over me for my "white privilege" both of my parents grew up dirt poor and my Mom had an abusive step-father.  I'm talking no money to buy tampons and no running water in the house poor.  More research needed again.  There's an article posted later in this thread that would be a good place to start.




    Report Reply
  • ViczaesarViczaesar member
    Ninth Anniversary 5000 Comments 500 Love Its First Answer
    edited August 2015
    AprilH81 said:
    STARMOON44 said:
    Wait, @AprilH218 so you think the Clintons' are, like, having people murdered? Like, you actually just suggested one of your reasons for not voting for Hillary is a weird conspiracy theory of violent deaths? Every time I remind myself that there are lots of lovely totally sane Republicans y'all go proving me wrong again.

    No, I don't think that they are murdering people. I'm just saying that there is a fairly lengthy list of friends and coworkers who are dead by violent/suspicious means.
    That's a crock.  This is a long-running and false accusation, the very clear unspoken implication is that Clinton had them killed (this bizarre story arose first when Bill was in office and was originally about him; now it's been shifted to try to cast aspersions on Hilary as well).

    The very fact that you brought it up demonstrates your buying in to this ridiculous bullshit.  Don't try to pretend you're unaware of the deliberate implication of your words.  If that's not what you want to be implying, don't bring it up.


    ETA: Ugh, bad grammar!  I blame my blurry eyes.



    Report Reply
  • kimmiinthemittenkimmiinthemitten member
    2500 Comments 500 Love Its Third Anniversary 5 Answers
    edited August 2015
    kkitkat79 said:
    @kimmiaandkoley, You are right that success of charter schools have been mixed. However, as I linked, most of the studies compared charter schools and traditional schools head to head. You have to take into consideration that any change takes time. Take a look at the study I linked. What do you think?

    I have to pay to download the study so TBH I'm not going to do that.  My FI is a public school teacher and my cousin is a charter school superintendent so I hear lots of really great debate between the two of them.  

    Bottom line, my problem with charter schools is that their goal is to turn a profit, not to educate students.  At the end of the day there is no mixed review, at best they perform as well as their public counterparts.  Not better.  The same or oftentimes worst. So we have people taking money from the state in exchange for an education and turning a profit on it instead of reinvesting that back into the schools.  

    Education and schools are not a business.  They are not profit centers, students are not a product, and it's not a game to see what school wins.  Schools should not compete with each other, they should share what works and what doesn't and exchange ideas and hold each other up.  

    There's a 95% chance that the reality is he's just an ass who enjoys attention and feeling important, but it cracks me up that it's so easy to be suspicious when it comes to politics. 

     The funniest part is I don't think it's the politics that I'm suspicious of, just Trump.  Campaigning is legitimately hard work.  It's hard on the candidate, their families, their staffs; I think Trump is the only guy crazy enough to do it for game.
    image
    Report Reply
  • charcoalandblushcharcoalandblush member
    Sixth Anniversary 500 Love Its 500 Comments First Answer
    Viczaesar said:
    AprilH81 said:
    kkitkat79 said:
    AprilH81 said:


    It isn't just spending for me (although that plays a part). 

    First, Hillary Clinton is mired in scandals (Benghazi, email gate, issues with the Clinton Foundation, outrageous speaking fees, being fired from the Watergate investigation for lying and then the pesky little bit about people close to the Clintons dying in violent ways).

    Second, Bernie Sanders admits he is a socialist and while I admire his honesty we are not a socialist country and the biggest problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money to spend/give away.

    The current Republican field has its issues, there isn't a "perfect candidate".  I vote economics before social issues, and I want low taxes, low government involvement in my live (via fewer regulations) and less dependency on the government by US citizens.

    I'm not against the various assistance programs, I'm against the generational abuse where the government is the primary means of support for generations of the same family.  And before people start jumping all over me for my "white privilege" both of my parents grew up dirt poor and my Mom had an abusive step-father.  I'm talking no money to buy tampons and no running water in the house poor.
    No one is going to give you that. Both parties want to be involved as much as possible and spend as much as possible. The only difference is what they spend on. 

    Would you be in favor of cutting down military spending by a lot?

    kkitkat79 said:
    AprilH81 said:


    It isn't just spending for me (although that plays a part). 

