Parents want kid with peanut allergy removed from school

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by tater

Instead of the graph posted, it would be interesting to look at gross state product as a function of time with education spending superimposed on the same time scale.

Fair enough. It would be an interesting graph.

You could also likely chart GDP vs calories eaten, too. Maybe even fat calories. It's not necessarily causal. Does spending on edu cause GDP growth, or do countries with large GDPs spend more just because?

Also a fair question.

But to change gears - take Takeda's scenario of what would happen in a purely libertarian educational environment with no government funding, which sounds very plausible. In such a system, only the rich could get a good education, thus ensuring little to no social mobility. You'd end up with a caste system - not to mention the crime and birthrate problems that are a result of lower educated populations. Sounds hellish.

[tater]

Well, there would be a market for school to be sure. 2 income families already pony up quite a bit for daycare, then many do preschool, plus "after school programs" that eat the day up until work is over.

Remember that local and state taxes would then have to virtually evaporate (80% of spending on edu, so everyone should get an 80% tax cut).

It's an interesting idea, dunno how it would work out. Personally, I'm fine with a system designed to create a decent electorate—which we do not have. Note that tuition currently selects not just for affluent parents, but involved parents. I think that under a voucher system, private schools would be just as crappy as public. It's about the kids/parents, not the quality of teachers, IMHO.

In terms of "compelling interest," if GDP were the goal of public education, then we'd have to abandon anything that didn't meet a cost-benefit analysis with increasing GDP as the goal. Some special ed is clearly not cost-effective. GDP only measures stuff that is created (put in terms of money). If kids with bad disabilities don't end up actually productive, then any expense on them is not valuable using that metric (and their families buying care for them in fact increases GDP). Not saying that is ideal, just saying that any metric like that might have unintended consequences.

My goal would be that any HS grad should be able to have an intelligent conversation about the basic history and mechanisms of US government.

[tater]

Actually, it strikes me that a pure libertarian system would have no FEDERAL involvement in education. What local areas decided among themselves would be fine.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Why don't we just completely stop funding education? I don't just mean the vile public institutions, but even the noble and sacred private ones as well. This mean that now you are directly responsible for little Johnny's education; after all, he's your kid. For any institution to survive would probably mean a several hundred percent increase in tution, since private and charter schools also currently receive substantial government subsidies.

I didn't say we had to completely stop funding education. I mean, I'd love it if we did (I think), but I also suggested partial privatization and vouchers. I'm willing to compromise. My only concern is that some kind of competition be introduced to public rather than one massive politically-governed entity.

Nor do I think private institutions are noble or sacred. Or any business for that matter. I expect them to do exactly what business does: act in it's own best interests, but do so in a fashion that is conducive to other's best interests, or at least to the extent they attach their best interests to currency.

Finally, I have to ask why you would think that a move towards privatization would result in an increase in tuition. That doesn't even make any sense. Are you suggesting that the existence of more schools, which are competing, would somehow lead to an increase in tuition? How? That's not true anywhere else.

What that now means is that if little Johnny's dream is to become a lawyer, it is his parent's job to make sure he can pass the collegiate entrance exam. No, of course not everyone is comfortable teaching every subject, but the free market solves that problem too. With legions of now unemployed educators milling about, tutors in every concievable subject will be readily available for private work. Of course, the best and most experienced ones will likely be very, very expensive, as they will be setting their own prices, but that is the law of the jungle. For others, there will certainly be some correspondence school flunkie willing to work for a pittance.

And you think that the ignoble law of the jungle doesn't apply to the public system? Or that it applies less? Look around you, Tak. Look at our schools. Look at the state they are in. Do you really imagine that the law of the jungle is not at work? You're not fixing the law of the jungle by supporting the current system, you're just moving the jungle to a level where kids and parents can't reach.

The end result is a society where far, far fewer people go to college. The ones that do will naturally be of much higher quality than what we see now. As a college professor who home schools his children, this gives me the best of all worlds both at home and work.

I disagree. I think the end result will be a society where far, far, more people end up pursuing a specialized educational plan, and specialization is the heart of societal progress. Denmark uses a voucher system and it doesn't have a dearth of college students. Nor does any other nation with a voucher system I can think of. Find me one nation with a voucher system that compares poorly to the US in academic achievement and I'll cede the point.

We're agreed upoin the point that the quality of education would be higher, however.

And so I welcome this brave new world where always the strongest thrive. After all, as a career educator now working at the collegiate level, I am both uniquely qualified and of sufficient financial means to ensure that my children will rise to the top. As to your [globally speaking] children, they are neither my problem, nor my concern.

Glad you're so eager to embrace the brave new world, since you're already living in it. Don't believe me? Look at your US public education system. Look at what it has done with the highest spending per student in the world.

I am not trying to suggest a system where the best rise to the top. We already have that. I'm trying to suggest a system where everyone gets what they want. If that means the best rise to the top, so be it. They'll have to drag my specialized ass along with them. If that means some fall behind, so be it. They already do it anyway and charity is a wonderful by-product of the law of the jungle.