Privatizing Education page 2

56 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by TheLoneLucas:

No, I mean when you’ve landed a steady job. Sorry for the bad English. I mean the ex-students

Why would I even consider giving money to the teachers that I despised? Which was, frankly, quite a few.

If you haven’t made a decent living then I don’t know man. Some teachers abused their students, so yeah its up to you. But there’s the idea.

 
Flag Post

If you haven’t made a decent living then I don’t know man. Some teachers abused their students, so yeah its up to you. But there’s the idea.

If the students should give money, why not the parents, too?

I mean, ten dollars wouldn’t hurt anyone…

 
Flag Post

Yes, pretty interesting. But its more complicated though, if the student ended up taking care of their parents then there were services from the teachers to the parents. But if the student ended up being a thorn in flesh…
I’m going to think about it again. THanks

 
Flag Post

Why is it you guys think more money to teachers will make better teachers? This is one of the big problems with education. Government interferes with education and our standing in the world falls. So what does government do? They trow money at the problem. It doesn’t help the education system to throw money at it. I know some teachers and even though they like money, it is not the reason they studied to be teachers. They actually wanted to teach.

Another problem with the schools is the teacher’s union. It has set teachers up so the system can hardly get rid of the bad ones. At one time the unions had a purpose, but they don’t anymore. They just drive up the costs of everything without any increase in workers output.

It sounds good to throw money at a problem, kind of like our country threw money at Wall Street and the Banks, but it does nothing to solve the underlying problem.

 
Flag Post

OK, now I see; you’re talking about the incentives for teachers

Yes and no, the incentives for students are the same regardless of the proposed system. As are the incentives for teachers. The only change is in the incentive of those in charge.

Well here’s the news: government does not want to fire workers, even those who underperform. The government is obligated not to discriminate against workers in so many ways that it will not risk removal of an employee unless it is clear that it is necessary and that nobody will challenge the government. So a lot of bad teachers stay in the system because the government cannot actively seek out weak links.

Untrue, the government fires people all the time. The problem lies in replacing bad teachers with better ones, often there are no better options because there are so few people willing to teach. A thankless task with low pay relative to whatever you can get elsewhere.

Administration at private schools has to compete with other private schools, and has a perfectly good reason to maintain an effective staff: so that the school will perform better, attracting more customers. It doesn’t matter if they are seeking a profit, that’s semantics; a basic principle of capitalism is that profit seeking isn’t bad and often leads to people helping eachother out, directly or indirectly. Do not assume that people who are seeking merely profits can get away with screwing everyone over in a private industry.

Of course they do, it’s the basis for the “race to the bottom” that drives much of unrestrained capitalism.

Just because they don’t make healthy food doesn’t mean they are failing. They are good at what they do, which is pump out unhealthy food which people seem to enjoy, based on their market success. Just because a tobacco farm makes a drug that kills people doesn’t mean that they are bad at what they do. Both produce what they aim to produce, just like a lot of private schools. Can’t say the same for public education.

That’s a bad thing if you are measuring success by the quality of outcomes, though.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Why is it you guys think more money to teachers will make better teachers? This is one of the big problems with education. Government interferes with education and our standing in the world falls. So what does government do? They trow money at the problem. It doesn’t help the education system to throw money at it. I know some teachers and even though they like money, it is not the reason they studied to be teachers. They actually wanted to teach.

Another problem with the schools is the teacher’s union. It has set teachers up so the system can hardly get rid of the bad ones. At one time the unions had a purpose, but they don’t anymore. They just drive up the costs of everything without any increase in workers output.

It sounds good to throw money at a problem, kind of like our country threw money at Wall Street and the Banks, but it does nothing to solve the underlying problem.

Make sense, we don’t want teachers who teach students just to be rich regardless of the sake of others. You’re right, I didn’t see far enough.

