6 ms·

FIXME: zero ideas in the dept. of education's open government idea board

48 points by rndmcnlly0 17y ago

vyrotek 17y ago
How about the idea that there shouldn't be any public schools?
- sshumaker 17y ago
  What's the theory behind that?
  - natrius 17y ago
    Universal access to education doesn't mean that the government needs to actually run the schools. It just means that funding needs to be provided for those who can't afford it on their own. Bonus points if you can get people to voluntarily subsidize the educations of those who can't afford it rather than forcibly taking the money. Competition is a pretty powerful force when it comes to improving products, and it seems likely that the quality of education would improve if everyone wasn't forced to purchase an education bundled with their housing.
    - wisty 17y ago
      Calling education a product is tricky. Do you mean degrees or other attainments, or do you mean the underlying learning? Because it's damn hard to separate the two, and private providers have a big incentive to half-ass the second, especially if they are targeting the mass market. Education is even harder than health to privatize, because you are trying to target kids, not parents, but the parents will be making all the choices.
      - mhb 17y ago
        What argument are you making that doesn't apply if you replace education, schools and vouchers with food, supermarkets and food stamps?
        wisty 17y ago
        I bet people buy crappy foods (chips and soft-drinks) for the children when they use food stamps. So there is some similarity. The difference? People have a fair idea as what good food is. Also, education is vulnerable to getting derailed by optimization for tests. And the testing will most likely be controlled by the state. I would worry that big mass-market voucher schools will specialize in marketing, cutting costs, and gaming the state-run tests.
        mhb 17y ago
        I'll bet you're right and the risk when allowing people to retain their freedom to make decisions is that they'll make ones with which you disagree. But I'm less pessimistic than you about people's abilities to make good decisions especially when their children are involved. At least their motivations are better aligned than the government's with their children's interests. Teacher's unions?
      - jcnnghm 17y ago
        If private providers half-ass the underlying learning, why do private schools consistently outperform public schools?
        tsally 17y ago
        Well there is no good way to compare them by ranking. Here are the public school rankings: http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/high-schools/2009/12/09/americas-best-high-schools-gold-medal-list.html http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/high-schools/2009/1... But where are the private school rankings? They don't take the accountability tests which are mandatory public schools. I'm curious where you are getting your facts from. Claiming that private schools consistently outperform public schools suggests you must have some strong facts. So let's see them please. And while we wait for your facts, consider this. Current private schools don't have to deal with kids that have learning disabilities. Current private schools don't have to deal with as much diversity. Current private schools don't have to deal with underfunding. Current private schools have strong alumni networks. The private schools of today are not your average private school of a 100% private system.
        dhume 17y ago
        1. Selective admissions 2. Self-selected applicant pool 3. Easier time removing disruptive students In short, private schools have better students.
        anamax 17y ago
        > In short, private schools have better students. You overstate the admissions argument. However, even if we accept it, you're concluding too much. Public schools insist on letting bad students drag everyone else down with them. Private schools don't. Neither one seems capable of reaching bad students. However, it's unclear why letting them ruin things for everyone else, as public schools do, is a good thing.
      - natrius 17y ago
        Public providers half-ass the underlying learning as well. The concept of "teaching to the test" didn't come from private schools. Whatever we choose to measure schools by will generally be what teachers and principals optimize for, whether public or private.
        wisty 17y ago
        That's true, as well. But I think it would be worse under a voucher system. Private providers would be a lot quicker to race to the bottom of "teaching the test" if the voucher system included bonuses for good test performance.
        natrius 17y ago
        A voucher system doesn't need bonuses. If a school improves its reputation in the eyes of the public, it will be able to charge more money. Allowing customer choice lets people take into account less concrete metrics of school performance instead of the government punishing and rewarding schools. If customers don't want schools that teach to the test, they'll actively observe other metrics to come to their decisions. Customers who don't put in as much effort into picking schools will be no worse off than they are today. Schools already teach to the test, especially schools in poor areas that are trying to raise their test scores. However, a functioning market allows them to benefit from the choices their more responsible peers make. Fewer underperforming schools will survive.
    - jwhite 17y ago
      I think you would have to set the parameters very carefully. In Australia, universities have been encouraged (or forced, depending on how you look at it) by budget cuts to offer courses to full fee paying students from overseas to supplement their revenue. This contrasts with the local Australian students whose courses are still highly subsidised by government funding (the subsidy has been decreasing as well though). If a university is offering a course with an aim to maximize revenue, then it will naturally want to attract as many students as possible, in competition with other local universities and with overseas universities. Often that means lowering the entrance criteria for prospective students. Because the students are paying for the course, they expect to have their degree at the end of it, and this leads to significant pressure to lower the depth and difficulty of the material taught, as well as the grading criteria, to accommodate the weakest students. I don't believe the actual teaching is poor, but the quality of education is lowered. I know professors who have had to take phone calls from overseas from parents demanding to have their children's grades altered, with a financial threat attached. Reputation is a key driver in students' choice of university, which adds a further incentive to placate the customer. I don't know if any of these anecdotes actually resulted in a "pay-for-grade" situation, but the normally assumed academic independence is certainly threatened. Maybe education can be made to work well under a competitive market system, but in this situation I don't think it has, and I'm not smart enough to think of ways to fix this particular situation.
