3 ms·

1. Expelling a student for bringing a gun to school is hardly tantamount to 'kicking kids to the curb the minute something bad happens'. It's preserving the saf

1. Expelling a student for bringing a gun to school is hardly tantamount to 'kicking kids to the curb the minute something bad happens'. It's preserving the safety and the integrity of the school. 2. We can also reduce the cost of prison by keeping more kids in school To the extent that school can persuade people to trade a life of crime for a more virtuous path. There are some people who are going to be criminals regardless of how much schooling is available to them, those people are lost causes and we should stop investing in them the moment they reveal themselves. 3. The cost of incarceration is high because people are concerned with human rights and getting their cut of the expenditures. Prison would be much cheaper if we just put all the convicts on an island and catapulted basic supplies to them, and just made sure no one swam off the island. 4. I never claimed that my plan would produce more scientists and fewer criminals - just that we'd spend less money on criminals and free up resources that could be spent on educating scientists or funding their experiments. 5. Part of being a teacher is interacting with parents, but some parents demand extensive communication that's above and beyond what we should expect. And you're right that parents talk to teachers outside of school hours, however, there's no free lunch - we have to pay for it in some way whether that's teacher job dissatisfaction, teacher salary expectations, etc. We should respect parents' interest but empower teachers to tell them to hit the sand if they're overbearing. 6. the 60% of the budget that goes to normal and high achieving students is the only part of the budget that has a positive ROI. Ideally we'd have more of it, but at the least we'd do better if we didn't spend 40% on the failures.

dahart 9y ago
> I never claimed that my plan would produce more scientists and fewer criminals You literally said this morning: "Hilariously, the solution to education funding is more of the 'short term economics'. We should spend less money on educating would-be gangsters and more money education would-be scientists." > Expelling a student for bringing a gun to school is hardly tantamount to 'kicking kids to the curb the minute something bad happens' Expelling a student for hitting a teacher is, and you mentioned that too. The gun issue depends entirely on why it happened. Some kids are already expelled for bringing guns to school. Some kids don't have a clear concept of why bringing the gun to show off to their friends is so bad. Education, not expulsion, is the only way to prevent it, and the only way to (literally) teach them the lesson. Expulsion only does one thing: disenfranchises the child and leaves them more likely to escalate their bad behavior outside of school. It leaves them at a disadvantage socially and economically and more likely to have to resort to crime in order to live. How about instead of having a contrived debate about a very tiny minority of kids with guns, we enact some actual gun control in this country, and prevent any kids from having any guns in the first place like other countries do? Then we don't have to criminalize children, and we don't have to expel them in a fit of incredulity. Best of both worlds, and far cheaper than expulsion and incarceration. What does any of your tirade about child criminals have to do with solving education funding? How many kids in the US are bringing guns to schools, and how much money does it cost in the aggregate? > We should respect parents' interest but empower teachers to tell them to hit the sand if they're overbearing. What does that have to do with education funding? What is your point here? You suggested that keeping time-hogging parents from teachers was a solution to the education funding problem. How, exactly? > the 60% of the budget that goes to normal and high achieving students is the only part of the budget that has a positive ROI. Lower than average achieving healthy students make up 50% of that group you say has a positive ROI. There are also plenty of special needs kids that are physically handicapped and not mentally handicapped. What is the ROI of education, exactly? How is it measured? Care to share any sources to back that claim up? You just ruled out both all school administration and all special education. How do schools function without administration? Do you believe that school principals and school districts are useless? If you stopped special education programs and the social services that go along with them, as you suggested, suddenly the parents of those children will need to find alternative care. In many cases that will mean the parent has to care for them during the day themselves, which will pull them out of the workforce. Regardless of the cost of special education, your suggestions could be a net drain on the economy. > but at the least we'd do better if we didn't spend 40% on the failures. What data do you have that it's failing? Under what metric are you declaring all school admin and special education to have zero return? I'm pretty stunned how deeply discriminatory your statements have been repeatedly. I hope you never have to be on the receiving end of your own ideas.
- alexanderstears 9y ago
  Do you think there's a difference between these two statements: i. We should spend less money on educating would-be gangsters and more money education would-be scientists. ii. My plan would produce more scientists and fewer criminals? >Expelling a student for hitting a teacher is {the moment something bad happens}. Hitting people is a severe violation of liberal norms. We can get rid of those norms, but where do we draw the line? Should parents be allowed to hit teachers? And why do you put the burden on the school to teach students things that are clearly right and wrong? It's not about criminalizing kids, it's about punishing criminals for their transgressions. Kids can be criminals. I'm game for a gun control discussion. There are at least 300 million firearms in this country, the only way to keep them out of criminal hands is to grab them all. Who's going to grab the guns? NPR listeners? The ROI of education is this: incremental lifetime earnings / cost of education. Use the t-bills as a guidance on discount rate. Your needling for sources is derailing this discussion. If you don't get why someone might think special education is overfunded, go visit a special ed classroom and wonder "how much does it cost society to give these kids places to drool on each other?".
  - dahart 9y ago
    > If you don't get why someone might think special education is overfunded, go visit a special ed classroom and wonder "how much does it cost society to give these kids places to drool on each other?". Man, I hope some day, maybe when you have kids, you come to realize what a truly awful thing to say that was. In the mean time, it might be worth reading a bit of history to understand why our country has repeatedly re-affirmed it's decision to uphold the values in the Declaration of Independence to spend money to take care of all it's citizens and not just the lucky healthiest smartest richest ones. > Your needling for sources is derailing this discussion. I can totally empathize with feeling like you're being needled, as you say, when you're asked multiple times for evidence to support your claims that you don't have. I will stop asking. Is it possible that the lack of evidence says more about the value of those claims? This discussion was derailed right from the start when you decided to pin the country's economic problems on difficult children and parents with questions -- things that objectively don't affect the overall budget very much, if at all. I've just been trying to figure out where your anger is coming from, what makes you think that some parents talking to teachers is some kind of drain on the economy, what you think makes it a serious problem that needs solving. The irony here is 1) you jumped on me over a comment about education that I didn't make, the parent comment did, and 2) your entire calculus of fixation on short-term budget efficiencies is obsolete under UBI & other future possibilities. Using ROI for education is at best specious today. Should UBI come to pass, ROI will not be a meaningful metric at all.

