Are you seriously trying to claim that the great white northern yankees have worse schools than south Texas? My state tops the poll - of shitty public schools! ;)

Truthfully though, there is nothing that changing the school building will improve. The school QUALITY (not location) is the issue. That, and a total lack of parental involvement in the crappier schools. Teach a child their education is important by being involved in it, volunteering at school, helping with their homework. Children learn through example, and sadly far too many have their example as "watch the tv", "play the x-box", "don't read", "don't talk and discourse", and "don't eat dinner together at the table".

There is no quick fix, no short answers but those are several problems that need addressing in each family, not from omnipotent (or pretending to be) government.

Did you even read his piece?

My kids go to public school and they go to a good one in a good district.

Your solution is to completely decimate big cities rather than fix the schools? Interesting.

You ready to do that? Or are you afraid that the "wrong people" will be moving next door to you?

Who are the wrong people, Ara? Unless they are drug dealers, murderers or some other criminal element - yeah I don't want them living next door to me. I'm not clear as to what you are implying otherwise.

Why not look at other industrialized nations with better education systems that are paying less for education but with better results, and copy what they're doing?

Are any of them using vouchers?

"Vouchers" have been and always will be another Republican Trojan Horse designed to undermine: 1) government and 2) the Democratic Party.

The reason you can never "fix" the public schools system, meaning every single public school is described right here.

It describes a lot things really. Why one Safeway or Starbucks or Walmart or McDonalds or elementary school sucks and another one doesn't: there will never be enough good front line managers - in the case of public schools, Principles - to go around. It's that simple. Sorry.

Having taught in two failing two school districts, I know something about this:

Money ain't the problem. Not by a long shot. There's plenty of money. The problem isn't the teachers. There's plenty of good teachers, but as Shep says, not an infinite supply.

There used to be plenty of good teachers, but that was because women were discriminated against in almost every other field of endeavor. The result was you ended up getting, basically, the smartest, most driven women in the country in the classroom.

Today's generational equivalent of women are CEOs, doctors, lawyers, the secretary of state, a Democratic presidential candidate, and the like. No one, obviously, wants to go back to mass discrimination against 51% of the population -- I'm just noting that the system was more dependent on that discrimination than many of us admit. (Especially since they were willing to work for peanuts, besides.)

My experience is teachers are not the problem. Where school systems fail, it's almost always part and parcel of a more fundamental community, organizational, institutional, and legal breakdown and failure. And you can pour any amount of money into that situation, but it won't do any good.

Everything that has happened to our schools was predicted 40 years ago when all the rules were changed. Until we return to a system where teachers can control their curriculum and the state backs them up (and not at hearings, but automatically) when they insist on order in their classroom, nothing will work.

Vouchers, I think, are a good idea, in that they help bring about the necessary triage -- saving the kids that can be saved. What to do with the rest, though, no easy solutions.

after you start paying elementary teachers six figures what do you think the college profs are going to demand? That should make college more affordable.

College costs have gone through the roof in the last decade or so; very little of that is because of faculty salaries.

Besides, I'd like to focus on K-12 education because the expectation (today) is that it should be universal. College -- not so much.

"Where school systems fail, it's almost always part and parcel of a more fundamental community, organizational, institutional, and legal breakdown and failure. And you can pour any amount of money into that situation, but it won't do any good."

That gets to the problem on the organizational level. Rule-based bureaucratic hierarchies which don't focus on hiring good front line managers and then letting them do their jobs - identify, encourage and reward talent - seldom prosper even if they manage to attract otherwise talented managers and workers. Hence the title of the book: "First Break All the Rules."

(ah, that was meant for Rhianna, not shep.)

Um, college is NOT a fundamental right! Never has been, never will be.

Says who? Who made you the rights authority?

I've always believed that post-secondary college is a right, and should be part of any society that wishes to remain competitive.

"(ah, that was meant for Rhianna, not shep.)"

What, I'm not pretty enough for you?