- tsally 17y ago
  Education is guaranteed under article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the US signed and helped author. Not providing a public option for education would mean redefining what we believe to be fundamental freedoms. How are you going to provide education to the poor without public schools? Will the government give the poor money for education? Will you subsidize the "private" schools with government money? That would defeat the whole purpose of having private schools as you aren't allowing them the operate in the free market. It's not clear 100% bastardized "private" schools would be any more competitive than the current hybrid system. Public schools and the belief that education is a fundamental human right are inextricably intertwined. EDIT: I'm going to edit this comment to refuse the arguments below, as there are multiple posters with similar points of view. The claim is that restoring "choice" to the educational market will increase the quality of education for all. This choice is already happening. Wealthy families choose to move to areas with high property taxes that fund excellent public schools. I grew up and was educated in such a neighborhood; when I was in HS the average salary of a teacher at my "public" school was $100k. Each year, students from inner-city Chicago try and register for the schools in my HS area. They are not allowed because the schools are full with residents. Therefore, they have to go the public school in the neighborhood they reside in. In a private system, the same behavior happens, except the barrier to entry becomes price not the geographical location of your residence. Several people have suggested government vouchers to help defray the cost of education. Do you really think these vouchers will be able to buy a higher quality of education than what is current available? The best private schools will raise their price to the most efficient market point where they charge their students the most and enroll exactly enough students. Now some might argue that we already have a private system by proxy. People are still paying for higher education, they are just doing it though home ownership. Why not just covert to a private system? The answer is this: the quality of the weakest school is far more important than the quality of the strongest school. People with money will always be able to find a way to get their kids an excellent education. As a society we don't need to worry about these kids. Society does need to worry about the bottom line. The long term cost of failed education to society is immense: increased crime rate which leads to prison costs, lower voter literacy which results in less qualified politicians, the list goes on. In a private system, the low end is forgotten about. The idea that a government voucher would be large enough for the bottom end is ridiculous. In the public system there is a constant struggle to push the low end higher. This is (part of the reason) why the public system costs so much. The public system has to bear an extra burden (for the good of society) that the private system eliminates through efficiency. The bottom line: Choice is already taking place in the hybrid school system by proxy through property tax or expensive private schools. The 100% private system would be exactly the same, with the added disadvantage of a forgotten low end. Vouchers are just a half-assed replacement for the public part of the system already in place. If the vouchers were high enough to raise the low end to an acceptable level, the cost would be equal to the public part of the current system. In order to raise the low end of education above the fair market value, government regulation is by definition necessary. A small correction must be made for the failure in free market forces.
- johnnybgoode 17y ago
  Exactly. Also see http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=580721 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=580721.
jf 17y ago
All "CFO Act" agencies have these pages, full list is here: http://www.usa.gov/webcontent/open/tool_poc.shtml http://www.usa.gov/webcontent/open/tool_poc.shtml Real people at these agencies are using these pages to develop their prospective open government plans, in response to the Open Government Directive (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/memoranda_2010/m10-06.pdf http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/memoranda_2010/m10-06.p...) These agencies also have their own open government pages where you can find out about their respective plans. Here's NASA's page as an example: http://www.nasa.gov/open http://www.nasa.gov/open
TheThomas 17y ago
I think it might be empty because ed.gov doesn't seem to actually link it anywhere on their site.
- jf 17y ago
  They do, it's just hard to find. http://www2.ed.gov/about/open-submit-idea.html http://www2.ed.gov/about/open-submit-idea.html via http://ed.gov/open http://ed.gov/open
  - TheThomas 17y ago
    Thanks. Great catch. Admittedly, I'm still disappointed though. If they were taking it seriously, I'd expect something bright and shiny on that front page of theirs.
    - threepointone 17y ago
      or rephrased : idea no.1 - redesign ed.gov and associated programs. :) I'm not trolling; this is an actual idea. I'll construct a better, longer version of this and post it soon on the site. A better portal could make ed.gov a fantastic place for all to visit.
siegler 17y ago
We should dismantle the Department of Education. I suggest waiting until next year on February 6th, which would be fitting.

