One last tirade (or bbc and the lectern of truth)

[Biochemist]

Yes, I've also see it, and found out that it was a hoax.

 

http://www.snopes.com/language/document/1895exam.htm

This one might have been. But the one that was published in the Oregonian about 10 years ago was actuallky much more difficult (it had some trig on it) but philosophically similar. I assume that one was real.

 

I don't think anyone is contending that the general instruction of elementary and middle school students has not decayed. Nor is anyone arguing that the cost per student has not skyrocketed in real terms. Are you arguing that?

[Biochemist]

No, this is *precisely* what failed with the Edison schools: They took the money and ran!

Glad they got caught (although I think this is not quite the whole story). Now if we could only catch the tens of thousands of bureaucrats that do it daily in our public school systems, we will be that much more ahead.

You misread me: "privatization" (Edison) is not at all the same as voucher driven private schools. The former are all for-profit to date, and the latter are all non-profit (for tax reasons!).

I am not sure what the point here is, execpt that a contract for a large school system would require more resources (i.e. investment) than most private schools have. The for-profit guys get the investment by finding investors. Not-for-profits could do it if the systems would parcel the students into smaller pieces. The most common technique for that is vouchers, but it would not have to be that.

Moreover you're entirely ignoring my argument that public schools degenerate into nothing but warehousing of disadvantaged students which is bad for society. What do we do about these people?

I think I answered that in a later post.

...Since the *only* criteria for judging their "success" is the same standardized tests that others in this thread are flailing, these companies go way overboard on the drill and kill that is eliminating critical thinking.

You are stuck in an institutional government paradigm. Parents can select schools based on whatever they think is appropriate for thier kids. Just like when they buy cars or houses. There is no obvious reason that school systems need to aggregate into large unmanageable behemoths, except that they are attached to the government, and are monopolies. And they are acting JUST like monopolies- defending their market by precluding competition. Again, illegal for business, but somehow laudable for schools.

[Buffy]

Unions are cartels. It is illegal if business does it, but somehow laudable if unions do it. Nothing that unions accomplished could not have been better accomplished by labor law.

Labor law would not have existed without the pressure of unions, and with the decline of unions there is continuing pushes to roll back labor laws from minimum wages to benefits. I'd agree that they are run by criminals in many cases, but we're already seeing the beginnings of a new round of labor policy wars that have to do with these rollbacks. There's no perfect solution here, but outlawing unions (yes, by eliminating their funding and right to do political lobbying) is not it. Remember this is a capitalist pig talking.

If underperformers need extra help, we get it for them. We don't constrain the 3/4 of the population that is normative by the problematic cases.

But is this by segregating them? I'd argue that NCLB is *for* this bottom quartile by its very name. Indeed, all NCLB does is to try to up the minimum achievement and says, "you want more, you do it yourself, the government has no interest in providing it." Even if you were to segregate the bottom quartile, the basic methodology does nothing but raise the bottom bar to the next lowest quartile, and again does nothing as far as policy to enhance the competitiveness of the country on average let alone do something to support the best and brightest, upon which our future success as an economy is highly dependent. Countries like India and China in fact have massive government subsidies for educating the upper quartiles and increasing R&D expenditures as our own govnernment is rolling them back.

The objective would be to mitigate the risks/penbalties in the problematic cases and reinject them back into the normative group. This is hardly the welfare system. This is just focusing on the problem with appropriate resources, rather than making general public schools handle all societal problems.

I'll let this one pass, but you sure seem to be insisting that I'm arguing that public schools are handling all of the welfare system which is not true. The real questions here are yes "what are the appropriate resources (balancing educational vs. welfare vs. law enforcement)" and does "segregation of the bottom quartile" really enhance the learning of the normative group?

This was/is a war. No battle plan survives contact with the enemy. Overall, it went well, and better than most expected. Even the elections went better than most expected. We can complain that the populace did not greet us with flowers in the streets, but the existing democratically elected government is still keeping us there. This is a remarkable feat in modern history.