    First, Hillary Clinton is mired in scandals (Benghazi, email gate, issues with the Clinton Foundation, outrageous speaking fees, being fired from the Watergate investigation for lying and then the pesky little bit about people close to the Clintons dying in violent ways).

    Second, Bernie Sanders admits he is a socialist and while I admire his honesty we are not a socialist country and the biggest problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money to spend/give away.

    The current Republican field has its issues, there isn't a "perfect candidate".  I vote economics before social issues, and I want low taxes, low government involvement in my live (via fewer regulations) and less dependency on the government by US citizens.

    I'm not against the various assistance programs, I'm against the generational abuse where the government is the primary means of support for generations of the same family.  And before people start jumping all over me for my "white privilege" both of my parents grew up dirt poor and my Mom had an abusive step-father.  I'm talking no money to buy tampons and no running water in the house poor.
    No one is going to give you that. Both parties want to be involved as much as possible and spend as much as possible. The only difference is what they spend on. 

    Would you be in favor of cutting down military spending by a lot?

    They both spend, but the Republicans tend to spend less. Yes, I'm in favor of cutting military spending. I'm not an expert, but I'm sure there is a way to keep a strong military and national defense without spending the amount of money we do. I know the RFP process is supposed to make sure the government gets the best price for goods possible, but we all hear about the $1,000 toilet seat and other absurd stories. The plural of anecdote is not data.  I also think the Department of Education can be cut WAY back (if not eliminated all together). Education can be handled on a state level in a way to suit the students in that state. What works for Florida may not work for California or Ohio.
    Except that no, they can't be handled solely on a state level.  Read history much?  And do you really think that the educational needs of children in Florida are radically different than the educational needs of children in California?

    This is what I don't get about the "letting education be handled on the local level" argument. What even does that mean? Like I literally can't think of a good reason that kids in different states need to learn radically different things. Sure, maybe local/state history, but that's SUCH a tiny portion of the overall curriculum. Why does 6th grade algebra need to be different in Alabama than it is in Massachusetts? This just makes no sense to me.

    Are there logistical/implementation differences? Yes. There is a difference in how transportation to school works in a rural southern district versus a school in NYC where all the students live within 10 blocks. Schools in poorer districts may have a lot of kids on free lunch and breakfast, while richer districts might have none or only a few. But those sorts of things have absolutely nothing to do with the curriculum.

    Wedding Countdown Ticker

    image
    Report Reply
  • kkitkat79kkitkat79 member
    Fourth Anniversary 100 Comments 100 Love Its Name Dropper
    @kimmiandkoley, Do you mind if I ask why do you think charter school at best perform the same if not worse than traditional public school? 

    According to a recent study from Stanford University charter schools have been improving and now surpass traditional public schools in some areas. Most importantly, the study shows that it appears that disadvantaged groups (black students and students in poverty) benefit from attending charter schools. So it seems to me like there is still room to at least wait and see.

    You are absolutely right, students are not a products, but their level of education is. I know this sounds cynical and heartless, but think about it... there are thousands of examples where private businesses provide relatively high quality products for a relatively cheap price. Including necessities like food. I am not proposing that there should be no government involvement in education. I am suggesting that maybe they should be involved in a different way. 

    If I am not mistaken public spending on education is about $11,000 per student per school year. Average private school tuition is about $10,000. Maybe better use of public money would be a scholarship fund of some sort for each kid?  
    Anniversary
    Report Reply
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] member
    500 Comments 250 Love Its First Anniversary Name Dropper
    edited August 2015
    kkitkat79 said:
    @kimmiandkoley, Do you mind if I ask why do you think charter school at best perform the same if not worse than traditional public school? 

    According to a recent study from Stanford University charter schools have been improving and now surpass traditional public schools in some areas. Most importantly, the study shows that it appears that disadvantaged groups (black students and students in poverty) benefit from attending charter schools. So it seems to me like there is still room to at least wait and see.

    You are absolutely right, students are not a products, but their level of education is. I know this sounds cynical and heartless, but think about it... there are thousands of examples where private businesses provide relatively high quality products for a relatively cheap price. Including necessities like food. I am not proposing that there should be no government involvement in education. I am suggesting that maybe they should be involved in a different way. 

    If I am not mistaken public spending on education is about $11,000 per student per school year. Average private school tuition is about $10,000. Maybe better use of public money would be a scholarship fund of some sort for each kid?  
    I think that number is incredibly low...at least where I am from, private school tuition is much higher ($16k+).