dahart 9y ago

> I never claimed that my plan would produce more scientists and fewer criminals You literally said this morning: "Hilariously, the solution to education funding is more of the 'short term economics'. We should spend less money on educating would-be gangsters and more money education would-be scientists." > Expelling a student for bringing a gun to school is hardly tantamount to 'kicking kids to the curb the minute something bad happens' Expelling a student for hitting a teacher is, and you mentioned that too. The gun issue depends entirely on why it happened. Some kids are already expelled for bringing guns to school. Some kids don't have a clear concept of why bringing the gun to show off to their friends is so bad. Education, not expulsion, is the only way to prevent it, and the only way to (literally) teach them the lesson. Expulsion only does one thing: disenfranchises the child and leaves them more likely to escalate their bad behavior outside of school. It leaves them at a disadvantage socially and economically and more likely to have to resort to crime in order to live. How about instead of having a contrived debate about a very tiny minority of kids with guns, we enact some actual gun control in this country, and prevent any kids from having any guns in the first place like other countries do? Then we don't have to criminalize children, and we don't have to expel them in a fit of incredulity. Best of both worlds, and far cheaper than expulsion and incarceration. What does any of your tirade about child criminals have to do with solving education funding? How many kids in the US are bringing guns to schools, and how much money does it cost in the aggregate? > We should respect parents' interest but empower teachers to tell them to hit the sand if they're overbearing. What does that have to do with education funding? What is your point here? You suggested that keeping time-hogging parents from teachers was a solution to the education funding problem. How, exactly? > the 60% of the budget that goes to normal and high achieving students is the only part of the budget that has a positive ROI. Lower than average achieving healthy students make up 50% of that group you say has a positive ROI. There are also plenty of special needs kids that are physically handicapped and not mentally handicapped. What is the ROI of education, exactly? How is it measured? Care to share any sources to back that claim up? You just ruled out both all school administration and all special education. How do schools function without administration? Do you believe that school principals and school districts are useless? If you stopped special education programs and the social services that go along with them, as you suggested, suddenly the parents of those children will need to find alternative care. In many cases that will mean the parent has to care for them during the day themselves, which will pull them out of the workforce. Regardless of the cost of special education, your suggestions could be a net drain on the economy. > but at the least we'd do better if we didn't spend 40% on the failures. What data do you have that it's failing? Under what metric are you declaring all school admin and special education to have zero return? I'm pretty stunned how deeply discriminatory your statements have been repeatedly. I hope you never have to be on the receiving end of your own ideas.

alexanderstears 9y ago
Do you think there's a difference between these two statements: i. We should spend less money on educating would-be gangsters and more money education would-be scientists. ii. My plan would produce more scientists and fewer criminals? >Expelling a student for hitting a teacher is {the moment something bad happens}. Hitting people is a severe violation of liberal norms. We can get rid of those norms, but where do we draw the line? Should parents be allowed to hit teachers? And why do you put the burden on the school to teach students things that are clearly right and wrong? It's not about criminalizing kids, it's about punishing criminals for their transgressions. Kids can be criminals. I'm game for a gun control discussion. There are at least 300 million firearms in this country, the only way to keep them out of criminal hands is to grab them all. Who's going to grab the guns? NPR listeners? The ROI of education is this: incremental lifetime earnings / cost of education. Use the t-bills as a guidance on discount rate. Your needling for sources is derailing this discussion. If you don't get why someone might think special education is overfunded, go visit a special ed classroom and wonder "how much does it cost society to give these kids places to drool on each other?".
- dahart 9y ago
  > If you don't get why someone might think special education is overfunded, go visit a special ed classroom and wonder "how much does it cost society to give these kids places to drool on each other?". Man, I hope some day, maybe when you have kids, you come to realize what a truly awful thing to say that was. In the mean time, it might be worth reading a bit of history to understand why our country has repeatedly re-affirmed it's decision to uphold the values in the Declaration of Independence to spend money to take care of all it's citizens and not just the lucky healthiest smartest richest ones. > Your needling for sources is derailing this discussion. I can totally empathize with feeling like you're being needled, as you say, when you're asked multiple times for evidence to support your claims that you don't have. I will stop asking. Is it possible that the lack of evidence says more about the value of those claims? This discussion was derailed right from the start when you decided to pin the country's economic problems on difficult children and parents with questions -- things that objectively don't affect the overall budget very much, if at all. I've just been trying to figure out where your anger is coming from, what makes you think that some parents talking to teachers is some kind of drain on the economy, what you think makes it a serious problem that needs solving. The irony here is 1) you jumped on me over a comment about education that I didn't make, the parent comment did, and 2) your entire calculus of fixation on short-term budget efficiencies is obsolete under UBI & other future possibilities. Using ROI for education is at best specious today. Should UBI come to pass, ROI will not be a meaningful metric at all.