Sorry I missed that. It turned out better than the worst case scenarios I guess, but when virtually the entire general staff is complaining of the *lack* of a post-war plan, and having their predictions of chaos come true indicates a pretty serious failure, especially when that failure is not learned from (the leadership would do it the same way again next time). To look at this war and say that only minor, unimportant mistakes were made, means we are headed for major failure in the future when we are not so lucky to have things turn out so "well."

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Buffy]

I am not sure what the point here is, execpt that a contract for a large school system would require more resources (i.e. investment) than most private schools have. The for-profit guys get the investment by finding investors. Not-for-profits could do it if the systems would parcel the students into smaller pieces.

What I'm saying is that the non-profits clearly work much better in practice, but there is a scalability issue, which dooms them to be inefficient small entities because they cannot get investors. For-profits have a horrible record, and they *only* exist as proxies for the public schools, and thus fall into the "Institutional paradigm" you rightly complain about. What I argue is that the non-profit/private school/voucher option is the way to go, and its the ONLY way to go if you are going to have a marketplace that will optimize results. The for-profit solution just transfers public funds into private investments which is tantamount to crop subsidies and cannot work any better than the public education system does today. Sounds like we actually agree on this point.

 

The big policy issue is what do you do with that bottom rung, which is going to be stuck with some sort of public school system--whether its a government bureaucracy or outsources to for-profits is irrelevant since both will fail equivalently. If the *entire* public educational system is designed to cater to this bottom rung because the high end will choose private education (which I think is your prediction), then we have a social problem that in practical terms makes reintegration very difficult, in fact it reinforces a two tier society. Oddly enough, the point earlier in this thread about mainstreaming foriegn language students is *exactly* the point: if you want the bottom rung to succeed, you *do* figure out how to mainstream rather than segregate them. I will be the first to say we do a *very* poor job of this now, which is where we need to recognize the role of law enforcement and (surprise!) morals in our schools. We do nothing today about discouraging and stoping truly bad behavior, and we must do better, unfortunately, the way a lot of these arguments on what to do about the bottom quartile end up just dumping both the disadvantaged and the truly criminal in the same bucket: our own class of untouchables.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Biochemist]

Labor law would not have existed without the pressure of unions...

I am pretty sure that unions don't get to vote. The members do. And I am pretty sure that they still can

...there is continuing pushes to roll back labor laws from minimum wages to benefits.

Glad to hear it. I think the union benefit structure is one of the single largest causes of the existing US healthcare dilemma. We can't extract the employer from the middle of the insurance mechanism. And first dollar coverage is a disaster for increasing utilization. Just an example.

... There's no perfect solution here, but outlawing unions (yes, by eliminating their funding and right to do political lobbying) is not it.

I would not suggest that we outlaw unions. I suggest that we let members opt out. Most would. What does that tell you?

I'd argue that NCLB is *for* this bottom quartile by its very name.

Agreed.

Even if you were to segregate the bottom quartile, the basic methodology does nothing but raise the bottom bar to the next lowest quartile

Yes, but it would be at a different level.

...does nothing as far as policy to enhance the competitiveness of the country on average let alone do something to support the best and brightest

True. That is the problem we should focus on next

...but you sure seem to be insisting that I'm arguing that public schools are handling all of the welfare system...and does "segregation of the bottom quartile" really enhance the learning of the normative group?

Of couse it does. Almost all schools give gifted kids different opportunities. The point it not to segregate the bottom quartile. It is to focus on them to get them back into the core schools.