    ETA: Just checked a few other schools near me. One was over $20k. It's basically college tuition pricing. 
    Report Reply
  • TrixieJessTrixieJess member
    1000 Comments 500 Love Its Fourth Anniversary First Answer
    kkitkat79 said:
    @kimmiandkoley, Do you mind if I ask why do you think charter school at best perform the same if not worse than traditional public school? 

    According to a recent study from Stanford University charter schools have been improving and now surpass traditional public schools in some areas. Most importantly, the study shows that it appears that disadvantaged groups (black students and students in poverty) benefit from attending charter schools. So it seems to me like there is still room to at least wait and see.

    You are absolutely right, students are not a products, but their level of education is. I know this sounds cynical and heartless, but think about it... there are thousands of examples where private businesses provide relatively high quality products for a relatively cheap price. Including necessities like food. I am not proposing that there should be no government involvement in education. I am suggesting that maybe they should be involved in a different way. 

    If I am not mistaken public spending on education is about $11,000 per student per school year. Average private school tuition is about $10,000. Maybe better use of public money would be a scholarship fund of some sort for each kid?  
    I have no idea where the hell that is. If I want to send my kid to Montessori preschool, it's $10,000CAD/year. If I want to send him to Kindergarten at the local Private school it's $16,900. For grades 1-4, $20,600; 5-8 $24,300; 9-12 $25,200. 

    So I think I'll stick with my tax dollars paying for my kids education because god knows I pay enough of that right now. 
    Report Reply
  • kimmiinthemittenkimmiinthemitten member
    2500 Comments 500 Love Its Third Anniversary 5 Answers
    kkitkat79 said:
    @kimmiandkoley, Do you mind if I ask why do you think charter school at best perform the same if not worse than traditional public school? 

    (1)According to a recent study from Stanford University charter schools have been improving and now surpass traditional public schools in some areas. Most importantly, the study shows that it appears that disadvantaged groups (black students and students in poverty) benefit from attending charter schools. So it seems to me like there is still room to at least wait and see.

    You are absolutely right, students are not a products, but their level of education is.(2)I know this sounds cynical and heartless, but think about it... there are thousands of examples where private businesses provide relatively high quality products for a relatively cheap price. Including necessities like food. I am not proposing that there should be no government involvement in education. I am suggesting that maybe they should be involved in a different way. 

    If I am not mistaken public spending on education is about $11,000 per student per school year. Average private school tuition is about $10,000. Maybe better use of public money would be a scholarship fund of some sort for each kid?  
    (1) The same study stated the 2/3 of charter schools are performing at the same or below the level of their counterparts.  Yes, they are doing well in poorer areas, because they are able to provide a  more expensive education because they're not tied to local funding.  So my answer again is to give the public school more money, feed the kids, everything I said before.

    "Like previous studies, the one from CREDO concluded that kids in most charter schools are doing worse or no better than students in traditional public schools. About a third, though, are doing better."

    (2) Because again, students are not products.  They are not a collection of plastic pellets that are melted and formed and punched into a car part.  In a business, the management team determines what should be cut in order to increase profit.  Education should not be measured, bound to or based on profit.
    image
    Report Reply
  • kkitkat79kkitkat79 member
    Fourth Anniversary 100 Comments 100 Love Its Name Dropper
    abcdevonn said:
    kkitkat79 said:
    @kimmiandkoley, Do you mind if I ask why do you think charter school at best perform the same if not worse than traditional public school? 

    According to a recent study from Stanford University charter schools have been improving and now surpass traditional public schools in some areas. Most importantly, the study shows that it appears that disadvantaged groups (black students and students in poverty) benefit from attending charter schools. So it seems to me like there is still room to at least wait and see.

    You are absolutely right, students are not a products, but their level of education is. I know this sounds cynical and heartless, but think about it... there are thousands of examples where private businesses provide relatively high quality products for a relatively cheap price. Including necessities like food. I am not proposing that there should be no government involvement in education. I am suggesting that maybe they should be involved in a different way. 

    If I am not mistaken public spending on education is about $11,000 per student per school year. Average private school tuition is about $10,000. Maybe better use of public money would be a scholarship fund of some sort for each kid?  
    I think that number is incredibly low...at least where I am from, private school tuition is much higher ($16k+).