 
Flag Post

Schools now days Teach the Kitties How to do the test and force them to Use Some Gay thing Like PURE. They only focus on the test And How to solve questions only. With the teachers now days, I Would not trust them teaching my kids. And considering my Anger Issues, Good thing i did not have any. And how people Now days(NOT All) Listen to only what the media says, We are screwed. In the 50s, Everything was hard and the Kids were All good. Now, THe kids are all bad and the teachers act like they are the kittens Parents.
And now, I end My Qoute.

 
Flag Post

In the 50s, Everything was hard and the Kids were All good. Now, THe kids are all bad and the teachers act like they are the kittens Parents.

No. That’s classic ‘’everything was better in the good old days and I base that on absolutely nothing’’ crap.

 
Flag Post

TLL, I was wondering whether Bob was being sarcastic there, but obviously you don’t think so.

I was at school in the 50s, and there were bright kids, thick kids, badly behaved kids – pretty much the same mix as you will find in schools today.

There were also regular visits from the nit nurse, and every school I remember had a child or two wearing leg braces as a result of polio. The good old days indeed!

 
Flag Post
Yes and no, the incentives for students are the same regardless of the proposed system. As are the incentives for teachers. The only change is in the incentive of those in charge.

Not at all. You realize that teachers wages in the private sector operate nothing like in the public sector, right? A teacher cannot get paid more or less for their quality of teaching if they are employed by the government, but a private school which paid better teachers more would give them an incentive to teach better.

Untrue, the government fires people all the time. The problem lies in replacing bad teachers with better ones, often there are no better options because there are so few people willing to teach.

How absurd. Firstly the government does not fire people all the time, people just lose government jobs when the government finds out that certain programs are impossible to maintain, and even this does not happen frequently. Secondly there are plenty of people willing to teach, my high school was always opening up new “departments” because of the constant influx of people who wanted to teach.
Of course they do, it’s the basis for the “race to the bottom” that drives much of unrestrained capitalism.

Just like how Hong Kong and Singapore are “racing to the bottom”? As much as I’d like to entertain the notion that unrestrained capitalism leads to situations like those in the Gilded Age, in the 21st century there are countries that are living proof that this isn’t necessarily the case.
That’s a bad thing if you are measuring success by the quality of outcomes, though.

What you define as quality is subjective. It may not be made of quality ingredients or be healthy, but it is quality food to many customers. McDonalds isn’t meant to be a dietary lifestyle; fast food is meant to be a quick meal for those on the move or who don’t have enough time to make a meal. The fact that some people do not eat their food responsibly does not mean that they are a bad business; I eat there every once in a while and I don’t think I was ever disappointed with the service or food.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by ohmylanta:
A teacher cannot get paid more or less for their quality of teaching if they are employed by the government, but a private school which paid better teachers more would give them an incentive to teach better.

How would this happen? How exactly does one objectively meassure which teachers are better? And if we can do so objectively why would a public school not be able to pay teachers more?

Firstly the government does not fire people all the time, people just lose government jobs when the government finds out that certain programs are impossible to maintain, and even this does not happen frequently.

Actually the often critizised “no child left behind act” does lead to the frequent firing of techers. On its basis teachers can lose their jobs unless their students pass certain test with better grades than those of the year before.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by ohmylanta:
Yes and no, the incentives for students are the same regardless of the proposed system. As are the incentives for teachers. The only change is in the incentive of those in charge.

Not at all. You realize that teachers wages in the private sector operate nothing like in the public sector, right? A teacher cannot get paid more or less for their quality of teaching if they are employed by the government, but a private school which paid better teachers more would give them an incentive to teach better.

Define teach better. What should it be based on? Grades? Then you would get the same result that you have in countries that did introduce something like this: massive teaching to the test.
Most teachers do want to teach well. They want to be creative and use interesting methods to teach. the problem is that there simply is not enough time to do that. Teacher is a job that destroys you over time, because of stress. If the situation becomes better for teachers, which could for example be achieved by employing more and making reforms to the education system following the example of for example the Scandinavian countries then teaching quality will automatically become better.
We also need to stop to cater to the economy in schools. Schools do not only have the function of producing the work force of tomorrow. When I look at the reforms that are actually planned by politicians it becomes obvious that they have an entirely different focus than teachers and people who want to become teachers.