It turned out better than the worst case scenarios I guess, but when virtually the entire general staff is complaining of the *lack* of a post-war plan, and having their predictions of chaos come true indicates a pretty serious failure...To look at this war and say that only minor, unimportant mistakes were made

Who said minor? War ALWAYS has major mistakes. Pearl Harbor, D-day, Midway, Battle of the Bulge, Iwo Jima, Tet: Most of these got characterized as victories later (even Tet), but at the time many were not so sure. Large mistakes cost thousands of lives in single day events. We are getting better at it, but mistakes are always made. Do you recall the predictions of tens of thousands of casualties in the first 100 days? Lots of predictions did NOT come true. Do you recall the predictions that an election would never happen? Do you recall the (nearly unanimous) prediction of additional US terror events soon after 9/11? I am glad the generals were right about resource issues. I suspect we will learn from that.

[Biochemist]

What I'm saying is that the non-profits clearly work much better in practice, but there is a scalability issue, which dooms them to be inefficient small entities because they cannot get investors

Data? There are lots of very large non-profits (think hospitals) that are very efficiently run. But so what? We do not need to have any local geography served by a single school system. We need healthy competition, not a new monopoly.

For-profits have a horrible record, and they *only* exist as proxies for the public schools

So? The first cars were pretty weak too.

What I argue is that the non-profit/private school/voucher option is the way to go, and its the ONLY way to go if you are going to have a marketplace that will optimize results. The for-profit solution just transfers public funds into private investments

Why couldn't for profit entities receive vouchers? Who cares whether you child goes to an LLC, a 501C3 or to a C-corp?

The big policy issue is what do you do with that bottom rung, which is going to be stuck with some sort of public school system

I don't see why. Any set of qualified professionals could assemble a focused school to deal with 1) kids with violent behaviors 2) dysfunctional families's kids 3) kids with drug issues 4) kids with kdis 5) kids that speak foreign languages 6) kids that have physical disabilities. The problem is that ALMOST NO ONE can deal with all of them. That is the ridiculous charge of the large city school systems. This CERTAINLY DOES NOT have to be a public system. The problem is really how to deal with unmotivated parents, not special needs kids.

[Buffy]

I am pretty sure that unions don't get to vote. The members do.

Whoo. Did you miss early 20th century history? Labor laws happened because of massive strikes and the unrest that they fomented, as well as the embarrassment caused by muckrakers and commie liberal populists like Teddy Roosevelt. And much of it was done by court decision as well as new laws. The mainstream, non-union populace that were shocked to see the truth are what put the politicians who supported these laws in place, not the laborers themselves.

I think the union benefit structure is one of the single largest causes of the existing US healthcare dilemma. We can't extract the employer from the middle of the insurance mechanism.

Unions are such a small part of the labor force now, that they have no influence over this except for the largest employers. And while you're throwing this tarball, most Americans are now paying for their own insurance, although its through their employers. Pity the poor folk who have to pay full price because they don't have employers who can negotiate lower premiums.

I would not suggest that we outlaw unions. I suggest that we let members opt out. Most would.

Until they needed it, and then it wouldn't be there for them. This isn't necessarily bad. I'd agree the unions need some counterveiling forces, but the notion of a benevolent employer class who will do the right thing is still a fantasy. They'd rather outsource than pay a decent wage (I know I do!).

Almost all schools give gifted kids different opportunities.

Not any more. My daughter's school district only has them because there is a *separate entity* that hits parents up for these programs that are given to the schools. Prop 13 makes it impossible to do this any other way, and less fortunate districts have *nothing* these days. Its shocking....

Who said minor? War ALWAYS has major mistakes. Pearl Harbor, D-day, Midway, Battle of the Bulge, Iwo Jima, Tet: Most of these got characterized as victories later (even Tet)... Large mistakes cost thousands of lives in single day events. We are getting better at it, but mistakes are always made. Do you recall the predictions of tens of thousands of casualties in the first 100 days? Lots of predictions did NOT come true....I am glad the generals were right about resource issues. I suspect we will learn from that.

Using body counts to show we're getting better is pretty shocking too. The cost is not only in lives but our credibilty and our weakend ability to deal with the now current threats. You've disingenuously decided not to differentiate between mistakes and avoidable mistakes, and contrary to your suspicion, the military leadership knew it was a mistake, but to this day you will not get that kind of admission out of the civilian leadership, so we're doomed to repeat them the way we're going now. Yes, I come from a Navy/Marine family, and the dissention in the ranks is unprecedented.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[pgrmdave]

There seem to be two different debates going on here, one about unions, whether or not they are good for the majority of people, and one about education, whether or not it is best in its current form.

 

Unions: I may be slightly biased, as I both belong to a union (I work at a supermarket deli) and my father is a Teamster, he works for UPS. I think that it is safe to say that I am affected by unions. Have they been beneficial to me? Of course. My father does not have the knowledge, nor the power to negotiate a contract with UPS like the Teamsters have been able to. We have incredible health and dental coverage. He is secure with his seniority, and, even though he has many times been a thorn in the company's side, they can't fire him unless he does something wrong. See, he was a driver for many years, but then he developed very bad arthritis in his hands, and couldn't lift the packages anymore. If it weren't for the Union, he probably would have been fired, however, the company was able to find him another job, and made him work nights, two part-time jobs, but they had to keep his pay the same. Because of his seniority (again, because of the union), he was able to transfer to a clerking job during the day. Now, have there been times when it was difficult being in the union? Of course, there was a VERY long strike in the summer of 1996, which almost completely depleted the strike fund, during which we received a little money from the union every week. It wouldn't have been enough, were it not for my mother working as well, and even then, we just scraped by. If it were up to me, would I want to pay union dues? On the one hand, I want my money for myself, on the other, if it weren't for the union, the company would own me while I was working. The union gives me protection, which I gladly pay for.

 

Education: I am a student, and I offer a student's perspective. There are three kinds of students: Those who will not be taught no matter what, those who will teach themselves no matter what, and those who are in between. The first category is a product of a society - home, friends, media - that does not encourage learning. Until society places cultural value on intelligence, these group of people will have no desire to learn, and so nothing you do will ever teach them. The second group of people will learn no matter what you do. They could be in the 'worst' school system with the 'worst' teacher and they would still learn. The third group of people are the people we should concern ourselves with. In my experiance as a student, and as someone who observed how others learned, the only thing that makes a difference is the teacher. Not the curriculum, it is irrelevent if the teacher doesn't make a connection to the student, and irrelevent if the teacher does. Not any test, no student in the history of the world has ever really learned from a test, and few truly learn for tests. Not funding, or materials, nothing makes a difference except for the teacher. Your debate should be on what system will produce the best teachers. This is where unions tie in. I think that paying teachers more money will produce better teachers, as will providing incentives for continuing teaching longer (older teachers are, on average, MUCH better than younger teachers). I think that unions help obtain these things for teachers.

[rockytriton]

This one might have been. But the one that was published in the Oregonian about 10 years ago was actuallky much more difficult (it had some trig on it) but philosophically similar. I assume that one was real.

 

I don't think anyone is contending that the general instruction of elementary and middle school students has not decayed. Nor is anyone arguing that the cost per student has not skyrocketed in real terms. Are you arguing that?

 

Well, if you read near the bottom of the page it talks about the fact that these kinds of things were important knowledge back then, so it would make sense for kids to know these sorts of things. For instance, you wouldn't say to ask a kid in 1895 how to dial a phone number or turn on a computer, or how to set an alarm clock, because these sorts of things weren't important to the times.

[Biochemist]

....Labor laws happened because of massive strikes and the unrest that they fomented, as well as the embarrassment caused by muckrakers.....The mainstream, non-union populace that were shocked to see the truth are what put the politicians who supported these laws in place, not the laborers themselves.

I think you are making my point. None of this required unions. Any set or workers can strike.

Unions are such a small part of the labor force now, that they have no influence over this {health care costs}except for the largest employers. And while you're throwing this tarball, most Americans are now paying for their own insurance, although its through their employers. Pity the poor folk who have to pay full price because they don't have employers who can negotiate lower premiums.

Speaking of tarball, insurance through employers is a penalty, not a benefit. Health plans' average net is perhaps 1-2% of premium cost. The run-up in the cost of health care has almost nothing to do with premium costs, except that members were trained to demand low deductibles (with unions leading the way), which health plans offered. I don't think that the $200 that the health plan makes off of your $10,000 annual premium is the problem. This would be a great topic for another thread.

Until they needed it, and then it wouldn't be there for them.

It is difficult to advocate that unions serve their members now. It looks more like they serve themselves. Sort of like congress.

....the notion of a benevolent employer class who will do the right thing is still a fantasy. They'd rather outsource than pay a decent wage (I know I do!).

Ethical employers pay based on value. Most employers are generally ethical. I am not sure how benevolence plays into this.

... My daughter's school district only has them {gifted programs} because there is a *separate entity* that hits parents up for these programs that are given to the schools. Prop 13 makes it impossible to do this any other way...

I am unclear why this bothers you. It probably costs less (even for the paying parents) than sponsoring a general levy and mandating a structure across the state

Using body counts to show we're getting better is pretty shocking too.

Buff, no one said that. I said all wars have mistakes. We make fewer than we sued to.

You've disingenuously decided not to differentiate between mistakes and avoidable mistakes, and contrary to your suspicion, the military leadership knew it was a mistake, but to this day you will not get that kind of admission out of the civilian leadership

I am still not sure this is different that history

...the dissention in the ranks is unprecedented.

Maybe. But the causative factor for the dissention is not obvious. I am proud of our military, and of the risks these guys/gals take for us. But things are different culturally than they were 50 years ago. I am not sure we could get a commander or a set of pilots to take off from the deck of a carrier to engage the enemy knowing full well that they would not have enough fuel to return to the carrier (e.g., the battle of Midway). This battle was probably the turning point of the war in the Pacific, and it looks like we won it out of pure luck, coincident with acceptance of incredibly high risk. I don't know whether the Marines think/thought that the benefits of the capture of Iwo Jima were worth it either before or after the battle. As I recall, we lost over 40,000 troops there (someone correct me if I am wrong). The Marines are still (rightfully) proud of this victory. It does not mean it was a good decision. War is rife with errors. "Preventable" errors are oddly only obvious in hindsight.

[Buffy]

I think you are making my point. None of this required unions. Any set or workers can strike.

Now that make *no* sense at all. So one individual goes out on strike. Company says goodbye. Another individual goes out on strike. Company says good bye. You see the problem here. A bunch of workers get together and organize everyone to go out on strike, company capitulates to their demands based on negotiations with the leadership of the strike committee. You'll probably babble about semantics, but that's called a "union."

...insurance through employers is a penalty, not a benefit. ... This would be a great topic for another thread.

Balderdash! But I'll take it to the other thread you've opened...

It is difficult to advocate that unions serve their members now. It looks more like they serve themselves. Sort of like congress.

Your comparison is apt! Guess what? Dave's defense of unions above is what *most* union members feel. They'd no more quit the union than the rest of us will all move to Canada because of Congress.

Ethical employers pay based on value. Most employers are generally ethical.

No they pay based on what the market demands. That's why offshoring is so popular. If labor laws *and* threat of union strikes did not exist, minimum wage jobs would go to the floor, mostly populated by illegal immigrants. Walmart *very* aggressively fights off unionization to the point of illegality, and they have many disgruntled employees who unfortunately are powerless except for the minimum wage floors. I am an employer, I am always looking for someone cheaper whereever I can. I can't imagine any others are different. I'm ethical, but that doesn't mean I won't take advantage of every break I can, and many employers do much worse than I do.

It probably costs less (even for the paying parents) than sponsoring a general levy and mandating a structure across the state.