    ETA: Just checked a few other schools near me. One was over $20k. It's basically college tuition pricing. 
    Source 

    Let's assume that not all people are greedy bastards. And let's assume there are a lot of smart people who could be good teachers. Suppose there is a scholarship fund of $10,000 per child. Put together 5 children and one teacher and you have a school with gross income of $50,000. With information resources already in place I imagine expenses to run this type of school are not huge, maybe 10,000 per school year. This is not a bad business (remember, I assume that not all people are greedy bastards so the teacher does have the best interest of the students in mind).  Imagine these types of schools popping up everywhere. I predict quality of primary and secondary education improving vastly. 

    Tear me apart :)  
    Anniversary
    Report Reply
  • kkitkat79kkitkat79 member
    Fourth Anniversary 100 Comments 100 Love Its Name Dropper
    kimmiandkoley said:
    Corporate profits are at an all time high.  The ratio between CEO worker pay is at it's greatest distance.

    You cannot assume people aren't greedy bastards.  They are.  
    Would you say teachers are greedy bastards?
    Anniversary
    Report Reply
  • kimmiinthemittenkimmiinthemitten member
    2500 Comments 500 Love Its Third Anniversary 5 Answers
    kkitkat79 said:
    kimmiandkoley said:
    Corporate profits are at an all time high.  The ratio between CEO worker pay is at it's greatest distance.

    You cannot assume people aren't greedy bastards.  They are.  
    Would you say teachers are greedy bastards?
    Some, absolutely.  But teachers don't pick their career for money, obviously.  Any CEO runs an organization with the goal of making money.  If a teacher ran a business, they would then share that same goal.  That's the difference.
    image
    Report Reply
  • TrixieJessTrixieJess member
    1000 Comments 500 Love Its Fourth Anniversary First Answer
    edited August 2015
    kkitkat79 said:
    abcdevonn said:
    kkitkat79 said:
    @kimmiandkoley, Do you mind if I ask why do you think charter school at best perform the same if not worse than traditional public school? 

    According to a recent study from Stanford University charter schools have been improving and now surpass traditional public schools in some areas. Most importantly, the study shows that it appears that disadvantaged groups (black students and students in poverty) benefit from attending charter schools. So it seems to me like there is still room to at least wait and see.

    You are absolutely right, students are not a products, but their level of education is. I know this sounds cynical and heartless, but think about it... there are thousands of examples where private businesses provide relatively high quality products for a relatively cheap price. Including necessities like food. I am not proposing that there should be no government involvement in education. I am suggesting that maybe they should be involved in a different way. 

    If I am not mistaken public spending on education is about $11,000 per student per school year. Average private school tuition is about $10,000. Maybe better use of public money would be a scholarship fund of some sort for each kid?  
    I think that number is incredibly low...at least where I am from, private school tuition is much higher ($16k+).

    ETA: Just checked a few other schools near me. One was over $20k. It's basically college tuition pricing. 
    Source 

    Let's assume that not all people are greedy bastards. And let's assume there are a lot of smart people who could be good teachers. Suppose there is a scholarship fund of $10,000 per child. Put together 5 children and one teacher and you have a school with gross income of $50,000. With information resources already in place I imagine expenses to run this type of school are not huge, maybe 10,000 per school year. This is not a bad business (remember, I assume that not all people are greedy bastards so the teacher does have the best interest of the students in mind).  Imagine these types of schools popping up everywhere. I predict quality of primary and secondary education improving vastly. 

    Tear me apart :)  
    Schools have to be accredited and run curriculum. What you are proposing is akin to homeschooling which is allowed, at least in Canada. I know in the States there are different laws in different States. If you want your own children out of the public system and not have to pay for the private system, sure, homeschool them, that's your right. There are tons of resources and groups out there for it. Just don't push that onto a system that is not equipped for that.

    Do you actually know any teachers and what they do? Do you know how many hours outside of school they actually put in? Most teachers teach for the love of teaching kids new things. Half of my friends are teachers. I get to see what is wrong and right from all sides of the debate. 

    However, teachers don't run schools, boards do. Those boards are made up of administrators who are focused on the business side of things. Things like budgets, salaries, unions, etc. In Ontario, we are bracing for the possibility of a Province wide strike for all of our Public elementary and secondary teachers who went work-to-rule at the end of the year last year. Tell me what that does for students!
    Report Reply
  • charcoalandblushcharcoalandblush member
    Sixth Anniversary 500 Love Its 500 Comments First Answer
    kkitkat79 said:
    abcdevonn said:
    kkitkat79 said:
    @kimmiandkoley, Do you mind if I ask why do you think charter school at best perform the same if not worse than traditional public school? 