 
Flag Post

Why is it you guys think more money to teachers will make better teachers?

I could explain in detail, but the saying “Pay peanuts, get monkeys.” is far more eloquent. If you want to attract talented people to become teachers you need to pay them wages that are attractive compared to all the alternatives they have for their education and skillset.

Do you want to attract large numbers of talented people to teach the nation’s children? I do.

Government interferes with education and our standing in the world falls. So what does government do? They trow money at the problem. It doesn’t help the education system to throw money at it.

It depends. If the problem is underfunding, then paying more does indeed improve results.
It’s not a panacea, but it does help when when many schools are grossly underfunded due to the nature of some of the funding mechanisms (based on local property taxes).

Another problem with the schools is the teacher’s union. It has set teachers up so the system can hardly get rid of the bad ones. At one time the unions had a purpose, but they don’t anymore. They just drive up the costs of everything without any increase in workers output.

The purpose of unions is not to improve outcomes but to improve the lives of union members. They do so. Why are you so against liberty, jhco, that you would try to limit the freedom of association of union members? That’s what all anti-union rhetoric amounts to.

Regardless, they do not prevent the removal of bad teachers.

 
Flag Post
Define teach better.

That’s not necessarily for us to define. However, if the customers complain about a certain teacher then won’t the administration keep an eye on that teacher? And doesn’t an administration paying the teachers out of their own pockets have a reason to fire failing teachers, as opposed to a school subsidized heavily by the state?

Most teachers do want to teach well.

Most evil comes in the form of good intention. Also, how can you say that the definition of good teaching is arbitrary while also saying that all teachers want to teach well? There are conflicting methodologies of people like this who strive to do something well, and there should be a set standard that they have to compromise with; I will not deny this. However, I think the standards should be set by employers who actually invest their money into the school and teachers for their own institutions, not by politicians state or federal. Finding what most people feel to be good teaching is part of the experimentation of competitive capitalism in the teaching sector, and it seems that many private schools have found it based on their track records and commendations.
How would this happen? How exactly does one objectively meassure which teachers are better?

Again, how do we determine which foods are better? Which computers or video games are better? The customers do this because they are the ones experiencing the service of a business. And as a veteran of the public school system, I can confirm that public school administration is much less likely to defer to the people than a private school which is not kept up by taxpayer dollars.
Actually the often critizised “no child left behind act” does lead to the frequent firing of techers. On its basis teachers can lose their jobs unless their students pass certain test with better grades than those of the year before.

Yes, but all that did in the long term was make all the standardized tests easier so that 1. no children would be “left behind” (instead they would be prematurely accelerated) and 2. no teachers would have to be replaced. I live in New Jersey and ever since No Child Left Behind, the NJASK, Biology test and HSPA were all terribly easy to pass because they were specifically designed so that almost nobody would fail it. Kids in WWP South were taking a test designed for inner city kids in Trenton. The only standardized tests that didn’t become incredibly easier were the PSATs/SATs/ACTs, but that’s only because none of those tests have a “passing grade” because they aren’t even mandatory.

 
Flag Post

Again, how do we determine which foods are better?

There are various objective methods for determining the quality of food for a widespread of goals. Generally customer behavior tends to run against most of these methods, because buying the better food is often not affordable for them and/or the food takes more effort to prepare. You might claim cheaper or easy and quick to prepare food is better but i don´t think those were the qualities you were looking for in education.

Which computers or video games are better?

Again we have various objective Methods but consumer behavior does not always agree. One of the most important factors being Advertising.

The customers do this because they are the ones experiencing the service of a business.

Indeed, but customer experience is rather limited. And claiming something is better because more people buy it relies most often more on circular logic, than anything else.
In case of children education the actual customer is not the consumer so the experience is pretty limited and most customers and consumers lack the knowledge to actually be able to say whats good and whats not.
When i buy a car or house i get an expert to check the quality of the object i don´t just rely on the personal experience of other customers with the same seller/object or even my own.