48 points by rndmcnlly0 17y ago

vyrotek 17y ago

How about the idea that there shouldn't be any public schools?

sshumaker 17y ago
What's the theory behind that?
- natrius 17y ago
  Universal access to education doesn't mean that the government needs to actually run the schools. It just means that funding needs to be provided for those who can't afford it on their own. Bonus points if you can get people to voluntarily subsidize the educations of those who can't afford it rather than forcibly taking the money. Competition is a pretty powerful force when it comes to improving products, and it seems likely that the quality of education would improve if everyone wasn't forced to purchase an education bundled with their housing.
  - wisty 17y ago
    Calling education a product is tricky. Do you mean degrees or other attainments, or do you mean the underlying learning? Because it's damn hard to separate the two, and private providers have a big incentive to half-ass the second, especially if they are targeting the mass market. Education is even harder than health to privatize, because you are trying to target kids, not parents, but the parents will be making all the choices.
    - mhb 17y ago
      What argument are you making that doesn't apply if you replace education, schools and vouchers with food, supermarkets and food stamps?
      - wisty 17y ago
        I bet people buy crappy foods (chips and soft-drinks) for the children when they use food stamps. So there is some similarity. The difference? People have a fair idea as what good food is. Also, education is vulnerable to getting derailed by optimization for tests. And the testing will most likely be controlled by the state. I would worry that big mass-market voucher schools will specialize in marketing, cutting costs, and gaming the state-run tests.
        mhb 17y ago
        I'll bet you're right and the risk when allowing people to retain their freedom to make decisions is that they'll make ones with which you disagree. But I'm less pessimistic than you about people's abilities to make good decisions especially when their children are involved. At least their motivations are better aligned than the government's with their children's interests. Teacher's unions?
    - jcnnghm 17y ago
      If private providers half-ass the underlying learning, why do private schools consistently outperform public schools?
      - tsally 17y ago
        Well there is no good way to compare them by ranking. Here are the public school rankings: http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/high-schools/2009/12/09/americas-best-high-schools-gold-medal-list.html http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/high-schools/2009/1... But where are the private school rankings? They don't take the accountability tests which are mandatory public schools. I'm curious where you are getting your facts from. Claiming that private schools consistently outperform public schools suggests you must have some strong facts. So let's see them please. And while we wait for your facts, consider this. Current private schools don't have to deal with kids that have learning disabilities. Current private schools don't have to deal with as much diversity. Current private schools don't have to deal with underfunding. Current private schools have strong alumni networks. The private schools of today are not your average private school of a 100% private system.
      - dhume 17y ago
        1. Selective admissions 2. Self-selected applicant pool 3. Easier time removing disruptive students In short, private schools have better students.
        anamax 17y ago
        > In short, private schools have better students. You overstate the admissions argument. However, even if we accept it, you're concluding too much. Public schools insist on letting bad students drag everyone else down with them. Private schools don't. Neither one seems capable of reaching bad students. However, it's unclear why letting them ruin things for everyone else, as public schools do, is a good thing.
    - natrius 17y ago
      Public providers half-ass the underlying learning as well. The concept of "teaching to the test" didn't come from private schools. Whatever we choose to measure schools by will generally be what teachers and principals optimize for, whether public or private.
      - wisty 17y ago
        That's true, as well. But I think it would be worse under a voucher system. Private providers would be a lot quicker to race to the bottom of "teaching the test" if the voucher system included bonuses for good test performance.
        natrius 17y ago
        A voucher system doesn't need bonuses. If a school improves its reputation in the eyes of the public, it will be able to charge more money. Allowing customer choice lets people take into account less concrete metrics of school performance instead of the government punishing and rewarding schools. If customers don't want schools that teach to the test, they'll actively observe other metrics to come to their decisions. Customers who don't put in as much effort into picking schools will be no worse off than they are today. Schools already teach to the test, especially schools in poor areas that are trying to raise their test scores. However, a functioning market allows them to benefit from the choices their more responsible peers make. Fewer underperforming schools will survive.
  - jwhite 17y ago
    I think you would have to set the parameters very carefully. In Australia, universities have been encouraged (or forced, depending on how you look at it) by budget cuts to offer courses to full fee paying students from overseas to supplement their revenue. This contrasts with the local Australian students whose courses are still highly subsidised by government funding (the subsidy has been decreasing as well though). If a university is offering a course with an aim to maximize revenue, then it will naturally want to attract as many students as possible, in competition with other local universities and with overseas universities. Often that means lowering the entrance criteria for prospective students. Because the students are paying for the course, they expect to have their degree at the end of it, and this leads to significant pressure to lower the depth and difficulty of the material taught, as well as the grading criteria, to accommodate the weakest students. I don't believe the actual teaching is poor, but the quality of education is lowered. I know professors who have had to take phone calls from overseas from parents demanding to have their children's grades altered, with a financial threat attached. Reputation is a key driver in students' choice of university, which adds a further incentive to placate the customer. I don't know if any of these anecdotes actually resulted in a "pay-for-grade" situation, but the normally assumed academic independence is certainly threatened. Maybe education can be made to work well under a competitive market system, but in this situation I don't think it has, and I'm not smart enough to think of ways to fix this particular situation.
tsally 17y ago
Education is guaranteed under article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the US signed and helped author. Not providing a public option for education would mean redefining what we believe to be fundamental freedoms. How are you going to provide education to the poor without public schools? Will the government give the poor money for education? Will you subsidize the "private" schools with government money? That would defeat the whole purpose of having private schools as you aren't allowing them the operate in the free market. It's not clear 100% bastardized "private" schools would be any more competitive than the current hybrid system. Public schools and the belief that education is a fundamental human right are inextricably intertwined. EDIT: I'm going to edit this comment to refuse the arguments below, as there are multiple posters with similar points of view. The claim is that restoring "choice" to the educational market will increase the quality of education for all. This choice is already happening. Wealthy families choose to move to areas with high property taxes that fund excellent public schools. I grew up and was educated in such a neighborhood; when I was in HS the average salary of a teacher at my "public" school was $100k. Each year, students from inner-city Chicago try and register for the schools in my HS area. They are not allowed because the schools are full with residents. Therefore, they have to go the public school in the neighborhood they reside in. In a private system, the same behavior happens, except the barrier to entry becomes price not the geographical location of your residence. Several people have suggested government vouchers to help defray the cost of education. Do you really think these vouchers will be able to buy a higher quality of education than what is current available? The best private schools will raise their price to the most efficient market point where they charge their students the most and enroll exactly enough students. Now some might argue that we already have a private system by proxy. People are still paying for higher education, they are just doing it though home ownership. Why not just covert to a private system? The answer is this: the quality of the weakest school is far more important than the quality of the strongest school. People with money will always be able to find a way to get their kids an excellent education. As a society we don't need to worry about these kids. Society does need to worry about the bottom line. The long term cost of failed education to society is immense: increased crime rate which leads to prison costs, lower voter literacy which results in less qualified politicians, the list goes on. In a private system, the low end is forgotten about. The idea that a government voucher would be large enough for the bottom end is ridiculous. In the public system there is a constant struggle to push the low end higher. This is (part of the reason) why the public system costs so much. The public system has to bear an extra burden (for the good of society) that the private system eliminates through efficiency. The bottom line: Choice is already taking place in the hybrid school system by proxy through property tax or expensive private schools. The 100% private system would be exactly the same, with the added disadvantage of a forgotten low end. Vouchers are just a half-assed replacement for the public part of the system already in place. If the vouchers were high enough to raise the low end to an acceptable level, the cost would be equal to the public part of the current system. In order to raise the low end of education above the fair market value, government regulation is by definition necessary. A small correction must be made for the failure in free market forces.
johnnybgoode 17y ago
Exactly. Also see http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=580721 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=580721.

