4 ms·

I think parents should be free to choose what they think is best for their children and not be forced to support what some people think is best for everyone. T

I think parents should be free to choose what they think is best for their children and not be forced to support what some people think is best for everyone. The parents are the ones who must live with the consequences and collectivism simply enables people who get control to use children for their own political purposes or serve whatever abstractions they happened to be enamored with. Filtering the concerns and wisdom of parents through multiple political layers serves the layers and not the parents.

Charuru 16y ago
That's not really practical... There aren't enough schools around, and not everyone can afford private school. Also politically, it's the unfortunate reality that parents are not the only interests that must be served. All parents want the highest quality teachers for the lowest costs, of course that's just impossible.
- grandalf 16y ago
  How do you know the market price of education when we don't have a market for it? My take is that breaking the public school monopoly (possibly via a widespread voucher system) would result in more competition... this would have the familiar effects... better value, lower prices, etc.
  - stretchwithme 16y ago
    absolutely. in most markets, many approaches to solving a problem are tried. and when evidence that something works appears, more and more people try it and find it useful. but thats not how collective decision making works. you've got to convince a majority that something works. you need a campaign and evidence is often ignored in politics. ok, often is being generous I remember when Spanish speaking parents in California wanted their kids taught in English. Educators opposed it. It took a state wide vote to make the change. Parents couldn't simply select this approach for their child. And lo and behold, kids did better and educators were surprised. Its a simple matter for folks to make dozens of decisions every day about their kids, selecting from many competing options. How could some dumbed-down centralized decision making system working with a tiny fraction of the information and a tiny fraction of anything personal at stake possibly make a better decision? Its pure group think in my opinion.
  - loewenskind 16y ago
    How would this happen exactly? Teachers are vastly underpaid at present ($30k for a job that has such a major impact on the future of the country?). Classes are also overpopulated. Where would these savings come from?
    - stretchwithme 16y ago
      and you know this how? and its not just about savings. its about better teaching, teaching what parents want and less of what the unionized want you to believe. And less using kids to promote your politics, such as dragging grade school kids to political protests as has been done here in California this whole system stifles independent thought. We need more independent thought and more questioning of the educational cliches incessantly repeated throughout schooling and in the media. If government and unions were in charge of our technology, we'd still be waiting for DOS 2.0.
      - loewenskind 16y ago
        >and you know this how? And I know what how? That teachers are underpaid? Do you really think such an important job is only worth a paltry $30k year? The kind of people we actually want teaching can make 3 times that by either going into technology teaching or staying out of teaching all together. That classes are overcrowded? Because I see reports in the various papers every other week about how the classes are overcrowded? The rest of your message seems to be against apologetics for the current system. I hate the current system, I think it's complete garbage. I was simply calling out the bizarre claim that making it better would make it cheaper.
        pchristensen 16y ago
        No matter how important teaching is, teaching 20 kids per year is worth about $30K. If the goal of education is to produce 18 year olds with social adjustment, like and work skills, and the ability to work or get into college, let's be explicit about that! If there's a clear goal, a market, and competition, costs always go down. Web browsers are free because both companies and non-profits can build them, benefit from providing them, and can't charge more than free. Computing used to be done by hand by humans, now you can buy millions of person-equivalents of computing for less than the cost of coffee. Why is it so cheap? Because companies wanted the dollars people would give in exchange for fast computation. Horses aren't used as transportation because someone invented cars, people fly across the ocean instead of taking ocean liners, etc because companies wanted the money people would spend on fast travel. Pens exist because companies wanted the dollars people would spend on fast, clean writing. Look at anything around you and it's there because someone outperformed other people in the competition for the dollars you spent on it. Every time, you either got the same product for less money (think Dell laptops), a better product for the same money (think of how Apple provides the best product they can at basically fixed price points), or often a better product for less money. Schools districts spend between $5-15K/student/yr. We're doing it the same way we have for 100 years. Lack of competition or even an opt-out policy has given us a worse product for a higher cost (http://reason.com/archives/2010/09/16/money-is-not-what-schools-need http://reason.com/archives/2010/09/16/money-is-not-what-scho...). It is very, very, very reasonable to expect that open competition with well-defined expectations would be both cheaper and better.
- stretchwithme 16y ago
  My family could not afford private school either but we did go to private school just the same. For many years. So I don't believe coercion is the answer when charity has work and can work if given the chance. But most people are paying and are able to pay. They just aren't paying directly. And there aren't enough private schools around because they've been crowded out and undercut by schools that don't have to compete. They just take the money they want. And the results have been destruction. No, it is the current system that is impractical. People have notions about what education should be and despite the bad results are will ing to keep sacrificing the best interests of the children to avoid rethinking their assumptions or engaging in fundamental debate. They prefer to keep repeating the same tired cliches.
  - Unseelie 16y ago
    Most families cannot afford to pay...education is income redistribution.
    - stretchwithme 16y ago
      well, we were on welfare and could not afford to pay. in fact, my Catholic high school is still owed money for my education. must clear that up other people don't owe me anything and never have. but I have the right to ask for help and receive it on their terms. Coerced charity is neither moral nor practical. And our public schools are ample proof.
- tomjen3 16y ago
  In Denmark you can get 95% of the cost of a public school child to offset payment for a private school. Which means you can get a child in a private school for less than $200/month, which is what people pay for cable in the US.
Kadin 16y ago
That'd be fine and dandy, except that people have seen fit to create a lot of social structures that essentially clean up the mess bad parents create at everyone else's expense. If someone does a really shitty job parenting, they're not the big loser in that equation. A lot of really bad parents can and do wash their hands of their ill-behaved children, who become ill-behaved adults, who eventually become a drain on society in general. If we had a social system with a really hard floor -- not just 'no welfare' or modern social services as we think of them, but something where you basically don't spend any money on imprisonment but just execute anyone who begins to look like a net cost -- then you could really let things go. Bad parenting styles would get weeded out pretty quickly, I'd imagine. But that's not how things work and most people wouldn't be really keen on living in a system that did that. The cost of having 'safety net' arrangements that spread out the cost of fucking up is almost always a loss of freedom of action, due to the safety-net-related externalities that fuckups now involve. There are lots of cases where that might be a fine tradeoff, but it's a tradeoff nonetheless. Having and raising children are actions so fraught with externalities, and the trend of societies seems to be in favor of greater 'safety net' systems, that I doubt very much that the trend towards greater state involvement in child-rearing will reverse itself.
- stretchwithme 16y ago
  When a society socializes the costs of those who behave badly, its certainly true that those who fail to instruct their children impose costs upon us all. But when society holds people accountable for their own actions, enforces property rights and maintains order at the expense of the disorderly, we can have a civil society and people are more likely to do what is right and do right by their children. Why everyone must suffer this mediocrity and pay a fortune for it so that we can continue with an even higher crime rate than before its creation is beyond me.
- jamii 16y ago
  > just execute anyone who begins to look like a net cost Plenty of cultures have done that at some point. In medieval England there was no welfare net and hanging was the punishment for most crimes. There were still criminals and beggars, probably more so than today. I wont even comment on the idea of executing people based on some arbitrary measure of worth.