And as a veteran of the public school system, I can confirm that public school administration is much less likely to defer to the people than a private school which is not kept up by taxpayer dollars.

Yes and as a veteran of both public and private school systems, I can say that a private school is much more likely to defer to the people for the wrong reasons. For example firing high quality staff because of social stigma regarding their private life, even if such social stigma is based on false accusations.

Actually the often critizised “no child left behind act” does lead to the frequent firing of teachers. On its basis teachers can lose their jobs unless their students pass certain test with better grades than those of the year before.


Yes, but all that did in the long term was make all the standardized tests easier so that 1. no children would be “left behind” (instead they would be prematurely accelerated) and 2. no teachers would have to be replaced. I live in New Jersey and ever since No Child Left Behind, the NJASK, Biology test and HSPA were all terribly easy to pass because they were specifically designed so that almost nobody would fail it. Kids in WWP South were taking a test designed for inner city kids in Trenton. The only standardized tests that didn’t become incredibly easier were the PSATs/SATs/ACTs, but that’s only because none of those tests have a “passing grade” because they aren’t even mandatory.

Hmm strange. I was under the impression that the No Child Left Behind Act lead to a great amount of teaching to the test. That seems very unnecessary if the test are so simple. Also elite schools taking test for lower quality schools is not bad as such, its one of the points of standardized tests. To make certain that at least a standard level is reached. That the test all became easier(if true) is certainly problematic. But from what i get its part of learning process the American Education System has to go through to catch up to the current standard of modern teaching knowledge.

 
Flag Post
Teachers around here are making $50-$70 thousand. Some college professors have broken the $100K mark. That only for the 9 months of school. They have summer jobs as well, or used to. Of course this varies depending on what part of the country they are working.

That 50-70k is not what it is in the midwest. My mom is a teacher, has been for years, and she is just over 40k. That’s not introductory position either. You also forget that college professors work in the private sector often times, and they need an additional three years of schooling.

The purpose of unions is not to improve outcomes but to improve the lives of union members. They do so. Why are you so against liberty, jhco, that you would try to limit the freedom of association of union members? That’s what all anti-union rhetoric amounts to.

Not to mention union-busting is what pisses people off even more than being taken advantage of. Look at Wisconsin, the teachers there led a mass protest last year because of the anti-union governor.

I could explain in detail, but the saying “Pay peanuts, get monkeys.” is far more eloquent. If you want to attract talented people to become teachers you need to pay them wages that are attractive compared to all the alternatives they have for their education and skillset.

This is true, you look at the wages and benefits a math major can get working in the financial sector as opposed to teaching, and becoming a teacher doesn’t make sense, unless you absolutely love teaching things.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Redem:

Why is it you guys think more money to teachers will make better teachers?

I could explain in detail, but the saying “Pay peanuts, get monkeys.” is far more eloquent. If you want to attract talented people to become teachers you need to pay them wages that are attractive compared to all the alternatives they have for their education and skillset.

Do you want to attract large numbers of talented people to teach the nation’s children? I do.

Government interferes with education and our standing in the world falls. So what does government do? They trow money at the problem. It doesn’t help the education system to throw money at it.

It depends. If the problem is underfunding, then paying more does indeed improve results.
It’s not a panacea, but it does help when when many schools are grossly underfunded due to the nature of some of the funding mechanisms (based on local property taxes).

Another problem with the schools is the teacher’s union. It has set teachers up so the system can hardly get rid of the bad ones. At one time the unions had a purpose, but they don’t anymore. They just drive up the costs of everything without any increase in workers output.

The purpose of unions is not to improve outcomes but to improve the lives of union members. They do so. Why are you so against liberty, jhco, that you would try to limit the freedom of association of union members? That’s what all anti-union rhetoric amounts to.

Regardless, they do not prevent the removal of bad teachers.

Teachers are already making more than many other occupations. How much do you think people make over here? Teachers are not making peanuts. If they were, no one would be going to college for a teaching degree.