jf 17y ago

All "CFO Act" agencies have these pages, full list is here: http://www.usa.gov/webcontent/open/tool_poc.shtml http://www.usa.gov/webcontent/open/tool_poc.shtml Real people at these agencies are using these pages to develop their prospective open government plans, in response to the Open Government Directive (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/memoranda_2010/m10-06.pdf http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/memoranda_2010/m10-06.p...) These agencies also have their own open government pages where you can find out about their respective plans. Here's NASA's page as an example: http://www.nasa.gov/open http://www.nasa.gov/open

TheThomas 17y ago

I think it might be empty because ed.gov doesn't seem to actually link it anywhere on their site.

jf 17y ago
They do, it's just hard to find. http://www2.ed.gov/about/open-submit-idea.html http://www2.ed.gov/about/open-submit-idea.html via http://ed.gov/open http://ed.gov/open
- TheThomas 17y ago
  Thanks. Great catch. Admittedly, I'm still disappointed though. If they were taking it seriously, I'd expect something bright and shiny on that front page of theirs.
  - threepointone 17y ago
    or rephrased : idea no.1 - redesign ed.gov and associated programs. :) I'm not trolling; this is an actual idea. I'll construct a better, longer version of this and post it soon on the site. A better portal could make ed.gov a fantastic place for all to visit.

siegler 17y ago

We should dismantle the Department of Education. I suggest waiting until next year on February 6th, which would be fitting.