Ara,

I never even IMPLIED that college was a fundamental right. However, what does that have to do with anything? My point is that increasing teacher pay to that extent is going to have an impact a little larger than 'bringing in the best and the brightest'. Changing the pay scale of K-12 will definitely impact the colleges. The increases currently seen will definitely not be reversed by doing that.

If you want to keep it solely in the realm of K-12, I still don't think that pay is the answer. A woman home schooling her children gets paid what? If higher pay were even remotely correlated to getting the best (in any market other than those decided by actual wins and losses) then how did we end up the CEOs of Enron, MCI, Andersen, and on and on and on.

Now, I'd never argue that we have a great system in education presently, and probably not a good one either, but massive manipulation of teacher pay isn't even remotely close to a good way to solve our problems. Before anything approaching the kind of salary bump you are talking about the teachers need to come up with a plan that would justify a large increase.

Don't try and change the subject Ara Bunker. It was you who said inner city kids were the "wrong people".

Racist sentiment like that is just sad.

Rosemary:

My question still stands, unanwered:

Better application of that "voucher" money would be to use it to help the working poor so that they can move to a better neighborhood to begin with.

You ready to do that? Or are you afraid that the "wrong people" will be moving next door to you?

Would you be in favor of allocating "voucher" money in that way?

10K won't help anyone move to a better neighborhood - best case it helps get a child to a better school.

Where do you figure the rest of the money should come from? Seriously?

You guys missed the whole point of the article. If you want to improve the school system. Infuse competition in to the process.

Get rid of the government monopoly and replace it with good old fashion capitalism. It's what made this country great.

We don't remove standards. you have testing to ensure that all chilren meet the basic standards.

And please remind me, when did we have school made a profit? Oh wait, we have them already. they are called private schools and they seem to do pretty good.

So, when did we have them and when didn't work?

Hey, lets try it again but this time in English. Sorry I get a little excited sometimes.

We don't remove standards. You have testing to ensure that all chilren meet the basic standards.

And please remind me, when did we have schools that made a profit? Oh wait, we have them already. They are called private schools and they seem to do pretty good.

So, when did we have them and when didn't they work?

"You guys missed the whole point of the article. If you want to improve the school system. Infuse competition in to the process.

Get rid of the government monopoly and replace it with good old fashion capitalism. It's what made this country great."

You missed my very first point, which was also the actual point of the article.

"Good old fashioned [unregulated] capitalism" is destroying human civilization before our eyes.

Adam:

I don't see how you addressed the issue of creaming in your article. Maybe I missed it... But, either way, I don't agree that vouchers and capitalism are the only way to improve our school system. Though you claim to be against simply throwing money at a problem, you are doing precisely that by making a purely economic (unfettered captalism) argument as THE way to fix our broken school system.

I'm simply arguing that it isn't as simple as injecting competition into schools that will improve education...there are other factors at play. Factors that can be addressed through policy and additional resources to support communities with failing schools.

In Michigan we split the property tax money evenly among all school districts. So that inner city school districts get just as much money as suburban and rural school districts.

Really? It sure doesn't look that way when you simply compare the facilities at Sexton vs. Okemos High School. Local money (through bonds, or millages) does go into schools. And those with more resources and a community that can afford to support such measures support them.

"We can have a debate on Global Warming and Socialism some other time. Lets stay focused on the schools today."

You're the one beating straw men. Profit-seeking, regulated or otherwise, isn't going to fix what's broken in some public schools.

You're the one beating straw men. Profit-seeking, regulated or otherwise, isn't going to fix what's broken in some public schools.

You like cliches' how's this for a cliche?

"The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

Sorry I don't remember who I'm quoting.

I say we have to try something different our kids our too important.

You honestly believe that any system that we devise could be worse than the one we currently have?

"You honestly believe that any system that we devise could be worse than the one we currently have?"

Yes I do. First, there is no "system." Every state has basic responsibilities for it's public schools, many of which are quite good. The most "federal solution" I know of is George Bush's NCLB and that's certainly not helping. Neither will making them for-profit entities.


"The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

One of those things is trying to undermine government's role and corporatize everything in the name of profit motive. I assume that you're voting Democrat this November.