The problem with our education system is not underfunding. We probably spend more on education than most, if not all countries and it doesn’t seem to be working for us. Schools are not funded by property taxes only. They receive both state and federal aid as well.

The purpose of unions use to be to improve the workers working conditions and allow them a fair wage. They have gone way beyond that in modern times. They are now a money machine and really do very little for the workers other than get inflated wages. They have lost most of the civilian workers because they have become so expensive to belong to and companies can no longer afford the wages of union workers.

If you look at the statistics you will find that unions have left much of the private sector and moved into the government arena. I worked for a company that was employed by a government entity. The company I worked for actually brought the union in and made us join it. What that did was to give them a way to override some of the government mandates they previously had to go by. What did the union do for us workers? Nothing, except take our dues every paycheck.

 
Flag Post
Generally customer behavior tends to run against most of these methods, because buying the better food is often not affordable for them and/or the food takes more effort to prepare.

So? If people wanted to eat healthier food they would, and companies would succeed based on the nutritional value of their products. A lot of people do seek food and they get it through businesses. A lot of people seek unhealthy food and they get it through businesses. Neither business model is a failure. Businesses like McDonalds should be commended for producing what the people apparently want, and you bringing up your “objective measures” is a nice way of saying “I know what’s best for you, your body and your lifestyle”.

Again we have various objective Methods but consumer behavior does not always agree. One of the most important factors being Advertising.

For computers? Ok, maybe there are some objective measures like memory, speed, ergonomics, etc. So then what is your proof that people don’t seek out these attributes? I hold that the attributes are distributed among different kinds of computers unevenly, and some aspects appeal more to others. For example, PCs may not look nice but they are more compatible with software and hardware than Macs. While Macs look nice physically and in usage. I think that PCs are better, and so do a lot of people, which is why PCs outsell Macs. However, some people value some things over others, allowing for a diverse market. It’s the same thing with food. Things like taste, price and accessibility appeal to some people while others look for quality ingredients or organic ingredients. The food market is very diversified; and the result? Businesses like Trader Joe’s provide organic food which satisfies those looking for organic food, and McDonalds satisfies those looking for fast food (not that either of them have no competition). The point is, there are a lot of aspects about products you are not taking into account, and your “objective standards” are therefore either biased or ignorant.
And claiming something is better because more people buy it relies most often more on circular logic, than anything else.

It’s not circular logic, it’s a cyclical system. There’s a difference. When business does well, it gets more customers, and makes more revenue, and therefore expands, and gets more customers and more revenue. The reason why this isn’t circular logic is because one begins the other; the investment begins the business cycle. If the initial investment fails, the business fails. If the initial investment succeeds, the cycle may begin. Also the cycle can be broken by damage to business from disasters etc. Circular logic is fallacious because it is a cycle where the initial causal factor is actually caused by one of the results of that causal factor, which is illogical. However, if you have a finite starting point then a cycle, finite or infinite, is logically possible.
In case of children education the actual customer is not the consumer so the experience is pretty limited and most customers and consumers lack the knowledge to actually be able to say whats good and whats not.

Well it is more limited than most private institutions, I will grant you that. The customers can interact with the business though, and if the kid says to his mom “X teacher is bad” and gives reasons for it, the parent can contact the administration, contact the teacher or even mobilize other parents to petition the school.
In case of children education the actual customer is not the consumer so the experience is pretty limited and most customers and consumers lack the knowledge to actually be able to say whats good and whats not.

The fact that you cannot defer to your own experience to make a financial decision indicates a lack of personal responsibility. If you are investing your own money into something, presumably thousands of dollars in the event of a car investment, you should at least set personal standards for the car, and if the car doesn’t meet your standards even after you browsed tirelessly for the right car then you should be able to individually determine that the investment did not pay off.
For example firing high quality staff because of social stigma regarding their private life, even if such social stigma is based on false accusations.

If a teacher is somehow causing a disturbance among the people who are spending their own money to pay for his/her job, give me a reason why he/she shouldn’t be fired. False accusations are a different story, but they are in no way unique to the private sector. For example, I could burn a whole day compiling a list of federal employees and politicians who had been fired or voted out for false accusations of sexual harassment or other misdemeanors.
Hmm strange. I was under the impression that the No Child Left Behind Act lead to a great amount of teaching to the test.

The teachers did have to teach parts of, say, biology that were on the standardized bio test but those material required for passing that test wasn’t even enough to keep a biology class in a normal public school occupied for a semester.
Also elite schools taking test for lower quality schools is not bad as such, its one of the points of standardized tests. To make certain that at least a standard level is reached.

This is fine conceptually, but the problem is that there will always be people who fail the test, and if we have a system where the students who fail must be accounted for, the “standard” will keep falling and eventually become a standard far lower than 99% of students who take the test seriously, which creates a false standard that now the state will rely on.

To put it simply, there’s a wide range in which almost all of the test-takers will pass a test, and therefore if you do not set the test standard higher and also allow for failure, you will never know where exactly the education standard is as it moves throughout that 99% success range.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by onlineidiot1994:
Teachers around here are making $50-$70 thousand. Some college professors have broken the $100K mark. That only for the 9 months of school. They have summer jobs as well, or used to. Of course this varies depending on what part of the country they are working.

That 50-70k is not what it is in the midwest. My mom is a teacher, has been for years, and she is just over 40k. That’s not introductory position either. You also forget that college professors work in the private sector often times, and they need an additional three years of schooling.

The purpose of unions is not to improve outcomes but to improve the lives of union members. They do so. Why are you so against liberty, jhco, that you would try to limit the freedom of association of union members? That’s what all anti-union rhetoric amounts to.

Not to mention union-busting is what pisses people off even more than being taken advantage of. Look at Wisconsin, the teachers there led a mass protest last year because of the anti-union governor.

I could explain in detail, but the saying “Pay peanuts, get monkeys.” is far more eloquent. If you want to attract talented people to become teachers you need to pay them wages that are attractive compared to all the alternatives they have for their education and skillset.

This is true, you look at the wages and benefits a math major can get working in the financial sector as opposed to teaching, and becoming a teacher doesn’t make sense, unless you absolutely love teaching things.

It does vary from state to state. What is the additional 3 years of education for?

Wisconsin is/was one of the states making high wages from what I understand. Their retirement is what the issue was. It was really out of line. The voters actually supported the decision of the governor as the recall election showed. In fact, he got more votes than he did when he run for office the first time.

Let me ask you this. If a math major could make more in the financial sector, why is he teaching?

 
Flag Post
Not to mention union-busting is what pisses people off even more than being taken advantage of. Look at Wisconsin, the teachers there led a mass protest last year because of the anti-union governor.

Yeah, and the state of Wisconsin showed they supported Governor Walker’s reigning in pensions that the state couldn’t afford.

 
Flag Post
I could explain in detail, but the saying “Pay peanuts, get monkeys.” is far more eloquent. If you want to attract talented people to become teachers you need to pay them wages that are attractive compared to all the alternatives they have for their education and skillset.

Tenure is the reason why all teachers’ salaries are stifled. It prevents the cream from rising to the top and breeds mediocrity. Why should mom and sister who worked their asses off and truly gave a damn about the students they taught be paid the same as my high school US History teacher who thought that teaching us civil rights meant showing us the entire series of Roots? Huzzah teachers’ unions and tenure!

 
Flag Post

Teachers are already making more than many other occupations. How much do you think people make over here? Teachers are not making peanuts. If they were, no one would be going to college for a teaching degree.

Not enough, apparently, if you think the quality of teachers is lacking it can’t be attracting the decent graduates it needs to. They’re not making as much as you think, anyway, and making more than some other professions is not even close to being an argument against paying them properly.

The problem with our education system is not underfunding. We probably spend more on education than most, if not all countries and it doesn’t seem to be working for us. Schools are not funded by property taxes only. They receive both state and federal aid as well.

