An article I was given during an argument

kind of a stretch.

I wonder if they have to wipe the drool off his chin before he starts to teach his students.

Maybe they need to help him stop dragging his knuckles on the ground first.

Perhaps, they should first check and see if his truck with the NASCAR sticker on it is parked in the right spot for a professor.

You never know about these stupid, ignorant, gap toothed southerners.

I was referring to the fact that Alabama is a solidly Red state at this point. The connection is that privatizing education has been a repub pet issue for some time now.

Having lived in the south for several years, I recognize the stereotypes you refer to and sincerely hope you were attempting sarcasm.

Probably the only issue I have with this website is the prevailing northeastern elitist snobbery that southerners are somehow just a hair more advanced than depicted in the the movie "Deliverance"

What is supposed to be a demeaning pejorative for people in "red states" comes across as elitist bullshit.

As for privatizing education, I'm all for it, even if I would up supporting a repub issue. I call them as I see them.

The education system in this country is simply broken and needs to be fixed. More money is not the problem, schools have for the most part have became a babysitting service.

I spent many years trying to get my children a decent education via the public schools. Your kid is a number with federal dollars attached to him. He's a line item on a budget speadsheet .

I could go on, but I spare you the rant.

This country would be in deep shit without the public schools. I would bet that illiteracy would go through the roof. The gap between rich and poor would get even bigger than it is now. Simply put, the poor would be completely uneducated.

The solution is the improvement of the existing system, not its destruction. It is the government's responsibility to educate its people, and it should continue to do so.

As one who has been through good public schools and has friends in many good public schools, I have to say that your label of schools as a babysitting service is simply false.

Also, I would say that money sure as hell is the problem. Particularly the states of Alabama and Mississippi need money to fix up their schools. Many of them don't have enough textbooks, supplies, and many are in a state of disrepair.

it's the way it's being spent.

You can't seriously argue that $8,000 to $10,000 a year we spend on education per child isn't enough.

School systems are WAY too top heavy. In some states the ratio of total school personal, including all the bureaucrats sitting on their asses is like 1:3 (paid personnel vs student)

Teachers are getting the green wiener also. Most are spending vast amounts of time doing paperwork dreamed up by some state or county bureaucrat to cover their asses.

Cut the paperwork, cut the oversight personnel, cut the crap, hire more teachers and pay better, education will vastly improve.

I do think that better allocation of existing funds is vital. The way I see it, what you are advocating isn't really privatization. Its reform of the public system.

It is the government's responsibility to educate its people, and it should continue to do so.

That is exactly the reason our education system is in the mess it is.

It's the parents responsibility to make sure their children are getting an education by whoever means necessary. Public or private.

Sure the government should run the pubic sector because it costs less and children are given an equal chance to learn.

Anytime you admit it is no longer your responsibility to ensure the success or failure of any endeavor, the outcome becomes less important.

I'm not sure which comes first or is worse - "the prevailing northeastern elitist snobbery" or the idea that Southerners are all mouth breathing, NASCAR loving, dimwits as you sarcastically suggested in an earlier post.

Both are ill-informed and inflammatory.

Neither help the debate.

I'm a Southerner and I have very nice teeth, thank you. I'm also college educated and very liberal.

You need to add "some" to your stereotypical insults.

Sorry I left out those other stereotypical insults. I'll do better next time.

I hope it wasn't "free" education is superior to a consumer driven based one.

That's a bet you will lose every time.

My wife and I home schooled our children for several years while living in Texas because the educational system there was abysmal to put it mildly. They were send to private school when we could afford it.

BTW, we are not rich or wealthy, just sacrificed many things to make sure our children received a decent education.

from a purely economic standpoint.

And I'll do it as someone sitting on an education that cost my beloved parents roughly $300,000 through my BA. Add another 50 grand for my Master's degree, and my education alone is worth $350,000. (of course, that is amortised over 25 years, and DOES NOT take inflation into account.