Capitalism would reduce costs by squeezing out the inefficiencies from the system and turn that into a profit.

Again, I point to our health care system, which is rife with inefficiencies. How many billers does it take to process one medical billin one office? How many times does a claim get scrutinized or worse, initially rejected, before it is actually paid?

Capitalism is not an altruistic system. It is based on profit and greed, not necessarily on getting the best product for consumers on the market. And, unchecked, it can wreak havoc on an institution.

One of the main points in the article is that we bring the schools to the neighborhoods and not trying to force poor kids in the inner city to try to find a way to go 30 miles every day to a better school.

Again, I do not completely trust the "market" to bring good schools to neighborhoods and communities with poor school districts. Sorry, I'm just as skeptical of "pure market" approached as I am of "pure socialist" approaches. But, I can live with a combination of the two. Which again, is why I support the concept of voucners, if coupled with investments in existing public school systems and the communities they are in.

Sentence should read:

Our system contains elements of socialism, except it's sort of a privatized socialism, with some market elements thrown in here and there. Right now, it's a horrific mess.

Our health system is based largely on a market and capitalist foundation. Although people have to use providers that are in network, individuals and businesses are given the (false) choice of choosing a health plan that "best" meets their needs.

Dale:

Thank you for describing the effects of creaming...

You keep talking about Health Care, how about some other ineffective capitalist system?

If by, ineffective, you mean concentrating the wealth earned by a couple hundred million people into the hands of a few hundred thousand, can't think of very many.

But, as a matter of fact, Social Security and Medicare are quite efficient programs, at least compared to the for-profit corporate healthcare system. And yes I noticed that you switched up the standard by which your tasking people to measure capitalist systems with government-run ones - don't really even believe your own market vs. government bullshit, eh?

Einstein is the guy who you were thinking about with that quote Adam, but that's wrong (probably the product of a Michigan education. It's sometime attributed to Ben Franklin or an old Chinese proverb too, but actually Rita Mae Brown said it first in 1983.

Stop me if you heard this one, but can we agree that the goal here should be no good schools and no bad schools, but every school should be excellent?

If you are (to steal a phrase from Laura Bush) leaving children behind -- as a market driven system will do by design since there must be losers if there are winners, then that isn't the best approach.

Vouchers by their nature foster a market driven model, making the kids left behind in a failing school who for one reason or another can't get out to the better district even worse off than before since their school is being targeted by they market for elimination.

Dale is only half right about my old home town. When vouchers started about 90% of the schools accepting them were religious and 10% secular/private. Within 2 years it was 100% religious schools accepting vouchers.

Charter schools are funded directly by the state and do not accept vouchers on a per/pupil basis from what I understand. IF they can recruit and attract students, they get more. Charters are state-wide and not just in Cuyahoga County, for-profit systems. Some good, some not so good. Some small, some part of a nationwide chain like Heritage Academies.

NCLB testing as well as state level testing is done at all schools, public, private, charter.

One thing I saw at the low end, where kids are marginal, is that the systems make tremendous efforts NOT in educating that child but in finding a way to exempt the child from the testing regime so their poor scores don't count against the school as a whole.

Look, it's a matter of societal priority and cultural attitudes. America tolerates if not encourages bullies. We're tough guys who made fun of nerds. In Germany and Austria there is no higher accolade than the honorific "professor" to which is attributed significant prestige. In America we don't celebrate educators, but pop stars, athletes, corporate pirates and warriors.

We do NOT have a "right" to garbage collection, sewer systems and roads, but a government run system, even if contracted out, does at least insure that even the wost sections of town can be reached by garbage trucks and have running water so they don't smell as bad as they would if they could only get these services if they could afford it.

Pay-as-you go fire and police protection isn't something I want to contemplate. and while better pay certainly does attract better cops, there's a sense of honor and responsibility there too even in the worst section of the worst city where the the lowest paid rookie cop still takes his job seriously -- and will and does get tested and tempted by dirty money. No amount of salary will keep a crooked cop off the take, and no bribe is big enough to turn a good cop bad if he appreciates the pride and integrity we as citizens place on his position. We simply don't value teachers as a culture.