    According to a recent study from Stanford University charter schools have been improving and now surpass traditional public schools in some areas. Most importantly, the study shows that it appears that disadvantaged groups (black students and students in poverty) benefit from attending charter schools. So it seems to me like there is still room to at least wait and see.

    You are absolutely right, students are not a products, but their level of education is. I know this sounds cynical and heartless, but think about it... there are thousands of examples where private businesses provide relatively high quality products for a relatively cheap price. Including necessities like food. I am not proposing that there should be no government involvement in education. I am suggesting that maybe they should be involved in a different way. 

    If I am not mistaken public spending on education is about $11,000 per student per school year. Average private school tuition is about $10,000. Maybe better use of public money would be a scholarship fund of some sort for each kid?  
    I think that number is incredibly low...at least where I am from, private school tuition is much higher ($16k+).

    ETA: Just checked a few other schools near me. One was over $20k. It's basically college tuition pricing. 
    Source 

    Let's assume that not all people are greedy bastards. And let's assume there are a lot of smart people who could be good teachers. Suppose there is a scholarship fund of $10,000 per child. Put together 5 children and one teacher and you have a school with gross income of $50,000. With information resources already in place I imagine expenses to run this type of school are not huge, maybe 10,000 per school year. This is not a bad business (remember, I assume that not all people are greedy bastards so the teacher does have the best interest of the students in mind).  Imagine these types of schools popping up everywhere. I predict quality of primary and secondary education improving vastly. 

    Tear me apart :)  

    Also, please look at your own source. Average tuition for non-sectarian private school is $20K. I would love to see the median private school tuition. Interestingly, your source doesn't have a table for that. I think that statistic might be much more telling.

    Wedding Countdown Ticker

    image
    Report Reply
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] member
    500 Comments 250 Love Its First Anniversary Name Dropper
    charcoalandblush said:
    kkitkat79 said:
    abcdevonn said:
    kkitkat79 said:
    @kimmiandkoley, Do you mind if I ask why do you think charter school at best perform the same if not worse than traditional public school? 

    According to a recent study from Stanford University charter schools have been improving and now surpass traditional public schools in some areas. Most importantly, the study shows that it appears that disadvantaged groups (black students and students in poverty) benefit from attending charter schools. So it seems to me like there is still room to at least wait and see.

    You are absolutely right, students are not a products, but their level of education is. I know this sounds cynical and heartless, but think about it... there are thousands of examples where private businesses provide relatively high quality products for a relatively cheap price. Including necessities like food. I am not proposing that there should be no government involvement in education. I am suggesting that maybe they should be involved in a different way. 

    If I am not mistaken public spending on education is about $11,000 per student per school year. Average private school tuition is about $10,000. Maybe better use of public money would be a scholarship fund of some sort for each kid?  
    I think that number is incredibly low...at least where I am from, private school tuition is much higher ($16k+).

    ETA: Just checked a few other schools near me. One was over $20k. It's basically college tuition pricing. 
    Source 

    Let's assume that not all people are greedy bastards. And let's assume there are a lot of smart people who could be good teachers. Suppose there is a scholarship fund of $10,000 per child. Put together 5 children and one teacher and you have a school with gross income of $50,000. With information resources already in place I imagine expenses to run this type of school are not huge, maybe 10,000 per school year. This is not a bad business (remember, I assume that not all people are greedy bastards so the teacher does have the best interest of the students in mind).  Imagine these types of schools popping up everywhere. I predict quality of primary and secondary education improving vastly. 