So let's break that down. It's $150,000 for Undergrad (which everone pays something for, so we'll throw that away. we're now talking about $150,000 for preK-12th grade (15 total years) Using http://mutualfunds.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.timevalue.com%2Ftools.html">this calculator, and a modest return of 4%, I end up with the modest sum of $201,342 equivalent that my parents could have simply invested and given me at age 18. Or say even age 22 when I left undergrad. With a nest-egg of that amount, over a working life of 40 years, untouched, at th esame 4% interest rate, I end up with...$1,489,521.74.

Meaning that, economically speaking, my prep school education has to add, $1.48 million dollars to my earning potential over that time, as opposed to a public education. or roughly $1100/month.

that's a lot of money.

I was strictly talking about K-12 public education verses private education.

from a purely economic standpoint. What did you think was the "wrong point?" just out of curiosity?

Which would not likely be the case in an uneducated society. The cumulative economic benefit derived from the public education system is a significant contributing factor in your return on investment.

The Ludwig von Mises Institute is a foundation, based in Auburn, Alabama, dedicated to research on economics and political economy. It subscribes to a libertarian view of government and economics inspired by the Austrian School economist Ludwig von Mises. The Institute's founder and current president is Llewellyn Rockwell Jr. Murray Rothbard was a major influence on the Institute's activities, and he served as its vice-president until his death in 1995.

The Institute's goal is to "undermine statism in all its forms." It opposes both communism and the American System school of economics. The Institute runs various workshops and a comprehensive web site aimed at teaching about the Austrian School of Economics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute

First, there's a strawman. The author claims his opponents argue public education as a means to prevent economic decline.

Then he decides not to rebut that argument. (!)

Then he tries to establish the rise of literacy in Anglo-American history as some kind of proof that education need not be public.










Most proponents of public education aren't talking about saving America's economy with it. Public education is about equalizing opportunity not directly improving things like GNP or trade deficits.

Left with private education as the sole alternative, we exacerbate the separation of classes as the uneducated and the poor find themselves trapped in their underclass with little hope of escape.

Now, a society that has a lower barrier between classes can certainly benefit in economic ways from such mobility and diversity. But that would not be an indirect effect.

And nobody I know has ever argued that public education is the answer to economic problems.

But I don't see slavery being touted as a way to boost the economy.

Not even the neo-cons have suggested that.

aspect, not the "economic" aspect.

If public education is a means to avert economic decline, and private education is better than public, then private education is a better means. I think he'd prefer we think that education aids prosperity. By pulling economics in, he's raising the stakes.

You're right, most proponents of public education aren't saying public education will avert economic decline. But if you look at current discourse on the role of public education, seemingly generated by Bill Gates, the "economic decline" aspect is touted by a few rather outspoken folks. I'm not sure if this predates the latest bout of articles, but it's been in the lurking wings for a while.

I'm unconvinced his thesis is correct. I can see how it could have a few benefits, but I'm far from sure they outweight the deleterious effects.

Is it just a GDP term, or is it somehow translated into the betterment of life for more people?

It's possible, one assumes, to have a high GDP as well as a high poverty level, if all the wealth is concentrated in a few hands.

I just love it when people talk about the "sacrifices" their parents went through to give their kids a "quality" private education. I guess they think my parents didn't love me enough since they didn't give up food and housing and just took the easy route of leaving us in those crappy public schools.

I'd like to see a comparison of how much money is spent per pupil in some of the poorer public schools as opposed to the schools in affluent districts and how that money is actually spent. Metal detectors at the door, or new school books? Are the computers donated by the local business or purchased used with tax monies?

I have reached the point of hating libertarians almost as much as I hate pukes.

I take it to mean less economic importance in the world, lower standard of living, currency with a lower valuation.

What exactly Gates means by it, I'm not sure.

But I digress. :)

Gates doesn't exactly put forth a compelling argument in favor of public education, in my view.

I think he tries too hard to convince the "haves" that it's somehow in their self-interest to educate the "have nots".




Too bad most of the "haves" think that a cheap, uneducated, unorganized, uninvested, and largely disposable labor force is much more aligned with their self-interests.

Which is exactly what people experienced during the historical period commented on by the author.

What does that tell us?

I don't agree with the articles' point, I was simply bringing them up for discussion.

Dave