So really, vouchers and funding games or testing regimes do nothing unless we get something like that revolutionary change Ara was hinting at. We're tinkering at it, throwing money at it or throwing up our hands. Parental responsibility works for your kids whey you are involved as the do mine when I am involved. But as a society we obviously can't count on that.

I don't have an answer on how to transform our deeply ingrained cultural attitudes. But I do know that less societal/governmental involvement in the schools as a market driven approach does, is the wrong direction. Unless we go the whole route social Darwinism demands -- a final solution like they tried in Germany, then we will only be as strong as our weakest links and in the competition among nations we will be last in line.

No worries, again, the language problem would explain your confusion. In any regard, you’ve been outted vis-à-vis my original point: this has nothing to do with improving schools and everything to do with undermining government and turning its functions over to corporate interests. You’re just another brainwashed anti-government corporatist. Hope the Kool-Aid is tasty.

I've been outted? If by that you mean that I don't believe that government is the great benevolent savior that you seem to think. Then I suppose you're right.
I'll tell you what a I do believe. I believe in people. I believe that we are more than capable of solving all of the world's problems. I don't believe that we leave all of the problem solving to a bunch liberal elitists.

So really, vouchers and funding games or testing regimes do nothing unless we get something like that revolutionary change Ara was hinting at. We're tinkering at it, throwing money at it or throwing up our hands. Parental responsibility works for your kids whey you are involved as the do mine when I am involved. But as a society we obviously can't count on that.

Remind me about that quote regarding insanity? Isn't that exactly what you are suggesting right here?

I propose a radically new approach to education and you prefer the same old same old.

Unless we go the whole route social Darwinism demands — a final solution like they tried in Germany, then we will only be as strong as our weakest links and in the competition among nations we will be last in line.

I won't even dignify that with a response.

Anyways I've got go. Have a good night everyone.

As Adam K has failed to back up or address his earlier statement about Canadian 75 year-olds being denied life-sparing medical services, may we take it that he was either lying or ill-informed?

He probably missed that you asked him to back it up. I'll shoot him a note and he'll address it tomorrow - I'm sure.

Just a thought, but how is a transformation of our entire culture just more of the same old thing? Thank you Adam for such a careful examination of my take on this before you dismissed it without a bye-howdy.

My final solution reference was stating the fact that those we leave behind in a market driven educational system will remain a drag on society unless we cut them loose (inconceivable) or find another way to raise them up.

Anyway, market driven approaches have many things that may or may not be effectively transfered to public sector services. The problem is the goal. No profit-driven system will be efficient in this regard -- every dollar put in the pockets of investors is a dollar not maximizing the educational experience to the system's "customers."

It's the very measure of effectiveness or efficiency that is the problem here. It's easy to measure a corporation's success by simply looking at it's balance sheet. In a voucher based system you are merely making limited partners out of the recipients of the vouchers, giving them some power in making investment decisions while they reap the dividend of putting their kid in a (presumably) better school while the owners of the school take the actual cash profits. But that school will not be the BEST it can be, only better than the school the community is now in the process of abandoning, making things much worse for the kids left behind.

Now in actual practice, Cleveland, we see that the private schools that took vouchers found they couldn't remain competitive or profitable under the system, leaving only the religious schools still in the voucher game -- and they are subsidized by their congregations. In effect it became a welfare program for catholic and a couple of jewish schools in the area.

I have a problem with public funding of religious education on principle. Your mileage may vary. Would you feel the same if a Madrassa were accepting vouchers?

I've seen charter schools run on a shoe-string here in Toledo, which is the heart of the Charter movement in Ohio. Poorly paid, inexperienced teachers, kids having to share books, no recreational facilities, not even a decent lunch room.

And I've seen outstanding charter schools that are affiliated with a national chain and benefit from economies of scale. New buildings built from scratch with everything a new school should have. No lack of supplies and books and labs and libraries with motivated, dedicated teachers.