    Tear me apart :)  

    Also, please look at your own source. Average tuition for non-sectarian private school is $20K. I would love to see the median private school tuition. Interestingly, your source doesn't have a table for that. I think that statistic might be much more telling.
    Am I reading it correctly and those numbers are from 2011-12? Tuition rates also likely rise every year. The three schools I checked in my area absolutely raise rates yearly. @Kkitkat79, again, I think this is another time when you are proposing things that sound great, but are unrealistic and impractical. Where are the scholarships coming from? How are you going to have only 5 students per class? How much will the teachers be paid, and what is your definition of "greedy"? As with your previous arguments, you are ignoring a ton of other factors that influence the cost of education. It would be great if we could send kids from all backgrounds and economic levels to great schools and pay for it out of some scholarship money, but don't you think someone would already be trying to implement this if it were that easy?
    Report Reply
  • TrixieJessTrixieJess member
    1000 Comments 500 Love Its Fourth Anniversary First Answer
    abcdevonn said:
    charcoalandblush said:
    kkitkat79 said:
    abcdevonn said:
    kkitkat79 said:
    @kimmiandkoley, Do you mind if I ask why do you think charter school at best perform the same if not worse than traditional public school? 

    According to a recent study from Stanford University charter schools have been improving and now surpass traditional public schools in some areas. Most importantly, the study shows that it appears that disadvantaged groups (black students and students in poverty) benefit from attending charter schools. So it seems to me like there is still room to at least wait and see.

    You are absolutely right, students are not a products, but their level of education is. I know this sounds cynical and heartless, but think about it... there are thousands of examples where private businesses provide relatively high quality products for a relatively cheap price. Including necessities like food. I am not proposing that there should be no government involvement in education. I am suggesting that maybe they should be involved in a different way. 

    If I am not mistaken public spending on education is about $11,000 per student per school year. Average private school tuition is about $10,000. Maybe better use of public money would be a scholarship fund of some sort for each kid?  
    I think that number is incredibly low...at least where I am from, private school tuition is much higher ($16k+).

    ETA: Just checked a few other schools near me. One was over $20k. It's basically college tuition pricing. 
    Source 

    Let's assume that not all people are greedy bastards. And let's assume there are a lot of smart people who could be good teachers. Suppose there is a scholarship fund of $10,000 per child. Put together 5 children and one teacher and you have a school with gross income of $50,000. With information resources already in place I imagine expenses to run this type of school are not huge, maybe 10,000 per school year. This is not a bad business (remember, I assume that not all people are greedy bastards so the teacher does have the best interest of the students in mind).  Imagine these types of schools popping up everywhere. I predict quality of primary and secondary education improving vastly. 

    Tear me apart :)  

    Also, please look at your own source. Average tuition for non-sectarian private school is $20K. I would love to see the median private school tuition. Interestingly, your source doesn't have a table for that. I think that statistic might be much more telling.
    Am I reading it correctly and those numbers are from 2011-12? Tuition rates also likely rise every year. The three schools I checked in my area absolutely raise rates yearly. @Kkitkat79, again, I think this is another time when you are proposing things that sound great, but are unrealistic and impractical. Where are the scholarships coming from? How are you going to have only 5 students per class? How much will the teachers be paid, and what is your definition of "greedy"? As with your previous arguments, you are ignoring a ton of other factors that influence the cost of education. It would be great if we could send kids from all backgrounds and economic levels to great schools and pay for it out of some scholarship money, but don't you think someone would already be trying to implement this if it were that easy?
    image
    Report Reply
  • kkitkat79kkitkat79 member
    Fourth Anniversary 100 Comments 100 Love Its Name Dropper
    abcdevonn said:
    Am I reading it correctly and those numbers are from 2011-12? Tuition rates also likely rise every year. The three schools I checked in my area absolutely raise rates yearly. @Kkitkat79, again, I think this is another time when you are proposing things that sound great, but are unrealistic and impractical. Where are the scholarships coming from? How are you going to have only 5 students per class? How much will the teachers be paid, and what is your definition of "greedy"? As with your previous arguments, you are ignoring a ton of other factors that influence the cost of education. It would be great if we could send kids from all backgrounds and economic levels to great schools and pay for it out of some scholarship money, but don't you think someone would already be trying to implement this if it were that easy?
    All these are excellent questions! I know what I am proposing may sound unrealistic, but hear me out. As the system moves away from public to private schools public funds will be released. The $11,000 that is currently spent on providing education can be spent on providing scholarship funds.

    The teachers  will be the owners of these new small-scale private schools. So they will get paid total tuition revenue minus expenses. Tuition will be number of children times individual child scholarship fund (so for 5 kids 5x10,000=50,000).

    Again, I am assuming that people are interested in providing the best service they can. I am assuming that just like salaried teachers, self-employed teachers will have their students best interest at heart. If that assumption is unrealistic then never mind.