This is non-sequitur: Again, all I argue is that even if the top 3 quartiles went wholely private (and they wouldn't in my school district: people move here *because* of the public schools), you'd still need a governement infrastructure for the bottom. What bothers me even more is that unmotivated third that Dave talks about above spans socio-economic class, and there's still no way to get rid of them. The problem is not the criminals, but the general layabouts, obnoxious a**holes and the bullies. The private school scheme has to handle them in every district, thus pushing up demand for the public school "untouchables warehouse". The problem kids cost more to deal with. The infrastucture can be expensive, but in the warehousing case, nobody cares about their performance anymore because they're expected to fail, so there's less demand for the infrastructure. Just throw 'em over the wall with some cop/teachers to babysit them.

Buff, no one said that. I said all wars have mistakes. We make fewer than we sued to. [lots of stuff about how younger folks are spoiled and wouldn't make the sacrifices made in the past].

I know you said that, but you keep avoiding the issue that its not just "mistakes" its "bone headed stupid AVOIDABLE" mistakes that were caused by an attitude toward military efforts that *had no basis* in experience, and were made over *strenouous* objections of the people in the military and State, so your statement,

"Preventable" errors are oddly only obvious in hindsight.

is an embarrasing head-in-the-sand attitude. The cause of dissention in the ranks is *directly* related to complaints about the civilian policy pressure on the military that makes no sense and ignores the recommendations from the people with experience because "they all think they're so much smarter than everyone else" (a direct quote from a cousin of mine who is a retired submarine captain). You need to talk to some of these people...

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[C1ay]

Suppose the workers at MacDonald's unionized and demanded higher wages. Do you think MacDonald's could still compete with Wendy's and Burger King?

[Buffy]

Suppose the workers at MacDonald's unionized and demanded higher wages. Do you think MacDonald's could still compete with Wendy's and Burger King?

Do you think that the union that organized McDonalds would go for more than a week after having done so before they started organizing Wendy's and Burger King? Do you think those workers would think for more than a minute about an offer to get higher wages and benefits even *after* the "exhorbitant" union dues?

 

The problem really is that there are enough laws that limit union organizing these days, and there are enough unemployed programmers and retired folks who lost their savings in the recent stock market crash that it'll keep the unions at bay...Unless they can get one employer in a business segment unionized, its very hard to get any others.

 

By the way, these places are not that bad of a place to work, but anyone who can move on does. Its not a sweatshop but you can do a lot better. Thank goodness for capitalism!

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Biochemist]

Cheers,

Buffy

Buff, I thnik we are in four separate topics now:

1) health care costs ( I started that one in a new thread)

2) the utility of unions

3) the solution to public school costs

4) the litany of problems with US military action

 

A remarkable feat, but i think we ought to split these apart.

[Fishteacher73]

A union only has power if the unemployment is small in the area. Wal-mart moved into CA w/ its grocery buisness and would not hire union labor. There were enough people needing jobs to work. This undercut the grocer's union and average wages have fallen in the neighborhood of 30%. This lower wage allows a lower price and it is driving other grocers out of buisness. Those now seeking a job have a lower wage and less benifits. The cut in benifits stresses the local health care and social service systems and drain the local budget. The cities often give tax breaks for "big box" stores to move into a town under the guise of increased revinue from sales. This is predominantly exported back to the headquarters and little is seen in the actual community.

[Buffy]

A remarkable feat, but i think we ought to split these apart.

Cool. Amazing to read mother's original post in this thread now! How the heck did we get *here*?

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[C1ay]

Do you think that the union that organized McDonalds would go for more than a week after having done so before they started organizing Wendy's and Burger King?

Sure they'd get started. Would MacDonald's survive until then and should they have too? They offer a fair job for a fair price. They pay what they can based on the prices they get for their products that are literally set by their own competition. At the very least, if they were put out of business from such an effort shouldn't they at least be able to sue the union for being the cause of their demise?