I think the difference is the smaller charter outfit that has only about 5 of 6 schools state-wide is under more pressure to grab greater profits (or just break even) in a smaller amount of time with a smaller student base -- thus a smaller revenue pool. The larger system can afford to run any newer school in the red for a period of time as expected start-up cost. It can absorb a loss better, longer, until it builds it's reputation and fixed costs stabilize while its shows the community that it's an attractive and successful operation.

In the middle ground is the largest Charter organization here in Toledo, but only in Toledo, run as a non-profit enterprise by the county. It can't count on a national chain or a state-wide system of schools, but it does receive additional public funding than just the state per-pupil grant. And since it's non-profit, every dime is spend one way or another on education and not a return on some investor's portfolio.

As you might expect, the County run system is doing somewhere in the middle between the two other charter systems I described. BUT they are the only system that provides buses for the kids no matter how far away they live -- and all county residents are eligible. The other charter schools won't put out for buses. It cuts into the bottom line and/or they just can't afford them.

"Unless what you're saying is you're against rigidly controlled, bureaucratic, big-corporatist solutions (esp. when in bed with the government) -- in that case, preach on. But a second later you'll turn around and criticize unregulated markets for destroying the world."

Actually I see it as eminently sensible to be against both. I have nothing against free enterprise or even the profit motive, though I think that's highly overrated (great inventions of science and art which improve the human condition usually come from a different primary motive).

And in 21st Century societies, there is a role for strong regulatory power – and absolutely no role for Bill of Rights protections – over corporate entities to both protect regular citizens from corporate mischief and keep markets truly free for competition and innovation, i.e., against monopoly power.

That’s where I’m "coming from", in a nutshell.

DPU, methinks Adam K has a rather jaundiced idea of what the Canadian Health care system is all a-Boot.

I suspect he's running away or doing much needed research to bolster his thesis.

Adam K is at work. He doesn't have the luxury of being tethered to the internet like some of us. I expect you'll start hearing from him after 5pm today.

Good going Mark, first you insult all the people of Poland and now you mock the language of our find friends to the north.

Now that you are no longer a closet racist, it just sorta oozes out, doesn't it??

I expect you'll start hearing from him after 5pm today.

Which time zone?

Probably about an hour or so.. His times may very..

-very
+vary

Here Jerry, just for you.
www.lawyer-jokes.us/

Well, I think enough time has passed, and it's probably safe to say that it was just another example of a ridiculous throw-away talking point so beloved by a proportion of the right-wing.

Sort of urban myths to support one's shaky belief system, I guess.

Well, I think enough time has passed, and it's probably safe to say that it was just another example of a ridiculous throw-away talking point so beloved by a proportion of the right-wing.

Sort of urban myths to support one's shaky belief system, I guess.

Nope this one is my fault. He emailed me the info to post for him because he was unable to post while my blog was down earlier.And he was unable to get back here later.

Great stuff. One one-hundred-thousandth of Sicko at one tenth the cost. No wonder he didn't dare deliver it in person.

Come on be real. . . . My 72 year old father waited 9 months to have his carotid arteries cleared out. My best friend's father was denied a kidney transplant. Another friend's grandmother was on a waiting list for hip surgery until she died.

I am being real. My father received a kidney transplant at 65, my mother had three hip replacements in her late forties (one failed), and my sister has had one hip replacement at the same age. I, at least, know what I'm talking about when it comes to our medical system.

These "facts" that seem to be passed throughout the right-wingosphere to support the notion that Canada's health-care system is a mess are largely horseshit. The system has flaws, but these legitimate flaws are passed over in favor of ridiculous myths by those opposed to universal access.

For instance, it seems to be a common belief that Canada has socialized medicine, and that the Canadian government runs the health care system. It does not. Another is that Canadians pour over the border for American care. They do not. Another is that the system is unpopular with Canadians, who would prefer the US system. They do not.

Please put in an ounce of research before passing on these ridiculous ideas. When you propose them to someone who is actually familiar with the system, you just look like an ignorant ass.

Also, when providing selected cases like the ones in your email, remember that for every case you find of a Canadian denied care for some reason, recall that your system more heavily rations care based on income, and that there are millions of these cases in the US.