    Of course, implementing something like that is not easy, but I think it is something worth looking into.
    Anniversary
    Report Reply
  • kimmiinthemittenkimmiinthemitten member
    2500 Comments 500 Love Its Third Anniversary 5 Answers
    And then where does the rest of the money for tuition come from?  Are the poor families you're trying to better educate supposed to suddenly have free cash for school now?
    image
    Report Reply
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] member
    500 Comments 250 Love Its First Anniversary Name Dropper
    kkitkat79 said:
    abcdevonn said:
    Am I reading it correctly and those numbers are from 2011-12? Tuition rates also likely rise every year. The three schools I checked in my area absolutely raise rates yearly. @Kkitkat79, again, I think this is another time when you are proposing things that sound great, but are unrealistic and impractical. Where are the scholarships coming from? How are you going to have only 5 students per class? How much will the teachers be paid, and what is your definition of "greedy"? As with your previous arguments, you are ignoring a ton of other factors that influence the cost of education. It would be great if we could send kids from all backgrounds and economic levels to great schools and pay for it out of some scholarship money, but don't you think someone would already be trying to implement this if it were that easy?
    All these are excellent questions! I know what I am proposing may sound unrealistic, but hear me out. As the system moves away from public to private schools public funds will be released. The $11,000 that is currently spent on providing education can be spent on providing scholarship funds.

    The teachers  will be the owners of these new small-scale private schools. So they will get paid total tuition revenue minus expenses. Tuition will be number of children times individual child scholarship fund (so for 5 kids 5x10,000=50,000).

    Again, I am assuming that people are interested in providing the best service they can. I am assuming that just like salaried teachers, self-employed teachers will have their students best interest at heart. If that assumption is unrealistic then never mind.

    Of course, implementing something like that is not easy, but I think it is something worth looking into.
    So let's look at a list of expenses, then:
    • Insurance
    • Any costs for building space - rent, electricity, heat, water, gas
    • Food for breakfast, lunch, dinner
    • Administrative staff and other support staff -  classroom aids, custodial staff, cafeteria workers, nurses, etc.
    • Classroom supplies - pens, pencils, paper, folders, etc.
    • Additional supplies for special education students - not sure what schools traditionally supply, but things like "talkers," equipment needed for accessibility like moveable ramps, etc.
    • Extracurricular supplies - musical instruments, athletic crap, wood and paint and costumes for plays
    That is not even a complete list. Now, how much do you think all of that costs? Because it is a significant chunk of "expenses" that will then be cut from a teacher's salary.


    Report Reply
  • TrixieJessTrixieJess member
    1000 Comments 500 Love Its Fourth Anniversary First Answer
    kkitkat79 said:
    abcdevonn said:
    Am I reading it correctly and those numbers are from 2011-12? Tuition rates also likely rise every year. The three schools I checked in my area absolutely raise rates yearly. @Kkitkat79, again, I think this is another time when you are proposing things that sound great, but are unrealistic and impractical. Where are the scholarships coming from? How are you going to have only 5 students per class? How much will the teachers be paid, and what is your definition of "greedy"? As with your previous arguments, you are ignoring a ton of other factors that influence the cost of education. It would be great if we could send kids from all backgrounds and economic levels to great schools and pay for it out of some scholarship money, but don't you think someone would already be trying to implement this if it were that easy?
    All these are excellent questions! I know what I am proposing may sound unrealistic, but hear me out. As the system moves away from public to private schools public funds will be released. The $11,000 that is currently spent on providing education can be spent on providing scholarship funds.

    The teachers  will be the owners of these new small-scale private schools. So they will get paid total tuition revenue minus expenses. Tuition will be number of children times individual child scholarship fund (so for 5 kids 5x10,000=50,000).

    Again, I am assuming that people are interested in providing the best service they can. I am assuming that just like salaried teachers, self-employed teachers will have their students best interest at heart. If that assumption is unrealistic then never mind.

    Of course, implementing something like that is not easy, but I think it is something worth looking into.
    I don't know where you're from, nor do I care, but HERE the average elementary school teacher earns $50,000 pre tax. For Secondary school it's $55,000. You are already behind the 8 ball there. Keep in mind that self-employed teachers still have to pay taxes, they have to pay for their own healthcare premiums, they have to pay (in Canada) CPP and EI at source, so you downgrading their salary is not great. 

    But please, tell me more about this educational utopia...
    Report Reply
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards