Education Revamped!

[Norstal]

Supply and demand isn't very theoretical.

It's an economic theory, regardless if it works or not. Just as evolution is a theory.

It's also a model. One that works correctly if and only if it has math in it. And I know how you people just can't get arsed with math, but you can't ignore it either.

[Ryadn]

I've seen the Gerlach problem. My solution? That town really ought not to exist, the miners need to commute and the ranchers move on, if they can't sustain their own services. They shouldn't hoard our tax payer dollars to pay for what I can only call a selfish desire to keep an unnecessary town alive. It's cruel but it's the truth. I'm not saying bulldoze the town of course, but I don't support sending disproportionate tax dollars to educate children that could be better educated elsewhere.

It isn't cruel at all. It is the ethics of the free market rationing mechanism. Those scarce resources are preserved. In a society like ours, scarce resources are inefficiently allocated to providing those people with goods and services that could better be utilized by future generations. It is short sighted, in the sense that it may provide a short term boost in the standard of living, but in the long run will result in prolonged misery. You are robbing from your children.

Yeah, who the hell benefits from mining and ranching, anyway? We don't need those resources. We're just propping up all those inconvenient back-water families because they don't have the sense to move.

[Ryadn]

It isn't cruel at all. It is the ethics of the free market rationing mechanism. Those scarce resources are preserved. In a society like ours, scarce resources are inefficiently allocated to providing those people with goods and services that could better be utilized by future generations. It is short sighted, in the sense that it may provide a short term boost in the standard of living, but in the long run will result in prolonged misery. You are robbing from your children.

Precisely. Gerlach cannot sustain a school by itself? Then it should not have a school, nor ideally children if they want to go to school. That isn't to say there aren't valid alternatives, one or more of the parents in Gerlach could take a homeschooling course and take in and educate the rest of the children. This was common in frontier days, but modern education regulations prevent such a solution, so instead we must waste resources to prop up an unprofitable service where it ought not be.

Modern regulations don't permit homeschooling? News to me and everyone out there who homeschools their kids.

[ZombieRothbard]

Supply and demand isn't very theoretical.

It's an economic theory, regardless if it works or not. Just as evolution is a theory.

It's also a model. One that works correctly if and only if it has math in it. And I know how you people just can't get arsed with math, but you can't ignore it either.

It is an economic theory based on non-hypothetical truths. I invite you to come up with a better explanation for Gerlach's financial situation.

Also, your statement about it requiring math is just purely some sort of trolling attempt, since even neo-classical economists would agree that this scenario we are discussing does not require any sort of math whatsoever. Austrians and neo-classical economists actually agree quite a bit in many regards. Not all Austrians outright reject math totally, in fact almost none do. Austrians agree that math is valuable in certain situations. But Austrians contend that math cannot account for things like risk, and personal preferences. Because of this, Austrians assign a lesser importance to math than neo-classical economists do (some neo-classical economists actually agree that math is overused in economics, and there actually are neo-classical anarcho-capitalists).

[ZombieRothbard]

It isn't cruel at all. It is the ethics of the free market rationing mechanism. Those scarce resources are preserved. In a society like ours, scarce resources are inefficiently allocated to providing those people with goods and services that could better be utilized by future generations. It is short sighted, in the sense that it may provide a short term boost in the standard of living, but in the long run will result in prolonged misery. You are robbing from your children.

Yeah, who the hell benefits from mining and ranching, anyway? We don't need those resources. We're just propping up all those inconvenient back-water families because they don't have the sense to move.

You do not understand the basic premise of supply and demand. Clearly, if mining and ranching resources became increasingly scarce, supply would not meet the demand. As a result, prices would go up, and a town like Gerlach would become more profitable, and maybe be able to afford education for their children.

[Ryadn]

Kids can teach themselves how to read and write, why should I have pay for that?

Notice what a hardcore libertarian I am.

I loled.

If the food, construction materials and valuable minerals provided by Gerlach were indeed as vital as you claim they are, they would have enough money for roads and private schools, since the sale of their goods would yield far more than they do now. The fact that they don't, demonstrates that there are other sources of food, construction materials and valuable minerals in competition with Gerlach. It appears that Gerlach is attempting to supply something, where the demand is already largely satisfied. Gerlach is not a good business venture, and as I previously stated, should not exist.

Oh sweet raptor jesus. Just save everyone a lot of time and come back once you've finished 10th grade and read The Grapes of Wrath. Or you've worked a job. Or you've... you know, participated in society?

3. Change the fucking attendance policies. They're supposed to deter kids from skipping, but kids will skip anyway, regardless, and such policies only harm students who fall ill seriously enough that they're stuck at home/in the hospital for a week or two. I know some schools have waivers for this, but still, it's bullshit. They're either going to come or they're not. Don't force kids to come, they'll only cause trouble and make proposal #2 necessary.

Unfortunately, schools get money per student per day--that's why we have such harsh truancy policies. Your butt isn't in the seat, we lose out on the funding.

Your views strike me as odd, as they are based on a lack of understanding of economics. This is not to say that you have to be an Austrian to have a grasp on economics. Even a neo-classical economist would understand the point I am making. They might just reject it on an ethical basis, the very same ethical basis that I earlier rejected with my assertion that a free market rationing mechanism is actually the most ethical way to use scarce resources.

IRONY. IT'S SO DELICIOUSLY IRONICAL.

[Maurepas]

I don't know if I'd want a new system, per se, the system's fine, we've just let it fall into disrepair and have failed to improve upon it.

I would like to see more schools, more teachers, smaller classrooms, etc. and then I would like to see College cost the same as High School. It's ridiculous that I'm having to get a loan for a semester of school. It's bullshit. That should be a thing of the past.

I think more important would be a reversal of the Defense/Wars/etc. figures and the Education figures in the US Budget.

[Ryadn]

Yeah, who the hell benefits from mining and ranching, anyway? We don't need those resources. We're just propping up all those inconvenient back-water families because they don't have the sense to move.

You do not understand the basic premise of supply and demand. Clearly, if mining and ranching resources became increasingly scarce, supply would not meet the demand. As a result, prices would go up, and a town like Gerlach would become more profitable, and maybe be able to afford education for their children.

You seem to labor under many, MANY bizarre assumptions, only one of which is that the miners, you know, OWN THE MINES. They aren't digging up gold in their back yard and selling it. They're laboring for someone else, and they're laboring during an economic period where they're lucky to have jobs that don't pay them enough.

[ZombieRothbard]

You do not understand the basic premise of supply and demand. Clearly, if mining and ranching resources became increasingly scarce, supply would not meet the demand. As a result, prices would go up, and a town like Gerlach would become more profitable, and maybe be able to afford education for their children.

You seem to labor under many, MANY bizarre assumptions, only one of which is that the miners, you know, OWN THE MINES. They aren't digging up gold in their back yard and selling it. They're laboring for someone else, and they're laboring during an economic period where they're lucky to have jobs that don't pay them enough.

So their employer refuses to pay them enough to be able to afford education for their children? Even as prices rise, and earnings rise? And their employer refuses to pay for paved roads, etc? Hell, having a large mining company in town would likely help their situation. The company could actually invest in the infrastructure needed to transport materials, and could help educate the miners children.

[Maurepas]

You seem to labor under many, MANY bizarre assumptions, only one of which is that the miners, you know, OWN THE MINES. They aren't digging up gold in their back yard and selling it. They're laboring for someone else, and they're laboring during an economic period where they're lucky to have jobs that don't pay them enough.

So their employer refuses to pay them enough to be able to afford education for their children? Even as prices rise, and earnings rise? And their employer refuses to pay for paved roads, etc? Hell, having a large mining company in town would likely help their situation. The company could actually invest in the infrastructure needed to transport materials, and could help educate the miners children.

Why would the company hire somewhere where earnings are on the rise? They seek out the cheapest place to hire, the whole point of a company moving to a town is that they stand to make more money. Meaning they're looking for cheaper labour.

[Ryadn]

You seem to labor under many, MANY bizarre assumptions, only one of which is that the miners, you know, OWN THE MINES. They aren't digging up gold in their back yard and selling it. They're laboring for someone else, and they're laboring during an economic period where they're lucky to have jobs that don't pay them enough.

So their employer refuses to pay them enough to be able to afford education for their children?¹ Even as prices rise, and earnings rise?² And their employer refuses to pay for paved roads, etc?³ Hell, having a large mining company in town would likely help their situation. The company could actually invest in the infrastructure needed to transport materials, and could help educate the miners children.⁴

1. Yep.
2. Yep.
3. Yep.
4. Why on earth would they do that?

[Ryadn]

So their employer refuses to pay them enough to be able to afford education for their children? Even as prices rise, and earnings rise? And their employer refuses to pay for paved roads, etc? Hell, having a large mining company in town would likely help their situation. The company could actually invest in the infrastructure needed to transport materials, and could help educate the miners children.

Why would the company hire somewhere where earnings are on the rise? They seek out the cheapest place to hire, the whole point of a company moving to a town is that they stand to make more money. Meaning they're looking for cheaper labour.

Out of the GOODNESS OF THEIR HEARTS. You see, without minimum wage laws, everyone would be rich. It's only those nasty anti-capitalists who stop the free market from working its magic! Didn't you ever read about the Industrial Revolution, the golden age of the working man?

[Great Nepal]

So... you expect whole system to be designed not for efficiency but for a very tiny minority?

Yes, because they are the people who need the system the most. 'Clever' people like me and, I suspect, you, don't need to be told how things work. I've just worked through the Newton-Raphson iterative method for finding a root all by myself, with nowt but a lump of coal textbook. However my brother, who is dyslexic, needs his teachers very much to take the problem apart so that he can understand it. He needs school much more than I do.

Unfortunately, I prefer to look for efficiency and a majority rather than a unfortunate tiny minority. They may need it the most, but they dont form a very large part of population. System should be designed with majority in mind not the unfortunate tiny minority.

[Great Nepal]

Eeeeexactly. It's inevitable, though--all the suggestions I've seen that fall along the same lines as GN's plans here involve allowing a big bunch of kids to fail.

Indeed, no one is forcing them to fail, if you fail: try harder next time.

It doesn't matter WHY they fail, either--they're poor,

Evidence that being poor affects education. And even if it does, I doubt school can hand out money to make them rich.

they don't have enough to eat,

That is problem of home and parents: not school.

they don't have a safe place to learn and study,

They are safe in school where they can learn and study: if you are talking about home, then again that is problem of home and parents: not school.

they have a learning disability, etc. Anything that hinders their learning makes them 'less likely to succeed' and that becomes an excuse to let them fail.

See my previous post.People with learning disability form a very very tiny minority of population: therefore designing system for them only is inefficient.

[Ryadn]

Eeeeexactly. It's inevitable, though--all the suggestions I've seen that fall along the same lines as GN's plans here involve allowing a big bunch of kids to fail.

Indeed, no one is forcing them to fail, if you fail: try harder next time.

It doesn't matter WHY they fail, either--they're poor,

Evidence that being poor affects education. And even if it does, I doubt school can hand out money to make them rich.¹

they don't have enough to eat,

That is problem of home and parents: not school.²

they don't have a safe place to learn and study,

They are safe in school where they can learn and study: if you are talking about home, then again that is problem of home and parents: not school.³

they have a learning disability, etc. Anything that hinders their learning makes them 'less likely to succeed' and that becomes an excuse to let them fail.

See my previous post.People with learning disability form a very very tiny minority of population: therefore designing system for them only is inefficient.⁴

1. Srsly? Evidence that socioeconomic class affects academic achievement? Boy, is that going to be hard to source.

ASCD - How Poverty Affects Behavior and Academic Performance

U.S. Department of Education - School Poverty and Academic Performance

Canadian Paediatric Society - The Impact of Poverty on Educational Outcomes for Children

2 & 3. And yet you said previously that 'no one is forcing them to fail' and 'if they want to learn they will'. So if students who WANT to learn have difficulty doing so because they are hungry, or don't have a safe living environment, then clearly your assertions are wrong.