Nevertheless, they are funded in part by property taxes and that creates a problem of funding not being matched to need, leaving poor areas underfunded. It is precisely the federal funding you rail against that combats against this.

The purpose of unions use to be to improve the workers working conditions and allow them a fair wage. They have gone way beyond that in modern times. They are now a money machine and really do very little for the workers other than get inflated wages. They have lost most of the civilian workers because they have become so expensive to belong to and companies can no longer afford the wages of union workers.

Bollocks. The US remains one of the world’s largest manufacturers. Manufacturing of low quality mass produced plastic goods or items similar to that has been outsourced to China et all, not because of unions but because you could pay pennies a day in such places.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by ohmylanta:
The point is, there are a lot of aspects about products you are not taking into account, and your “objective standards” are therefore either biased or ignorant.

Sigh. Your getting so desperate here that your forcibly misinterpreting what i am saying and degenerating to troll level here. My very first sentence, the one that you choose not to quote, makes clear that the objective methods are for a widespread of goals. The methods themselves are certainly not biased but people can be biased or ignorant towards different goals.
Here your forgetting that in our discussion there is already a goal set and its quite different from the goal of best selling product. The goal was better education/standards for teachers.

And claiming something is better because more people buy it relies most often more on circular logic, than anything else.


It’s not circular logic, it’s a cyclical system. There’s a difference.

Sigh. Again missing the point i am making and going off on a different tangent. I am talking about the claim something is better because more people buy it(not about how economics works). This claim is often circular reasoning because the goal/measuring stick are the same as the reason something is supposed to be better.

The customers can interact with the business though, and if the kid says to his mom “X teacher is bad” and gives reasons for it, the parent can contact the administration, contact the teacher or even mobilize other parents to petition the school.

Which is rather poor way of trying to get insight into the quality of education provided for the kids. Most of the teachers that i remember me and my classmates complaining about were the better teachers. And as kids we certainly did not lack imagination when it came to giving reasons for saying why they were bad.

The fact that you cannot defer to your own experience to make a financial decision indicates a lack of personal responsibility. If you are investing your own money into something, presumably thousands of dollars in the event of a car investment, you should at least set personal standards for the car, and if the car doesn’t meet your standards even after you browsed tirelessly for the right car then you should be able to individually determine that the investment did not pay off.

Sigh. Your really desperate to make an argument here, aren´t you? When i say “just” does the word ring any cognitive response in you frontal lob?
I certainly set my standards for the cars/houses i buy. One of them being getting an expert to look at the quality of the object i am interested in. That you can´t grasp the reasons for this means you either don´t know much about cars/houses or take your knowledge for granted.
Many people who don´t consult experts buy the wrong car/house because they lack the knowledge to actually determine if the object they are buying meets standards they set(or would have liked to set if they knew more).
Personally i would need the help a bit more in case of buying cars. Since i know almost nothing about them. I can set the most important standards myself(at least i hope so), but one of the most important standards “the car working reliably” is outside of my ability to determine except through trial and error.

For example firing high quality staff because of social stigma regarding their private life, even if such social stigma is based on false accusations.


If a teacher is somehow causing a disturbance among the people who are spending their own money to pay for his/her job, give me a reason why he/she shouldn’t be fired. False accusations are a different story, but they are in no way unique to the private sector. For example, I could burn a whole day compiling a list of federal employees and politicians who had been fired or voted out for false accusations of sexual harassment or other misdemeanors.

I am not questioning the morality(except in cases of false accusation) but the ability of this method to get better Teachers.

 
Flag Post
Your getting so desperate here that your forcibly misinterpreting what i am saying and degenerating to troll level here.

I did no such thing. You accuse me of being selective with my quotation, but you are the one who has committed this act. You failed to recognize that the objective standards are meaningless as they can be easily overtaken by the subjective qualities. You realize that therefore because the subjective standards can hold value over the objective standards, the objective standards are therefore subjective standards as they do not hold priority in all people over your “subjective standards”. I think what you’re saying is that some standards of products are actually measurable, to which I would agree, but again the desired result from this differs among customers.