Charuru 16y ago

That's not really practical... There aren't enough schools around, and not everyone can afford private school. Also politically, it's the unfortunate reality that parents are not the only interests that must be served. All parents want the highest quality teachers for the lowest costs, of course that's just impossible.

grandalf 16y ago
How do you know the market price of education when we don't have a market for it? My take is that breaking the public school monopoly (possibly via a widespread voucher system) would result in more competition... this would have the familiar effects... better value, lower prices, etc.
- stretchwithme 16y ago
  absolutely. in most markets, many approaches to solving a problem are tried. and when evidence that something works appears, more and more people try it and find it useful. but thats not how collective decision making works. you've got to convince a majority that something works. you need a campaign and evidence is often ignored in politics. ok, often is being generous I remember when Spanish speaking parents in California wanted their kids taught in English. Educators opposed it. It took a state wide vote to make the change. Parents couldn't simply select this approach for their child. And lo and behold, kids did better and educators were surprised. Its a simple matter for folks to make dozens of decisions every day about their kids, selecting from many competing options. How could some dumbed-down centralized decision making system working with a tiny fraction of the information and a tiny fraction of anything personal at stake possibly make a better decision? Its pure group think in my opinion.
- loewenskind 16y ago
  How would this happen exactly? Teachers are vastly underpaid at present ($30k for a job that has such a major impact on the future of the country?). Classes are also overpopulated. Where would these savings come from?
  - stretchwithme 16y ago
    and you know this how? and its not just about savings. its about better teaching, teaching what parents want and less of what the unionized want you to believe. And less using kids to promote your politics, such as dragging grade school kids to political protests as has been done here in California this whole system stifles independent thought. We need more independent thought and more questioning of the educational cliches incessantly repeated throughout schooling and in the media. If government and unions were in charge of our technology, we'd still be waiting for DOS 2.0.
    - loewenskind 16y ago
      >and you know this how? And I know what how? That teachers are underpaid? Do you really think such an important job is only worth a paltry $30k year? The kind of people we actually want teaching can make 3 times that by either going into technology teaching or staying out of teaching all together. That classes are overcrowded? Because I see reports in the various papers every other week about how the classes are overcrowded? The rest of your message seems to be against apologetics for the current system. I hate the current system, I think it's complete garbage. I was simply calling out the bizarre claim that making it better would make it cheaper.
      - pchristensen 16y ago
        No matter how important teaching is, teaching 20 kids per year is worth about $30K. If the goal of education is to produce 18 year olds with social adjustment, like and work skills, and the ability to work or get into college, let's be explicit about that! If there's a clear goal, a market, and competition, costs always go down. Web browsers are free because both companies and non-profits can build them, benefit from providing them, and can't charge more than free. Computing used to be done by hand by humans, now you can buy millions of person-equivalents of computing for less than the cost of coffee. Why is it so cheap? Because companies wanted the dollars people would give in exchange for fast computation. Horses aren't used as transportation because someone invented cars, people fly across the ocean instead of taking ocean liners, etc because companies wanted the money people would spend on fast travel. Pens exist because companies wanted the dollars people would spend on fast, clean writing. Look at anything around you and it's there because someone outperformed other people in the competition for the dollars you spent on it. Every time, you either got the same product for less money (think Dell laptops), a better product for the same money (think of how Apple provides the best product they can at basically fixed price points), or often a better product for less money. Schools districts spend between $5-15K/student/yr. We're doing it the same way we have for 100 years. Lack of competition or even an opt-out policy has given us a worse product for a higher cost (http://reason.com/archives/2010/09/16/money-is-not-what-schools-need http://reason.com/archives/2010/09/16/money-is-not-what-scho...). It is very, very, very reasonable to expect that open competition with well-defined expectations would be both cheaper and better.
stretchwithme 16y ago
My family could not afford private school either but we did go to private school just the same. For many years. So I don't believe coercion is the answer when charity has work and can work if given the chance. But most people are paying and are able to pay. They just aren't paying directly. And there aren't enough private schools around because they've been crowded out and undercut by schools that don't have to compete. They just take the money they want. And the results have been destruction. No, it is the current system that is impractical. People have notions about what education should be and despite the bad results are will ing to keep sacrificing the best interests of the children to avoid rethinking their assumptions or engaging in fundamental debate. They prefer to keep repeating the same tired cliches.
- Unseelie 16y ago
  Most families cannot afford to pay...education is income redistribution.
  - stretchwithme 16y ago
    well, we were on welfare and could not afford to pay. in fact, my Catholic high school is still owed money for my education. must clear that up other people don't owe me anything and never have. but I have the right to ask for help and receive it on their terms. Coerced charity is neither moral nor practical. And our public schools are ample proof.
tomjen3 16y ago
In Denmark you can get 95% of the cost of a public school child to offset payment for a private school. Which means you can get a child in a private school for less than $200/month, which is what people pay for cable in the US.

Kadin 16y ago

That'd be fine and dandy, except that people have seen fit to create a lot of social structures that essentially clean up the mess bad parents create at everyone else's expense. If someone does a really shitty job parenting, they're not the big loser in that equation. A lot of really bad parents can and do wash their hands of their ill-behaved children, who become ill-behaved adults, who eventually become a drain on society in general. If we had a social system with a really hard floor -- not just 'no welfare' or modern social services as we think of them, but something where you basically don't spend any money on imprisonment but just execute anyone who begins to look like a net cost -- then you could really let things go. Bad parenting styles would get weeded out pretty quickly, I'd imagine. But that's not how things work and most people wouldn't be really keen on living in a system that did that. The cost of having 'safety net' arrangements that spread out the cost of fucking up is almost always a loss of freedom of action, due to the safety-net-related externalities that fuckups now involve. There are lots of cases where that might be a fine tradeoff, but it's a tradeoff nonetheless. Having and raising children are actions so fraught with externalities, and the trend of societies seems to be in favor of greater 'safety net' systems, that I doubt very much that the trend towards greater state involvement in child-rearing will reverse itself.

stretchwithme 16y ago
When a society socializes the costs of those who behave badly, its certainly true that those who fail to instruct their children impose costs upon us all. But when society holds people accountable for their own actions, enforces property rights and maintains order at the expense of the disorderly, we can have a civil society and people are more likely to do what is right and do right by their children. Why everyone must suffer this mediocrity and pay a fortune for it so that we can continue with an even higher crime rate than before its creation is beyond me.
jamii 16y ago
> just execute anyone who begins to look like a net cost Plenty of cultures have done that at some point. In medieval England there was no welfare net and hanging was the punishment for most crimes. There were still criminals and beggars, probably more so than today. I wont even comment on the idea of executing people based on some arbitrary measure of worth.