4. No one suggested that the system be designed 'for them only'. You've created a false dichotomy. Students from ALL backgrounds can be better served, without throwing all but the most genetically, economically and socially endowed to the wolves.

[New Rogernomics]

1) Turn the ministry of education and the like into a non-for-profit private organization run by ex or retired teachers, students that can donate their time, and parents, and while we are at it all the said property of the ministry of education and the like would become the property of that non-for-profit instead of being privatized and sold to corporations and turned into businesses.

2) Schools, Universities, and their facilities become the property of the community, owned by teachers and parents, with contributions by the local community, and business groups that donate to the schools and universities.

3) The Parent teachers association, teachers unions and organizations and business groups contribute to and help run the curriculum, these groups then determine minimum teacher pay and the like.

4) Details of teachers and students are stored on a national database, with interests, qualifications, subject strengths and weaknesses the main information. Teachers can then look at a list of students they would like to teach, parents can also look at this database and pick what teachers they would like to teach their kids. Children from poor families, or with disabilities or special needs are also on their own special sections of the database. Plus teachers can decide how many kids they want to teach (and for how much), no more big class sizes, instead more like 2-4.

5) Non for profit organizations fund education for the poor and disabled/special needs children (through into university), in most cases teachers would teach these children for free, but if they didn't want to then such organizations would help make sure no one is left out of the education system.

6) Basic education: Maths, English (or National language), Foreign Language (at least one, most likely a major trading partner or English is good for those who haven't got it as their native tongue), Science, Geography, Economics/IT and Sport (optional), Drama and Music. This continues up to age 13, then University level education prep starts with students taking two or three courses (which have been prior approved by the organizations,etc in 3), full University level education then starts at 17 (with the students pre-approved and their professions found in prior education prep), education then finishes at 20-25.

7) Parents can opt for a voluntary tax or donation each income year to fund it (if they don't want their children to have student debt otherwise a loan scheme with a private bank), this will likely be compulsory for higher incomes (aka multi-millionaires and billionaires that can afford to pay their children's way through the system) and certainly the teachers wouldn't have it any other way.

[DeusII]

Great Nepal, you have this idea that home and parents aren't related in any way to schools; that's absolute bullshit. I think that's one of the biggest problems about the educational system.

And I wonder if you'll be singing the same song about not helping minorities when you have a stroke, or are in a car crash, or have a child with disabilities and then because it's your generation that will make these decisions in a few years time, you'll be absolutely fucked.

[Pope Joan]

I would do the 1850 curriculum of American one room schools, which included western civ, great books, trig and chem.

No art or music etc., do those on your own dime and time. Maybe somebody could start a nonprofit for those who cannot pay, or set up a sliding fee scale.

A requirement for graduation would be that you successfully answer 80 out of 100 questions from this book:

http://www.amazon.com/New-Dictionary-Cu ... 0618226478

[Sung Songs]

If you are interested in educational theory and have not seen these lectures, you will probably find them very interesting.

http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_s ... ivity.html

http://www.ted.com/talks/sir_ken_robins ... ution.html

[Hamilay]

If you're so concerned about the well-being of the miners the money spent on funding services to towns of 200 people would be better spent funding them to relocate somewhere else. If the resources there are so valuable the mining company can provide incentives for people to stay, otherwise it is perfectly possible to run industries in rural areas on temp workers OR based around actually viable rural centres of thousand+ people.

small towns are death to the human spirit and a drain to the resources of actual civilization mirite

[Dazchan]

Unfortunately, I prefer to look for efficiency and a majority rather than a unfortunate tiny minority. They may need it the most, but they dont form a very large part of population. System should be designed with majority in mind not the unfortunate tiny minority.

Yes, it is unfortunate that you have a "Fuck everyone as long as I'm okay" mentality. Such things are common in children, and I'm sure you'll develop some rationality when your testicles descend.