The goal was better education/standards for teachers.

Right. So what is the goal of McDonalds? To conform to your “objective standards”, which are questionable being that you have chosen not to list them even once? I think not. I think you’ll find that they give what the people want, which isn’t necessarily healthy, but they are successful in achieving their goals. So if the people want good education they will get it through private means, in the same way that the people who want fast food get it through private means. Maybe not all private schools will succeed academically. Some look to schools as a way to prepare students for menial labor, or for atheltic careers. In certain aspects these schools will be worse, but there will still be people who are drawn to those schools, and this isn’t necessarily bad as, like I mentioned earlier, not everyone is designed for a scientific or educational field of work.
Sigh. Again missing the point i am making and going off on a different tangent.

I’m sorry? You contested that my proposed system of a cycle of supply and demand was fallacious as it required an initial demand which, by my own system, could only be caused by the business itself anyway, which is illogical. I then explicitly refuted the logical fallacy you imposed on my argument. I find it difficult to believe that I misinterpreted this.
I am talking about the claim something is better because more people buy it

But there is no standard to which everyone agrees something is better. People value different things, which is why you can compare Mac and PC all day to see which is better but in the end they both have huge market shares and neither dominates the other. The two statements in your supposed fallacy that I put forth do not cause each other, because people buy something because it is better, and usually it is better for them because it conforms to their personal standards, which is often based on actual research. I wouldn’t hold that market share makes a product better or worse, only that it makes it better for those who felt the product was worth investing in.
Most of the teachers that i remember me and my classmates complaining about were the better teachers.

Yes, but were your complaints just gut feelings or could you support them with evidence if asked by your parents? If you could provide solid reasoning as to why they were bad teachers back then, what has made you so enlightened that you can declare they are good teachers now? How can you ask me what constitutes good teaching as a semi-rhetorical question, while imposing your own standards as a sort of way to prove a point logically?
Many people who don´t consult experts buy the wrong car/house because they lack the knowledge to actually determine if the object they are buying meets standards they set

Ok, fine, I misspoke about the whole “personal responsibility” thing. It should be personal responsibility to research these things, right? But if all the people consult experts then won’t that just mean that the better products will get more market share anyway? Also you seem to be contradicting yourself here: you say that it would be too difficult to determine which teachers and schools perform better, and then you contend that “experts” can determine good and bad in the auto/housing sector fine. Why can experts not determine which schools are better?
I am not questioning the morality(except in cases of false accusation) but the ability of this method to get better Teachers.

The private schools want to look better than other private schools, right? Because that will bring them more customers. There are rating agencies which determine which schools are better; for you, those guys are the experts right? So, in order to do this they might heighten the difficulty of certain courses and the teachers would have to teach at this new level. Now the teachers have to be held to a higher standard, and those which the administration finds are not up to this standard need to be replaced. This creates a demand for good teachers, which are not in short supply, and those good teachers have an incentive now to work for that school as increased standard usually means increased wage. It’s probably not perfect, but in principle it works.

 
Flag Post
It does vary from state to state. What is the additional 3 years of education for?

Typically. more education means more money/job opportunities.

Wisconsin is/was one of the states making high wages from what I understand. Their retirement is what the issue was. It was really out of line

From what I understand he passed a law that cut back a ton of the retirement benefits, and it also attacked the collective bargaining rights of public-sector employess. (I.e. teachers unions)

Let me ask you this. If a math major could make more in the financial sector, why is he teaching?

Because he likes it more?

Yeah, and the state of Wisconsin showed they supported Governor Walker’s reigning in pensions that the state couldn’t afford.

Yeah, those working in the private sector who were least effected by the bill were the strongest supporters of it. Funny how that works, isn’t it?

You guys do realize that teachers often require a bachelor’s or even master’s degree (for specialists), that’s at least four years of schooling, so what’s wrong with them getting a good job?