Eeeeexactly. It's inevitable, though--all the suggestions I've seen that fall along the same lines as GN's plans here involve allowing a big bunch of kids to fail.

Indeed, no one is forcing them to fail, if you fail: try harder next time.

I gave you ten examples where "try harder next time" is not the way for them to succeed. It's a shame you're too ignorant to consider them.

It doesn't matter WHY they fail, either--they're poor,

Evidence that being poor affects education. And even if it does, I doubt school can hand out money to make them rich.

Read any textbook on sociology in education. And no, we don't hand out money. We do provide uniforms, resources and, most importantly, competent and caring teachers who are dedicated to helping them achieve, despite social setbacks.

they don't have enough to eat,

That is problem of home and parents: not school.

And that problem doesn't disappear at the school gates - hence why many schools now run breakfast programs. They also provide competent and caring teachers who are dedicated to helping them achieve, despite social setbacks, instead of throwing them to the wolves, like you would.

they don't have a safe place to learn and study,

They are safe in school where they can learn and study: if you are talking about home, then again that is problem of home and parents: not school.

Do you really think if Billy is getting the crap kicked out of him at home, he's in the right mind to succeed at school? I have personal experience with this one. Fortunately, I'm a competent and caring teachers who are dedicated to helping them achieve, despite social setbacks and provided a positive learning environment for the kid, helping him succeed in a way that you would deny.

they have a learning disability, etc. Anything that hinders their learning makes them 'less likely to succeed' and that becomes an excuse to let them fail.

See my previous post.People with learning disability form a very very tiny minority of population: therefore designing system for them only is inefficient.

False dichotomy.

[ZombieRothbard]

So their employer refuses to pay them enough to be able to afford education for their children?¹ Even as prices rise, and earnings rise?² And their employer refuses to pay for paved roads, etc?³ Hell, having a large mining company in town would likely help their situation. The company could actually invest in the infrastructure needed to transport materials, and could help educate the miners children.⁴

1. Yep.
2. Yep.
3. Yep.
4. Why on earth would they do that?

Why would anybody take a job that has no benefits? And this company would clearly be a failing company, considering they don't even pave the roads so they can transport their goods back to society for sale. And this company apparently has no interest in educating the children, many of which will be future miners and employees of theirs. It is pretty clear to me that the hypothetical company you suggest is run by complete morons, with little to no business sense.

[Daistallia 2104]

So their employer refuses to pay them enough to be able to afford education for their children?

Yes, now you've got the idea. Now multiply this across most businesses and most communities.

Even as prices rise, and earnings rise?

Considering that corporate owners and managers in the US have not only happily let this happen when allowed to do so, but have actively done their best to do so, yes.

And their employer refuses to pay for paved roads, etc?

Indeed so. Are you completely unfamiliar with history?

Hell, having a large mining company in town would likely help their situation. The company could actually invest in the infrastructure needed to transport materials, and could help educate the miners children.

LOL - why would they do so? Again, history shows companies and their owners have no inclination to do anything whatsoever to improve the lives of their employees.

[Daistallia 2104]

Why would anybody take a job that has no benefits?

Because that's the way the real world works.

And this company would clearly be a failing company, considering they don't even pave the roads so they can transport their goods back to society for sale.

Having a means of transporting the product to market is not the sdame as the workers having transportation.

And this company apparently has no interest in educating the children, many of which will be future miners and employees of theirs. It is pretty clear to me that the hypothetical company you suggest is run by complete morons, with little to no business sense.

Again, welcome to the real world where business owners are out only to make a profit for themselves and screw everyone else. The vast majority, if not all, business fortunes were made this way, and continue to be made this way.

[Bottle]

1. Yep.
2. Yep.
3. Yep.
4. Why on earth would they do that?

Why would anybody take a job that has no benefits?

Because there are no other jobs? Because they are already so poor that they have no way to move their family to a place that has jobs? Because they've no experience in any other field, so they couldn't get another job even IF they could afford to move their family to some place that has other jobs?

I'm seriously starting to think that there need to be a law banning people from talking about economics unless they, personally, have lived below the poverty line for at least one full calendar year.